Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • If the US government asked Google and amazon for data using specific legal authorities and the companies tipped off the Israeli government, there's a chance they may have broken the law....
    by nova22033
  • > there's a chance they may have broken the law

    There is certainty they broke the law. Both federally and, in all likelihood, in most states.

    by JumpCrisscross
  • >Microsoft, which provides a range of cloud services to Israel’s military and public sector, bid for the Nimbus contract but was beaten by its rivals. According to sources familiar with negotiations, Microsoft’s bid suffered as it refused to accept some of Israel’s demands.

    So Microsoft is now more ethical than Google and Amazon? What times we live in!

    by DeathArrow
  • Now that the trick is out the gag order will say explicitly not to make the payment. Or specifically to make a “false flag” payment, tell them it’s the Italians.
    by rdtsc
  • I don’t think speech can be compelled like that latter idea
    by Yossarrian22
  • There's no need to alter a gag order. If you attempt an end-run around a gag order by speaking in French or Latin or Swahili, the gag order is still violated. This is exactly the same: changing the language in which the gag order is violated.
    by IAmBroom
  • I don’t think this contract would be enforceable. Google/Amazon had no incentive to say no, other than self-respect. Also, how would Israel even know if Google/Amazon failed to “wink”? If they have a way of knowing that, then they don’t need the “wink.”

    Google/Amazon could just say yes until the contract is signed, and then just not comply. Israeli government would have no recourse since they can’t go to a US court, and file charges for a US company NOT breaking the law or for complying with a court order. Israel also would not want this to come to light.

    It’s like a criminal’s promise. The only recourse is taking your business elsewhere, which Israel would do when they’re tipped off anyways. But at least if Google/Amazon fail to wink, contract lasts a little longer.

    by ozozozd
  • > Microsoft said that using Azure in this way violated its terms of service and it was “not in the business of facilitating the mass surveillance of civilians”. Under the terms of the Nimbus deal, Google and Amazon are prohibited from taking such action as it would “discriminate” against the Israeli government. Doing so would incur financial penalties for the companies, as well as legal action for breach of contract.

    Insane. Obeying the law or ToS, apparently, is discriminatory when it comes to Israel.

    by Ozzie_osman
  • So Microsoft is nowadays the American "do no evil" tech giant. How the times have changed!
    by bjourne
  • This endless bowing down to Israel is and always will be ridiculous. When a country can do whatever they like unchallenged, no matter how wrong, or how illegal, we have failed as a society.
    by ktallett
  • It would be suicide to sign the contract. It basically allows them to hack their platforms without any repercussions or ability to stop it. They would quickly claim expanded access is part of the contract.
    by neuroelectron
  • It's not insane, at least based on the information in the article, which is entirely insinuation. Do we actually have access to the leaked documents and what specifically was being asked besides a "secret code" being used?
    by leoh
  • U.S. law. It's pretty obvious that neither Amazon nor Google are good options for serious actors that are not the U.S. government. So if they want to make business outside the U.S., they need to dance around the fact that in the end they bow to the will of Washington.
    by choeger
  • Is managing servers really such a lost art that even governments with sensitive data must cede to AWS/Azure/GCP?
    by cedws
  • Some states can get away with what ever they want, so it does not matter for them.
    by aaa_aaa
  • It is more of people who can manage servers have no standing in front of people who buy or sell cloud services.
    by geodel
  • I’ve seen government datacenters. We should be thankful they’re using the cloud.

    That’s not “cloud > onprem always”, that’s “even given cloud providers’ many faults governments are so terrible at managing and securing infrastructure today that the cloud is preferable for them”. Whether you anre pro- or anti-particular-government, you should still support gov-moves-to-cloud. The alternative is proven unbelievably worse on every possible axis.

    by zbentley
  • Apparently, yes: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/858tb-of-governme...
    by foota
  • > ...a lost art that even governments with sensitive data must cede to AWS/Azure/GCP?

    Apparently, US aid to a country is usually spent on US companies; Israel is no exception: https://theintercept.com/2024/05/01/google-amazon-nimbus-isr...

    by ignoramous
  • Can't buy stock contracts on Amazon/Microsoft/Google right before you announce the $1B investment towards cloud infrastructure if you roll it all yourself, though
    by dpoloncsak
  • Initially, I suspected the cloud contracts were for general government operations, to have geo-distributed backups and continuity, in event of regional disaster (natural or human-made).

