

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation
(415) 800-4985
katitza@eff.org
Today, a group of over 400 organizations and experts, along with 350,000 individuals, continue to rally in support of the 13 International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance (the Necessary and Proportionate Principles) a year to the day after Edward Snowden first revealed how governments are monitoring individuals on a massive scale. The international experts who supported the Necessary and Proportionate Principles has issued a press release containing quotes from professionals weighing in on the need to end the mass surveillance.
Today, a group of over 400 organizations and experts, along with 350,000 individuals, continue to rally in support of the 13 International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance (the Necessary and Proportionate Principles) a year to the day after Edward Snowden first revealed how governments are monitoring individuals on a massive scale. The international experts who supported the Necessary and Proportionate Principles has issued a press release containing quotes from professionals weighing in on the need to end the mass surveillance.
For Immediate Release: Thursday, June 05, 2014
A huge international collection of experts have called on world governments to adopt the 13 International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance (IPAHRCS), principles aimed at putting an end to the blanket surveillance of innocent persons. The call comes a year to the day after whistleblower Edward Snowden first revealed details about how government spy agencies, including the United States' National Security Agency, are monitoring individuals on a massive and unprecedented scale. In the 12 months since the revelations, most world governments have ignored growing calls from citizens to put an end to this bulk collection.
The group of over 450 organizations and experts, supported by over 350,000 individuals from across the globe, have been calling for the adoption of new rules to protect innocent citizens from government spying. The 13 International Principles establish clear guidelines to ensure government surveillance activities are consistent with human rights. These principles were developed over months of consultation with technology, privacy, and human rights experts from around the world. The principles emphasize the human rights obligations of governments engaged in communications surveillance.
Group members are also recommending greater use of software libre, decentralized architectures, and end-to-end encryption to help safeguard citizens' privacy rights. They say citizens deserve strong data protection safeguards to protect their privacy from government monitoring.
Here's what international experts are saying about the Necessary and Proportionate Principles and the need to end mass surveillance:
Luis Fernando Garcia, R3D (Mexico):"The 13 Principles are defenders of an Internet that constitutes a space for the exercise of human rights. By promoting its recognition, we reject the false choice between security and privacy and, at the same time, we defend the democratic aspirations of our societies."
Paulo Rena da Silva Santarem (Brazil):"Edward Snowden's revelations were crucial in ensuring that civil society had enough evidence to pressure our government for the approval of Marco Civil. Certainly, now is time for the Brazilian Government to take the lead by implementing the 13 Principles into domestic law, specifically against mass data retention."
Pilar Saenz, RedPaTodos (Colombia):"We insist that surveillance must be 'necessary and proportionate' and with independent oversight to prevent abuse of power."
Joana Varon, Center for Technology and Society (Brazil):"Snowden has provided us with the most powerful tool of our current era: information. Every single Internet user around the world should feel empowered by that and, as such, push for a change in current surveillance practices. Mass surveillance has nothing to do with security, it represents a serious threat to fundamental human rights. Any surveillance practice should be limited to what is necessary and proportionate, and that's why the 13 principles should be the starting point."
Ramiro Alvarez Ugarte, Asociacion por los Derechos Civiles (Argentina):"A year ago, we confirmed what many suspected. Now we know that basic human rights are being violated due to a wide system of mass surveillance which simply is incompatible with a free and democratic society. While Snowden has shed light onto these practices, in Latin America we remain in the dark. Unchecked and autonomous intelligence agencies engage in political surveillance all the time, as recent scandals in Colombia and Argentina have clearly shown. Massive or not, this kind of surveillance puts a check on democratic participation and region-wide reform efforts are as urgent as necessary."
Valeria Betancourt, Association for Progressive Communications (Ecuador - International):"It is necessary to reinforce the call to states to take measures that will put an end to privacy violations and ensure that legislation and practices related to communications surveillance, collection of personal data, and interception of communications, adhere to international human rights. A robust protection for human rights is a condition for democracy."
Jacobo Najera, free software developer (Latin America):"Snowden highlights the capabilities of the most powerful system of mass surveillance; and has reaffirmed that mass surveillance and the centralization of development processes and services on the Internet destroy the Net as we know it. There is a need to use and develop free software, end-to-end encryption, and decentralized services."
Ivan Martinez, President, Wikimedia Mexico (Mexico):"Freedom on the internet is an essential component of the Wikimedia projects, and a value that governs their overall performance. Its defense in the social context is a necessary task in many societies because of the temptations of certain political figures to place barriers on its development. As Wikipedians and promoters of free knowledge, in previous years we didn't consider it right to passively observe possible attempts to monitor peoples' actions on the net, and we always support efforts to guarantee a free internet without any kind of surveillance."
Claudio Ruiz, ONG Derechos Digitales (Latin America):"Snowden's revelations illustrate the significance of human rights on the Internet. In the post-Snowden era, states are not the only enemies to our civil liberties, private companies are as well. The fragility of our rights in the light of technological developments is to require all actors unrestricted commitment to protecting the privacy of all."
Katitza Rodriguez, International Rights Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Peru-International):"As our everyday interactions, activities, and communications now emit a continuous stream of revealing information, the question has become: How do we preserve fundamental freedoms in the digital age?" EFF International Rights Director Katitza Rodriguez said. "The 13 Principles explain how and why we must rein in unchecked surveillance state at home and abroad and protect the freedoms of everyone, regardless of citizenship or statelessness."
North America
Steve Anderson, OpenMedia Executive Director (Canada - International): "These 13 Principles represent the positive alternative to secretive and unaccountable mass surveillance. We all need to work together to rein in out-of-control government surveillance by making sure it is necessary, proportionate, and respects our fundamental human rights. Everyone deserves to keep their private life private and it's past time decision-makers listened to citizens and implemented these common sense international principles."
Jochai Ben-Avie, Policy Director, Access (United States - International):"The human rights that are negatively impacted by surveillance are some of the most treasured and the most easily invaded. The 13 Principles provide a framing against which government surveillance practices around the world can be measured and they are already affecting change around the world. The Principles are a rallying cry for human rights defenders, and the chorus of users who have already spoken out demonstrate that no longer will the public acquiesce quietly to mass surveillance. As we mark the one year anniversary of the first Snowden revelation and reflect on what we know now, we can see that the Principles have fundamentally changed the discourse and are one of the most powerful tools in the fight to limit how States spy on the users of the world."
Cindy Cohn, Legal Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation (United States): "Human rights law already strongly protects the privacy and free expression of people around the world, but the dramatically increased ability and willingness of the NSA, along with its counterparts, to engage in mass surveillance and to undermine online security required specific thinking about how to apply and preserve this important law in this radically new context. The 13 Principles accomplish this goal, providing a guidestar for nongovernmental organizations and governments around the world who want to ensure the ongoing protection of our fundamental freedoms in the digital age. They also serve as an important complement to the work that EFF and others are doing domestically in the US to try to rein in the NSA."
Tamir Israel, Staff Lawyer, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC):"The long string of Snowden revelations have confirmed for us that the worst case scenario is true: state agencies have transformed our digital networks into a means of mass surveillance. If permitted to stand, this state of affairs threatens the very foundations of democracy by subverting our most powerful vehicle for those wishing to challenge prevailing opinion. It is incumbent on us to fix this problem, and the solution requires dynamic political, technical and legal solutions. The Necessary & Proportionate Principles address the last of these by reasserting privacy and other human rights in a way that is meaningful in this new technological era. They are designed to bring us back to a world where surveillance occurs only when it is needed and justifiable and to put an end to the current 'collect everything' reality that has crept up on us in recent years."
Christopher Parsons, Postdoctoral Fellow, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto (Canada):"The past year has revealed that dragnet state surveillance has enveloped the world despite our nations' privacy and data protection laws, laws that have demonstrably been diminished, undermined, and evaded by privacy-hostile governments over the course of the past decade. It is critical that we take the initiative and work to better endow our privacy commissioners and data protection regulators with the powers they need to investigate and terminate programs that inappropriately or unlawfully invade and undermine our individual and collective rights to privacy."
