all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

Nayara Energy Limited is an entity established in India and operating an important refinery in Vadinar. That refinery is 49% owned by the Russian State oil company Rosneft, and is a major refiner of Russian crude oil. The energy sector, in particular the oil sector, is a sector providing substantial revenue to the Russian Government.

Therefore, Nayara Energy is involved in an economic sector providing a substantial source of revenue to the Government of the Russian Federation, which is responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine.

Microsoft doing the right thing here. If you don’t want to worry about consequences of sanctions don’t use services from companies subject to jurisdiction of countries that sanction you.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 45 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 288 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    In this instance, the cutoff was sought by the European Union (EU), in an attempt to pressure Russia to back off its assaults on Ukraine.

    Really burying the lead there. They were shut off due to government sanctions, not arbitrarily by Microsoft.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    *burying the lede (it's a term from old press printing)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Most style guides and standards accept either spelling, especially when writing for general audiences.

    For strict, formal writing, "lede" is still preferred.

    https://getproofed.com.au/writing-tips/idiom-tips-bury-the-lede-or-bury-the-lead/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Really, really dishonest to demonize Microsoft who are in the middle of this. And I say that as someone who hates Microsoft and most of what they do! But this was intentionally painful sanctions decided on by the governments of 27 member countries. 🤷‍♂️ Don't sell to Russia...

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (15 children)

    Enforcing sanctions is not Microsoft's purview though. Unless their TOS specifically cover rthis scenario, which I doubt.

    The article implies Microsoft is prepared to admit breach of contract terms, rather than risk EU distrust (or further distrust, after the Khan/ICC debacle).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    "Sorry government, I can't enforce your sanctions, my ToS don't allow me"

    Do you really think this works?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    It's the way it should work. A private company can only be compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. Ensures trust through transparency.

    If both US and EU foreign policy can dictate who suddenly gets cut off from Microsoft services, trust in those services will erode.

    After denying Outlook access to Khan due to (non-judicial) US sanctions against the ICC, multiple European public and private orgs are implementing exit strategies from Microsoft and all providers with a US presence.

    The reason leveraging Microsoft as a foreign policy weapon works is because they dominate the market, and Eorope have grown complacent since end of WW2. All thta seems to now be changing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    It’s the way it should work. A private company can only be compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. Ensures trust through transparency.

    They are compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. For a multinational corporation, the applicable jurisdiction are all the jurisdictions they operate in. Since multinational corporations exist to funnel profits into their host country, that country has the ability to compel them under due process in other countries.

    You might argue that it's not good for companies to be this large, and I'd agree. You might also argue that specific sanctions aren't good, and I'd agree. But the idea that a companies ToS should supercede jurisdictions and that they shouldn't be curtailed by the governments under which they operate is fundamentally corrosive to the concept of statehood.

    Sanctions exist to restrict trade with other countries. This can't work if companies can just ignore sanctions, and I don't want e.g. european companies to ignore sanctions against Russia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    There's nothing to indicate that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case, is my point.

    They're not legally obligated to deny their services to customers who have legal disputes totally unrelated to their contract with Microsoft.

    It's like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It's probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Of course there is an indication that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case:

    In this instance, the cutoff was sought by the European Union (EU), in an attempt to pressure Russia to back off its assaults on Ukraine.

    If they wish to operate in the EU, they have to follow some of the EU's demands.

    It’s like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It’s probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?

    It's more like "getting your accounts frozen because you operate in a country that has sanctions against it". Which is a totally normal thing to do. Companies cutting off other companies that operate in countries which attack other countries doesn't undermine my trust - companies continuing to operate in such countries undermines it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Nayara were the ones operating/supplying a sanctioned country, not Microsoft, so what legal basis could the EU have against Microsoft?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I don't know why you're acting like this is such a strange thing.

    Nayara supplies & operates in a sanctioned country. The EU doesn't want companies supplying companies that do so. If Microsoft wants to keep operating in the EU, they aren't allowed to keep supplying companies that do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    "The EU doesn't want companies supplying companies that do so." <-- This is what's strange, and new.

    Companies supplying companies - it's an order of magnitude beyond the targets of the sanctions.

    It becomes impossible to predict which companies and services may be suddenly impacted.

    I'm all for the EU sanctions against Russia, and consequences for those entities breaching them. But Microsoft didn't breach the sanctions, and should be used as a tool to punish those that do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    No, it's not new or strange. It's a normal component of sanctions, and it's fundamentally how they're implemented. Otherwise you could circumvent them by setting up two companies.

    It becomes impossible to predict which companies and services may be suddenly impacted.

