When Brian Eno first lent his creative genius to Microsoft in the mid-1990s, few could have predicted that his Windows 95 startup sound—a mere 6-second chime—would become one of the most recognizable audio logos of the digital age. That tiny musical flourish not only signaled the hopeful dawn of personal computing for millions but also cemented Eno’s unique position at the intersection of art, technology, and society. Now, almost thirty years later, the acclaimed composer and producer has sharply distanced himself from the tech giant he once helped define, commanding global attention with an open letter criticizing Microsoft’s provision of advanced technologies to the Israeli military in the context of the war in Gaza.
In May, Brian Eno posted a public letter addressed directly to Microsoft on his Instagram feed, titled “Not in My Name: An Open Letter to Microsoft From Brian Eno.” In this powerful statement, he reflects on the journey from crafting an uplifting sound that became synonymous with the potential of personal computing, to confronting the ethical realities of technology’s role in geopolitical conflicts.
“Millions—possibly even billions—of people have since heard that short startup chime, which represented a gateway to a promising technological future,” Eno wrote. “I never would have believed that the same company could one day be implicated in the machinery of oppression and war.” For Eno—whose ethos has long blended art with social conscience—Microsoft’s actions have strayed far from the optimistic vision encoded in those initial musical notes.
Eno’s letter was not simply a personal rebuke. It emerged days after Microsoft publicly acknowledged, via an unsigned blog post, that it has provided advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing tools—including its Azure platform—to the Israeli military, in efforts related to intelligence processing, translations, and even the retrieval of hostages. This revelation followed a thorough investigative report by the Associated Press, which detailed how the Israeli military leveraged Microsoft technologies in expanding mass surveillance and operational command during the ongoing war in Gaza.
This relentless violence, compounded by the use of advanced digital surveillance, AI-driven decision making, and expanded cloud-based intelligence analysis, has raised urgent questions about the complicity of global tech giants whose tools are wielded in conflict zones. The ethical responsibilities of Microsoft and its peers have never been in sharper focus.
This response, while intended to allay fears, has drawn mixed reactions. Critics argue that disclaiming oversight does not absolve Microsoft of responsibility for the real-world consequences enabled by its technology. Eno, echoing the language of several United Nations experts and human rights groups, wrote: “These ‘services’ support a regime that is engaged in actions described by leading legal scholars and human rights organizations, the United Nations experts and increasing numbers of governments as genocidal. Selling and facilitating advanced AI and cloud services to a government engaged in systematic ethnic cleansing is not ‘business as usual.’ It is complicity.”
Eno’s framing, echoed in recent debates within the tech sector, calls for a higher standard: not just adherence to contracts and terms of service, but proactive withdrawal from engagements with actors credibly accused of grave human rights abuses. While international law has not yet settled the obligations of cloud providers in war zones, growing momentum among digital rights advocates suggests that “business as usual” is no longer adequate.
The Associated Press reporting cited in Eno’s open letter uncovered new details about Microsoft’s understanding—or lack thereof—of how its tools are used in military contexts. For instance, Microsoft’s Azure cloud is used for intelligence-gathering and mass surveillance, according to interviews with sources familiar with Israeli operational practices. The company, however, maintains that these uses are outside their direct purview. Without robust, independent auditing, such claims remain difficult to verify.
But whether such gestures can effect real change within corporate giants such as Microsoft remains an open question. The company declined Billboard’s request for comment on Eno’s letter, suggesting that—at least for now—it prefers to weather the controversy rather than engage in public debate.
For Eno and his supporters, the issue is not abstract. “If a sound can signal a real change,” Eno wrote, “let it be this one.” His public disavowal of Microsoft’s actions, underscored by the donation of his original Windows jingle fee to aid Gazan victims, is both a call to conscience and an indictment of the global tech industry’s tendency to treat the ethical burdens of technology as problems for later.
The response has been predictably polarized. Supporters of Israel argue that the provision of AI and cloud services is both lawful and justified in the context of national security and counterterrorism. Critics, however, insist upon the primacy of international law and humanitarian norms, demanding that technology companies draw a hard line on complicity in likely war crimes or “systematic ethnic cleansing,” as Eno and others allege.