Yana Welinder, Legal Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation (United States):"Untargeted surveillance means that people cannot anonymously share their wisdom online or freely read without the fear of constantly being watched. It's a threat to the very core of what makes us human--the drive to think and formulate ideas. The 13 Principles push back on that threat. They demand that governments avoid excessive surveillance and respect human rights."
Yochai Benkler, Professor, Harvard Law School and Berkman Center for Internet and Society (United States):"Because mass surveillance is technically difficult, legally suspect, and social taboo in democratic societies, the national security establishment has had to break or warp all other major systems in society to achieve it. What we learned from Snowden is that the ambition of the national security establishment has subverted open technical systems and the professional norms-based processes that undergird our technical infrastructure; undermined markets and commercial innovation; and produced a theatre of the grotesque where public accountability and judicial, executive, and legislative control should have been."
Eben Moglen, President and Executive Director of the Software Freedom Law Center (International):"If--by technical, legal and political means--we prevent centralized control and surveillance of the Net, we save liberty. If not, unshakeable despotism lies in the human future."
Cynthia Wong, Human Rights Watch (United States - International):"The Internet has become central to our lives. But the NSA and GCHQ's 'collect it all' attitude makes it incredibly hard for human rights defenders, journalists, and ordinary citizens worldwide to go online without fear. To accept these agencies' arguments for mass surveillance without challenge means the beginning of the end of privacy in the digital age."
Africa
Arthur Gwagwa, Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum (Zimbawe): "As the evolution of digital technologies outpaces international and regional regulatory consensus, the 13 Principles collect what little there is in the form of guidance, and proactively go beyond that by providing a sturdy, timeless, and universal framework within which national, regional, and international reforms on the presenting issues can sit and find strength."
Hisham Almiraat, Global Voices Advocacy (Morocco, International):"The advent of the internet marked a major milestone for human rights activists in some of the most repressive places on earth. It symbolized an unprecedented extension of the public sphere and a serious blow to governments' attempts to curtail freedom of speech. Mass, indiscriminate surveillance is threatening to destroy this progress. The 13 Principles offer a workable solution to balance security and privacy. We call upon all governments to adopt these principles in order to protect their citizens' right to privacy and freedom of speech."
Europe
Simon Davies, Publisher, "The Privacy Surgeon" (United Kingdom - International):"The majority of the world's governments have responded with either orchestrated deception or brazen indifference to the Snowden revelations. A year on, the secret arrangements that enabled the creation of a vast global spying regime continue almost unchanged. Initiatives such as the 13 Principles--and the huge coalition that supports them--can make a real difference to an arrogant and unaccountable spy empire that imperils the privacy of everyone."
Stuart Hamilton, Director of Policy and Advocacy, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (International):"For librarians, safeguarding the privacy of our users is a crucial professional principle. When people are under surveillance, they lose their ability to think freely--nobody likes to read with someone looking over their shoulder. The 13 Principles show us the way to ensure existing human rights law applies to modern digital surveillance. IFLA is proud to be a signatory."
Christian Horchert, CCC (Germany):"Snowden helped us to understand on what fragile foundation our information society is build upon. We are at a turning point where we need to decide how to move forward: Do we really want to live in a world of insecurity and mistrust or not?"
Joe McNamee, European Digital Rights, Executive Director (European Union):"We have slipped unconsciously into a world where basic concepts of democracy and the rule of law have been replaced by sophistry and impunity. The 13 Principles draw a clear baseline on which democratic principles, privacy and freedom of communication can be rebuilt.
Carly Nyst, Legal Director, Privacy International (United Kingdom - International):"The 13 Principles have completely changed the debate around communications surveillance. By providing a detailed, clear interpretation of human rights standards that is relevant and meaningful in the digital age, the 13 Principles have done what so many national legislatures have failed to do--update long-standing legal protections of the right to privacy in the light of new technologies that challenge traditional distinctions such as content vs metadata, nationals vs non-nationals, intelligence vs. law enforcement. The 13 Principles are the most important tool that civil society has to mould the crucial debate being had, in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, about the limits of state power to spy on citizens around the world."
