Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 516 posts

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#31

Post by manigandham »

mark_edward wrote: post #13
dev_dull wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want them to have these contracts because I want the smartest people on the planet working to defend our country. This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.

Maybe "many people here" feel that what our military does has little to nothing to do with defending our country, and often puts us at more risk and/or makes the world a worse place. This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.

Feelings rarely ever help in these situations.

Why would a defense force put you more at risk? The world is not a gentle place and it takes less than 30 seconds of browsing international headlines to see that. The chaos is kept in check through violence and the military has a direct impact on the peace and freedoms enjoyed by the populace.

Two major nations are rapidly growing powerful tyrants with Putin and Xinping. Do you think these situations just magically go away? Military action has already been brewing in recent years and you either have an answer when it comes to blows or prepare for a lot of misery.

I've come to find that most people (in the US anyway) who think that the military only does harm have never really witnessed or experienced any violence or unrest to see how bad things can be, which is good for them and proof that it works, but it does lead to a strange disconnection as evidenced by the comments and votes.

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#32

Post by ma2rten »

iainmerrick wrote: post #10

One thing I find strange about this is why Google is so keen to get this government business in the first place. They’re amazingly profitable already, one of the most successful companies of all time; is defense work really something that could become another major revenue stream? Given the obvious conflicts with their company culture (obvious to rank and file employees, anyway) it doesn’t seem like a very appealing…

It's like this: Google has to keep growing to justify it's stock price. In order to do that it has to expand beyond search and ads. Google's technical infrastructure is the best in the world in many aspects, so they decided to open it up to other companies. However, other companies don't just come by themselves. That is why Google hired a bunch of sales people. Now these sales people do what they were hired for, they sell including to the government.

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#34

Post by lexs »

dev_dull wrote: post #11
iainmerrick wrote: post #10

One thing I find strange about this is why Google is so keen to get this government business in the first place. They’re amazingly profitable already, one of the most successful companies of all time; is defense work really something that could become another major revenue stream? Given the obvious conflicts with their company culture (obvious to rank and file employees, anyway) it doesn’t seem like a very appealing…

I want them to have these contracts because I want the smartest people on the planet working to defend our country. This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.

don't you think there are better uses for "the smartest people on the planet" other than defense work?

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#35

Post by jiggliemon »

iainmerrick wrote: post #10

One thing I find strange about this is why Google is so keen to get this government business in the first place. They’re amazingly profitable already, one of the most successful companies of all time; is defense work really something that could become another major revenue stream? Given the obvious conflicts with their company culture (obvious to rank and file employees, anyway) it doesn’t seem like a very appealing…

Google isn’t “Google”. It is a series of siloed business units. One of those units is encentivised to win government/doj contracts. Google as a whole is wildly profitable. It’s ad platform ensures that. But the unit that is required to win multi-million dollar contracts from the government is less profitable. And that unit needs to justify its overhead just like any business does.

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#36

Post by dnomad »

manigandham wrote: post #31
mark_edward wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe "many people here" feel that what our military does has little to nothing to do with defending our country, and often puts us at more risk and/or makes the world a worse place. This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.

Feelings rarely ever help in these situations. Why would a defense force put you more at risk? The world is not a gentle place and it takes less than 30 seconds of browsing international headlines to see that. The chaos is kept in check through violence and the military has a direct impact on the peace and freedoms enjoyed by the populace. Two major nations are rapidly growing powerful tyrants with Putin and Xinping.…

Strange. I've come to find that most who think the modern military is primarily a "defense force" are wholly deluded about what the history actually does and its history.

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#37

Post by Yokohiii »

iainmerrick wrote: post #10

One thing I find strange about this is why Google is so keen to get this government business in the first place. They’re amazingly profitable already, one of the most successful companies of all time; is defense work really something that could become another major revenue stream? Given the obvious conflicts with their company culture (obvious to rank and file employees, anyway) it doesn’t seem like a very appealing…

There is an worldwide AI hyteria ongoing. Google wants to monopolize and governments will be big customers.

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#38

Post by FearOfReprisal »

berti wrote: post #17
dev_dull wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want them to have these contracts because I want the smartest people on the planet working to defend our country. This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.

It's a little sad when you have to divert your best and brightest away from advancing the state of civilization, to merely defending what you already have . Obviously that will still advance the state of the art in some areas.

's/defending what you already have/stealing what others have/g'

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#39

Post by iainmerrick »

manigandham wrote: post #31
mark_edward wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe "many people here" feel that what our military does has little to nothing to do with defending our country, and often puts us at more risk and/or makes the world a worse place. This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.

Feelings rarely ever help in these situations. Why would a defense force put you more at risk? The world is not a gentle place and it takes less than 30 seconds of browsing international headlines to see that. The chaos is kept in check through violence and the military has a direct impact on the peace and freedoms enjoyed by the populace. Two major nations are rapidly growing powerful tyrants with Putin and Xinping.…

I’d like to point you to Robert Peel’s principles of policing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

The whole thing is great, but your comment particularly reminded me of 4:

“To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.”

30 seconds of glancing at the international news is enough to see that the world is a much more peaceful place than it was in the early 20th century, say.

It is definitely necessary to have a military, even if only as a deterrent, but it can also be counter-productive to depend on the military too much. Those aren’t contradictory statements.

Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

#40

Post by randomsearch »

manigandham wrote: post #31
mark_edward wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe "many people here" feel that what our military does has little to nothing to do with defending our country, and often puts us at more risk and/or makes the world a worse place. This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.

Feelings rarely ever help in these situations. Why would a defense force put you more at risk? The world is not a gentle place and it takes less than 30 seconds of browsing international headlines to see that. The chaos is kept in check through violence and the military has a direct impact on the peace and freedoms enjoyed by the populace. Two major nations are rapidly growing powerful tyrants with Putin and Xinping.…

I don’t entirely disagree with you, but to play devil’s advocate: do you think invading Afghanistan and Iraq, destabilising the Middle East, and declaring “war on terror” has really made the world safer for Americans? I think the ideal you appeal to has been corrupted by commercial interests overriding security concerns.
Post reply on HN