    But could it instead/also be for international spy operations, like surveillance, propaganda, and cyber attacks? A major cloud provider has fast access at scale in multiple regions, is less likely to be blocked than certain countries, and can hide which customer the traffic is for.

    If it were for international operations, two questions:

    1. How complicit would the cloud providers be?

    2. For US-based providers, how likely that US spy agencies would be consulted before signing the contracts, and consciously allow it to proceed (i.e., let US cloud providers facilitate the foreign spy activity), so that US can monitor the activity?

    by neilv
  • In Microsoft case they provide services for storing and possibly processing (transcribing) calls of millions of people that are under belligerent occupation:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/06/microsoft-isra...

    I don't imagine Google and Amazon are any better. I.e. take boatloads of money, while sticking the head into sand and pretend it's not likely used to help the illegal occupation of Palestinians, to persecute and harm them.

    by megous
  • fwiw towards your theory, I believe that the US Govt actually considers cloud providers - by way of specific services offered "dual use" systems for mil or civil use.

    E.g. you will find references in AWS docs to Bureau of Industry/Security rulings.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology

    https://www.bis.gov/

    https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/global-export-compliance/

    by dfsegoat
  • > Several experts described the mechanism as a “clever” workaround that could comply with the letter of the law but not its spirit. “It’s kind of brilliant, but it’s risky,” said a former senior US security official.

    If it wasn't Amazon, Google and Israel government, there wouldn't be people pretending it comply with the 'letter of the law'. It is simple treason, selling your own country secret to another.

    And the way it's done isn't that 'brilliant'. Oh yes they aren't writing on paper that x country asked for Israel data, they are instead using the country phone index and making payment based on that...

    by aucisson_masque
  • It's not "another" "country", though. That's a misconception about Israel, which is not a country, it's a colony. It doesn't have borders, it's dependent on financial handouts from its imperium, does not respect any of the rules that apply to 'countries' (i.e. international law), &c.

    Expecting there to be law abidance and so on when dealing with Israel or israelis is a mistake that'll make you the 'freier' in that relationship. This is why Israel and israeli corporations commonly use usian and european fronts when they do business with more discerning customers than the most obvious tyrants of the world.

    by cess11
  • It seems crazy to me that any country would outsource storage of military intelligence data to a foreign corporation. But my reading of the article is that the data is physically stored in Amazon and Google datacenters on Israeli soil.

    If for some reason the US were storing sensitive data in US-based datacenters operated by a foreign corporation, don't you think they would try to take measures to prevent that data from being exfiltrated? It would be idiotic for Israel not to take what measures it could.

    As for the idea that Amazon is acting treasonously - is warning someone that your country is spying on them treasonous? I think they should warn anyone and everyone whose data is being shared with any government, as long as they stay within the letter of the law in the places they operate.

    by noduerme
  • It's only treason if Israel is an enemy. YMMV
    by jazzyjackson
  • Isn’t there a legal term for this?

    It is like if it is illegal to import more then $1000 into the country without declaring, and you (clever) give $900 each to 4 of your friends who are conveniently traveling with you, so you only walk across the border with remaining $400, not breaking any laws. Then when inside the country, your friends give you back the $900 each, meaning you just de-facto imported $4000 while technically crossing the border with less then $1000, as legally required.

    If normal people tried to do this they would obviously be charged with the crime of illegally importing money, but also with something like a conspiracy to evade the law.

    by runarberg
  • > officials created a secret warning system: the companies must send signals hidden in payments to the Israeli government, tipping it off when it has disclosed Israeli data to foreign courts or investigators.

    > The terms of the Nimbus deal would appear to prohibit Google and Amazon from the kind of unilateral action taken by Microsoft last month, when it disabled the Israeli military’s access to technology used to operate an indiscriminate surveillance system monitoring Palestinian phone calls.

    I don’t understand the connection between these two things. The article seems all over the place.

    by hammock
  • I wonder if Google's plan here is to just not actually make the "special payments" if a gag order applies. Possibly they think that the contract doesn't actually require those payments (most contracts have a provision about not contradicting the law), or just ignore the contract provision when a gag order comes (how would Israel know, and what would they do about it anyway).
    by advisedwang