Danny O'Brien, International Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation, (United Kingdom - International):"The application of international law has lagged for years behind the technological advances which have led to our current global surveillance state. The 13 Principles spells out exactly how we can update our understanding of human rights to combat this erosion of civil liberties. As courts around the world begin to tackle these issues seriously, it's invaluable for them to have such timely and precise guidance."
John Ralston Saul, President, PEN International (International):"The principles of expression are simple--maximum transparency in places of power, maximum free expression for citizens. Privacy is a key part of free expression. In private we work out what we will say and do in public. The growing use of secrecy and surveillance by governments and corporations is a direct attack on free expression. The use of fear to justify this secrecy and surveillance is a cynical diversion from the central issue. Free expression."
Katarzyna Szymielewicz, President, Panoptykon Foundation (Poland):"In the aftermath of Snowden's disclosures, civil society organisations have to speak with one voice to remind governments across the world what principles should apply when it comes to surveillance. The 13 Principles make it very clear that there is no way of reconciling mass, preemptive surveillance with the right to privacy and human rights safeguards such as presumption of innocence. The manifesto with 13 principles is our way of communicating these core values to decision makers and the media. However, we expect much more than public debate: we demand their implementation."
Friedhelm Weinberg, HURIDOCS (Germany):"There has been an incredible gap between the practices of mass surveillance and the protections everyone ought to enjoy under international human rights law. The 13 Principles have been the one crucial document that has fueled the process of addressing this gap, and closing it. Unlawful mass surveillance still occurs, but the 13 Principles are now so widely recognised that there will be no more excuses for everyone--government, businesses or others--not to do more to protect the rights of individuals around the globe."
Jeremie Zimmermann, La Quadrature du Net (France):"Our humanities are now indivisible from the Machine, we became the Cyborg. And now we see that the machine as a whole has been subverted to work against us, to spy on us and control us. We must fight back for our humanities against this oppressive Machine, with software libre, decentralized architectures, and end-to-end encryption."
Asia
Professor Kyung Sin Park, Open Net (South Korea):"The 13 Principles are the first attempt to create an international legal standard on the right to be free from surveillance, that is, surveillance by any government on any private person on earth via any communications medium."
Sana Saleem, Bolo Bhi (Pakistan):"The Snowden revelations were instrumental in exposing the corporate-government nexus that enables surveillance. The Necessary & Proportionate Principles are a much-needed step towards limiting states' power to infringe on our right to privacy."
Oceania
Joy Liddicoat, Association for Progressive Communications (New Zealand - International):"The revelations of whistleblowers, includiing Edward Snowden, have shone a bright light into the dark interior workings of modern democracies, revealing the deeply uncomfortable truth that our human rights are at grave risk at home from those elected to represent democractic values, including human rights to privacy. We do not want our governments to protect us--we want them to protect our rights, but when they will not, civil society voices and leadership must respond emphatically. The 13 Principles provide a clear set of guidance for the application and upholding of human rights in a digital age in relation to surveillance."
The 13 Principles state that surveillance is only permissible in strictly defined circumstances that respect citizens' human right to privacy. They state that governments should only engage in surveillance that is consistent with the following principles: Legality, Legitimate Aim, Necessity, Adequacy, Proportionality, Competent Judicial Authority, Due Process, User Notification, Transparency, Public Oversight, Integrity of Communications and Systems, Safeguards for International Cooperation, Safeguards against Illegitimate Access. More information on each of these Principles is available here.
Groups supporting the Necessary & Proportionate Principles include: Access, Association for Progressive Communications, Chaos Computer Club, Center for Internet & Society-India, Center for Technology and Society at Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Digitale Gesellschaft, Digital Courage, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fundacion Karisma, HURIDOCS, La Quadrature du Net, OpenMedia.org, Open Net, Open Rights Group, Panoptykon Foundation, Privacy International, Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), SHARE Foundation and Wikimedia Foundation
Hundreds of thousands of citizens are speaking out against mass surveillance
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.
(415) 436-9333"This disgraceful vote does not change Congress' legal duty, and it certainly does not silence the millions of Americans who oppose another illegal war," said an ACLU director.
