From our day-to-day operations to our donor databases and volunteer coordination, European civil society is disastrously dependent on U.S. tech services. This makes us, the work we do and the people we do it with, vulnerable. High time for an exit strategy.

The long arm of the Trump administration

In response to U.S. sanctions, Microsoft shut down the account of the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The trigger for the sanctions was Criminal Court investigations into possible war crimes by Israel, and the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and now former Defense Minister Gallant. The sanctions order prohibited support for the Criminal Court and the chief prosecutor in particular.

In early June, the US imposed sanctions on another four Criminal Court judges. Two of them were involved in the aforementioned arrest warrants; the other two in investigations of possible war crimes by U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. sanctions list for the Netherlands now counts a total of 51 individuals and companies, divided among programs with titles such as “RUSSIA-EO14024,” “ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059,” ‘CUBA’ and now “ICC-EO14203.” It does not appear that the accounts of these four judges have since been closed.

Dutch dependence on U.S. tech

Former Bits of Freedom director Ot van Daalen has been writing about how dependent specific sectors in the Netherlands are on U.S. tech services. And about how the same sensitivities are at play in some of those sectors as with the Criminal Court. For example, our Supreme Court, which will soon rule on whether the Netherlands may continue exporting F35 parts to Israel, largely runs on Microsoft. And “our modern ‘printing presses’ [too] are primarily operated by American tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon and Google,” Ot writes. That’s the infrastructure needed to disseminate news.

What happens when a Dutch investigation, ruling or article displeases Trump? It’s not hard to imagine that your research gets a little delayed when you lose access to your e-mail or cloud environment. Or that your work comes to a complete halt.

More than a theoretical risk

I can hear you thinking: Trump has bigger fish to fry. And you’re probably right. At the same time we’ve seen how Dutch companies are being impacted by Trump’s discriminatory anti-diversity battle.. Consider, for example, the Dutch branches of U.S. companies, companies that have the U.S. government or embassy as clients, or for whom the U.S. is an important market. A bunch of European NGO’s also have offices or funders in the U.S.. All are dependencies that make us vulnerable to influence.

And it’s not just direct attacks that we need to worry about. Shutting down services to Dutch organizations can also be used as leverage in another battle, such as around import duties.

The risk, in other words, is such that one expects more mitigating measures than “hoping for the best. Yet that seems to be exactly what the Netherlands is doing. Like Homer Simpson, we’re silently shuffling backwards into the bushes, hoping not to be noticed. Indeed, we - from governments to healthcare providers - continue to migrate to American cloud services. The risk is increasing, not decreasing.

European civil society is equally vulnerable

It is no different in civil society. Civil society should be able to operate outside the influence of government and the market. Independent, serving only the interests of citizens. An ideal that sometimes turns out differently in practice.

In 2023, Bits of Freedom completed research on the use of technology by NGOs in Europe. One of our key findings? Of the 19 organizations we spoke to, eight were completely, or largely, dependent on Google or Microsoft. And with the familiar arguments: free, convenience, force of habit.

Free, convenience, familiarity, and let’s not forget a bit of Big Tech-strategy. Google’s free “Google for Nonprofits” accounts give NGOs 24/7 tech support and all sorts of other free stuff like ad space and data visualization tools. Those who visit the website of TechSoup, an “IT marketplace for non-profits,” are treated to a full-screen ad for Microsoft. Amazon “credits” are also part of the assortment: “The Amazon Web Services (AWS) Credit Program offers credits for cloud computing services to eligible nonprofit organizations and public libraries.”

:-(

Big Tech invests in our dependence

Our dependence is essential to Big Tech. Safeguarding and increasing that dependency is a crucial part of its strategy. Every free service you accept from Big Tech is an investment by Big Tech in your dependency. And distraction from the fact that the walls around you are getting higher and higher.

The ICC incident shows what the concrete consequences of this can be for organizations. You could lose your IT infrastructure, and with it perhaps contact with your activists, members or donors, if the Trump-administration places your organization on a sanctions list. Or decides it is no longer allowed to provide services to LGBTQIA+ organizations. Or decides that NGOs that also receive money from progressive philanthropists must be cut off. Better yet, you may lose insight into who your volunteers or donors are, because that data was also stored with a U.S. service provider. And in the meantime, Trump does have free access to that data. He can gobble it up and give it to Palantir for border surveillance. The possibilities are endless when Big Tech and Big Brother join forces.

There is an alternative scenario

Fortunately, it doesn’t have to be this way, and there are a growing number of initiatives that build and maintain civic infrastructure. Arena for Journalism’s Collaborative Desk, for example, helps investigative journalists out of the Big Tech cloud. Organizations like Greenhost and Access Now offer so-called rapid response to NGOs and activists under digital attack.

But many of these organizations are also themselves dependent on government funding, project grants or donations. Independent hosters and service providers still have a hard time finding their potential customers. And besides: while they don’t charge top dollar, their work isn’t free either. While that expectation - fueled by Big Tech - is there among many organizations and funders.

What can you do?

The good news is that solutions are at hand. Here are our three tips for organizations looking to increase their self-reliance.

First, make sure you have a direct line of communication with the people who care about your work. Make the information you have for people primarily findable through channels over which you have control. Your own website, email, a newsletter. Don’t communicate exclusively through Big Tech platforms, but use Big Tech to direct people to one of the channels where you are in control.

Second, for your basic office IT, get away from Google or Microsoft. There are now many privacy-friendly, European alternatives for collaborative working, cloud storage and e-mail that you can use without too much loss of functionality. What you get in return? Autonomy and self-reliance, which, in the long run, are far more important conditions for achieving your goals. And well worth the cost. Autonomy is not an extra on your budget, but essential to your mission. And that’s how it should be understood by funders.

Finally, be careful where you store people’s information. Does your entire donor or volunteer database reside with Google? That’s a problem if Google shuts you off, but also a vulnerability for your donors, whose data can be retrieved by government agencies.

Need help?

Over the next year, we’ll share more and more resources to help you mitigate the risks of using Big Tech. Keep an eye on our website, or sign up to receive updates and calls.

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter: