←back to thread

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

(www.theguardian.com)
873 points helsinkiandrew | 5 comments | 25 Sep 25 15:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dark_mode ◴[25 Sep 25 17:05 UTC] No.45375569[source]▶
> The decision has not affected Microsoft’s wider commercial relationship with the IDF, which is a longstanding client and will retain access to other services. The termination will raise questions within Israel about the policy of holding sensitive military data in a third-party cloud hosted overseas.

It's worth noting that even after finding out the "most moral" army is conducting mass surveillance, they're still happy to provide them services.

replies(7): >>45377571 #>>45377671 #>>45377762 #>>45379434 #>>45381203 #>>45381719 #>>45383596 #
tick_tock_tick ◴[25 Sep 25 19:29 UTC] No.45377762[source]▶
Doesn't every army conduct "mass surveillance"? What do you think all those satellites with cameras are doing orbiting the planet?

Wouldn't the opposite be incredibly immoral? Attacking/bombing/etc without large scale surveillance would largely mean increased collateral damage.

replies(8): >>45377948 #>>45377972 #>>45379258 #>>45379533 #>>45379765 #>>45379827 #>>45380276 #>>45383560 #
ycombigators ◴[25 Sep 25 22:03 UTC] No.45379765[source]▶
It would be pretty difficult for the IDF to increase their level of collateral damage.
replies(1): >>45381536 #
sir0010010 ◴[26 Sep 25 01:29 UTC] No.45381536{3}[source]▶
In 1945, about ~90k people died over 2 days from the Tokyo Firebombing. Do you think it would be difficult for any modern millitary - that intentionally wanted to cause as much collateral damage as possible - to greatly exceed that number?
replies(2): >>45381838 #>>45401981 #
fjdjshsh ◴[26 Sep 25 02:14 UTC] No.45381838{4}[source]▶
Not sure what is your point. The Israeli military could throw a few atomic bombs and wipe out the entire population in Gaza. That they don't is a sign of restraint for you?
replies(2): >>45382083 #>>45383720 #
1. jlawson ◴[26 Sep 25 02:51 UTC] No.45382083{5}[source]▶
The point is that they could do similar attacks to the Tokyo firebombing (or much worse), but choose not to.

Yes, that is a sign of restraint, obviously.

replies(2): >>45382793 #>>45382853 #
2. tfourb ◴[26 Sep 25 04:52 UTC] No.45382793[source]▶
80% of buildings in Gaza are destroyed. There are well documented cases of arbitrary killings of civilians and attacks on hospitals. IDF is routinely demanding entire cities to be evacuated, knowing that not all people can comply with such an order. Multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity investigations have been opened by national and international prosecutors.

It is very obvious that the only restraint that the IDF is showing is that they do not kill every single civilian on sight.

replies(1): >>45419519 #
3. clanky ◴[26 Sep 25 05:05 UTC] No.45382853[source]▶
The only thing it's a sign of is that the Israelis face restraints from political and PR pressures that did not apply to bombing Tokyo.
replies(1): >>45419550 #
4. jlawson ◴[29 Sep 25 22:18 UTC] No.45419519[source]▶
Demanding cities be evacuated is what you do when you have restraint. Otherwise you would just kill everyone inside. If they had not done this, you would also claim that it's evidence of lack of restraint.

Beyond that, everything you wrote is perfectly compatible with the IDF showing tremendous restraint. It is all more or less inevitable with any war in such an environment. All of it happened in Iraq with the Americans, for example.

- Buildings destroyed aren't people

- Documented cases are just that - cases. You need to demonstrate a pattern at scale. Bad cases are inevitable among millions of interactions.

- Investigations opened is a signal of political incentives as much as actions taken.

5. jlawson ◴[29 Sep 25 22:21 UTC] No.45419550[source]▶
Goalpost moving.

Now you're saying, okay they do have restraint, but what I really meant was their restraint is driven by the PR concerns, not by their own moral hearts. Well, that's pretty different accusation now.

I'm glad you've conceded the original point that they do indeed have restraint. Thank you.