5 ms·

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 actual

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).

ngruhn 11mo ago
My thoughts as well. Also, "only" violating a contract sounds less illegal.
overfeed 11mo ago
> how would Israel know, and what would they do about it anyway Spy on, insert or recruit an asset from the pool of employees who are involved in any "Should we tell Israel?" discussion. That way, even if an answer is "No, don't alert them", the mere existence of the mechanism provides an actionable intelligence signal.
- mdasen 11mo ago
  If they're able to gather the intelligence without a public signal, they wouldn't be wanting a public signal. Any discussion of "should we tell Israel" would be limited to people who knew of the secret subpoena's existence. If Israel already had an asset within that group, they'd just have that person signal them in a much more clandestine manner than a public payment mandated in a signed contract. Either Israel already knows about the subpoena, in which case the discussion doesn't matter, or they don't, in which case their asset wouldn't be in on the discussion.
worik 11mo ago
> Google's plan here is to just not actually make the "special payments" That does not help Signing the contract was a criminal conspiracy I am not holding my breath for prosecution, though.
shrubble 11mo ago
Israel reportedly has unredacted data feeds from the USA(this was part of the Snowden leaks, Guardian link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-...). This means that they can read even the personal email of Supreme Court justices, congressmen and senators. However they have a gentleman’s agreement to not do that. “Wink”
- _zoltan_ 11mo ago
  link to any credible report?
  - shrubble 11mo ago
    Updated my post with a link, thanks.
- CWuestefeld 11mo ago
  However they have a gentleman’s agreement to not do that. Trying to remember back to Snowden, I think I recall that not only DON'T they have such an agreement, but the intelligence folks consider this a feature. The US government is Constitutionally forbidden from reading "US persons" communications, but our Constitution has no such restriction on third parties. So if those third parties do the spying for us, and then tell our intelligence folks about it, everybody wins. Well, except for the people.
  - rcpt 11mo ago
    That's pretty optimistic. I think it's just more likely that we send them whatever they ask for when they ask for it.
- hammock 11mo ago
  Why would the US send unredacted personal email of justices and senators to a foreign country?
  - 11mo ago
greycol 11mo ago
>most contracts have a provision about not contradicting the law But is there an Israeli law that states contracts must be in concordance with foreign law... When the damages of an Israeli contract get evaluated in an Israeli court and they include the loss of Israeli intelligence assets will the costs not be significant? Yes google can pull out of Israel but they literally built datacentres there for these contracts so there are sizeable seizable assets. And yes google may also get fined for breaking foreign law by foreign courts. The question is if the architecture of the system is set up so the only way data can be "secretly" exfiltrated by other governments is to go through local Israeli employees and they're the one's breaking the foreign law (and they were told explicitly by foreign bosses that they can't share this information wink) is there any punishment for google other than fines dwarfed by the contract and having to fire an employee who is strangely ok with that, who is replaced by a equally helpful local employee.
- mdasen 11mo ago
  I think it'd be unlikely for the Israeli government to try and push this issue. Yes, Google has assets within Israel that could be seized, but it'd be a bit of a disaster. Israel would be creating a scenario where it told companies: go to prison in your home country or we'll seize everything you've invested here. Also, I can't believe that Google or Amazon would sign a contract that doesn't specify the judicial jurisdiction. If the contract says "this contract will be governed by the courts of Santa Clara County California" and the Israelis agreed to that, then they won't have a claim in Israeli courts. If an Israeli court concluded that they have jurisdiction when both parties agreed they don't have jurisdiction, it'd create a very problematic precedent for doing business with Israeli companies. Even if an Israeli court would ignore all that, what would Israel get? Maybe it could seize a billion in assets within Israel, but would that be worth it? For Google or Amazon, they face steeper penalties in the US and Europe for various things. For Israel, maybe they'd be able to seize an amount of assets equivalent to 10% of their annual military budget. So while it's not a small sum, it is a small sum relative to the parties' sizes. Neither would really win or lose from the amount of money in play. But Israel would lose big time if it went that route. It would guarantee that no one would sign another cloud deal with them once the existing contracts expired. Investment in Israel would fall off a cliff as companies worried that Israeli courts would simply ignore anything they didn't like. The point of these agreements is that Israel needs access to cloud resources. The primary objective is probably to avoid getting cut off like Microsoft did to them. That part of the contract is likely enforceable (IANAL): Israel does something against the ToS, but they can't be cut off. I'd guess that's the thing that Israel really wanted out of these deals. The "wink" was probably a hopeful long shot that they never expected to work. But they got what they needed: Amazon and Google can't cut them off regardless of shareholder pressure or what they're doing with the cloud no matter what anyone thinks of it. Suing Amazon or Google over a part of the contract that they knew was never going to happen would jeopardize their actual objective: stable, continued access to cloud resources.
sjducb 11mo ago
Yes many contracts contain unenforceable or unactionable clauses that are superseded by common law. This is an example of that. For example a tennant can sign a lease that says they have no notice period before eviction. If they’re in a state with a 30 day minimum notice period then the notice period is 30 days. It doesn’t matter what the contract says. Google would comply with the US court order and ignore the contract it signed with Israel.

