Microsoft's ICC blockade: digital dependence comes at a cost
111 comments
·May 19, 2025bawolff
While i strongly disagree with the usa's sanctions on the ICC, i'm very surprised that the ICC has to rely on american cloud providers.
It seems like a court, especially one dealing with international crimes where international esponage seems quite likely, should have in-house tech. It seems like being fully independent would be really important. Sort of in the same way i would expect e.g. the eu gov not to be dependent on a foreign cloud provider either (have no idea if they are or not)
anotheracc3
ICC doesn't have a country though. Wherever it is based may have to be investigated.
Pragmatically though - yeah after Snowden US is not a good choice.
YZF
The entire west participates in the kind of monitoring.
So obviously then China is the right place for the ICC to be hosted. I'm sure the UN can pass that.
ChocolateGod
https://bgp.he.net/dns/icc-cpi.int
They're also using Cloudflare for both DNS and a CDN.
chvid
We need Europeans need to rid ourselves from American big tech used in government functions. This is simply unacceptable.
m463
Americans would like the same thing.
Just off the top of my head, accessing the IRS website (taxes) gets tracked by google. Windows keeps trying to pull everything online. Americans don't get separate apple app stores.
It goes on and on.
jopsen
The US and Europe is tightly integrated, this integration can be used as leveraged. Especially, since we've allowed the US to play the bigger brother in most of these relationships.
But you can only use this in a big way once. And all parties have pretty much assumed the US would never use its leverage as Trump has been doing.
The same way we dare invest in the US stock marked, because we're confident the US won't do a Cuba-style nationalization of private assets.
Obviously, the orange man is gambling EU won't decouple from the US. He might be right, this probably isn't big enough.
Decoupling all systems is expensive, it cheaper to wait 4 years.
That said, the orange man did get EU defense investment -- the investments are just not being made in the US.
Sadly, I don't think anyone will decouple, people still laugh at the idea of using LibreOffice.
miki123211
Laughing at Libre (Open) Office is so early 2000s. Now people laugh at anything which isn't as collaborative as Google Docs.
pjmlp
If it is only four years, too many people are confident this administration is willing to bet losing elections.
9283409232
> Decoupling all systems is expensive, it cheaper to wait 4 years.
People who say this haven't internalized how much shit the US is in. In the absolute best case scenario where there is a fair election and the Democrats retake the federal government, the decisions made over the next 4 years will have harrowing effects throughout the world that will take decades to recover from.
In the most likely case scenario, Republicans will continue trying to expand their fascist power and suppress the judiciary and their stranglehold on Congress so they can effectively remain in power indefinitely.
delusional
I can only imagine what's going to happen in 4 years. The current administration has opened a can of worms that is not easily closed. Once you start sending people to torture prisons, once you start defying lawful orders, people are going to be scared that this same power can be used against them.
Imagine what you would do if you thought weakness could leave you no recourse if you were sent to the gulags? How ruthless and self serving would you get?
pessimizer
Imagine thinking the US just started sending people to torture prisons now. We had a worldwide network of black sites just to torture people, destroyed all the videotapes, pardoned all the torturers, and made the person who destroyed the tapes the head of the CIA a few years later.
> once you start defying lawful orders, people are going to be scared that this same power can be used against them.
I feel like people only born yesterday could say this. There has been a bipartisan push for an Executive unfettered by the legislature since 9/11, and extreme partisans just point at each other. You're both right.
Andrex
Honestly, Microsoft needs to stay the hell away from the US Gov, too.
https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/01/microsoft-network-b...
null
somanyphotons
It's also the only way for the EU to jumpstart it's own silicon valley.
Look at how silicon valley was bootstrapped through government expenditure.
PaulHoule
I want to see: (1) an open source privacy first web browser engine funded by the EU and (2) EU to mandate interoperability in "chat" and video conferencing applications.
charcircuit
Chromium is already a suitable open source browser engine that a privacy focused browser product could be built on top of.
megous
No, I don't want EU tech VC oligarchy. I just want to avoid big tech SaaS regardless of where it's from.
I've been quite happy with smaller local services for a loong time. Started using them in 2004 when I got my first website and aside from short try of gmail when it was still free, always used them.
ajsnigrutin
EU can't even solve some tracking cookies, how will they/we create an europeran (-alternative to-) google?
pempem
To me, the real question is in the last sentence of the post: "the question is, however, whether they are enterprise-ready, secure, and fully sovereign"
The ICC is incredibly important, incredibly young and global. Shifting this to europe would not solve the problem.
