4 oct 2019

The act of Palestinian activists covering their faces during anti-Israeli occupation rallies is an old practice that spans decades. The masking of the face, often by Kufyias – traditional Palestinian scarves that grew to symbolise Palestinian resistance – is far from being a fashion statement. Instead, it is a survival technique, without it, activists are likely to be arrested in subsequent nightly raids; at times, even assassinated.
In the past, Israel used basic technologies to identify Palestinians who take part in protests and mobilize the people in various popular activities. TV news footage or newspaper photos were thoroughly deciphered, often with the help of Israel’s collaborators in the Occupied Territories, and the ‘culprits’ would be identified, summoned to meet Shin Bet intelligence officers or arrested from their homes.
That old technique was eventually replaced by more advanced technology, countless images transmitted directly through Israeli drones – the flagship of Israel’s “security industry”. Thousands of Palestinians were detained and hundreds were assassinated in recent years as a result of drones data, analyzed through Israel’s burgeoning facial recognition software.
If in the past, Palestinian activists were keen on keeping their identity hidden, now they have much more compelling reasons to ensure the complete secrecy of their work. Considering the information sharing between the Israeli army and illegal Jewish settlers and their armed militias in the occupied West Bank, Palestinians face the double threat of being targeted by armed settlers as well as by Israeli soldiers.
True, when it comes to Israel, such a grim reality is hardly surprising. But what is truly disturbing is the direct involvement of international corporate giants, the likes of Microsoft, in facilitating the work of the Israeli military, whose sole aim is to crush any form of dissent among Palestinians.
Microsoft prides itself on being a leader in corporate social responsibility (CSR), emphasizing that “privacy (is) a fundamental human right.”
The Washington-State based software giant dedicates much attention, at least on paper, to the subject of human rights. “Microsoft is committed to respecting human rights,” Microsoft Global Human Rights Statement asserts. “We do this by harnessing the beneficial power of technology to help realize and sustain human rights everywhere.”
In practice, however, Microsoft’s words are hardly in line with its action, at least not when its human rights maxims are applied to occupied and besieged Palestinians.
Writing in the American news network NBC News on October 27, Olivia Solon reported on Microsoft funding of the Israeli firm, AnyVision, which uses facial recognition “to secretly watch West Bank Palestinians”.
Through its venture capital arm M12, Microsoft has reportedly invested $78 million in the Israeli startup company that “uses facial recognition to surveil Palestinians throughout the West Bank, in spite of the tech giant’s public pledge to avoid using the technology if it encroaches on democratic freedoms”.
AnyVision had developed an “advanced tactical surveillance” software system, dubbed “Better Tomorrow” that, according to a joint NBC News-Haaretz investigation, “lets customers identify individuals and objects in any live camera feed, such as a security camera or smartphone, and then track targets as they move between different feeds.”
As disquieting as “Better Tomorrow’s” mission sounds, it takes on a truly sinister objective in Palestine. “According to five sources familiar with the matter,” wrote Solon, “AnyVision’s technology powers a secret military surveillance project throughout the West Bank.”
“One source said the project is nicknamed ‘Google Ayosh,’ where ‘Ayosh’ means occupied Palestinian territories and ‘Google’ denotes the technology’s ability to search for people.”
Headquartered in Israel, AnyVision has several offices around the world, including the US, the UK, and Singapore. Considering the nature of AnyVision’s work, and the intrinsic link between Israel’s technology sector and the country’s military, it should have been assumed that the company’s software is likely used to track down Palestinian dissidents.
In July, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz pointed out that “AnyVision is taking part in two special projects in assisting the Israeli army in the West Bank. One involves a system that it has installed at army checkpoints that thousands of Palestinians pass through each day on their way to work from the West Bank.”
Former AnyVision employees spoke to NBC News about their experiences with the company, one even asserting that he/she “saw no evidence that ethical considerations drove any business decisions” at the firm.
The alarming reports invited strong protests by human rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Alas, Microsoft carried on with supporting AnyVision’s work unhindered.
This is not the first time that Microsoft is caught red-handed in its support of the Israeli military or criticized for other unethical practices.
