When questioned about its controversial cloud computing contract with the Israeli government, Google has repeatedly claimed the so-called Project Nimbus deal is bound by the company’s general cloud computing terms of service policy.
While that policy would prohibit uses that lead to deprivation of rights, injury, or death, or other harms, contract documents and an internal company email reviewed by The Intercept show the deal forged between Google and Israel doesn’t operate under the tech company’s general terms of service. Rather, Nimbus is subject to an “adjusted” policy drafted between Google and the Israeli government. It is unclear how this “Adjusted Terms of Service” policy differs from Google’s typical terms.
The $1.2 billion joint contract split between Google and Amazon provides the Israeli government, including its military, with access to state-of-the-art cloud computing and artificial intelligence tools. This has made Project Nimbus a consistent source of protest inside and outside Google, even before Israel’s war on Gaza.
While Amazon has largely remained silent in the face of employee activism and outside scrutiny, Google routinely downplays or denies the military reach of Project Nimbus — despite the Israeli Finance Ministry’s 2021 announcement that the deal would service the country’s “defense establishment.”
Google has also sought to reassure those concerned by its relationship with a government whose leadership is being investigated by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity by claiming Nimbus is constrained by the company’s general rules and regulations.
“We have been very clear that the Nimbus contract is for workloads running on our commercial cloud by Israeli government ministries, who agree to comply with our Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy,” a Google spokesperson told Wired in July and repeated verbatim to Time magazine in August, linking both times to the public-facing copies of each document.
Google Cloud’s terms of service prohibit, among other things, uses that “violate, or encourage the violation of, the legal rights of others,” any “invasive” purpose, or anything “that can cause death, serious harm, or injury to individuals or groups of individuals.”
“If Google wins the competition, we will need to accept a non negotiable contract on terms favourable to the government.”
But the premise that Google policy dictates how Nimbus is used is called into question by a previously undisclosed email from a company lawyer. On December 10 2020, before the tech giant won the contract, Google lawyer Edward du Boulay wrote to company executives with exciting news: “Google Cloud has been preparing to submit a bid for Project Nimbus (internal code ‘Selenite’), a competitive tender to provide cloud to the Israeli government. The business believes this is currently the largest government procurement of public cloud globally.”
Du Boulay noted that “If Google wins the competition, we will need to accept a non negotiable contract on terms favourable to the government,” and “Given the value and strategic nature of this project, it carries potential risks and rewards which are significant if we win.” Among Du Boulay’s concerns is the fact that the Israeli “government has unilateral right to impose contract changes,” the lawyer warned. He cautioned further that should it win the contract, Google would retain “almost no ability to sue [Israel] for damages” stemming from “permitted uses … breaches.” The email does not explain what exactly would prevent Google from seeking legal recourse should the Israeli state commit such a breach.
Google’s suggestion of authority over the contract are further undermined by Israeli governmental contract documents reviewed by The Intercept. The documents state that the company’s standard terms of service don’t apply — rather, an “adjusted” terms of service document is in effect.
“The tenderer [Israel] has adjusted the winning suppliers’ [Google and Amazon] service agreement for each of the services supplied within the framework of this contract,” according to a 63-page overview of the Nimbus contract. “The Adjusted Terms of Service are the only terms that shall apply to the cloud services consumed upon the winning bidders’ cloud infrastructure.”
Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The language about “Adjusted Terms of Service” appears to contradict not only Google’s public claims about the contract, but also how it has represented Nimbus to its own staff. During an October 30 employee Q&A session, Google president of global affairs Kent Walker was asked how the company is ensuring its Nimbus work is consistent with its “AI Principles” document, which forbids uses “that cause or are likely to cause overall harm,” including surveillance, weapons, or anything “whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.”
According to a transcript of the exchange shared with The Intercept, Walker said that Nimbus is subject to Google’s own terms: “When it comes to the Nimbus contract, in particular, this is a contract that is designed and directed at our public cloud work, not at specific military classified sensitive information. It’s not designed for that. And everything that’s on our Cloud network, our public Cloud, is subject to our Acceptable Use Policy and our Terms of Service. So, you know, I can assure you that we take all this seriously.”
The Israeli contract document also seems to contradict another common defense of the contract from Google, echoed by Walker, that Nimbus is “not directed at highly sensitive, classified, or military workloads relevant to weapons or intelligence services.” According to the Israeli contract document, however, the government “may make any use of any service included in the supplier’s catalog of services.”
A separate document pertaining to Nimbus’s “Digital Marketplace,” a suite of third-party software hosted by Google and made available to Nimbus users in the Israeli government, offers another apparent contradiction: “There will be no restrictions on the part of the Provider as to the type of system and information that the Clients may migrate to the service, including vital systems of high sensitivity level.” This second document stipulates that the Israeli government “may make any use of the service within the performance of its function and purpose as a public service for the State of Israel and its citizens,” and that “there will be no restriction of any kind, including ‘permitted use’ rules for a service being offered in the governmental digital marketplace.”
Should Google not have any meaningful control over Nimbus, the company could face consequences beyond public relations or employee dissent. In October, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory placed a public call for information pertaining to private sector involvement in “the commission of international crimes connected to Israel’s unlawful occupation, racial segregation and apartheid regime,” according to a press release.
The Abolitionist Law Center, a Pennsylvania-based public interest firm, told The Intercept it is filing a submission detailing how “Google and Amazon Web Services’ provision of advanced technological services to the Israeli government through Project Nimbus violates — by its very nature — each companies’ purported commitments to human rights due diligence obligations,” according to staff attorney Sadaf Doost. “This is most evidently demonstrated by how the Project Nimbus contract itself includes a clause granting authority to Israeli officials to modify the companies’ standard terms of use agreements in ways that have not been made clear to the public.”