Israel demanded Google and Amazon use secret 'wink' to sidestep legal orders

2025-10-2913:20915413www.theguardian.com

The tech giants agreed to extraordinary terms to clinch a lucrative contract with the Israeli government, documents show

When Google and Amazon negotiated a major $1.2bn cloud-computing deal in 2021, their customer – the Israeli government – had an unusual demand: agree to use a secret code as part of an arrangement that would become known as the “winking mechanism”.

The demand, which would require Google and Amazon to effectively sidestep legal obligations in countries around the world, was born out of Israel’s concerns that data it moves into the global corporations’ cloud platforms could end up in the hands of foreign law enforcement authorities.

Like other big tech companies, Google and Amazon’s cloud businesses routinely comply with requests from police, prosecutors and security services to hand over customer data to assist investigations.

This process is often cloaked in secrecy. The companies are frequently gagged from alerting the affected customer their information has been turned over. This is either because the law enforcement agency has the power to demand this or a court has ordered them to stay silent.

For Israel, losing control of its data to authorities overseas was a significant concern. So to deal with the threat, 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.

To clinch the lucrative contract, Google and Amazon agreed to the so-called winking mechanism, according to leaked documents seen by the Guardian, as part of a joint investigation with Israeli-Palestinian publication +972 Magazine and Hebrew-language outlet Local Call.

Based on the documents and descriptions of the contract by Israeli officials, the investigation reveals how the companies bowed to a series of stringent and unorthodox “controls” contained within the 2021 deal, known as Project Nimbus. Both Google and Amazon’s cloud businesses have denied evading any legal obligations.

The strict controls include measures that prohibit the US companies from restricting how an array of Israeli government agencies, security services and military units use their cloud services. According to the deal’s terms, the companies cannot suspend or withdraw Israel’s access to its technology, even if it’s found to have violated their terms of service.

Israeli officials inserted the controls to counter a series of anticipated threats. They feared Google or Amazon might bow to employee or shareholder pressure and withdraw Israel’s access to its products and services if linked to human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories.

They were also concerned the companies could be vulnerable to overseas legal action, particularly in cases relating to the use of the technology in the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

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.

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.

As with Microsoft, Google and Amazon’s cloud businesses have faced scrutiny in recent years over the role of their technology – and the Nimbus contract in particular – in Israel’s two-year war on Gaza.

people wear shirts that read ‘Google workers say drop project nimbus’
Ex-Google employees speak about Google’s Project Nimbus at the University of California, Berkeley, in Berkeley, California, on 25 April 2024. Photograph: Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

During its offensive in the territory, where a UN commission of inquiry concluded that Israel has committed genocide, the Israeli military has relied heavily on cloud providers to store and analyse large volumes of data and intelligence information.

One such dataset was the vast collection of intercepted Palestinian calls that until August was stored on Microsoft’s cloud platform. According to intelligence sources, the Israeli military planned to move the data to Amazon Web Services (AWS) datacentres.

Amazon did not respond to the Guardian’s questions about whether it knew of Israel’s plan to migrate the mass surveillance data to its cloud platform. A spokesperson for the company said it respected “the privacy of our customers and we do not discuss our relationship without their consent, or have visibility into their workloads” stored in the cloud.

Asked about the winking mechanism, both Amazon and Google denied circumventing legally binding orders. “The idea that we would evade our legal obligations to the US government as a US company, or in any other country, is categorically wrong,” a Google spokesperson said.

Quick GuideShow

If you have something to share about this story, you can contact Harry Davies and Yuval Abraham using one of the following methods.

Secure Messaging in the Guardian app

The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said.

If you don’t already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select ‘Secure Messaging’.

To send a message to Harry and Yuval please choose the ‘UK Investigations’ team.

Signal Messenger

You can message Harry using the Signal Messenger app. Use the ‘find by username’ option and type hfd.90

Email (not secure)

If you don’t need a high level of security or confidentiality you can email harry.davies@theguardian.com

SecureDrop and other secure methods

If you can safely use the tor network without being observed or monitored you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via our SecureDrop platform.

Finally, our guide at theguardian.com/tips lists several ways to contact us securely, and discusses the pros and cons of each. 

Illustration: Guardian Design / Rich Cousins
Thank you for your feedback.

Referring to statements Google has previously made claiming Israel had agreed to abide by Google policies, the spokesperson added: “We’ve been very clear about the Nimbus contract, what it’s directed to, and the terms of service and acceptable use policy that govern it. Nothing has changed. This appears to be yet another attempt to falsely imply otherwise.”

However, according to the Israeli government documents detailing the controls inserted into the Nimbus agreement, officials concluded they had extracted important concessions from Google and Amazon after the companies agreed to adapt internal processes and “subordinate” their standard contractual terms in favour of Israel’s demands.

A government memo circulated several months after the deal was signed stated: “[The companies] understand the sensitivities of the Israeli government and are willing to accept our requirements.”

How the secret code works

Named after the towering cloud formations, the Nimbus contract – which runs for an initial seven years with the possibility of extension – is a flagship Israeli government initiative to store information from across the public sector and military in commercially owned datacentres.

Even though its data would be stored in Google and Amazon’s newly built Israel-based datacentres, Israeli officials feared developments in US and European laws could create more direct routes for law enforcement agencies to obtain it via direct requests or court-issued subpoenas.

An aerial view of a five very long, two-story buildings alongside what looks like a human-made lake.
An Amazon Web Services datacentre in Stone Ridge, Virginia, on 28 July 2024. Photograph: Nathan Howard/Bloomberg via Getty Images

With this threat in mind, Israeli officials inserted into the Nimbus deal a requirement for the companies to a send coded message – a “wink” – to its government, revealing the identity of the country they had been compelled to hand over Israeli data to, but were gagged from saying so.

Leaked documents from Israel’s finance ministry, which include a finalised version of the Nimbus agreement, suggest the secret code would take the form of payments – referred to as “special compensation” – made by the companies to the Israeli government.

According to the documents, the payments must be made “within 24 hours of the information being transferred” and correspond to the telephone dialing code of the foreign country, amounting to sums between 1,000 and 9,999 shekels.

Under the terms of the deal, the mechanism works like this:

  • If either Google or Amazon provides information to authorities in the US, where the dialing code is +1, and they are prevented from disclosing their cooperation, they must send the Israeli government 1,000 shekels.

  • If, for example, the companies receive a request for Israeli data from authorities in Italy, where the dialing code is +39, they must send 3,900 shekels.

