←back to thread

Microsoft blocks Israel’s use of its tech in mass surveillance of Palestinians

(www.theguardian.com)
873 points helsinkiandrew | 4 comments | 25 Sep 25 15:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
codeulike ◴[25 Sep 25 15:22 UTC] No.45373831[source]▶
“I want to note our appreciation for the reporting of the Guardian,” [Microsoft’s vice-chair and president, Brad Smith] wrote, noting that it had brought to light “information we could not access in light of our customer privacy commitments”. He added: “Our review is ongoing.”

Its interesting that they seem to be saying they dont know the full details of how their customers are using Azure, due to privacy commitments.

replies(8): >>45374001 #>>45374241 #>>45374312 #>>45374319 #>>45374443 #>>45374448 #>>45374554 #>>45375003 #
covercash ◴[25 Sep 25 15:59 UTC] No.45374443[source]▶
Weird, pretty sure employees brought this to their attention a few times already…

https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-azure-gaza-palestine-is...

https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-azure-gaza-israel-prote...

https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-build-israel-gaza-prote...

https://apnews.com/article/microsoft-protest-employees-fired...

replies(3): >>45374564 #>>45374981 #>>45375840 #
cl0ckt0wer ◴[25 Sep 25 16:05 UTC] No.45374564[source]▶
If they act on information their employees report, they are violating their commitments.
replies(2): >>45374712 #>>45376498 #
sc68cal ◴[25 Sep 25 16:14 UTC] No.45374712[source]▶
There have been public reports by major news organizations on the subject of Israel using big tech companies to surveil the West Bank and Gaza, for a decade. This isn't an issue of customer privacy.
replies(1): >>45374817 #
meowface ◴[25 Sep 25 16:21 UTC] No.45374817[source]▶
The difference is that pre-2023 it could at least have some plausible excuse of trying to detect terrorist activity. With Israel's current actions in Gaza, there is no longer any plausible excuse or defense for any security action Israel is conducting towards Palestinians.
replies(2): >>45375031 #>>45375095 #
Aarostotle ◴[25 Sep 25 16:38 UTC] No.45375095[source]▶
Did something happen in 2023 that makes it _less_ relevant for Israel to try to prevent terrorist activity?
replies(2): >>45375237 #>>45376255 #
meowface ◴[25 Sep 25 17:46 UTC] No.45376255[source]▶
Israel has a legitimate reason to want to try to intercept and detect terrorist activity, but given what they've been doing in Gaza for the past year and a half, they simply can't be trusted. They've lost all credibility and benefit of the doubt. So they can't expect other entities to help them do something they say is legitimate, because no one can trust them to do something in a legitimate and ethical way.
replies(2): >>45376896 #>>45377236 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[25 Sep 25 18:29 UTC] No.45376896[source]▶
I think OP’s point is Israel’s legitimate surveillance needs have risen alongside their credibility crashing. This isn’t a simply reduced problem unless one has a horse in the race.
replies(1): >>45377266 #
meowface ◴[25 Sep 25 18:57 UTC] No.45377266[source]▶
I understand that, and I am sympathetic to those needs to some degree. They do have increased legitimate surveillance needs. But they've lost all of their good will. Partnering with them is too morally and PR-ily hazardous.

I am not saying Israel is nearly as bad as Nazi Germany, but I think this argument is overall kind of pointless because one could easily have said that Nazi Germany had greatly increased legitimate surveillance needs after they invaded Poland.

replies(2): >>45377516 #>>45379489 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[25 Sep 25 19:13 UTC] No.45377516{4}[source]▶
> one could easily have said that Nazi Germany had greatly increased legitimate surveillance needs after they invaded Poland

This is an interesting comparison—thank you.

That said, did the Poles launch cross-border attacks on German civilians? The closest I can come up with is Bloody Sunday [1], which was an attack on ethnically German civilians, but not a cross-border incursion. (Granted, we can only observe this ex post facto, so your argument still stands.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1939)

replies(3): >>45377853 #>>45378029 #>>45381320 #
hashim ◴[25 Sep 25 19:48 UTC] No.45378029[source]▶
Why would being cross-border matter when the entire land was previously Palestinian land before being handed over by colonial powers and then "won" in subsequent "wars" (read: massacres) on the barely-armed villagers living there? The Viet Cong, South Africa's ANC, the Suffragettes and civil rights movements all used violence for their causes. Hamas was established in 1984, by the generation that had grown up with the occupation in 1948. If your country was occupied and members of your family killed, would you be as careful to keep your resistance peaceful?
replies(3): >>45378565 #>>45379307 #>>45380219 #
1. pcthrowaway ◴[25 Sep 25 22:45 UTC] No.45380219[source]▶
> Hamas was established in 1984, by the generation that had grown up with the occupation in 1948

Correction, Gaza was first occupied by Israel for a few months in 1956, then occupied continuously since 1967.

Regardless, by 1984, nearly half of the people in Gaza would have lived their entire lives under occupation, and the most would have lived at least half their lives under occupation.

replies(1): >>45381330 #
2. meowface ◴[26 Sep 25 01:02 UTC] No.45381330[source]▶
Didn't Israel end the occupation of Gaza between 2005 and 2023? They still put up a blockade, but they didn't occupy it.
replies(1): >>45381964 #
3. sc68cal ◴[26 Sep 25 02:33 UTC] No.45381964[source]▶
Israel may have withdrawn from Gaza and forcibly removed their settlers, but they did not end the occupation since they created a naval blockade and control all entrance and exits from Gaza and decide what is allowed in for two decades
replies(1): >>45383012 #
4. pcthrowaway ◴[26 Sep 25 05:31 UTC] No.45383012{3}[source]▶
I'm not sure why you were downvoted. Israel's position is that the ended they occupation. The United Nations on the other hand, still considered Gaza occupied under international law this whole time.

The only way one could argue that it is no longer occupied is to say there wasn't a continuous Israeli military presence of boots on ground inside of Gaza. It was still being surveilled by satellite and the entire perimeter, people venturing too far at sea from the coast would be shot, drones would occasionally bomb people, everything and everyone going in and out was controlled by Israel (until Hamas tunnels were built), all cell phones allowed in contained surveillance technology, a fence with military outposts was constructed on the perimeter, and Israel bombed the one airport they tried to build.

So arguing it was "no longer occupied" after they pulled out the settlers is disingenuous, unless you're trying to argue that it couldn't be both an occupation and a concentration camp.