As US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared Thursday that "the amount of firepower over Iran and over Tehran is about to surge dramatically," four Democrats in the House of Representatives voted with nearly all Republicans to reject a bipartisan war powers resolution that would have halted President Donald Trump and Israel's assault on the Middle East country.
Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), Greg Landsman (Ohio), and Juan Vargas (Calif.) stood with the GOP for the 212-219 vote against H.Con.Res.38, which was led by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). The only other Republican to support the resolution was Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio)—though GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales (Texas), who is facing an unrelated scandal, did not participate.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the think tank Center for International Policy, highlighted that given Massie and Davidson's votes, "if those four Democrats had stuck with their caucus and their voters, it would have passed."
"Everyone who opposed the resolution owns this war—along with the casualties, rising gas prices, and regional chaos that comes with it."
The House vote came just a day after Democratic US Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) and all of the chamber's Republicans but Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) rejected S.J.Res.104, a similar resolution sponsored by Paul and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). As with the Wednesday vote, a range of critics called out Congress for enabling Trump's illegal and already seemingly endless war.
"This is a shameful abdication of Congress' constitutional authority to take the country to war," said Defending Rights & Dissent, noting the rising death toll. "US and Israeli strikes have hit elementary schools, hospitals, and the capital city of Tehran, home to 10 million. Six US service members have died. Trump is carrying out yet another regime change war of choice, and the American people have been overwhelmingly clear that they don't support it."
"This was Congress' best chance to stop further killings, to stop an all-out regional war with no end in sight, and to uphold the constitutional principle that prevents presidents from going rogue," the group continued. "We are deeply disappointed in both chambers' failure to stand up to this dangerous insanity."
Christopher Anders, director of the ACLU's democracy and technology division, stressed in a statement that "this failed war powers vote is nothing short of cowardly, but Congress can't dodge the Constitution forever."
"By refusing to rein in President Trump's unauthorized war with Iran, Congress has allowed President Trump to make a mockery of the Constitution and is trying to duck responsibility for putting service members and civilians in great danger," Anders added. "But, this disgraceful vote does not change Congress' legal duty, and it certainly does not silence the millions of Americans who oppose another illegal war. We will hold President Trump accountable for this abuse of power."
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, one unnamed "senior progressive House Democrat" told Axios that the groups including Justice Democrats, MoveOn, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Our Revolution "will primary anyone" who votes no.
After the vote, Justice Democrats shared the congressional office numbers of the four Democrats, and said to "call these spineless Dems who support Trump's new forever war with Iran and tell them to go to war themselves if they want it so bad."
Another progressive group, a youth-led climate organization Sunrise Movement, also took aim at the House Democrats who voted with the GOP, declaring on social media: "Absolutely ridiculous. Call them out. Vote them out."
Council on American-Islamic Relations government affairs director Robert S. McCaw commended all lawmakers "who voted to uphold Congress' constitutional duty and demand an end to unauthorized hostilities with Iran," particularly Massie and Davidson for their "courage to break with their party and stand on principle."
It is also "deeply disappointing" that some Democrats "joined Republicans to defeat this effort and enable an unconstitutional war," he said, warning that "their votes helped give the administration a green light to continue a dangerous escalation that threatens American lives and regional stability."
Earlier this week, Cuellar, Golden, and Landsman joined Democratic Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), and Jimmy Panetta (Calif.) to introduce a competing war powers resolution that would let Trump wage war on Iran for a month. Noting that proposal, McCaw argued that "Americans did not elect Congress to issue a '30 days of carnage hall pass' for an unauthorized war. If a war is unconstitutional today, it should not be allowed to continue for another month."
“The Constitution is clear: Congress, not the president, has the authority to decide when this nation goes to war," he added. "The American people must continue pressing their elected representatives to reclaim that authority and stop another disastrous war in the Middle East before it spirals further out of control."
As of Thursday, the Iranian government put the death toll at 1,230, though US and Israeli attacks continue, and Hegseth said that "we have only just begun to fight and fight decisively... If you think you've seen something, just wait. The amount of combat power that's still flowing, that's still coming, that we'll be able to project over Iran is a multiples of what it currently is right now."