While Microsoft did not issue fresh comments in response to the letter, its prior communications have emphasized contractual compliance, a lack of direct knowledge of customers’ on-premises operations, and devotion to “ethical AI.” But the ambiguity of these defenses—and the company’s reticence to answer follow-up questions—has left many unsatisfied, amplifying demands for third-party compliance checking, stronger contractual restrictions on military use, and deeper public transparency.
For Brian Eno, the enduring legacy of his six-second startup chime is now indelibly entwined with a profound question about responsibility in the digital age. “Selling and facilitating advanced AI and cloud services to a government engaged in systematic ethnic cleansing is not ‘business as usual.’ It is complicity,” he concluded. This is a stark, unvarnished challenge—not just to Microsoft, but to an entire industry grappling with the realities of power, profit, and human consequence.
For Windows users, Eno’s call is a reminder that every technological marvel carries with it an ethical trace—sometimes faint, but always present. As new conflicts arise and new technologies emerge, the industry’s willingness to engage with dissenting voices, reckon with harm, and build mechanisms for real accountability will define not only its reputation but its role in the future history of peace and war.
It is, perhaps, fitting that the chime which once ushered us into a bright new world now serves as a summons—to reflection, to action, and to responsibility at the very heart of technological progress.
Source: Billboard Brian Eno Slams Microsoft for Providing Israeli Military With Tech 30 Years After He Crafted Windows 95 Startup Sound
Brian Eno’s Open Letter: From Sonic Icon to Ethical Dissenter
In May, Brian Eno posted a public letter addressed directly to Microsoft on his Instagram feed, titled “Not in My Name: An Open Letter to Microsoft From Brian Eno.” In this powerful statement, he reflects on the journey from crafting an uplifting sound that became synonymous with the potential of personal computing, to confronting the ethical realities of technology’s role in geopolitical conflicts.“Millions—possibly even billions—of people have since heard that short startup chime, which represented a gateway to a promising technological future,” Eno wrote. “I never would have believed that the same company could one day be implicated in the machinery of oppression and war.” For Eno—whose ethos has long blended art with social conscience—Microsoft’s actions have strayed far from the optimistic vision encoded in those initial musical notes.
Eno’s letter was not simply a personal rebuke. It emerged days after Microsoft publicly acknowledged, via an unsigned blog post, that it has provided advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing tools—including its Azure platform—to the Israeli military, in efforts related to intelligence processing, translations, and even the retrieval of hostages. This revelation followed a thorough investigative report by the Associated Press, which detailed how the Israeli military leveraged Microsoft technologies in expanding mass surveillance and operational command during the ongoing war in Gaza.
Context: The Gaza Conflict, Technology, and Global Scrutiny
The backdrop to Eno’s letter is both harrowing and complex. In October 2023, Hamas attacked Israeli civilian and military targets, resulting in approximately 1,200 Israeli deaths and more than 250 hostages taken. Israel’s response—a sustained military campaign in Gaza—has, according to the latest counts from the Associated Press and other monitoring groups, caused more than 53,000 Palestinian deaths, with a vast civilian toll that has alarmed international observers and humanitarian organizations.This relentless violence, compounded by the use of advanced digital surveillance, AI-driven decision making, and expanded cloud-based intelligence analysis, has raised urgent questions about the complicity of global tech giants whose tools are wielded in conflict zones. The ethical responsibilities of Microsoft and its peers have never been in sharper focus.
Microsoft’s Response: Internal Review and Denials
After public outcry—including concern from its own employees—Microsoft released a blog post confirming that it had conducted an internal review of its contracts with Israel’s Ministry of Defense (IMOD). “We have found no evidence that Microsoft’s Azure and AI technologies, or any of our other software, have been used to harm people or that IMOD has failed to comply with our terms of service or our AI Code of Conduct,” the company stated. Notably, the post added, “Microsoft does not have visibility into how customers use our software on their own servers or other devices.”This response, while intended to allay fears, has drawn mixed reactions. Critics argue that disclaiming oversight does not absolve Microsoft of responsibility for the real-world consequences enabled by its technology. Eno, echoing the language of several United Nations experts and human rights groups, wrote: “These ‘services’ support a regime that is engaged in actions described by leading legal scholars and human rights organizations, the United Nations experts and increasing numbers of governments as genocidal. Selling and facilitating advanced AI and cloud services to a government engaged in systematic ethnic cleansing is not ‘business as usual.’ It is complicity.”