    It's pretty easy to predict. Do you do business with a sanctioned country? Then you'll be impacted. Easy enough.

    I'm all for the EU sanctions against Russia, and consequences for those entities breaching them. But Microsoft didn't breach the sanctions, and should be used as a tool to punish those that do.

    Are you under the impression that Microsoft is being punished in any way? They aren't, they're simply not allowed to do business with companies acting against sanctions if they want to keep doing business in the EU.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Do you do business with a sanctioned country? Then you'll be impacted. Easy enough.

    Microsoft isn't doing business with a sanctioned country in this case. That, yet again, is my point. You keep conflating Microsoft with the company actually breaching the EU sanctions.

    Microsoft are absolutely being punished - they were forced to make choice between "doing business in the EU" (what exactly the EU threatened is unclear to me) or losing the contract value, plus whatever they may incur in damages though breach of contract.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Enforcing sanctions is not Microsoft’s purview though.

    that should be true, but for some reason, these companies are hiding their glee behind governments as they go above and beyond what the sanctions require.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 122 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If software is a service, then service can be denied at any time. Host your own infrastructure, and reclaim digital ownership.

    That goes for large businesses and individuals.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, it is very important to consider how dependant you are on third parties. At the very least the more dependence the more power they have over you. But also how screwed you are if they just go under.

    • If you use SaaS they can interrupt your use at any time and you can only react (for example demanding a reversal or lawsuits).
    • If you host closed source software they can't interrupt service on an existing contract but can legally require you to stop using it if they don't renew the contract. (And if the company goes under you can likely get away with using the software as long as it doesn't need code fixes.)
    • If the software is open source you can continue using the software indefinitely including making code fixes. (Maintenance may be expensive as it is now your problem but that can be costed and an exit plan made if required.)
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The new model is SAAH (Software As A Hostage). You would think that overpaid CTOs and CEOS would be able to anticipate something as obvious as this. "The Cloud" just means "someone else's server".

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    Control is never just outsourced; it's also abdicated through that outsourcing.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    One extreme defensive move for an enterprise would be to implement full redundancy for anything not hosted on-premises. Redundancy for data protection is relatively straightforward, but having multiple email, supply chain, or e-commerce services is very expensive and disruptive. What are the odds that it would even be needed? Whatever those odds were, they just became much higher.

    This is simply dumb. The odds are greater than zero. you must have a disaster plan. It sucks that MS did this but I don’t have much sympathy for anyone that decided to save money by ignoring DR.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Now they're going on a slippery slope. Just what EU needed to convince them entirely.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The EU pushed for Microsoft to lock the account because they were dealing with Russian oil. It was a Ukrain war sanction

    Or at least that’s what the article said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Critical Dependency As A Service

    For when you need to outsource the potential crippling of your business to potentially hostile third parties.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Similar to Microsoft cutting off access to the email server at the International Criminal Court. We need to get our shit together.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Idk I wonder how abrupt this actually was. Russia sanctions have been happening for a while.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I swear to god I keep wondering when people are going to wake up to the fact that Cloud is such a fucking rip off on every level.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    You'd think russian assets would work harder not to be dependent on US clouds.

  • source
  • 8 comments in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    People keep forgetting that "the cloud" is just someone else's computer. You don't want to pay for in-house experts to support your IT infrastructure? Welp, being locked out by a vendor is a side effect of that.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    What's wild to me is how much more frequent this sort of thing seems to be becoming. Cloud services make a lot of money, but this kind of stuff is gonna drive risk-averse companies (aka huge companies with lots of money) back to on-prem or other alternatives. It seems very short-sighted. If I was a cloud provider I'd want to make myself look as ruthlessly indifferent to the services I host as possible.

    "In this instance, the cutoff was sought by the European Union (EU), in an attempt to pressure Russia to back off its assaults on Ukraine. But what if the requester was a government that just didn’t like what an enterprise said or did?" I find this quote hilarious, because that "what if" scenario sounds like exactly what happened.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Context is important:

    In this instance, the cutoff was sought by the European Union (EU), in an attempt to pressure Russia to back off its assaults on Ukraine.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Microsoft is now, essentially, a bag of dicks.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    For complying with government sanctions against Russia?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I only read the headline on that one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Oh, I did too initially; I just happened to see this article in a different community where someone who actually read the article provided the line about the sanctions.

    Although I did skim it before replying to you to make sure the quote wasn't being taken out of context.

    But the title is absolute rage bait.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Cause they complied with the law?

    Nonsense.

    This is actually “better” than valve/itch removing NSFW content from their sites.

    As Valve and itch removed them to please a payment provider, whereas, in this instance, Microsoft is complying with the local laws.

  • source
  • parent