ngruhn 11mo ago

My thoughts as well. Also, "only" violating a contract sounds less illegal.

overfeed 11mo ago

> how would Israel know, and what would they do about it anyway Spy on, insert or recruit an asset from the pool of employees who are involved in any "Should we tell Israel?" discussion. That way, even if an answer is "No, don't alert them", the mere existence of the mechanism provides an actionable intelligence signal.

mdasen 11mo ago
If they're able to gather the intelligence without a public signal, they wouldn't be wanting a public signal. Any discussion of "should we tell Israel" would be limited to people who knew of the secret subpoena's existence. If Israel already had an asset within that group, they'd just have that person signal them in a much more clandestine manner than a public payment mandated in a signed contract. Either Israel already knows about the subpoena, in which case the discussion doesn't matter, or they don't, in which case their asset wouldn't be in on the discussion.

worik 11mo ago

> Google's plan here is to just not actually make the "special payments" That does not help Signing the contract was a criminal conspiracy I am not holding my breath for prosecution, though.

shrubble 11mo ago

Israel reportedly has unredacted data feeds from the USA(this was part of the Snowden leaks, Guardian link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-personal-data-israel-documents https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-...). This means that they can read even the personal email of Supreme Court justices, congressmen and senators. However they have a gentleman’s agreement to not do that. “Wink”

_zoltan_ 11mo ago
link to any credible report?
- shrubble 11mo ago
  Updated my post with a link, thanks.
CWuestefeld 11mo ago
However they have a gentleman’s agreement to not do that. Trying to remember back to Snowden, I think I recall that not only DON'T they have such an agreement, but the intelligence folks consider this a feature. The US government is Constitutionally forbidden from reading "US persons" communications, but our Constitution has no such restriction on third parties. So if those third parties do the spying for us, and then tell our intelligence folks about it, everybody wins. Well, except for the people.
- rcpt 11mo ago
  That's pretty optimistic. I think it's just more likely that we send them whatever they ask for when they ask for it.
hammock 11mo ago
Why would the US send unredacted personal email of justices and senators to a foreign country?
- 11mo ago

greycol 11mo ago

>most contracts have a provision about not contradicting the law But is there an Israeli law that states contracts must be in concordance with foreign law... When the damages of an Israeli contract get evaluated in an Israeli court and they include the loss of Israeli intelligence assets will the costs not be significant? Yes google can pull out of Israel but they literally built datacentres there for these contracts so there are sizeable seizable assets. And yes google may also get fined for breaking foreign law by foreign courts. The question is if the architecture of the system is set up so the only way data can be "secretly" exfiltrated by other governments is to go through local Israeli employees and they're the one's breaking the foreign law (and they were told explicitly by foreign bosses that they can't share this information wink) is there any punishment for google other than fines dwarfed by the contract and having to fire an employee who is strangely ok with that, who is replaced by a equally helpful local employee.

mdasen 11mo ago
I think it'd be unlikely for the Israeli government to try and push this issue. Yes, Google has assets within Israel that could be seized, but it'd be a bit of a disaster. Israel would be creating a scenario where it told companies: go to prison in your home country or we'll seize everything you've invested here. Also, I can't believe that Google or Amazon would sign a contract that doesn't specify the judicial jurisdiction. If the contract says "this contract will be governed by the courts of Santa Clara County California" and the Israelis agreed to that, then they won't have a claim in Israeli courts. If an Israeli court concluded that they have jurisdiction when both parties agreed they don't have jurisdiction, it'd create a very problematic precedent for doing business with Israeli companies. Even if an Israeli court would ignore all that, what would Israel get? Maybe it could seize a billion in assets within Israel, but would that be worth it? For Google or Amazon, they face steeper penalties in the US and Europe for various things. For Israel, maybe they'd be able to seize an amount of assets equivalent to 10% of their annual military budget. So while it's not a small sum, it is a small sum relative to the parties' sizes. Neither would really win or lose from the amount of money in play. But Israel would lose big time if it went that route. It would guarantee that no one would sign another cloud deal with them once the existing contracts expired. Investment in Israel would fall off a cliff as companies worried that Israeli courts would simply ignore anything they didn't like. The point of these agreements is that Israel needs access to cloud resources. The primary objective is probably to avoid getting cut off like Microsoft did to them. That part of the contract is likely enforceable (IANAL): Israel does something against the ToS, but they can't be cut off. I'd guess that's the thing that Israel really wanted out of these deals. The "wink" was probably a hopeful long shot that they never expected to work. But they got what they needed: Amazon and Google can't cut them off regardless of shareholder pressure or what they're doing with the cloud no matter what anyone thinks of it. Suing Amazon or Google over a part of the contract that they knew was never going to happen would jeopardize their actual objective: stable, continued access to cloud resources.

sjducb 11mo ago

Yes many contracts contain unenforceable or unactionable clauses that are superseded by common law. This is an example of that. For example a tennant can sign a lease that says they have no notice period before eviction. If they’re in a state with a 30 day minimum notice period then the notice period is 30 days. It doesn’t matter what the contract says. Google would comply with the US court order and ignore the contract it signed with Israel.