If the ICC was able to have a contract with a fully sovereign supplier, that would be a whole new can of worms. It would be a matter of time (hours? days?) until a fully sovereign corporation put its profits above its negative impact on people.
More than that, how does an organization funded by a group of nations avoid the budget becoming politicized?
The issue is complex and the silver bullet is hard to find.
SllX
> The ICC is incredibly important, incredibly young and global. Shifting this to europe would not solve the problem.
Well it’s incredibly young, but it is neither incredibly important seeing as how the premise of the court is suspect nor global seeing as how substantial portions of the globe have either not signed, not ratified, or withdrew their signature before ratification. I’ll give you “international”.
You’re right though: any possible software vendor is theoretically subject to someone’s sanctions regime. If they want to uphold the independence of their institution, that’s probably more work for an internal IT department.
anotheracc3
Is signing up to the ICC a bit like getting a bunch of CEOs and asking them to sign up to a fair tax on CEOs treaty.
nimish
Pretty much.
It requires a given state to allow it to operate and have jurisdiction. That's a political act through and through.
The US doesn't recognize it anymore so it's baffling why they didn't move to non US equipment.
SllX
Well, I’m not a fan of analogies, but kind of, but in addition to asking them to sign up, all the biggest companies with the highest valuations got to sit it out, but retained powers to impose it on smaller companies that aren’t friends of theirs, and to step in and protect their friends from being subject to your hypothetical fair tax treaty.
bawolff
Not really. The ICC mostly doesn't prosecute heads of states. Recent events are kind of unusual relative to the historical role. Historically ICC mostly went after rebel groups.
Think of the treaty as more of an extradition scheme. Its also a bit of an insurance policy - its an incentive not to commit international crimes against/on territory of member states, because it becomes much harder to evade justice.
There is also an element of symbolism to it, of what type of country you want to be.
cultureulterior
It's certainly not incredibly important. It is, however, incredibly undemocratic
mark336
In Europe's defense, they didn't expect a mad-man would be running the U.S., but still should have had a protocol for Apocalypse.
sebazzz
If this isn't enough to cause a shock in European companies and governments, I don't know what would.
patrakov
And I know: remote destruction of various tech, including pagers, laptops, routers, power plants, and experimental nuclear reactors.
Still not enough? A law that mandates backdoors necessary to trigger the above in all exported tech.
username332211
Oh, sweet summer child.
There are EU member states where politicians lobby Congress and the Administration to put their rivals on the Magnitsky list. Europe is in no condition to resist the will of the United States.
jopsen
Yeah, the EU needs the US for leadership mostly :)
computerthings
[dead]
DrNosferatu
Not only we Europeans need to get rid of American weapons, but also of most American technologies?!
And people talked about Huawei…
heraldgeezer
>And people talked about Huawei…
Still bad.
Dont even try :)
SllX
To be fair, the ICC isn’t a European court, at least on paper.
DrNosferatu
No one said Europe owned the ICC, just that Europe has to start to be more and more independent of the US, in the interest of its citizens.
YZF
I would say the citizens of Europe have greatly benefited from the partnership with the US. I'm not an American by the way.
So after the US (and others) fought for Europe in WW-II. Defended Europe during the cold war (and till today). Took most of the load ($, weapons etc.) in supporting Ukraine against Russia. Now you're going to tell it to f off? And that is somehow in the interest of the citizens?
How many American companies have offices in Europe? How many American products are in your life? Hacker News is based where?
I would agree the partnership needs to evolve as does everything. But in a world that's looking more and more like China-"The West"-India(?) Europe's place is still in the west. That's likely the best thing for the world and for Europeans. And for Americans. Hopefully also including better partnership with the rest of the world as well.
Presidents come and go. Don't get too stuck on Trump.
SllX
There is always an argument for that from each country’s, treaty organization’s, and corporation’s perspective: what are we relying on and what laws is it subject to? That cuts across both sides of the Atlantic.