  • If the companies conclude the terms of a gag order prevent them from even signaling which country has received the data, there is a backstop: the companies must pay 100,000 shekels ($30,000) to the Israeli government.

Legal experts, including several former US prosecutors, said the arrangement was highly unusual and carried risks for the companies as the coded messages could violate legal obligations in the US, where the companies are headquartered, to keep a subpoena secret.

“It seems awfully cute and something that if the US government or, more to the point, a court were to understand, I don’t think they would be particularly sympathetic,” a former US government lawyer said.

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.

Israeli officials appear to have acknowledged this, documents suggest. Their demands about how Google and Amazon respond to a US-issued order “might collide” with US law, they noted, and the companies would have to make a choice between “violating the contract or violating their legal obligations”.

Neither Google nor Amazon responded to the Guardian’s questions about whether they had used the secret code since the Nimbus contract came into effect.

“We have a rigorous global process for responding to lawful and binding orders for requests related to customer data,” Amazon’s spokesperson said. “We do not have any processes in place to circumvent our confidentiality obligations on lawfully binding orders.”

Google declined to comment on which of Israel’s stringent demands it had accepted in the completed Nimbus deal, but said it was “false” to “imply that we somehow were involved in illegal activity, which is absurd”.

A spokesperson for Israel’s finance ministry said: “The article’s insinuation that Israel compels companies to breach the law is baseless.”

‘No restrictions’

Israeli officials also feared a scenario in which its access to the cloud providers’ technology could be blocked or restricted.

In particular, officials worried that activists and rights groups could place pressure on Google and Amazon, or seek court orders in several European countries, to force them to terminate or limit their business with Israel if their technology were linked to human rights violations.

To counter the risks, Israel inserted controls into the Nimbus agreement which Google and Amazon appear to have accepted, according to government documents prepared after the deal was signed.

The documents state that the agreement prohibits the companies from revoking or restricting Israel’s access to their cloud platforms, either due to changes in company policy or because they find Israel’s use of their technology violates their terms of service.

Provided Israel does not infringe on copyright or resell the companies’ technology, “the government is permitted to make use of any service that is permitted by Israeli law”, according to a finance ministry analysis of the deal.

Both companies’ standard “acceptable use” policies state their cloud platforms should not be used to violate the legal rights of others, nor should they be used to engage in or encourage activities that cause “serious harm” to people.

However, according to an Israeli official familiar with the Nimbus project, there can be “no restrictions” on the kind of information moved into Google and Amazon’s cloud platforms, including military and intelligence data. The terms of the deal seen by the Guardian state that Israel is “entitled to migrate to the cloud or generate in the cloud any content data they wish”.

Israel inserted the provisions into the deal to avoid a situation in which the companies “decide that a certain customer is causing them damage, and therefore cease to sell them services”, one document noted.

The Intercept reported last year the Nimbus project was governed by an “amended” set of confidential policies, and cited a leaked internal report suggesting Google understood it would not be permitted to restrict the types of services used by Israel.

Last month, when Microsoft cut off Israeli access to some cloud and artificial intelligence services, it did so after confirming reporting by the Guardian and its partners, +972 and Local Call, that the military had stored a vast trove of intercepted Palestinian calls in the company’s Azure cloud platform.

Notifying the Israeli military of its decision, 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.

The Israeli finance ministry spokesperson said Google and Amazon are “bound by stringent contractual obligations that safeguard Israel’s vital interests”. They added: “These agreements are confidential and we will not legitimise the article’s claims by disclosing private commercial terms.”


Read the original article

Comments

  • By rwmj 2025-10-2913:2913 reply

    The method is buried about 60% through the article, but it's interesting. It seems incredibly risky for the cloud companies to do this. Was it agreed by some salespeople without the knowledge of legal / management?

    Leaked documents from Israel’s finance ministry, which include a finalised version of the Nimbus agreement, suggest the secret code would take the form of payments – referred to as “special compensation” – made by the companies to the Israeli government.

    According to the documents, the payments must be made “within 24 hours of the information being transferred” and correspond to the telephone dialing code of the foreign country, amounting to sums between 1,000 and 9,999 shekels.

    If either Google or Amazon provides information to authorities in the US, where the dialing code is +1, and they are prevented from disclosing their cooperation, they must send the Israeli government 1,000 shekels.

    If, for example, the companies receive a request for Israeli data from authorities in Italy, where the dialing code is +39, they must send 3,900 shekels.

    If the companies conclude the terms of a gag order prevent them from even signaling which country has received the data, there is a backstop: the companies must pay 100,000 shekels ($30,000) to the Israeli government.

    • By levi-turner 2025-10-2914:562 reply

      > Was it agreed by some salespeople without the knowledge of legal / management?

      Never worked for either company, but there's a zero percent chance. Legal agrees to bespoke terms and conditions on contracts (or negotiates them) for contracts. How flexible they are to agreeing to exotic terms depends on the dollar value of the contract, but there is no chance that these terms (a) weren't outlined in the contract and (b) weren't heavily scrutinized by legal (and ops, doing paybacks in such a manner likely require work-arounds for their ops and finance teams).

      • By rwmj 2025-10-2915:161 reply

        That's my experience too, but it seems impossible that a competent legal team would have agreed to this.

        • By gadders 2025-10-3017:222 reply

          Legal can advise, but it's ultimately up to the business to risk-accept. If they think the risk vs reward analysis makes it worthwhile, they can overrule legal and proceed.

          • By bostik 2025-10-3019:37

            When advice from legal conflicts with the upcoming sound of ka-ching! the only question that matters is: "how loud is that cashier going to be?"

      • By belter 2025-10-2922:33

        (b) weren't heavily scrutinized by legal ...

        You mean like in financing a ball room?

    • By nitwit005 2025-10-3017:225 reply

      It does seem a bit baffling. This method just adds a second potential crime, in the form of fraudulent payments.

      • By falcor84 2025-10-3020:121 reply

        Why would it be fraudulent in this case? I assume that these would be paid as refunds accounted for as a discount to a particular customer - aren't these generally discretionary? Also, I would assume that it would be the Israeli government getting services from the Israeli subsidiary of that company, so it's not clear whether even if it were a crime, which jurisdiction would have an issue with it.

        You could argue that it's against something like the OECD Anti‑Bribery Convention, but that would be a much more difficult case, given that this isn't a particular foreign official, but essentially a central body of the foreign government.