Critical Analysis: Corporate Ethics in the Age of AI and Cloud Computing
The core issue at the heart of Eno’s letter—and the global tech industry’s response to armed conflict—is the unprecedented reach and opacity of cloud and artificial intelligence technology. The Azure platform, for instance, enables customers to build, deploy, and operate vast data processing networks with little explicit oversight from Microsoft itself. This “black box” model of enterprise computing is deliberately designed to empower customer autonomy and innovation—but as the Gaza war shows, it also raises acute ethical quandaries.The Challenge of Oversight
Critics and tech ethicists, including former Microsoft employees and public interest technologists, have pointed out that the company’s standard disclaimers about “lack of visibility” stand in stark contrast to the immense resources devoted to monitoring compliance with everything from copyright to software piracy. In cases where financial liability or legal action might be at stake, technology providers have demonstrated considerable ability to track and police downstream uses. Thus, Microsoft’s claim of limited insight into customer operations is, to some, a matter more of corporate risk management than technical impossibility.Eno’s framing, echoed in recent debates within the tech sector, calls for a higher standard: not just adherence to contracts and terms of service, but proactive withdrawal from engagements with actors credibly accused of grave human rights abuses. While international law has not yet settled the obligations of cloud providers in war zones, growing momentum among digital rights advocates suggests that “business as usual” is no longer adequate.
The Transparency Problem
Microsoft’s own transparency mechanisms, such as its annual Digital Trust Reports, typically limit disclosures to the broadest metrics—content takedowns, government data requests, and sometimes “national security orders.” These disclosures rarely offer insight into secretive, high-stakes defense contracts, leaving much to the imagination of both the public and policymakers.The Associated Press reporting cited in Eno’s open letter uncovered new details about Microsoft’s understanding—or lack thereof—of how its tools are used in military contexts. For instance, Microsoft’s Azure cloud is used for intelligence-gathering and mass surveillance, according to interviews with sources familiar with Israeli operational practices. The company, however, maintains that these uses are outside their direct purview. Without robust, independent auditing, such claims remain difficult to verify.
The Power of Cultural Capital
Eno’s involvement adds an unusual element to the debate. As the composer of what has become one of the most-played sounds in technological history, his voice—steeped in cultural capital—draws attention to the often invisible ethical stakes of the tech industry. By pledging to donate the fee he received for the Windows 95 composition to aid victims in Gaza, Eno leverages his personal legacy to demand a different kind of accountability.But whether such gestures can effect real change within corporate giants such as Microsoft remains an open question. The company declined Billboard’s request for comment on Eno’s letter, suggesting that—at least for now—it prefers to weather the controversy rather than engage in public debate.
Strengths and Innovations: The Double-Edged Sword of Microsoft’s AI and Cloud Services
Underpinning this controversy is an uncomfortable truth: Microsoft’s efficacy as a partner to military, intelligence, and humanitarian actors alike derives from its relentless innovation and technical excellence. Azure is widely regarded as one of the leading cloud platforms worldwide, offering unmatched global infrastructure, advanced AI workloads, and data processing capabilities at scale. Its tools have facilitated breakthroughs in everything from disaster response to healthcare, pandemic modeling, and logistics management.Technical Capabilities
- Scalability and Flexibility: Microsoft Azure can support massive, distributed operations—from startups to nation-states—providing analytics, AI inference, language translation, and machine learning at the push of a button.
- Integration with Intelligence Workflows: As the AP investigation outlined, Azure was used for intelligence gathering, translation, and transcription. These capabilities dramatically increase the efficiency of information processing in time-sensitive operational theaters—whether for hostages, humanitarian needs, or military objectives.
- Compliance Frameworks: Azure and other Microsoft cloud offerings adhere to strict compliance standards (such as ISO 27001, SOC 2, and FedRAMP), which, in theory, should promote responsible usage. However, enforcement ultimately depends on customer self-reporting and selective auditing.