All I’m doing though is pointing out that no European institutions were harmed by this result, and I’ll even add to that that generally the American sanctions regime is often a benefit to our allies; and this type of sanctioning is something we have usually done in concert with our European allies. What’s different this time is that it’s targeting an ICC prosecutor rather than people who are also on the EU’s hit list, namely Putin’s cronies.
rolandog
It doesn't matter if it is or isn't. The whole point was accountability to each other. That went out the window with the "American Service-Members' Protection Act" (The Hague Invasion Act) [0].
Nothing screams "complicit in genocide" like attacking and cripling the institution investigating such crimes.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more public outrage at what I think is the geopolitical equivalent of having a journalist killed.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
SllX
It does matter, even excluding America, Russia and the PRC, none of which are signatories, as well as the other non-members: the world is a big place. The ICC has many signatories across the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific. An international institution doesn’t automatically become a European one when America leaves the room.
> Nothing screams "complicit in genocide" like attacking and cripling the institution investigating such crimes.
The law you cited is clear. Don’t touch American service members and American service members won’t touch the court. Reasonable enough given we aren’t party to the court and will not be held subject to its jurisdiction.
gleenn
Just goes to show how short-sighted these political decisions have been. Politics shouldn't be wrapping itself around tech, the US is shrugging off a huge market and ally.
SllX
> ally
Keep the chocolate separate from the artificial sweeteners.
Whatever our deal is with the EU and individual European countries, the ICC is emphatically not an EU nor even a European court. They’re hosted in The Hague, it is not of The Hague in the same way the UN is not of New York.
j0057
This distinction is a technicality, given the The Hague Invasion Act signed into law by G.W. Bush. Or to use your example, would a hypothetical attack on the UN building in New York not also be a violation of American sovereignty?
SllX
Call me when we’ve invaded The Hague or when someone else invades New York. An international institution that claims members from Asia, Africa and across the Americas doesn’t become a European institution just because America left the room. Japan is actually the largest national contributor to the ICC’s budget.
palmotea
> Just goes to show how short-sighted these political decisions have been. Politics shouldn't be wrapping itself around tech, the US is shrugging off a huge market and ally.
Which political decision? The one to prosecute a US ally, or the one to sanction the ICC?
When someone decries something as "politics," there's often a problem where the analysis conveniently stops when the blame can be placed on the speaker's disfavored group.
gleenn
Seems like we shouldn't be using tech to punish a foreign group who's job, at least at face value, is to help the world. If the ICC is doing so much harm to the US, fight legally. That's where the battle should be fought. Not ripping away some guy's email access.
qznc
In international politics there is no "legally". Maybe the closest thing to it is the ICC.
bawolff
> If the ICC is doing so much harm to the US, fight legally.
US isn't really a party to all this, so there isn't much they can do legally (to be clear i think americas sanctions are unacceptable). They could file a juridsictional challenge, which some countries did, but legally there isn't a huge amount of ground to stand on for that.
Other than that, the actual legal part doesn't start until (if) the suspects are apprehended. And if it does get to a trial, its going to be the accused lawyers who are going to be fighting it out.
username332211
Under international law, the United States is free to regulate it's commerce in any way they wish. If they declare it a crime to do business with the ICC, it's their right. The sanctions are completely legal.
What's legally questionable, is for ICC to claim jurisdiction over Israel - a nation that never signed to or ratified the ICC statue.
mlinhares
That would mean having due process.
palmotea
> Seems like we shouldn't be using tech to punish a foreign group who's job, at least at face value, is to help the world.
Claims about "helping the world" are highly subjective and often bullshit (see the often-mocked tech company talk about "making the world a better place [by doing awful stuff like shoving targeted ads in people's faces]".
> If the ICC is doing so much harm to the US, fight legally. That's where the battle should be fought. Not ripping away some guy's email access.
What do you mean? Sanctions are "fight[ing] legally," literally.
randunel
Imagine the leader of some random country taking away your country's judge's funds, their email address, their job, for trying to do their job in accordance with the law, regarding a non citizen.
You don't have to imagine it, it's happening. Is it happening to judges in your country, though?
flyinglizard
That would be bad because it tramples that country’s sovereignty, and by that, the sovereignty of its citizens. But the ICC has no citizens, and it does not represent anyone other than a cause.
mark336
The U.S. is harming itself by making technology subject to politics. Only makes them look untrustworthy. Just Trump breaking things that work.