On top of the lives lost, recent reporting suggests that Trump's war on Iran could be costing US taxpayers $1 billion per day. Calling the House vote "profoundly disappointing," Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said that "everyone who opposed the resolution owns this war—along with the casualties, rising gas prices, and regional chaos that comes with it."
"Congress needs to stop listening to warmongering elites," Kharrazian added, "and start listening to the American people who are sick and tired of being dragged into forever wars."
"Israel built AI targeting systems in Gaza—approved kills in 20 seconds, 10% error rate accepted," said one expert. "Now those same systems are running over Iran... and there’s an arms industry IPO-ing off the back of it."
After Israel's unprecedented use of artificial intelligence to select bombing targets in Gaza, experts are now sounding the alarm regarding what one analyst on Thursday called a lack of human supervision over Israeli AI targeting in Iran.
"Similarities between Israel's bombing of Gaza and Tehran are growing stronger," Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft executive vice president Trita Parsi said Thursday on X. "In both cases, it appears Israel is using AI without any human oversight."
"For instance, Israel has bombed a park in Tehran called 'Police Park,'" Parsi added. "It has nothing to do with the police. But it appears AI identified it as a target since Israel is bombing all government-related buildings. No one in Israel bothered to check and find out that it is just a park."
Borrowing from startup vernacular, tech journalist Jacob Ward calls Israel's use and export of AI technology in the post-Gaza era "lethal beta."
"Gaza was the prototype," Ward explained in a video posted this week on Bluesky. "Iran is the launch."
"[It's] a live-fire, live-ordnance lab experiment on people, killing people, that creates a pipeline of exportable products to the rest of the world, and it has become a big industry in Israel—and it's something that we in the United States have been dealing with and doing business with for some time as well."
Israel built AI targeting systems in Gaza — approved kills in 20 seconds, 10% error rate accepted. Now those same systems are running over Iran and being exported all over the world. I’m calling this “lethal beta,” and there’s an arms industry IPO-ing off the back of it. Full breakdown at
[image or embed]
— Jacob Ward (@byjacobward.bsky.social) March 3, 2026 at 4:45 PM
Previous investigations have detailed how the IDF uses Habsora, an Israeli AI system that can automatically select airstrike targets at an exponentially faster rate than ever before. One Israeli intelligence source asserted that the technology has transformed the IDF into a “mass assassination factory” in which the “emphasis is on quantity and not quality” of kills.
Mistakes were all but inevitable, but expert critics argue Israeli policy has made matters worse. In the tense hours following the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, mid-ranking IDF officers were empowered to order attacks on not only senior Hamas commanders but any fighter in the resistance group, no matter how low-ranking.
According to a New York Times investigation, IDF officers were also permitted to risk up to 20 civilian lives in each airstrike, and up to 500 noncombatant lives per day. Even that limit was lifted after just a few days. Officers could order any number of strikes as they believed were legal, with no limits on civilian harm.
Senior IDF commanders sometimes approved strikes they knew could kill more than 100 civilians if the target was considered high-value. In one AI-aided airstrike targeting one senior Hamas commander, the IDF dropped multiple US-supplied 2,000-pound bombs, which can level an entire city block, on the Jabalia refugee camp in October 2023.
That bombing killed at least 126 people, 68 of them children, and wounded 280 others. Hamas said four Israeli and three international hostages were also killed in the attack.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the US military in Iran has "leveraged the most advanced artificial intelligence it’s ever used in warfare, a tool that could be difficult for the Pentagon to give up even as it severs ties with the company that created it."
According to the Post, Palantir's Maven Smart System—which contains Anthropic's Claude AI language model—reportedly helped US commanders select 1,000 Iranian targets during the war's first 24 hours alone.
Experts are urging a more cautious approach to military AI use. Paul Scharre, executive vice president at the Center for a New American Security, told the Post that “AI gets it wrong... We need humans to check the output of generative AI when the stakes are life and death.”
It is not publicly known whether AI was used in connection with any of the deadliest massacres of the current war on Iran, which has left more than 1,000 Iranians dead, including around 175 children and others who were killed by what first responders and victims' relatives said was a double-tap strike on a girls' school last Saturday in the southern city of Minab.
