←back to thread

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

(www.theguardian.com)
873 points helsinkiandrew | 1 comments | 25 Sep 25 15:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
DaveExeter ◴[25 Sep 25 19:35 UTC] No.45377853[source]▶
There was the Warsaw uprising.
replies(3): >>45378004 #>>45379248 #>>45381339 #
babu657 ◴[25 Sep 25 21:19 UTC] No.45379248{6}[source]▶
Warsaw uprising with killing babies. Sure you’re the good guys
replies(1): >>45380294 #
1. pcthrowaway ◴[25 Sep 25 22:51 UTC] No.45380294{7}[source]▶
The Palestinian-led military operation on October 7 did not involve killing babies.

One baby was killed. Another died 14 hours after birth after its pregnant mother was shot. Only one of those was conclusively shot by insurgents from Gaza (the UN fact-finding report[1], on page 44, notes that many Israelis were killed and injured by "friendly fire")

Out of 1200 non-Gazans killed, 33 were children, or 2.7%, and again, at least some of these deaths can be attributed to the Israeli military response. It should be noted that the casualty rate of Israel's response in Gaza has been at least 30% children.

It's bizarre that you bring up the infant casualties of Hamas October 7, of which there was 1, as evidence for calling it a terrorist attack, when the actual number of babies killed by Israel is an order of magnitude greater than the total number of people killed by Hamas on October 7

[1]: https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/a-hrc-...