Also, in case you missed that: StackIt is the AWS / G Cloud competitor by LIDL: https://www.stackit.de/en/ It's the basebone for their app strategy with 100 mio+ client installs and about 500k employees.

Or rather, stealing control from their customers computers is already leaving politics mess up with the customers.

>CryptPad was selected to join the German "Sovereign Workplace" project, now called openDesk.

https://blog.cryptpad.org/2025/01/28/CryptPad-Funding-Status...

Many more details in this blog post from XWiki: https://xwiki.com/en/Blog/XWiki-CryptPad-knowledge-managemen...

The ICC was applauded in the US in the when it went after Russia but when it goes after Israel it is sanctioned. It unfortunately hard to be impartial, like the ICC is, when it comes to international war crimes. The big players want you to play towards their favourites and only hold their enemies accountable.

The US is also sanctioning Palestinian human rights groups, and kicking them off of US platforms like YouTube, because they make Israel look bad: https://theintercept.com/2025/11/04/youtube-google-israel-pa...

(was submitted to HN 3 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45797515)

I'd nitpick the "don't care" part. To me, it's that they do care precisely because they know they are guilty. I think Trump is guilty for the boats being shot. Obama guilty for the drone strikes. W guilty for well, the whole shit show. Didn't really pay attention to Biden, but I'd assume drone strikes continued there too. From Clinton on back, I admit I just wasn't paying attention to those kinds of issues.

These people are members of international drug trafficking cartels that are highly armed and organized and kill thousands of people directly (and tens of thousands indirectly) every year. They are military combatants actively waging war against the US, and this is self-defense.

The US has been waiting for the host countries of these cartels to stop them for decades now, at the cost of millions of lives. To defend their behavior and claim that the US shouldn't defend its own citizens from foreign military powers is absolutely disgusting.

https://opencode.de/en/software/open-desk-1317

https://gitlab.opencode.de/bmi/opendesk/deployment/opendesk

That is false. They're civilian. They are not proven to be "foreign military powers".

And in the case I'm misunderstanding what is written, above, perhaps this is a semantics issue?

I'd suggest perhaps "militarized" ..

I agree the direct/indirect death is true, deriving from these peoples' behavior. That in and of itself does not make them a military, but certainly a threat. And legally there is a due-process for handling that threat - missile strikes are not legal, here.

And there are lots of threats, with many ways that are appropriate to handle. For example, lots of people kill lots of other people, too - e.g. Trump killed 400,000 of us in his first term (mis-led us around COVID risks / mitigation), and has killed 600,000 foreigners in his second term (USAID sudden shut-down w/o replacement), that makes a MILLION DEAD ...

... given that, does this mean Trump deserves to be physically attacked by our military's missile command? I'd say "no, he should face legal action for his predictably hazardous mis-leadership."

- https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/11/new-revelations...

- https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-documentary...

==> "As of November 5th, it estimated that U.S.A.I.D.’s dismantling has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children."

openDesk is solid, legit and serious.

Open source is a requirement. As such, money doesn't go to a startup building proprietary software that get bought a few years later by a big tech company and then all the investment is lost. They audit and check that licenses are open source and that the dependencies have compatible licenses.

It's publicly funded, by Germany* (for their needs, but it will grow larger than them). Their strategy is to give money to established European open source software companies so they improve their software in areas that matter to them, including integration features (user management, for instance, or file / event sharing with other software, many things) as well as accessibility. They take all these pieces of software and build a coherent (with a common theme / look & feel), turn-key, feature-rich suite. This strategic decision that has its drawbacks allows to get something fast with what exists today.

I'm not sure communication and the business strategy is all figured out / polished yet, but with the high profile institutions adopting it, it will come. Each involved companies wants this to succeed too.

I think this is huge. I'm quite enthusiastic. Software might not be perfect but with the potential momentum this thing has, it could improve fast, and each piece of open source software that is part of this as well along the way.

* see also caubin's comment

> Create, edit and share documents, spreadsheets and presentations with full support for all major file formats

Microsoft has to follow US law. If it believes an order has been issued unlawfully, it—and everyone who works there who follows the order—has a civic duty to oppose the order in court.

Only a year after Clinton signed the statute 9/11 was perpetrated. I can’t imagine any of the most powerful countries would have ratified it if they were in the midst of prosecuting a war.

Since then the US has softened on the ICC as it benefits them to maintain a relationship but, at this point why sign other than for ideological reasons.

And even if there was an intent to join there would likely be stipulations from the US. And it would have to pass the divided senate, after which it would likely go to the Supreme Court who with the current bench would certainly strike it down, meaning a constitutional amendment would be needed. It’s less feasible to join now than it ever has been unfortunately.