        Just to clarify, not saying that it's ok, but just that accusing it of being a "crime" might be a category error.

        • By prodigycorp 2025-10-310:311 reply

          Not speaking to the fraudulence of this specific case, but wire fraud is an umbrella term that covers pretty much every non tangible crime.

          It's kind of like how everything can be securities fraud[0]

          bloomberg article: https://archive.is/ixwRi

          • By deaux 2025-10-314:241 reply

            "Everything" here meaning "blatant lying" - and knowingly staying silent on something that obviously has a huge impact on a company is lying - which in corporate America is so normalized that some mistake it for being "everything". Securities fraud is incredibly easy to avoid if executives just stop lying. This soon becomes clear when clicking through the links in the article.

            > Yesterday New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood filed a securities-fraud lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corp. “alleging that the company misled investors regarding the risk that climate change regulations posed to its business.”

            Blatant lying

            > if you are a public company that suffers a massive data breach and exposes sensitive data about millions of customers without their consent, and that data is then used for nefarious purposes, and you find out about the breach, and then you wait for years to disclose it, and when you do disclose it your stock loses tens of billions of dollars of market value, then shareholders are going to sue you for not telling them earlier

            Blatant lying

            The fact that most of this lying (see Exxon) is done under some kind of "nudge nudge, wink wink, we all know what's really going in" doesn't stop it from knowingly lying.

            That knowingly lying is securities fraud seems very logical, and nothing like "everything".

            This is all moot anyway now that the US is no longer interested in upholding any laws against large companies whatsoever.

            • By monerozcash 2025-10-3117:06

              Or like Target? https://www.reuters.com/legal/target-sued-by-florida-defraud...

              Blatant lying also?

              > Yesterday New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood filed a securities-fraud lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corp. “alleging that the company misled investors regarding the risk that climate change regulations posed to its business.”

              >Blatant lying

              Can you elaborate? Looking at the case it seems pretty clear that Exxon did not lie, especially not in any "blatant" manner.

      • By sebzim4500 2025-10-3017:433 reply

        In what sense would the payments be fraudulent? It would be real money paid out of Amazon's accounts as part of a contract they willingly signed with Israel.

        • By master_crab 2025-10-3017:513 reply

          It is two crimes:

          1. Alerting a country to secret actions taken by a third party government (my nation of citizenship, the US, definitely has rules against that)

          2. Passing money to commit a crime. See money laundering.

          Honestly, the second crime seems aggravated and stupid. Just pass random digits in an API call if you want to tell Israel you did something.

          • By pcthrowaway 2025-10-3022:321 reply

            Wouldn't just having 1000 canaries be a "legal" way to do the alerting?

            A government can compel Amazon to avoid notifying a target (Israel in this case) that their information has been subpoenaed, but can't compel Amazon to lie and say it hasn't sent their info.

            Or is the concept of a canary pretty much useless now?

            I'm personally one of the "activists" who is trying to avoid Amazon and Google to a practical degree, due to project Nimbus, so I'd be more than happy if their data could be accessed, and even happier to see Amazon and Google just cut ties with them altogether.

            • By JuniperMesos 2025-10-318:46

              And I'm personally one of the "activists" who is trying to avoid Amazon and Google to a practical degree, because they might be ordered by a foreign government (or my own government) to turn over my data to that government and be legally forbidden from saying that they have been required to do this. Or because they might succumb to activist pressure to deplatform me.

          • By sebzim4500 2025-10-3019:262 reply

            I'm not disputing that the company would be breaking the law by doing this. That's not what fraud is though.

            • By Retric 2025-10-3020:073 reply

              Fraud is intentional deception + criminal intent. The deception comes from using payments as a code instead of say an encrypted channel.

              • By victorbjorklund 2025-10-3020:494 reply

                No, fraud is intentional deception to deprive a victim of a legal right or to gain from a victim unlawfully or unfairly.

                Who exactly here is the victim that gets it legal rights deprived or what is the gain at the expense of the victim?

                • By Spooky23 2025-10-311:423 reply

                  The shareholders of Microsoft or Amazon are deprived of their value.

                  • By victorbjorklund 2025-10-318:041 reply

                    then every crime is fraud. I murder you. Your employers shareholders are deprived of a worker.

                    • By Spooky23 2025-10-3113:191 reply

                      That's reductive and silly. Here's the scenario:

                      1. You work for AWS, probably in account management or billing operations.

                      2. Your "buddy" in legal tells you that a subpeona has been processed that effects an Israeli government affiliated account.

                      3. Your buddy is breaking work rules and the law. You don't report it, as you are required to do. You're now a party to a criminal conspiracy.

                      4. Instead, you arrange for a payment to be made from AWS to an account in some pre-determined amount to communicate the confidential or legally sealed information that you conspired to steal.

                      Let's review. You're engaging in a criminal conspiracy to share restricted, sealed legal information with a foreign government. You are doing so by fraudulently stealing/embezzling money from your employer in a predetermined amount.

                      If that's not clearly understandable to you as a "bad thing" and a fraudulent activity, you're overthinking, lack any sense of law and ethics, are lacking cognitive ability, are a troll, or are just a schill for whatever team you're rooting for.

                      • By dlubarov 2025-10-3118:46

                        > You are doing so by fraudulently stealing/embezzling money from your employer

                        In this scenario Amazon is contractually obligated to pay Israel (unless they determine that they can't legally). If this employee is dutifully fulfilling that obligation in compliance with any relevant company approval process or other policies, then it's certainly not theft or embezzlement.

                        You seem to be adding a twist of "what if this is some random employee, not the one authorized to make the payments"? In that case sure, they might be defrauding their employer, but that has very little to do with the contract that this story was about.

                        It's like saying "what if instead of making the authorized payment to Israel, they keep the cash for themselves, then steal some monitors and assault some colleagues"? We've come up with a hypothetical where crimes are committed, yes, but it's hard to see how Israel would be to blame or would even be relevant.

                  • By jansper39 2025-10-3112:07

                    Google not Microsoft. Microsoft didn't want to implicate themselves apparently.

                  • By jazzyjackson 2025-10-311:57

                    "everything is securities fraud"

                • By toast0 2025-10-314:461 reply

                  In this scheme, the government would be deprived of its legal right to obtain information about a business's customer without the consent or knowledge of said customer.

                  In many/most? cases, a customer can be notified and can attempt to block such information gathering, but there are also many where it's not permitted.

                  • By victorbjorklund 2025-10-318:031 reply

                    then pretty much every crime is ”fraud”. You are wrong.