Unlike Facebook, Google and others, who are constantly, albeit deservingly being chastised for violating privacy rules or allowing politics to influence their editorial agenda, Microsoft has been left largely outside the brewing controversies. But, like the rest, Microsoft should be held to account.
In its ‘Human Rights Statement’, Microsoft declared its respect for human rights based on international conventions, starting with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In occupying and oppressing Palestinians, Israel violates every article of that declaration, starting with Article 1, which states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” and including Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
It will take Microsoft more than hyperlinking to a UN document to show true and sincere respect for human rights.
Indeed, for a company that enjoys great popularity throughout the Middle East and in Palestine itself, an inevitable first step towards respecting human rights is to immediately divest from AnyVision, coupled with an apology for all of those who have already paid the price for that ominous Israeli technology.
In the past, Israel used basic technologies to identify Palestinians who take part in protests and mobilize the people in various popular activities. TV news footage or newspaper photos were thoroughly deciphered, often with the help of Israel’s collaborators in the Occupied Territories, and the ‘culprits’ would be identified, summoned to meet Shin Bet intelligence officers or arrested from their homes.
That old technique was eventually replaced by more advanced technology, countless images transmitted directly through Israeli drones – the flagship of Israel’s “security industry”. Thousands of Palestinians were detained and hundreds were assassinated in recent years as a result of drones data, analyzed through Israel’s burgeoning facial recognition software.
If in the past, Palestinian activists were keen on keeping their identity hidden, now they have much more compelling reasons to ensure the complete secrecy of their work. Considering the information sharing between the Israeli army and illegal Jewish settlers and their armed militias in the occupied West Bank, Palestinians face the double threat of being targeted by armed settlers as well as by Israeli soldiers.
True, when it comes to Israel, such a grim reality is hardly surprising. But what is truly disturbing is the direct involvement of international corporate giants, the likes of Microsoft, in facilitating the work of the Israeli military, whose sole aim is to crush any form of dissent among Palestinians.
Microsoft prides itself on being a leader in corporate social responsibility (CSR), emphasizing that “privacy (is) a fundamental human right.”
The Washington-State based software giant dedicates much attention, at least on paper, to the subject of human rights. “Microsoft is committed to respecting human rights,” Microsoft Global Human Rights Statement asserts. “We do this by harnessing the beneficial power of technology to help realize and sustain human rights everywhere.”
In practice, however, Microsoft’s words are hardly in line with its action, at least not when its human rights maxims are applied to occupied and besieged Palestinians.
Writing in the American news network NBC News on October 27, Olivia Solon reported on Microsoft funding of the Israeli firm, AnyVision, which uses facial recognition “to secretly watch West Bank Palestinians”.
Through its venture capital arm M12, Microsoft has reportedly invested $78 million in the Israeli startup company that “uses facial recognition to surveil Palestinians throughout the West Bank, in spite of the tech giant’s public pledge to avoid using the technology if it encroaches on democratic freedoms”.
AnyVision had developed an “advanced tactical surveillance” software system, dubbed “Better Tomorrow” that, according to a joint NBC News-Haaretz investigation, “lets customers identify individuals and objects in any live camera feed, such as a security camera or smartphone, and then track targets as they move between different feeds.”
As disquieting as “Better Tomorrow’s” mission sounds, it takes on a truly sinister objective in Palestine. “According to five sources familiar with the matter,” wrote Solon, “AnyVision’s technology powers a secret military surveillance project throughout the West Bank.”
“One source said the project is nicknamed ‘Google Ayosh,’ where ‘Ayosh’ means occupied Palestinian territories and ‘Google’ denotes the technology’s ability to search for people.”
Headquartered in Israel, AnyVision has several offices around the world, including the US, the UK, and Singapore. Considering the nature of AnyVision’s work, and the intrinsic link between Israel’s technology sector and the country’s military, it should have been assumed that the company’s software is likely used to track down Palestinian dissidents.
In July, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz pointed out that “AnyVision is taking part in two special projects in assisting the Israeli army in the West Bank. One involves a system that it has installed at army checkpoints that thousands of Palestinians pass through each day on their way to work from the West Bank.”