Snowden leaked that fact before Microsoft made the admission. But it's good that it's coming from them officially nonetheless.

Could MS create a new EU based company in which it just owns shares ?

Or is the US cloud act so wide that they can demand data from all the companies a us based company has equity in?

GPL family mandates source code access to people who can access to the software itself. So as long as ICC gets the source code of the NextCloud EE and the Guard app, the GPL is fulfilled.

This is how RedHat operates, and is not a violation of GPL.

Also, this is how you can build a business around GPL. You only have to provide source code to people who buys your software, or you can sell support to it.

Another example: Rock Solid curl [0].

[0]: https://rock-solid.curl.dev/

https://gitlab.opencode.de/bmi/opendesk

They have some real users too. I know of some out of my head. According to ChatGPT:

- Robert Koch Institute (RKI) – entered a contract on 11 June 2025 to use openDesk as the technical basis for the “Agora” platform for public‑health authorities.

- BWI GmbH – the IT infrastructure provider for the German armed forces (Bundeswehr); signed a framework contract for openDesk.

- Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie – also mentioned as an early adopter of openDesk.

- Föderale IT‑Kooperation (FITKO) – listed as a user in the EU OSS Catalogue entry for openDesk.

I think I read that some German states use the software too.

You never know what will happen in the long run but the solution will probably be maintained for some time given it's backing by the federal government of Germany.

There's an EU law, 'blocking statue' which also means that contracts can't be broken with reference sanctions even if the contracts themselves say they can be, and the services must be provided anyway.

This isn't GDPR type stuff. This is a path to infinite fines. Ending up jail for years is also a distinct possibility if you help people access their data, since spying on these institutions is actually treated as espionage. We recently passed a law here in Sweden forbidding espionage against international organizations in which Sweden is part.

Edit: and actually, just recently it was even more direct with it: https://web.archive.org/web/20251105125410/https://www.offic...

From any country's perspective this means ceding power. They just do it for the greater good and for justice. Deferring the right to bear arms to the state also means ceding power, but you gain a peacefuller society. Most people have more important and aspiring things to do, than fighting with their neighbors.

However I believe the rates in the end were too high to win notable contracts, but I haven't followed along in a while.

https://www.heise.de/news/Digitale-Souveraenitaet-Microsoft-...

https://t3n.de/news/t-systems-sovereign-cloud-google-verwalt...

That would be a seperate company, plus if its licensing tech from MS then it's still vulnerable to supply chain attacks.

Wow - I was just thinking this would be good. Here in the UK Microsoft are slowly taking over healthcare with their terrible Dynamics 365 platform, and some competition would be really nice.

https://www.opendesk.eu/en/product

while operating in the US

My lawyers at big firms still use it, though they export .doc(x).

Then why bother with anything?

Why does France join? From a French perspective it would just be ceding power no? Why does South Korea join? From a Korean perspective it would just be ceding power no? Why...

It could have created momentum for other major powers to join (e.g. Russia) and given the ICC broad authority to prosecute the crimes it has jurisdiction over.

That might have created a world where leaders act differently. What, for example, would have happened in if Syria and Russia had both been members?

It’s easy to be cynical about ideas like the ICC - the logic of power is hard to avoid - but the US working against it is definitely a major reason for its weakness.

but, your over all picture is still, sadly correct.

It is not a huge amount of protection though. I mean we've already established that selling to 'terrorists' can be sanctioned even when selling through an intermediary. So what's stopping the US from ordering Microsoft to stop selling licenses to the ICC?

And then we've not touched on who is in control of the closed source of the many proprietary applications.

SO I expect ICC would find other people, e.g. Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, who are helping to commit these areguably war-crimes in the Pacific and Caribbean seas, the missile strikes against civilian non-US vessels.

Public institutions in Europe, in my experience, often have a confusing insistence on using Microsoft cloud products. Universities heavily push Office 365 and Teams, often trying to demand that faculty use them, while faculty continue to use alternatives as much as possible in order to actually work effectively. During the pandemic, the only online conferences I attended that insisted on running via Teams, against all reason, were run by a UK public institution, and they had as many embarrassing technical problems as might be expected.

This is despite Microsoft's cloud services being generally designed for businesses and often poorly suited for public institutions, especially universities. The services are fundamentally built with the assumption that work will primarily take place within a single organization, with clearly defined employees. European research collaborations constantly seem to be hobbled by needing to use hacks around this assumption, but the inexplicable importance of using Microsoft seems to outweigh these problems. In the most ridiculous case, a conference online during the pandemic asked everyone during registration to please not register using their university email address, but to use a personal one not associated with any Office 365 account, because they had no way of allowing access to Teams if the email address was managed by Microsoft at a different university. Yet still the importance of using Teams was paramount to the organizers.