                    • By Retric 2025-10-3112:38

                      No, speeding and nearly every other traffic offense is just brazenly doing the thing. There’s no deception required to facilitate drunk and disorderly conduct, trespassing, dumping your sofa by the side of the road, or just walk up to someone and start beating on them.

                      Really most crimes don’t require deception.

                • By Retric 2025-10-3022:151 reply

                  IE criminal intent vs criminal activity, critically the criminal activity only needs to be intended not actually occur for it to be fraud. Specifying which criminal intent is applicable is reasonable but nothing I said was incorrect.

                  The victims are the people being deprived of their legal protections.

                  Not everyone agrees which information should be protected but sending information can be a form of harm. If I break into your bank, find all your financial transactions, and post it on Facebook, I have harmed you.

                  Courts imposing gag orders over criminal or civil matters is a critical protection, and attempting to violate those gag orders is harm. The specific victims aren’t known, but they intend for there to be victims.

                  • By victorbjorklund 2025-10-318:051 reply

                    so which intent of benefit at the cost of which victim do you claim that Aws had when they committed the crime?

                    • By Retric 2025-10-3112:42

                      The payoff for AWS is the contract itself. Ultimately, it’s Israel that benefits from this information but being paid by your employer to commit fraud in a call center counts even if you’re not getting a cut of that specific victim.

              • By gmueckl 2025-10-3020:222 reply

                IANAL, but all criminal definitions of fraud that I am aware of require an intention to harm to a victim. It's kind of hard to argue that sending money fulfills this criteria.

                • By adriand 2025-10-310:442 reply

                  The harm is not to the recipient of the funds in this case, but to the investigating authorities, who have had the secrecy of their subpoena compromised.

                  There is wide latitude in the criminal code to charge financial crimes. This reminds me a bit of Trump's hush money conviction. IIRC, a central issue was how the payment was categorized in his books. In this case, there would be a record of this payment to Israel in the books, but the true nature of the payment would be concealed. IANAL, but I believe that is legally problematic.

                  • By dlubarov 2025-10-313:011 reply

                    The investigating authorities aren't being defrauded though; making someone's job harder isn't fraud. Google or Amazon could be committing other crimes,[1] but not fraud.

                    [1] If they actually violated a gag order, which realistically they won't. In all likelihood there's language to ensure they're not forced to commit crimes. Even if that wasn't explicit, the illegality doctrine covers them anyway, and they can just ignore any provisions which would require them to commit crimes.

                    • By coldtea 2025-10-3110:381 reply

                      >The investigating authorities aren't being defrauded though; making someone's job harder isn't fraud.

                      It can very well be, and it's called obstruction of justice.

                      Though in this case, the real crime is treason. Those companies collaborate with a foreign government against their own.

                      • By dlubarov 2025-10-3114:48

                        > obstruction of justice

                        Possibly, depending on intent. But even if so, obstruction of justice is not fraud.

                        > the real crime is treason

                        This hypothetical crime (which I'd say is highly unlikely to occur) would definitely not be treason, which has a narrow legal definition. We're not at war with Israel.

                  • By NoMoreNicksLeft 2025-10-314:08

                    This is a bizarre reddit-brained legal theory.

                    Almost all crime requires some form of lying, at least by omission and often of the explicit sort. Fraud though, is much more narrow than "they deceived but also crimed"... and anyone saying otherwise should be so embarrassed that we never have to hear their halfwittery ever again.

                • By Retric 2025-10-3022:182 reply

                  Americans get legal protections for their private health data because the disclosure of such information is considered harmful.

                  Other countries provide legal protections for other bits of information because disclosure of that information is considered harmful to the individual, it’s that protection they are trying to breach which thus harms the person.

                  • By gmueckl 2025-10-3022:491 reply

                    How is this related to the fraud discussion in this thread? Illegal disckosure of confidential information is usually handled by a separate legal framework.

                    • By Retric 2025-10-3022:58

                      Stuff is generally also fraud rather than only being fraud. We don’t know the details of what else happened so we can’t say what other crimes occurred.

                      Same deal as most illegal things public companies do also being SEC violations.

                  • By immibis 2025-10-3023:262 reply

                    The other person is saying that disclosure of health data in violation of HIPAA wouldn't be fraud. It would be a HIPAA violation, not fraud.

                    • By Retric 2025-10-310:51

                      The same action can break multiple laws. Unlawful discharge of a firearm is a crime, but it can also kill someone and thus break a different law. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03107.htm

                      Here we don’t know which specific laws were broken because we lack details, but the companies definitely signed a contract agreeing to commit fraud.

                      Anyway, the comment I responded to had “require an intention to harm to a victim” it’s that aspect I was addressing. My point was the transmission of information itself can be harmful to someone other than the recipient of that information. So the same act fulfills both aspects of fraud (deception + criminal intent), and also breaks some other law.

                    • By Spooky23 2025-10-311:48

                      It depends on the context. I’ve gathered evidence to support prosecution of an individual disclosing PHI who was doing so to facilitate criminal acts.

              • By LorenPechtel 2025-10-3121:37

                But this is a signaling system, not a meaningful transfer of money.

          • By einpoklum 2025-10-317:06

            > (my nation of citizenship, the US, definitely has rules against that)

            US rules are, unfortunately, nortoriously and outlandishly broken whenever it comes to Israel: Foreign Agent Registration Act, the Leahy Law, and probably a bunch of others as well.

        • By Spooky23 2025-10-311:41

          The payments are an act of fraud as they deprive the company of resources for no tangible business purpose. No contract authorizes the use of payments to bypass communications controls and exfiltrate data.

          The act of communicating privileged or sealed information on itself is at minimum contempt of court and perhaps theft of government property, wire fraud or other crimes. Typically accounts payable aren’t aware of evidence gathering or discovery, so the actor is also facing conspiracy or other felonies.

      • By Yeul 2025-10-3111:54

        Lol are we still pretending laws are more than ink on a paper?

        No laws require prosecution and enforcement. Western countries shield Israel from all of that.

      • By DeathArrow 2025-10-317:24

        Who is going to prosecute those crimes?

    • By 8note 2025-10-3017:381 reply

      > If either Google or Amazon provides information to authorities in the US, where the dialing code is +1, and they are prevented from disclosing their cooperation, they must send the Israeli government 1,000 shekels.

      its a buggy method, considering canada also uses +1, and a bunch of countries look like they use +1 but dont, like barbados +1(246) using what looks like an area code as part of the country code.