Risks and Vulnerabilities
- Dual-Use Dilemma: Technologies that boost efficiency and intelligence for humanitarian purposes can just as easily be used for targeting, surveillance, or other military operations. The same translation engines and AI classifiers that parse medical records can prioritize wartime intelligence targets.
- Limited Oversight: The company’s public admission that it lacks “visibility” into how customers operate its software—combined with external reporting—suggests substantial risk of unintended or ethically troubling uses.
- Reputational and Legal Hazards: As global norms shift, companies that fail to proactively address potential human rights implications of their technology face not only public backlash but also mounting regulatory challenges.
The Human Cost: Numbers, Nuance, and Narrative
At the heart of these debates lie the human stories and staggering statistics: 1,200 Israelis killed and more than 250 taken hostage by Hamas on one side; over 53,000 Palestinians reportedly dead from Israel’s retaliatory actions on the other. These numbers, cited by major wire services and humanitarian monitors, reflect both the horror of unchecked conflict and the complicity—direct or indirect—of those who supply the tools that power modern surveillance, targeting, and warfighting.For Eno and his supporters, the issue is not abstract. “If a sound can signal a real change,” Eno wrote, “let it be this one.” His public disavowal of Microsoft’s actions, underscored by the donation of his original Windows jingle fee to aid Gazan victims, is both a call to conscience and an indictment of the global tech industry’s tendency to treat the ethical burdens of technology as problems for later.
Global Reaction: Artists, Activists, and the Future of Corporate Accountability
Eno’s letter is only the latest and most high-profile in a long series of interventions by artists, activists, and human rights organizations seeking to hold tech giants responsible for their role in conflict. It is notable that his protest arrives at a moment when employee activism within Big Tech firms—including walkouts and open letters at Google, Amazon, and Microsoft itself—has become a regular feature of corporate life.The response has been predictably polarized. Supporters of Israel argue that the provision of AI and cloud services is both lawful and justified in the context of national security and counterterrorism. Critics, however, insist upon the primacy of international law and humanitarian norms, demanding that technology companies draw a hard line on complicity in likely war crimes or “systematic ethnic cleansing,” as Eno and others allege.
While Microsoft did not issue fresh comments in response to the letter, its prior communications have emphasized contractual compliance, a lack of direct knowledge of customers’ on-premises operations, and devotion to “ethical AI.” But the ambiguity of these defenses—and the company’s reticence to answer follow-up questions—has left many unsatisfied, amplifying demands for third-party compliance checking, stronger contractual restrictions on military use, and deeper public transparency.
Looking Forward: What Precedents Will Be Set?
The outcome of this latest controversy will almost certainly have implications beyond Microsoft alone. As cloud platforms and AI become ever more enmeshed in the machinery of national defense, intelligence, and, by extension, warfare, tech firms face mounting pressures to develop clear ethical guardrails—or risk being remembered less for the innovations they unleashed and more for the tragedies they enabled.For Brian Eno, the enduring legacy of his six-second startup chime is now indelibly entwined with a profound question about responsibility in the digital age. “Selling and facilitating advanced AI and cloud services to a government engaged in systematic ethnic cleansing is not ‘business as usual.’ It is complicity,” he concluded. This is a stark, unvarnished challenge—not just to Microsoft, but to an entire industry grappling with the realities of power, profit, and human consequence.
Conclusion: Beyond the Startup Sound—What Will We Hear Next?
The story of Brian Eno’s break with Microsoft is not only about one artist’s journey from hopeful collaboration to protest. It is a microcosm of the broader tensions that define our era of cloud computing and artificial intelligence, as the same systems that “signal a promising technological future” are repurposed for surveillance, targeting, and—however indirectly—violence.For Windows users, Eno’s call is a reminder that every technological marvel carries with it an ethical trace—sometimes faint, but always present. As new conflicts arise and new technologies emerge, the industry’s willingness to engage with dissenting voices, reckon with harm, and build mechanisms for real accountability will define not only its reputation but its role in the future history of peace and war.
It is, perhaps, fitting that the chime which once ushered us into a bright new world now serves as a summons—to reflection, to action, and to responsibility at the very heart of technological progress.
Source: Billboard Brian Eno Slams Microsoft for Providing Israeli Military With Tech 30 Years After He Crafted Windows 95 Startup Sound