Former AnyVision employees spoke to NBC News about their experiences with the company, one even asserting that he/she “saw no evidence that ethical considerations drove any business decisions” at the firm.
The alarming reports invited strong protests by human rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Alas, Microsoft carried on with supporting AnyVision’s work unhindered.
This is not the first time that Microsoft is caught red-handed in its support of the Israeli military or criticized for other unethical practices.
Unlike Facebook, Google and others, who are constantly, albeit deservingly being chastised for violating privacy rules or allowing politics to influence their editorial agenda, Microsoft has been left largely outside the brewing controversies. But, like the rest, Microsoft should be held to account.
In its ‘Human Rights Statement’, Microsoft declared its respect for human rights based on international conventions, starting with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In occupying and oppressing Palestinians, Israel violates every article of that declaration, starting with Article 1, which states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” and including Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
It will take Microsoft more than hyperlinking to a UN document to show true and sincere respect for human rights.
Indeed, for a company that enjoys great popularity throughout the Middle East and in Palestine itself, an inevitable first step towards respecting human rights is to immediately divest from AnyVision, coupled with an apology for all of those who have already paid the price for that ominous Israeli technology.
30 oct 2019

Facebook Inc on Tuesday sued Israeli cyber surveillance firm NSO Group, alleging it hacked users of its messaging platform WhatsApp earlier this year.
The hacking spree targeted journalists, diplomats, human rights activists, political dissidents, senior government officials and others, Facebook said in its lawsuit, filed in US District Court in San Francisco.
Facebook-owned WhatsApp, which is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that it believed the attack “targeted at least 100 members of civil society, which is an unmistakable pattern of abuse.”
NSO’s co-founder and company representatives in Washington and Tel Aviv did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
Facebook is seeking to have NSO barred from accessing or attempting to access WhatsApp and Facebook’s services and is seeking unspecified damages.
NSO’s alleged use of a flaw in WhatsApp to hijack phones caused international consternation when it was made public in May of this year. NSO at the time said in a statement that it would investigate any “credible allegations of misuse” of its technology. It did not comment on the specific alleged attacks.
WhatsApp said the attack exploited its video calling system in order to send malware to the mobile devices of a number of users. It said it believed 1,400 users were targeted. The malware would then allow NSO’s clients – said to be governments and intelligence organizations – to secretly spy on a phone’s owner, opening their digital lives up to official scrutiny.
WhatsApp is used by some 1.5 billion people monthly and has often touted a high level of security, including end-to-end encrypted messages that cannot be deciphered by WhatsApp or other third parties.
“This is the first time that an encrypted messaging provider is taking legal action against a private entity that has carried out this type of attack against its users,” WhatsApp said in its statement.
NSO has long argued that its software is used to fight terrorism and has tried to clean up its image after it was bought by London-based private equity firm Novalpina Capital earlier this year. In August, NSO co-founder Shalev Hulio appeared on “60 Minutes” and boasted his spyware had saved “tens of thousands of people.” He provided no details.
NSO has also brought on a series of high-profile advisers, including former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge and Juliette Kayyem, a senior lecturer in international security at Harvard University. Last month, NSO announced it would begin abiding by UN guidelines on human rights abuses.
The hacking spree targeted journalists, diplomats, human rights activists, political dissidents, senior government officials and others, Facebook said in its lawsuit, filed in US District Court in San Francisco.
Facebook-owned WhatsApp, which is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that it believed the attack “targeted at least 100 members of civil society, which is an unmistakable pattern of abuse.”
NSO’s co-founder and company representatives in Washington and Tel Aviv did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
Facebook is seeking to have NSO barred from accessing or attempting to access WhatsApp and Facebook’s services and is seeking unspecified damages.
NSO’s alleged use of a flaw in WhatsApp to hijack phones caused international consternation when it was made public in May of this year. NSO at the time said in a statement that it would investigate any “credible allegations of misuse” of its technology. It did not comment on the specific alleged attacks.