      • By toast0 2025-10-3019:04

        > its a buggy method, considering canada also uses +1, and a bunch of countries look like they use +1 but dont, like barbados +1(246) using what looks like an area code as part of the country code.

        You are correct that ITU code is not specific enough to identify a country, but I'm sorry, +1 is the ITU country code for the North American Numbering Plan Area. 246 is the NANPA area code for Barbados (which only has one area code) but as a NANPA member, Barbados' country code is +1, same as the rest of the members. There is no '+1246' country code.

        There's not a lot of countries that are in a shared numbering plan other than NANPA, but for example, Khazakstan and Russia share +7 (Of course, the USSR needed a single digit country code, or there would have been a country code gap), and many of the former Netherland Antilles share +599, although Aruba has +297, and Sint Maarten is in +1 (with NANPA Area code 721)

    • By coliveira 2025-10-3022:342 reply

      It's a criminal scheme to spy on law enforcement. Both the company and the scheming country are committing crimes.

      • By dodomodo 2025-10-315:452 reply

        spy on law enforcement that spy on your government, seem like a fair game

        • By yehat 2025-10-317:481 reply

          Does that apply for China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Brazil and so on?

          • By BeFlatXIII 2025-10-3115:40

            That's how competition works, yes.

        • By Frieren 2025-10-316:47

          This is not about spying, but fighting money laundering, persecuting war criminals, even common crimes.

          To spy on law enforcement that is trying to fight crime is not a good thing. Israel is not the world police.

      • By dummydummy1234 2025-10-3022:372 reply

        Can a country commit a crime?

        • By marcosdumay 2025-10-3023:281 reply

          No, it's the government that commits it.

          People use the country = government metaphor as a shortcut for communication, but this one takes it further than usual.

          • By blharr 2025-10-313:241 reply

            > country = government metaphor

            This will probably never be particularly useful, but this figure of speech is a "synecdoche" (a "metonymy" instead of a "metaphor")

            • By brookst 2025-10-314:49

              As long as we’re being pedantic, synecdoche means referring to part as the whole (nice wheels = car, nice threads = clothes).

              Saying the US did something when referring to the government is metonymy, but not synecdoche.

        • By largbae 2025-10-3023:331 reply

          Extradition by tectonic subduction

    • By alt187 2025-10-312:021 reply

      Obviously illegal lowbrow schemes asixe, it's hilarious that the company has to SEND money to Israel to notify them of a breach.

      • By hsuduebc2 2025-10-312:221 reply

        It seems weirdly complicated. At this point I would assume it's much easier and secure just to bribe someone to tell them directly. This is like roleplay of secret sleeper agents during the cold war.

        • By alt187 2025-10-3110:22

          Maybe they just really need the 555 shekels or so.

    • By Havoc 2025-10-3017:36

      Very much doubt something this hot in an agreement with a foreign government as counterparty gets signed off by some random salesman

    • By JumpCrisscross 2025-10-3017:483 reply

      > If either Google or Amazon provides information to authorities in the US, where the dialing code is +1, and they are prevented from disclosing their cooperation, they must send the Israeli government 1,000 shekels

      This is criminal conspiracy. It's fucking insane that they not only did this, but put the crime in writing.;

      • By tgsovlerkhgsel 2025-10-3023:38

        I'm always surprised how often crimes get put in writing in big companies, often despite the same companies having various "don't put crimes in writing" trainings.

      • By NewJazz 2025-10-314:081 reply

        To be fair it is not necessarily true that they did this. Devil's advocate (emphasis on the devil part) -- google and amazon may have agreed to do this / put it in the contract but never followed through.

        • By Cheer2171 2025-10-315:401 reply

          It is criminal conspiracy, a federal felony in the US, if you contract to commit a crime. Conspiracy is a standalone crime on its own, independent if the contracted crime is never carried out (in breach of contract).

          The mob tried your argument generations ago. It never worked.

          • By voganmother42 2025-10-3111:28

            The US Gov effectively is the mob now, laws don’t matter anymore

      • By cess11 2025-10-3111:47

        They publicly agreed to do genocide, having a slightly criminal communications protocol in a contract on the side amounts to an ethical rounding error.

    • By Spooky23 2025-10-311:36

      I’d assume they have agents inside the companies smoothing the way or even running interference against any inconvenient questions.

    • By IshKebab 2025-10-2919:411 reply

      > If the companies conclude the terms of a gag order prevent them from even signaling which country has received the data, there is a backstop: the companies must pay 100,000 shekels ($30,000) to the Israeli government.

      Uhm doesn't that mean that Google and Amazon can easily comply with US law despite this agreement?

      There must be more to it though, otherwise why use this super suss signaling method?

      • By skeeter2020 2025-10-3017:56

        How can they comply with a law that forbids disclosing information was shared, by doing just that? THe fact it's a simply kiddie code instead of explicit communication doesn't allow you to side step the law.

    • By outside415 2025-10-3021:40

      [dead]

    • By shevy-java 2025-10-3017:221 reply

      I don't quite understand this. How much money would Israel be able to milk from this? It can't be that much, can it?

      • By sebzim4500 2025-10-3017:391 reply

        It's not about money, it's about sending information while arguably staying within the letter of US law

        • By ceejayoz 2025-10-3018:002 reply

          Kinda similar to a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary, with the same untested potential for "yeah that's not allowed and now you're in even more trouble".

          • By dredmorbius 2025-10-3020:301 reply

            Are there any instances anyone knows of in which a warrant canary has been found to violate antidisclosure law?

            (Australia apparently outlaws the practice, see: <https://boingboing.net/2015/03/26/australia-outlaws-warrant-...>.)

          • By cogman10 2025-10-312:16

            Except this is an affirmative action. Warrant canaries are simply removing from the TOS that the company has not/will not interact with law enforcement.

            This is directly violating gag orders. Passing a message, even if it's encrypted or obfuscated is absolutely illegal. The article is a little BS as this sort of thing has been tested in court.

            The only reason warrant canaries are in the gray zone is because they are specifically crafted that the business has to remove their cooperation clause to keep the ToS contract valid.

            There's nothing like that at play here. It's literally "Just break the gag order, here's our secret handshake".