I have had no clear explanation of why using Microsoft services is so important, despite them being so poorly suited to the institutions, so opposed (and often just not used) by many of the actual users, and arguably being used in ways that they are not really intended to be used. I've had some people claim it is necessary for GDPR compliance, despite the GDPR compliance of any US company being on shaky ground. Microsoft itself has described what seem like rather extensive contingency plans around US-enforced GDPR violations or requirements for service cutoffs (there is a blog post somewhere), but these must also imply a fear that such things could actually happen (and, of course, actually did happen with the ICC). It all seems rather strange.

Microsoft O365 Business Premium per person is 22 USD per month so total per year is ~200k USD (online price, I imagine they can negotiate a bit for that amount of people).

The startup I used to work at was exclusively on OSX + GoogleDocs, when we were small, but as we grew (and especially when the Finance team grew) more and more employees found a need for the MS Office Suite as well as apps that only run on Windows, so they started rolling out Windows VM's and then full Windows machines.

The ICC was created in 1998 when Bill Clinton was president of the USA. He never ratified the Rome treaty. And then GW, Obama, Trump and Biden didn't either.

Very few americans batted an eye as far as I could tell. Your are after all by definition exceptional. (/s)

So what you are saying is the worst that could happen is they lose the entire US market, us based datacenters, and us based employees?

I think the question answers itself.

You’re always going to be vulnerable somewhere and there isn’t a better country to be if you’re in software, cloud services or AI.

Not to mention it’s not like Microsoft Execs want to pickup and leave the States either.

There used to be this quaint idea of rule of law and things like that. We can always argue that governments were happy to get dirty and occasionally illegal, and they certainly were. But a) it was universally seen as a bad thing, and b) no country would have done it so blatantly and openly. Perversely, this narrative was important to advance the US’ interests because it opened opportunities for American companies to go deep into foreign administrations. Which they did.

So yeah, the clock ticked and now we’re in a new and exciting era for geopolitics and who knows what system will prevail in the end. What is certain is that the US abdicated their leadership.

> USA has been very hostile to the ICC under trump, but its not exactly a huge shift, bush was also incredibly hostile. It seems borderline incompetent to use a microsoft cloud offering given the political situation.

There is a difference between hostility as in "we won’t take part and won’t cooperate in any way" and "we’re also going to pressure private companies to steal your stuff". The ICC is also full of NATO countries and allies so any form of hostility has to be calibrated to keep them on your side. If you care about alliances, that is.

> Not to mention given the type of work they do, seems like hosting stuff off site at all is a bad plan.

Indeed. To be fair, it seems like a bad plan for most large companies with anything that looks like industrial secrets, let alone a government or such a supra-national organisation.

> Create, edit and share documents, spreadsheets and presentations with full support for all major file formats.

> Create, edit and share documents, spreadsheets and presentations with full support for all major file formats.

While having anything to do with America or the U.S. dollar.

Historical counterfactuals are tricky and I’m not an expert on Russia’s consideration of Rome statute ratification. I find it hard to believe that they would have ratified or not withdrawn the moment a warrant was issued for putin’s arrest.

Moreover, again as I understand, after a certain point the leaks are stopped, because the message was sent, and people now know the most important bits behind the curtain.

Their job is to investigate war criminal despite the usa trying to block them. Its not out of the question that nsa/cia/etc would use their ties at microsoft to try and get an advanced peek at the prosecution's case.

Yes all this is expensive. Their mission is not a cheap one. Doing it right costs money.

P.s. initially i mistead and got a laugh out of the idea of wikipedia operating a detention center.

The UX is so clunky that I ended up giving up and started doing presentations in Google Slides, even if I then end up exporting them as a PDF to actually present/share.

Every time I try to use it, it feels like fighting my tool rather than my tool helping me. There is no one big bug; it's a million tiny things.

It's a collaboration tool, with synced storage and file management etc

The overlap of a Venn diagram between users of these software is not very large - though there is some (overlap).

And the suite includes Quattro Pro, for those that are itchin' for that spreadsheet-flavored blast from the past. If I didn't already have the Apple suite on my Mac (which does all I need out of an office suite), I'd spend the $50 for home/student version just for the lulz.