WhatsApp said the attack exploited its video calling system in order to send malware to the mobile devices of a number of users. It said it believed 1,400 users were targeted. The malware would then allow NSO’s clients – said to be governments and intelligence organizations – to secretly spy on a phone’s owner, opening their digital lives up to official scrutiny.
WhatsApp is used by some 1.5 billion people monthly and has often touted a high level of security, including end-to-end encrypted messages that cannot be deciphered by WhatsApp or other third parties.
“This is the first time that an encrypted messaging provider is taking legal action against a private entity that has carried out this type of attack against its users,” WhatsApp said in its statement.
NSO has long argued that its software is used to fight terrorism and has tried to clean up its image after it was bought by London-based private equity firm Novalpina Capital earlier this year. In August, NSO co-founder Shalev Hulio appeared on “60 Minutes” and boasted his spyware had saved “tens of thousands of people.” He provided no details.
NSO has also brought on a series of high-profile advisers, including former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge and Juliette Kayyem, a senior lecturer in international security at Harvard University. Last month, NSO announced it would begin abiding by UN guidelines on human rights abuses.
27 oct 2019

The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor on Saturday sent a letter to the UN to call for action against recent measures taken by the Palestinian Authority (PA) that violated freedoms of expression, freedom of the press and digital rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.
“As you know, the PA banned 59 online news websites last week, based on article 39 of the controversial cybercrime law, instated by the PA in 2018,” the Euro-Med’s letter says, which was sent to David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
“[article 39 of the cybercrime law] allows the attorney general to flag any online outlets that endanger national security, general order and norms. The 59 websites in question were found to be critical of the PA president Mahmoud Abbas,” the letter stated.
“Earlier, in 2017, the PA also banned around 30 websites that criticized its policies and tightened its grip on many local journalists, some of whom are still undergoing trial until today.”
‘Unfortunately, the cybercrime law’s ambiguous and elusive language enables the PA to take arbitrary measures against critical voices, press serious charges against them and sentence them harshly and disproportionately.”
The Euro-Med emphasized the need for the PA to “unblock access to all banned sites immediately, end the trials of journalists charged with criticizing it and repeal the cybercrime law, or review it to ensure its compatibility with relevant international laws and human rights.”
The Euro-Med said in its letter that the PA must renew its legitimacy through holding general presidential and parliamentary elections to ensure the supremacy of the law and accountability where the judiciary, legislative and executive authorities are separate, impartial and accountable to the Palestinian people.
The Euro-Med concluded its letter by urging Kaye to directly raise the issue and the concerns over the cybercrime law to the PA, and demand immediate clear action from the PA to show genuine compliance with relevant international conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“As you know, the PA banned 59 online news websites last week, based on article 39 of the controversial cybercrime law, instated by the PA in 2018,” the Euro-Med’s letter says, which was sent to David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
“[article 39 of the cybercrime law] allows the attorney general to flag any online outlets that endanger national security, general order and norms. The 59 websites in question were found to be critical of the PA president Mahmoud Abbas,” the letter stated.
“Earlier, in 2017, the PA also banned around 30 websites that criticized its policies and tightened its grip on many local journalists, some of whom are still undergoing trial until today.”
‘Unfortunately, the cybercrime law’s ambiguous and elusive language enables the PA to take arbitrary measures against critical voices, press serious charges against them and sentence them harshly and disproportionately.”
The Euro-Med emphasized the need for the PA to “unblock access to all banned sites immediately, end the trials of journalists charged with criticizing it and repeal the cybercrime law, or review it to ensure its compatibility with relevant international laws and human rights.”
The Euro-Med said in its letter that the PA must renew its legitimacy through holding general presidential and parliamentary elections to ensure the supremacy of the law and accountability where the judiciary, legislative and executive authorities are separate, impartial and accountable to the Palestinian people.
The Euro-Med concluded its letter by urging Kaye to directly raise the issue and the concerns over the cybercrime law to the PA, and demand immediate clear action from the PA to show genuine compliance with relevant international conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
23 oct 2019

Secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative Mustafa al-Barghouthi denounced the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its magistrate court for deciding to block 59 websites and social media pages.