    • By tzahifadida 2025-10-317:35

      I don't understand these legal mambo jumbo, but lets make it simpler. Israel and the US have a tight intelligence agreements. No one have to keep secrets since they share information readily. That is what it means to be friends. Israel is the best outpost for western influence in the Middle East, and the US have a strategic need to maintain that to oppose forces such as China, Russia and Iran axis. There is no need for bribes or anything like that to get intelligence from both sides... The last time they started lying to each other was disastrous and henceforth I believe the relationship is stable. Not to mention it includes European powers, even though they are happy to defame Israel, they share intelligence, participate in joint operations and buy a huge amount of arms and technology from Israel and sell arms to Israel. So don't let the media fool you...

  • By gruez 2025-10-2913:376 reply

    >Under the terms of the deal, the mechanism works like this:

    > If either Google or Amazon provides information to authorities in the US, where the dialing code is +1, and they are prevented from disclosing their cooperation, they must send the Israeli government 1,000 shekels.

    This sounds like warrant canaries but worse. At least with warrant canaries you argue that you can't compel speech, but in this case it's pretty clear to any judge that such payments constitute disclosure or violation of gag order, because you're taking a specific action that results in the target knowing the request was made.

    • By godelski 2025-10-311:482 reply

        > This sounds like warrant canaries
      
      It's not. This is direct communication.

      A warrant canary works by removing information, not by transmitting it. You put up a sign like "The FBI has not issued a warrant" and then remove it if they do, even if there is a gag order stating you cannot disclose that they issued you a warrant. This only works because you have not told anyone that a warrant has been issued but they must infer that the missing canary implies such a warrant has been dispatched.

        > but in this case it's pretty clear to any judge that such payments constitute disclosure
      
      Agreed. This is direct. It is like putting up a posting "The FBI *has* issued a warrant". Which this would be in direct violation of a gag order. Their codes are even differentiating who the issuer is. I'm pretty confident a comprehensive set of warrant canaries detailing every agency would not comply with gag orders either as this leaves little ambiguity. But this isn't even doing that. It is just straight up direct communication.

      I think what is funniest is that it could have been much more secret. When I saw the reference in the intro to payments I was thinking "don't tell me they're so dumb they're coding info like Costco". That they'd use the cents to detail access. Like .99 for all clear and .98 for access. But that's not "clever" at all lol

      • By eviks 2025-10-315:422 reply

        > warrant canary works by removing information, not by transmitting it.

        You transmit information by changing the content of the transmission, basically just like any communication works

        > This only works

        do you know that? Haven't heard of it actually working in any high profile case.

        > because you have not told anyone that a warrant has been issued

        you have told them explicitly by agreeing to a scheme both parties understand and by enacting the message change under said scheme. You basically just used some encoding to hide the plain message

        • By gblargg 2025-10-316:42

          I think a canary works by having a date it was last updated and expiration date, and you just stop updating it if the condition no longer holds. You don't modify it if the event occurs, because then you are making a barred communication.

        • By godelski 2025-10-3118:32

            > You transmit information by changing the content of the transmission
          
          That's incorrect.

          First off, you're using the word in the definition. You can't use "transmit" to define "transmit". A transmission is the noun variation of transmit (verb).

          Second off, a transmission is *active*

          Think about radio. If I am constantly producing a 440kHz signal then I'm transmitting a signal. If I'm not producing the signal, I'm not transmitting.

          You are not considered to be transmitting unless you are holding down the button to send the signal.

          That's how a canary works. You're constantly transmitting a signal (the canary is constantly singing) and then all of a sudden it goes quiet. You have stopped transmission.

          Does this communicate? Yes. But what it communicates is ambiguous. Maybe the canary just went to sleep. Maybe it starved to death instead of getting carbon dioxide poisoning. It does not provide an unambiguous truth.

          That reasonable deniability is the reason a canary works. You can claim it was taken down for other reasons, such as an accident. Those reasons have to be believable and justifiable. Mind you, a warrant canary can work like going down in one commit and up in the next, happening over a small period of time. A canary does not need to work by continuous existence or continuous absence.

          Canaries also frequently work by having expirations (which is closer to how you're thinking, but still follow the same abstraction discussed above). It has to be manually updated or modified. For example I could add the canary "godelski hasn't been raided by the FBI: signed 31 oct 2025 expires 7 Nov 2025". Were that message to still exist exactly on Nov 7th (and it will because I can't edit comments outside a time window) then you can conclude that my canary expired. You can't conclude I was raided by the FBI. You should be suspicious, but you can't be positive. Maybe I just can't update comments...

          This isn't to be conflated with the way we transmit information is through variation, such as high and low in binary. Technically while you're talking you make pauses and "stop talking" several times while saying a single word. But we say you're talking until you stop "transmitting" or complete. If this pause wasn't included then the dead would still speak and your annoying uncle would never shut up

      • By sillysaurusx 2025-10-312:201 reply

        What happens if in the gag order they explicitly forbid the target from removing warrant canaries, and give examples of existing ones?

        I’ve always wondered. It seems just as easy for authorities to forbid removing canaries as it is to forbid telling someone something.

        EDIT: ah, this is explained downthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45763032

        • By godelski 2025-10-3118:41

          Yeah there's lots of ways to implement them but expiration is very common.

          I guess you can technically be compelled to update your canary. But the main idea is to make it hard to compel the action that results in the canary existing. But don't ask me, like most HN users IANAL

    • By mikeyouse 2025-10-2914:133 reply

      This reads like something a non-lawyer who watched too many bad detective movies would dream up. Theres absolutely no way this would pass legal muster —- even warrant canaries are mostly untested, but this is clearly like 5x ‘worse’ for the reasons you point out.

      • By randallsquared 2025-10-2915:003 reply

        From the article:

        > Several experts described the mechanism as a “clever” workaround that could comply with the letter of the law but not its spirit.

        It's not clear to me how it could comply with the letter of the law, but evidently at least some legal experts think it can? That uncertainty is probably how it made it past the legal teams in the first place.

        • By AstralStorm 2025-10-2915:121 reply

          Warrant canary depends on agreed upon inaction, which shields it somewhat. You cannot exactly compel speech by a gag order.

          This, being an active process, if found out, is violating a gag order by direct action.

          • By votepaunchy 2025-10-2916:372 reply

            Warrant canaries depend on action, the removal or altering of the canary document. It’s too clever but no more clever than what Israel is requiring here.