Last week, Trump ordered all federal agencies including the Department of Defense to stop using all Anthropic products in apparent retaliation for the San Francisco-based company's refusal to allow unrestricted government and military use of its technology over fears it could be used for mass surveillance of Americans and in automated weapons systems, also known as "killer robots."
Trump gave the Pentagon six months to phase out Anthropic products, allowing their continued use in the Iran war pending replacements.
Project Nimbus—a $1.2 billion cloud-computing and AI contract signed in 2021 between the Israeli government and Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud—provides cloud infrastructure, AI tools, and data storage for the IDF and other agencies. The deal prohibits Google or Amazon from refusing service to Israeli government, military, or intelligence agencies.
Academics and jurists are gathered this week in Geneva, Switzerland—with a second four-day round of talks starting August 31—for a United Nations-sponsored conference on lethal autonomous weapons systems.
Attendees are examining the risks posed by killer robots that can select and engage targets without meaningful human control. They are also studying the legal, military, and technological implications of autonomous weapons systems and working to build international consensus on regulation.
“The current failure to regulate AI warfare, or to pause its usage until there is some agreement on lawful usage, seems to suggest potential proliferation of AI warfare is imminent,” Craig Jones, a political geographer at Newcastle University in England who researches military targeting, told Nature's Nicola Jones on Thursday.
While some proponents of AI weapons systems have claimed their use will reduce civilian harm, Jones stressed that "there is no evidence that AI lowers civilian deaths or wrongful targeting decisions—and it may be that the opposite is true."
"If the United States is at war, then Pete Hegseth is a war criminal. If the United States is not at war, then Pete Hegseth is a murderer."
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday was condemned for his boasts on Wednesday about sinking an Iranian military ship after allegations emerged that it was "defenseless" at the time it was torpedoed in international waters by a US submarine.
Military.com reported Thursday that the Iranian ship had been departing from a biennial multinational naval training exercise that it had been invited to participate in by the Indian government.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has so far remained silent on the US attack on the ship, but other politicians in India delivering sharp condemnations.
According to the Times of India, opposition leader Rahul Gandhi tore into Modi for not speaking up after the US torpedoed a boat that his government had invited into its waters.
"The conflict has reached our backyard, with an Iranian warship sunk in the Indian Ocean," Gandhi said. "Yet the PM has said nothing. At a moment like this, we need a steady hand at the wheel. Instead, India has a compromised PM who has surrendered our strategic autonomy."
In a social media post, former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said there was no way that the Iranian ship could have been perceived as any kind of military threat.
"I am told that as per protocol for this exercise ships cannot carry any ammunition," he wrote. "It was defenseless... The attack by the US submarine was premeditated as the US was aware of the Iranian ship's presence in the exercise to which the US navy was invited but withdrew from participation at the last minute, presumably with this operation in mind."
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim noted that, in addition to striking what appears to have been a defenseless boat, the US also didn't help rescue any of the shipwrecked men who were aboard the vessel.
"The Sri Lanka Navy was left to pull the dead bodies from the water," Grim commented. "I am hard pressed to think of any other nation throughout history that would do something so cowardly and despicable. We are genuinely in a league of our own, and American media—mostly shrugging off the bombing of a girls school and acting as if carpet bombing Tehran is a normal military tactic—is deeply complicit."
Author Bruno Maçães also pointed to the decision to leave the shipwrecked crew at sea as an act of historic depravity.
"Really quite extraordinary that the US bombed an Iranian ship and then left the surviving sailors to drown," Maçães wrote. "There are many many accounts of the Nazis or Imperial Japan saving survivors at sea. I see we have now dropped below that level."
Mohamad Safa, executive director of PVA Patriotic Vision, an international multilateral organization with special consultative status at the United Nations Economic and Social Council, said that the US attack on the Iranian ship constituted either a war crime or straight-up murder.
"What Pete Hegseth ordered the military to do violates international law," he wrote. "The Iranian ship was near Sri Lanka, in international waters outside the combat zone and on a training exercise. Under the Geneva Conventions, you are obligated to rescue the crew of a ship that you sink during war. Abandoned any survivors and leaving them to drown is illegal and a war crime."