Microsoft terminates Israel’s access to technology it used for mass surveillance of Palestinians

Cybersecurity services provided by Microsoft to Israel and other countries in the Middle East will continue. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 26 September 2025
Follow

Microsoft terminates Israel’s access to technology it used for mass surveillance of Palestinians

  • It follows reports that Israeli military surveillance agency used Microsoft cloud services to store millions of phone calls made in Gaza and West Bank since 2022
  • The intelligence obtained from the call data was reportedly used to plan military bombing campaigns

DUBAI: Microsoft has terminated the Israeli military’s access to technology it used for the mass surveillance of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

The tech firm informed Israeli authorities it would “cease and disable specified IMOD (Israel Ministry of Defense) subscriptions and their services, including their use of specific cloud storage and AI services and technologies,” Brad Smith, the vice-chair and president of Microsoft said in a company memo and blog post on Thursday.

Cybersecurity services provided by the company to Israel and other countries in the Middle East are not affected, he added.

The decision follows the preliminary findings of a formal review launched by Microsoft last month in response to a report by The Guardian newspaper on an investigation it carried out in partnership with the Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine, and the Hebrew-language news site Local Call.

The joint investigation found Israel’s military surveillance agency, Unit 8200, used Microsoft Azure cloud services to store recordings of millions of cellphone calls made by Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank since 2022.

The intelligence obtained from the call data stored in Azure was reportedly used by Unit 8200 to identify targets for military bombing campaigns. When planning airstrikes in densely populated areas containing many civilians, intelligence officers would analyze calls from Palestinians located nearby, sources said. They described the system as indiscriminate and intrusive, labeling it a tool that had turned an entire population into the “enemy.”

During development of the system, Microsoft and Unit 8200 engineers collaborated to implement advanced security measures in Azure that met the standards required by the Israeli agency. The project was highly secretive, and Microsoft staff were instructed not to make any mention of Unit 8200.

To protect the privacy rights of cellphone users, the Microsoft review did not access the IMOD data but instead focused on the company’s own business records, including internal documents and email communications, Smith said.

“We do not provide technology to facilitate mass surveillance of civilians,” he added. “We have applied this principle in every country around the world, and we have insisted on it repeatedly for more than two decades.”


BBC ‘determined to fight’ Trump defamation claim

Updated 17 November 2025
Follow

BBC ‘determined to fight’ Trump defamation claim

  • Corporation chair Samir Shah says he sees no basis for Trump’s defamation claim, apologized for editing of Trump’s speech
  • Trump’s lawyers said would file case in the US where the US president is expected to face tougher legal standard given the protection of freedom of speech in the constitution

LONDON: The BBC is determined to fight any legal action filed by US President Donald Trump and sees no basis for a defamation case over its editing of one of his speeches, its chair said on Monday.
Trump said on Friday he was likely to sue the British broadcaster this week for up to $5 billion after it spliced together separate excerpts of a speech on January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the Capitol. The edit created the impression he had called for violence.
BBC chair Samir Shah sent a letter to Trump to apologize for the edit, the BBC said on Thursday, but it said it strongly disagreed there was a basis for a defamation claim.

SHAH SAYS BBC POSITION HAS NOT CHANGED
Trump told reporters on Friday he would sue for anywhere between $1 billion and $5 billion.
Shah told BBC staff in an email on Monday there was speculation about the possibility of legal action, including potential costs or settlements.
“In all this we are, of course, acutely aware of the privilege of our funding and the need to protect our license fee payers, the British public,” Shah wrote.
“I want to be very clear with you — our position has not changed. There is no basis for a defamation case and we are determined to fight this.”
The documentary, made by a third party, aired in Britain before the November 2024 US election. It showed Trump telling supporters “we’re going to walk down to the Capitol” and we “fight like hell,” a comment he made in a different part of his speech. Trump had in fact said supporters would “cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”
The edit was made public after the Daily Telegraph published a leaked internal BBC report.
The report, written by an independent adviser, contained wider criticism of the BBC’s news output, including assertions of anti-Israel bias at BBC Arabic and a lack of balance in stories about trans issues, and led to the resignation of the director-general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness.

NO US BROADCAST
Trump’s lawyers said the edit caused the president “overwhelming reputational and financial harm,” according to a letter seen by Reuters.
They said they would sue in Florida, rather than in Britain, where the one-year limit to file a defamation case has expired.
Trump will face a tougher legal standard in the United States given the protection of freedom of speech in the constitution, lawyers have said.
The BBC is likely to argue that the program was not broadcast and was not available on its streaming service in the US, so voters in Florida could not have seen it.
The BBC, which is funded by a mandatory levy on TV-watching households, is also widely expected to challenge the reputational harm claim on grounds that Trump went on to win the election, and say the edit was not done in malice.