            • By 8note 2025-10-3018:012 reply

              the canary notification method is a lack of updates, not a specific update.

              you update your canary to say that nothing has changed, at a known cadence.

              if you ever dont make the update, readers know that the canary has expired, and so you have been served a gag order warrant.

              changing or removing the canary in response to a warrant is illegal. not changing it is legal.

              for an equivalent cloudwatch setup, its checking the flag for "alarm when there's no points"

              • By Fnoord 2025-10-317:16

                Yes, the equivalent of a warning canary would be that Google pays the Israeli government a set of payment every month such as 3100 shekels (for +31, NL) and then suddenly November 2025 they stop issuing it. That would mean there's a legal investigation targeting Google by the Dutch prosecutor (OM) involving Israeli data.

                I suspect they didn't go for this route as it is too slow.

              • By verdverm 2025-10-3019:223 reply

                I would think to stopping doing something is equally an action as to do something, in regards to warrant canaries and gag orders. You had to take make some change to your process, or if automated take an actual action to disable. In either case, there was a cognizant choice that was made

                • By nkrisc 2025-10-3020:02

                  The legal theory is that in the US the first amendment prevents the government from forcing you to make a false update. I don’t know if it’s ever been tested.

                  As I understand, this theory wouldn’t even hold up in other countries where you could be compelled to make such a false update.

                • By hrimfaxi 2025-10-3019:324 reply

                  Yes but the theory, at least in the US, is that the government cannot compel you to say something. That is, they can't make you put up a notice.

                  • By joshuamorton 2025-10-3021:132 reply

                    More specifically, the theory is that cannot compel you to lie, there are all kinds of cases where businesses are compelled to share specific messages.

                    • By Andrex 2025-10-3022:25

                      Ah, that was confusing to me. Thank you.

                  • By verdverm 2025-10-3021:451 reply

                    yea, I get that, but my gut tells me this doesn't pass the sniff test

                    It's a choice you make and action you take either way, be it not updating a canary or sending a covert financial transaction

                    That it has not been tested in court is why it's still a "theory" (hypothesis?)

                    My hope is that a jury of our peers would stay closer to the spirit than the letter of the law

                    • By kortilla 2025-10-315:49

                      Inaction is not action.

                • By shkkmo 2025-10-3021:16

                  And this would be why warrant canaries aren't seen as a proven legal shield yet.

            • By gruez 2025-10-2917:201 reply

              >Warrant canaries depend on action, the removal or altering of the canary document.

              No, they can simply not publish a warrant canary in the future, which will tip people off if they've been publishing it regularly in the past.

              • By mikeyouse 2025-10-2917:301 reply

                Right - the whole premise is that the government cannot compel speech (in the US). So if you publish something every week that says, “we’ve never been subpoenaed as of this week” and then receive a subpoena, the government can’t force you to lie and publish the same note afterwards. The lack of it being published is the canary here.

                • By d1sxeyes 2025-10-3018:151 reply

                  Whether you can be compelled to lie under these circumstances or not is not a resolved question of law. Although it seems fairly likely that compelling speech in this way is unconstitutional, if it has been tested in court, the proceedings are not public.

                  • By lazide 2025-10-3019:30

                    Good thing no one is doing anything unconstitutional right now?

        • By YZF 2025-10-311:341 reply

          When those experts are not named one could wonder if they even exist. Why would a journalist not reveal the name of an expert who is consulting on a matter of law?

          • By cogman10 2025-10-312:201 reply

            Not to get super conspiratorial, but I think this is almost certainly a weasel statement simply to avoid directly accusing Israel/google/amazon of breaking the law.

            I can't imagine any "legal expert" dumb enough to say you can violate a gag order if you use numbers instead of words.

            • By dlubarov 2025-10-312:52

              In all likelihood there's just language like "to the extent permitted by law", which The Guardian isn't telling us about. Even if they didn't write that explicitly, it's implied anyway - Israel knows any US court would void any provision requiring Google/Amazon to commit criminal acts (illegality doctrine). It's also not really possible for Israel to be break laws of foreign states, since it's not bound by them in the first place.

        • By joe_the_user 2025-10-316:01

          Ah, I think I get it. Violating the spirit of a law can be, often is, enough to get you convicted of a crime. Arguably more often than violating the letter of the law but not it's spirit.

          However, if a judge dodesn't want to find someone guilty, "not violating the letter of the law" can provide a fig leaf for the friendly judge.

      • By tdeck 2025-10-2923:312 reply

        This only works for Israel because members of the Israeli government expect to be above the law. They need to offer only the flimsiest pretext to get away with anything. Look what happened with Tom Alexandrovich.

        • By tdeck 2025-10-311:53

          Just jumping in to point out that thus had 6 points before the hasbada bots swooped in and now it's at 1.

        • By Andrex 2025-10-3022:291 reply

          From reading the Wiki, it seems like the state cops (who were somehow in charge of the case) forgot to take his passport when they arrested him, and then he just fled after he paid bail?

          Is there any evidence he was helped in his escape by anyone? Genuinely asking (and genuinely seeking hard facts and data).

          • By tdeck 2025-10-3023:321 reply

            He was interviewed by the feds after his arrest and mentioned his upcoming flight in the interview transcript but still was allowed to leave the country.

            • By Andrex 2025-10-311:26

              Right, because his passport wasn't confiscated. I still err on this being stupidity by the Clark County cops in the lack of further information.

      • By puttycat 2025-10-2919:277 reply

        Agree that there's something fishy/missing in this story. Never say never, but I find it extremely unlikely that Google/Amazon lawyers, based in the US, would agree to such a blatantly mafia-like scheme.

        • By potatototoo99 2025-10-3019:25

          First day on this planet?

        • By YZF 2025-10-311:373 reply

          There is no way a US company would enter this sort of deal with Israel where they promise to circumvent a gag order. The money isn't worth going to jail for and the execs signing the deal would go to jail and they have little to benefit from. Story has no sources and makes no sense. Either the Guardian is reporting some rumor or they're just making stuff up.

          • By layman51 2025-10-311:52

            Is it really that difficult to believe it could be accurate? If we take at face value what has been written about other big tech companies (mainly thinking of Facebook) as they grew their relationship in countries such as the People’s Republic of China, we also see they had to sweeten the deal by giving the government more power over how they could use the services.

            I do think it’s kind of a different situation though because apparently the employees of Facebook could have gotten into legal trouble in those other countries they were trying to expand into.

          • By int_19h 2025-10-316:23

            Nobody is going to jail for this, and they know it.

          • By moogly 2025-10-311:44

            Larry Ellison, biggest private donor to the IDF, enters the chat.