But what if the parent’s jurisdiction orders the parent to order the subsidiary to do something illegal in the subsidiary’s jurisdiction? If local management obey the order, they risk being prosecuted by their jurisdiction’s authorities-so they’ll likely refuse. What is the parent going to do then? Fire them? But will any replacement act any differently? “Is this job worth going to prison over?” Most people answer “no”, and people who answer “yes” won’t last, because you can’t run a subsidiary from a prison cell.

I think the real issue here is that the US gets away with it because the EU is still so dependent on the US (see NATO) they can’t push back fully, at some point a political calculation takes over. So it could be that the US parent orders the subsidiary to do something illegal under EU law, and then the EU authorities choose to ignore it.

I sell 1 stock to MS USA. Can they at any point demand all my data ?

They simply don't separate the infrastructure this way AFAIK.

From those doing the paperwork with Microsoft procurement for Dutch government I learned there have been legal disputes going on for years about what even constitutes "telemetry". That was a decade ago, and even then there was push to move away from Microsoft in the government. Toward open source, or even Oracle.

I suppose that with the Dutch being Dutch all the lobbying M$ needed was suggesting a discount.

Office sucks?: "Man Office sucks these days."

The "weird" alternative you expended political capital to put everyone on works slightly differently or lacks a feature out of the box?: "What were you thinking?!"

Microsoft offered what basically amounted to "IT in a box." You got identity, email/groupware, an office suite, and an OS that ran on just about any IBM compatible PC and your own servers. You paid for the license, and then you controlled and hosted it after that. Microsoft was content to let you do whatever the hell you wanted with their software, and stuck to their promise to not break shit (backward compatibility for Win32).

That everything is now cloud hosted and stuffed with telemetry was a big rug pull, but it's not like everyone could just up and migrate to something else (and what else, for that matter, there's not much out there that matches). It was literally just this year that on-prem exchange support ended for the one-time purchase license, but even then on-prem is still available via subscription.

Microsoft gave every incentive in the world to get enterprises to stick with their stack, and it worked, so it's no wonder people are just now starting to panic a little and look for alternatives.

I wonder how big a fraction of the US tech and Military industry realizes that Trump is killing their business for the next century.

The OS, office package, email (server and client), calendar, cloud & backup, BI, etc. all aligned work almost seamlessly with each other (compared to the alternatives for sure).

Nothing on the market comes close and that is the reason they are worth trillions, not because they use closed formats.

The law, by definition is a rule backed up by the use of force, specifically state-sanctioned violence. If you write a law but do not have the ability to use a sufficient amount violence to enforce it when needed, you don't have a law at all, you just have a suggestion around how you'd like people and countries to behave.

The only way you could ever have anything resembling "international law", would be to have some sort of global military or police force capable of exerting enough violence to ensure that the law is followed, and I'm not even sure how such a thing would work.

Small point of order, but it is the Senate that ratifies treaties and not presidents. The Senate is heavily biased to overrepresent rural areas, which tend to be very conservative, and only 40% of senators can stop any ratification. The ICC has been the subject of massive amounts of conspiracy theories and misinformation in conservative media, so there's approximately zero chance that it could ever be ratified, unless the Senate's structure was made more representative of the people of the US rather than a conspiracy-minded subset.

If the Senate was a democratic representation of the will of the US it would not be hard to ratify the treaty.

In fact John Yoo, most famous for authoring the "Torture Memos" for Dubya over 20 years ago, has been perhaps the most prominent legal thinker arguing in favor of the actions Trump's taken against the ICC:

What can the incoming Trump administration do? It could impose severe sanctions on the ICC judges and its prosecutor, Karim Ahmad Khan, who engineered this debacle, by blocking their ability to transact business through our banking system, for example. It could threaten severe sanctions against any nation that arrested Netanyahu or Gallant pursuant to the ICC warrants. It could also display its contempt for the ICC by inviting the Israeli premier to the White House and Congress.

Furthermore, the Trump administration should take action against nations that are funding and supporting the ICC so generously. Some of the ICC’s largest financial benefactors, including Japan and the European Union nations, are also dependent on the United States for their security. Yet while asking Washington, D.C., to protect them, they finance a global institution that hamstrings our ability to do so. If Tokyo, for example, wants the United States to lead a new alliance to contain China, Trump can demand that Japan eliminate its subsidy for an international institution that seeks to undermine the American national sovereignty he was elected to restore.

There's a nearly straight through-line from the logic and approach to executive power Yoo helped architect under Bush and these attacks on the ICC under Trump. It's just that many have decided to bizarrely retcon the Bush administration into respected elder statesman instead of the lawless war criminals they were and are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/why-international-arrest-warrants...