In a press release, Barghouthi said such decision violated the Palestinian basic law and the freedoms of opinion and expression and the relevant provisions of international conventions signed by Palestine.
“I do not know why the PA has taken such decision. All I know that it is a wrong decision and that the PA must revoke it immediately,” Barghouthi said.
He stressed the importance for providing a suitable atmosphere in the Palestinian arena if the PA leadership has a real intention to call for elections.
In a press release, Barghouthi said such decision violated the Palestinian basic law and the freedoms of opinion and expression and the relevant provisions of international conventions signed by Palestine.
“I do not know why the PA has taken such decision. All I know that it is a wrong decision and that the PA must revoke it immediately,” Barghouthi said.
He stressed the importance for providing a suitable atmosphere in the Palestinian arena if the PA leadership has a real intention to call for elections.

Different civil and human rights groups in Palestine have called on the Palestinian Authority (PA) to reverse its decision to block websites and pages.
This came during a news conference held Tuesday in Ramallah in cooperation with Watan TV by the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms – Mada, the Independent Commission for Human Rights, the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council, the Palestinian NGOs Network, and the National Commission for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Rule of Law – Istiqlal.
The participants stressed the need for the PA and its magistrate court in Ramallah to revoke the decision to block dozens of websites and pages, describing the step as a serious violation of the freedoms of the press and expression.
Mousa al-Rimawi, director of Mada, said the PA’s decision was taken during the campaign that was recently launched by Mada to defend and raise awareness about digital rights.
Rimawi also pointed out that the PA’s step dealt a blow to the efforts being made by civil society groups to confront Facebook’s systematic closure of Palestinian media pages and removal of Palestinian content.
He said that the PA’s decision in this regard was the second of its kind in two years, noting that there was a similar decision in 2017 that targeted 29 Palestinian websites.
He called for immediately backtracking on such decision, which he said violated the Palestinian basic law and all the international conventions and treaties signed by the PA.
This came during a news conference held Tuesday in Ramallah in cooperation with Watan TV by the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms – Mada, the Independent Commission for Human Rights, the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council, the Palestinian NGOs Network, and the National Commission for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Rule of Law – Istiqlal.
The participants stressed the need for the PA and its magistrate court in Ramallah to revoke the decision to block dozens of websites and pages, describing the step as a serious violation of the freedoms of the press and expression.
Mousa al-Rimawi, director of Mada, said the PA’s decision was taken during the campaign that was recently launched by Mada to defend and raise awareness about digital rights.
Rimawi also pointed out that the PA’s step dealt a blow to the efforts being made by civil society groups to confront Facebook’s systematic closure of Palestinian media pages and removal of Palestinian content.
He said that the PA’s decision in this regard was the second of its kind in two years, noting that there was a similar decision in 2017 that targeted 29 Palestinian websites.
He called for immediately backtracking on such decision, which he said violated the Palestinian basic law and all the international conventions and treaties signed by the PA.
22 oct 2019

The magistrate court in Ramallah has issued a verdict, at the behest of the Palestinian Authority (PA), approving the blocking of 59 Palestinian and Arab websites for alleged security reasons.
One of the prominent websites to be blocked in Palestine is the Palestine Dialog Forum Network, an affiliate of the Palestinian Information Center (PIC).
The Ramallah magistrate court made the decision based on the PA attorney general's claims that the continued publication of these sites threaten national security and civil peace, disturb public order, arouse public opinion and insult PA officials.
The decision only targets Palestinian national websites, while different Israeli websites, which incite against the Palestinian people and disseminate lies about them and their national cause, will not be blocked.
One of the prominent websites to be blocked in Palestine is the Palestine Dialog Forum Network, an affiliate of the Palestinian Information Center (PIC).
The Ramallah magistrate court made the decision based on the PA attorney general's claims that the continued publication of these sites threaten national security and civil peace, disturb public order, arouse public opinion and insult PA officials.
The decision only targets Palestinian national websites, while different Israeli websites, which incite against the Palestinian people and disseminate lies about them and their national cause, will not be blocked.