        • By t0lo 2025-10-2922:06

          It's certainly very interesting and difficult to explain...

        • By deanCommie 2025-10-3019:12

          Wouldn't the lawyers be based in Israel - under some Israel-based shell/subsidiary of Google/Amazon, that owns the data centers, and complies with local law?

        • By wahnfrieden 2025-10-3023:52

          I don't know about Google but Amazon works with lawyers and other roles to routinely operate illegal union-busting strategies. It is blatantly illegal behavior that they use all their might to get away with. I don't know why you would find it so unbelievably surprising that they would do illegal mafia-like things.

        • By belter 2025-10-2922:36

          > a blatantly mafia-like scheme.

          Yeap...they would never do it ....

          "Tech, crypto, tobacco, other companies fund Trump’s White House ballroom" - https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/23/trump-ballroom-dono...

        • By worik 2025-10-3019:29

          > I find it extremely unlikely that Google/Amazon lawyers, based in the US, would agree to such a blatantly mafia-like scheme.

          I trust The Guardian. So I agree It was unlikely. I find it very sad

          Very sad

    • By Zigurd 2025-10-3019:542 reply

      It's a "cute" mechanism. The lawyers and the companies they work for found this to be an acceptable thing to put in a contract, when doing so could be interpreted as conspiring to evade the law. Did they get any assurances that they wouldn't get in trouble for doing this?

      • By somenameforme 2025-10-314:331 reply

        I don't think evade the law is the right term, at least if we stick with tax analogs. Clearly the goal was to 'avoid' the law. Doing something that avoids legal obligations is legal, doing something that evades them is illegal.

        • By Zigurd 2025-10-3114:341 reply

          It's evasion. And it is arguably a conspiracy, since the other party in the contract is complicit in crafting language that gets around an anti-terrorism law. It's serious and wrong.

          • By somenameforme 2025-10-3116:401 reply

            It's evasion based on what? To say that with any degree of certainty you'd need to have immense knowledge in the esoteric of the balance of US laws, international treaties, and more. Even that is probably not enough as the exact bounds and constraints of laws can be somewhat ambiguous especially when they start interacting with other laws. And then on top of all of this need to start factoring in sovereign immunity, the interplay with Israel Laws and Google, and countless other things.

            And while 'anti-terrorism' is the pretext for these secret courts, secret orders, and other nonsense - in reality I expect they've done extremely little to actually stop terrorists. Yet it's certainly created a system where even a defacto Western/allied bloc government is worried that their data is going to be secretly seized. It's quite dystopic, all done in the name of errorism.

            • By Zigurd 2025-10-3120:531 reply

              The law can be bad at the same time as contracts like this are the embodiment of a conspiracy to break that law.

              • By somenameforme 2025-11-013:35

                And how would you contrast that against intentionally structuring your income, in collaboration with foreign institutions and carefully designed/funded shell entities where do you things like [defacto] license your own tech to yourself, all in a effort to avoid tax obligations? Would you not call that a 'conspiracy to avoid taxes'? And it's 100% legal, because everything is legal if not explicitly outlawed.

      • By rainonmoon 2025-10-3023:59

        If you're working with the people Amazon works with, the risk assessment isn't "Will we get in trouble for this?" it's "When we get in trouble for this, can we defend it on legal grounds?" Given that even the American spooks cited in this article are defending this blatantly immoral and obscene trespass, obviously Amazon's lawyers have reason to believe they can.

    • By skeeter2020 2025-10-3017:59

      The key with a canary is that the thing you're trying to signal ensures the positive or negative signal itself, like "I will check in every 24 hours as long as everything is good, because if I'm not good I won't be able to check in.". THis is just a very thin, very simple code translation. It's like saying "if you get a request for our info, blink 3 times!"

    • By ncr100 2025-10-3118:20

      This feels like an "intentional self-stereotyping / Self-Mocking" technique to employ.

    • By hex4def6 2025-10-3017:372 reply

      Yeah.

      I mean, why pay the money? Why not just skip the payment and email a contact "1,000"? Or perhaps "Interesting article about in the Times about the USA, wink wink"?

      This method is deliberately communicating information in a way that (I assume) is prohibited. It doesn't seem like it would take a judge much time to come to the conclusion that the gag order prohibits communication.

      Creating a secret code is still communication, whether that's converting letters A=1, B=2, sending a video of someone communicating it in sign language, a painting of the country, writing an ethereum contract, everyday sending a voicemail with a list of all the countries in the world from A to Z, but omitting the one(s) that have the gag / warrant...

      • By LorenPechtel 2025-10-3121:43

        I think the point here is to ensure they are legally compelled to make the payment. They can't admit to the gag order, but the existence of the gag order compels them to pay the 1,000 shekels, does the gag order compel them to not pay what they owe??

      • By skeeter2020 2025-10-3018:031 reply

        If you ever dealt with the laws around exporting technology to specific jurisidictions, this would be like saying "We can convert the algorithm code to Python and THEN export it to North Korea!"

        • By tgsovlerkhgsel 2025-10-3023:41

          One of the earliest example would be "we can print PGP as a book and then..."

  • By helsinkiandrew 2025-10-2913:293 reply

    So if a government agency or court (presumably the US government) makes a data request with a non disclosure order (FBI NSL, FISA, SCA) - Google and Amazon would break that non disclosure order and tell Israel.

    Wouldn't those involved be liable to years in prison?

    • By alwa 2025-10-2914:22

      I imagine it depends on which country makes that request, its legal basis, and how their gag order is written.

      I find it hard to imagine a federal US order wouldn’t proscribe this cute “wink” payment. (Although who knows? If a state or locality takes it upon themselves to raid a bit barn, can their local courts bind transnational payments or is that federal jurisdiction?)

      But from the way it’s structured—around a specific amount of currency corresponding to a dialing code of the requesting nation—it sure sounds like they’re thinking more broadly.

      I could more easily imagine an opportunistic order—say, from a small neighboring state compelling a local contractor to tap an international cable as it crosses their territory—to accommodate the “winking” disclosure: by being either so loosely drafted or so far removed from the parent company’s jurisdiction as to make the $billions contract worth preserving this way.

    • By breppp 2025-10-3017:201 reply

      and your assumption is that if Google has conflicting legal obligations to the USA and Israel it will choose Israel...

      In my opinion that's extremely unlikely. This was probably set up for other kinds of countries

    • By IAmBroom 2025-10-2914:551 reply

      In a nation that strictly follows its own laws, sure.

HackerNews