DannyBee
I honestly don't get what HN, or even some commenters, thinks should happen here in the real world.
I understand in the pretend world they want to be able to do $x without ever worrying about being beholden to any other countries laws or politics or whatever else.
They want this for lots of values of $x, and often have fun asserting it will soon be possible.
In the real world however, this has never been possible, since the dawn of recorded history, for lots and lots and lots of values of $x.
Pretty much any time $x becomes valuable or interesting enough, it becomes impossible to have this happen in all and usually most cases.
It often doesn't matter how simple a thing $x is - sailing a ship for example, or buying produce, it usually only matters how valuable or interesting it was.
As long as enough countries exist, and they have laws that have extra-territorial effect, the likelihood this problem will be really solved trends towards zero.
What exactly does someone expect to happen here when it's just people and companies trying to follow the laws they think they are required to follow.
This is actually what should happen, and is happening
The usual response is then that some country or group of countries need to build some untouchable-by-other-countries infrastructure and that will solve having to deal with others politics. This seems to me naive at best. The only cases this will work is for things that can be 100% contained and controlled within a given country/group. That is roughly impossible for most interesting things.
For example - it makes no sense to have a economic-block-specific email provider to work around sanctions, because whoever wanted to sanction them will just ban transiting email to them, and then transiting packets, and then equipment, and then chips to make equipment, and then machines to make chips to make equipment, and then wafers used to make chips, and then raw resources used to make wafers, and then equipment to mine raw resources, and then ....
Let's assume you don't care about this group, but they are still powerful. Great - they'll do this not just directly, but indirectly, by forcing others who do have to care to do the same to you.
Now, it would be different if you are building this thing as a political move or strategy, rather than expecting it to solve your problem directly. But otherwise, it is remarkably rare to be able to work around the politics with technology, and if you do, you won't be able to for very long.
It's much more useful to focus on dealing with the politics, if you want to change it.
Wasting lots of time and energy and money trying to avoid politics seems like a bad plan
jjoe
Surely there must be an uncensored, decentralized means for sending messages? What about banking...
runningmike
Could Microsoft deny the request from the US government? I guess not, but i am not familiar with US laws for US companies…
scott_w
If it’s a lawful request, no. They can fight it but it’s a fight under US law, so if the law says they have to do it then that’s the outcome.
megous
Yes. It would then be upon the government to do something about it, which would create some controversy, penalties for MS, and a political debate.
Same for refusing orders. It may change nothing, like in this story:
> One commander ordered a sapper to put two old women in
> a certain house ... and to blow up the house with them.
> The sapper refused ... The commander then ordered his
> men to put the old women in the house and the evil deed
> was done.
But people sometimes still do it.
AJ007
Certainly the ICC would be using something more secure than Microsoft hosted email?
jopsen
Why? US is not the main threat.
And even this case it's pretty obvious that they are under attack.
If you run your own server, you might not know that you've been compromised.
28304283409234
Why not proton, or fastmail, or tuta. Some provider that resides in a country that does not have an "Hague Invasion Act" just in case the ICC investigates a US citizen.
Maybe not the 'main threat', but most certainly a threat. Have been since 2002.
qingcharles
They have moved to using protonmail now, per a BBC article I read yesterday.
betaby
> If you run your own server, you might not know that you've been compromised.
You may or may not if run your own server. In a case of the hosted solution you are absolutely can't know.
im3w1l
The US have the means to act against the ICC. They have a motive for doing so. The US has the Hague Invasion act. The US is currently performing a blockade against ICC. The US really is the main threat.
mark336
ICC should also issue an arrest warrant for Trump/Biden. Who do you think supplies Israel with all the money and weapons they use against the Palestinians?
FridayoLeary
And at the same time for the sake of balance, issue a warrant against saddam hussain and bin laden.
Software and cloud services have entered the infrastructure stage.
I don't think it matters who writes the software. Governments should mandate the infrastructure be hosted and operated locally by people accountable to the host nation (the operators would pay for the software, perhaps a subsiduary or whatever). It should require a Netherlands court to deprive an institute located in the Hague of its infrastructure.
This means bringing "big regulation" like we have for the electrical network (and the physical internet!) to the cloud. It would be tricky to draft since we'd still want to support the millions of small providers who, unlike Microsoft, you wouldn't describe as infrastructure.