It is amazing to think how valuable Wordperfect originally was, for Microsoft to be mean to them, meaning they went from worth billions to worth nothing.

Look at those screenshots! It's still a Windows 95 look'n'feel (which some HN users might enjoy).

So no reason to deal with any European citizen or court. You just threaten the US IT guy to give you the EU credentials.

Many governments employ millions of people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_se...) so for them the costs of having even tens of additional workers (IT, support, etc) to maintain a system will be a lower percentage from the total budget than for an organization with only 800 employees.

I'd push back a little bit on this. Much international law is just based on recipricol alturism. Chemical weapons are illegal. Why? Because they are a pain, and it sucks for both sides when they are used, so both sides have an interest in banning them.

I know its a hard cry from hard enforcement (to be clear hard enforcement does happen sometimes. E.g. UN interventions or even the ICC), but soft power is not nothing.

Its more like the sort of thing like how if you are a rude party guest you dont get invited to the. Sure its not the same as cops. At the same time most party guests are reasonably polite as a result of this pressure.

I know its not much, but i dont think we should count this out either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

Global military is not necessary, just consensus to enforce it.

Practical example, there is no EU military, but there surely are EU laws EU members have to follow.

True. Trump did not appear suddenly out of nowhere and he’s only able to do what he does thanks to people who prepared for this and have been pushing us down the slope for the last couple of decades. Thanks for the quote, it’s important we remember this sort of things.

> It's just that many have decided to bizarrely retcon the Bush administration into respected elder statesman instead of the lawless war criminals they were and are.

I think that’s the fact that Bush is at least able to finish a sentence. But yeah, you’re right. It was the golden age of enhanced interrogation techniques by masked men in black in illegal prisons in foreign countries.

When it's secret, how can you ever check? Even if it was just because the person on top or in the middle had a personal judge, they'll always say it was for legitimate spying purposes and no-one has any way to call them out.

Without oversight, abuse is inevitable.

You have two choices:

* Limit the damage that a person can do- IE; don’t aggregate everything in the hands of one person.

* Tonnes of oversight into who accesses the data and why.

In theory the US chooses the latter, but only for nationals and the snowden leaks were proving that this was basically just a rubber stamp and constantly was bypassed on technicalities..

.. outside of the US, there’s no legal framework to protect your data from US authorities, no matter who they are, at all.

But companies can be a lot shadier than we give them credit for. Like, remember that "wink payment" contract between Google and Israel? If Google knew what they were doing, they accepted the contract to do the illegal thing, so they'd sell their product and get money, but they were planning to simply not do the illegal thing, breaking the contract (the customer would never know and if they somehow did, you can't stop using a cloud on a dime) but not breaking any laws.

If Microsoft knows what they're doing, they'll accept contracts from EU customers that say "we will never give your data to US authorities", they break it immediately, don't tell the customer and the customer never finds out.

Alternatively, they can give the US government a bunch of nothing, in order to comply with the EU customer contract, and pretend this is all the data the customer had on their account. I doubt this will happen though.

We can quibble about whether the term "threaten", which implies some moral wrong doing, is correct though. It's a law with defined criminal penalties. That's how criminal law works

Sweet gov contracts.

EU has other levers to enforce compliance like ejection from Eurozone or Schengen Area.

Global military is required to enforce it because biggest stick wins. Many countries thinks Russia should be removed from Ukraine but no one has stepped up to provide the military to do so, ergo, in violation of international law they remain.

Who would you even hire to do this? A big consulting firm known for delivering poor quality software, or an unproven startup? What kind of a process could you use to make such a selection in a way that would ensure a good outcome?

It’s the same as the old libreoffice vs. MS office debate. Yeah, you can download libreoffice for free. It sucks. What sucks even more though is how much money you will spend on support, training and all the inevitable productivity losses associated with weird software that approximately nobody you hire will have experience with.

I would argue, or rather I know many people from poorer countries argue, that why should they care that russia violates international law etc. if the US blatantly ignored it when they invaded Iraq? In other words, it is the same international like it is in the EU, just with less trust. Also the EU might fail (and there are challenges) if too many members act against the common interest. Then the enforcement will fail and so will all of EU.

(also, with international support and china not backing russia ... it would have worked without military involvement. Then the sanctioned would have worked. So ... some countries are just happy for the cheap bargain for russian oil)

But these are "European Tenders", which in practice usually translates to: race-to-the-bottom. Unless the tender was phrased specifically, from its very first inception, to aim at some polical goal - like open source, sovereignty, innovation, inclusiveness, etc.