The New York Times has just shed light on a shocking new document that speaks about Google having serious concerns about signing its controversial Project Nimbus deal with Israel.
Officials in the company did fear the country would violate human rights by using its tech but still went ahead to place signatures on the deal worth $1.2 billion. This would give the Israeli Government access to Cloud Services that might be used for controversial activities. This includes the violence conducted in the West Bank region.
The documents included conversations with lawyers, external consultants, and the firm’s policy team. The timing was months before Google shared plans for the deal publicly. It also shared how the firm was so concerned about whether the contract could harm its reputation in the long run.
Therefore, putting all the huge concerns aside, the company still stood firmly and defended its decision to show support for the deal. It was to such an extent that it fired many of its own employees who protested against the deal as it would help Israel target innocent Palestinians.
Seeing this bombshell leak is clear proof that Google itself had many of the same concerns that its protesting employees had. Still, it went ahead and fired those who raised their voice against the controversial issue.
Project Nimbus gives Israel full command of cloud services hailing from Amazon and Google. Moreover, it enables using AI tools for analysis and identifying objects seen in pictures and videos. Additionally, it can assist in conducting videoconferencing and storing huge amounts of data.
The biggest profits included $525M which would be paid in compensation to the company from Israel. It’s not a huge amount but it was just enough to make the organization happy. For now, Google is keeping its lips sealed on this front and refuses to respond to comments on the article published by the NYT.
Google’s representative at the time of the deal shared his thoughts on how the contract with Israel complies with its Terms of Service and Acceptable Use. This might be the same answer they give in regards to this bombshell leaks article from the Times.
Meanwhile, another issue speaks about the deal getting adjustments from Israel’s end. This means Israel did not accept all that Google proposed. Instead, it tweaked it to make it more acceptable for the country.
Critics might argue that this deal signals a broader trend in which tech companies prioritize profits and government contracts over human rights. This raises concerns about the tech industry's increasing involvement in military and surveillance operations, blurring the lines between technological advancement and potential violations of international law. Moreover, as more governments around the world tighten control over digital infrastructure, the risk of companies like Google being complicit in state-sanctioned surveillance or violence becomes even greater. This trend could set a dangerous precedent for how tech giants engage with governments with questionable human rights records, further eroding trust in the industry as a whole.
Image: DIW-Aigen
Read next: Is Meta's AI ‘Mistakenly’ Censoring Too Much? Company’s Top Executive Nick Clegg Says Yes
Officials in the company did fear the country would violate human rights by using its tech but still went ahead to place signatures on the deal worth $1.2 billion. This would give the Israeli Government access to Cloud Services that might be used for controversial activities. This includes the violence conducted in the West Bank region.
The documents included conversations with lawyers, external consultants, and the firm’s policy team. The timing was months before Google shared plans for the deal publicly. It also shared how the firm was so concerned about whether the contract could harm its reputation in the long run.
Therefore, putting all the huge concerns aside, the company still stood firmly and defended its decision to show support for the deal. It was to such an extent that it fired many of its own employees who protested against the deal as it would help Israel target innocent Palestinians.
Seeing this bombshell leak is clear proof that Google itself had many of the same concerns that its protesting employees had. Still, it went ahead and fired those who raised their voice against the controversial issue.
Project Nimbus gives Israel full command of cloud services hailing from Amazon and Google. Moreover, it enables using AI tools for analysis and identifying objects seen in pictures and videos. Additionally, it can assist in conducting videoconferencing and storing huge amounts of data.
The biggest profits included $525M which would be paid in compensation to the company from Israel. It’s not a huge amount but it was just enough to make the organization happy. For now, Google is keeping its lips sealed on this front and refuses to respond to comments on the article published by the NYT.
Google’s representative at the time of the deal shared his thoughts on how the contract with Israel complies with its Terms of Service and Acceptable Use. This might be the same answer they give in regards to this bombshell leaks article from the Times.
Meanwhile, another issue speaks about the deal getting adjustments from Israel’s end. This means Israel did not accept all that Google proposed. Instead, it tweaked it to make it more acceptable for the country.
Critics might argue that this deal signals a broader trend in which tech companies prioritize profits and government contracts over human rights. This raises concerns about the tech industry's increasing involvement in military and surveillance operations, blurring the lines between technological advancement and potential violations of international law. Moreover, as more governments around the world tighten control over digital infrastructure, the risk of companies like Google being complicit in state-sanctioned surveillance or violence becomes even greater. This trend could set a dangerous precedent for how tech giants engage with governments with questionable human rights records, further eroding trust in the industry as a whole.
Read next: Is Meta's AI ‘Mistakenly’ Censoring Too Much? Company’s Top Executive Nick Clegg Says Yes
