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

41–50 of 516 posts

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

#41

Post by manigandham »

dnomad wrote: post #36
manigandham wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, it acts in the interests of the state, and as a citizen of that state, it acts in my interests, one of which is my defense. It's a complex definition but I'm interested in what you think is so deluded?

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

#42

Post by [deleted] »

dev_dull wrote: post #12
robin_reala wrote: post #5

Every company I apply to is told during the interview process that I will not work on military projects, and that I would probably leave the company if they chose to take on a military contract. If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them then no-one is the worse off; I’ve yet to be turned down for a job over it and, somewhat the opposite, companies seem to appreciate frankness.

If you contribute to open source software then you’re contributing to military projects.

[deleted]

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

#43

Post by manigandham »

iainmerrick wrote: post #39
manigandham wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Police != military. Those principles don't really apply here as they are different forces both in duty and power.

A military can only act as a deterrent if it has the capability to actually pull off what it claims, otherwise it very quickly loses standing. It's far better to have the ability to defend and never need it then to be wishing you had it when something goes wrong.

There is no such world where you don't depend on the military. The world is literally controlled through violence. Everything comes down to either direct action or the threat of it (backed by the capabilities as mentioned). Sure you can avoid a lot through diplomatic means, and we should always look for peaceful solutions, but reducing military power is only done at your peril.

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

#44

Post by webkike »

dev_dull wrote: post #12
robin_reala wrote: post #5

Every company I apply to is told during the interview process that I will not work on military projects, and that I would probably leave the company if they chose to take on a military contract. If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them then no-one is the worse off; I’ve yet to be turned down for a job over it and, somewhat the opposite, companies seem to appreciate frankness.

If you contribute to open source software then you’re contributing to military projects.

God dammit, I knew my open source game framework was going to be used for nefarious purposes, how could I have been so short sighted?

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

#45

Post by gaius »

lexs wrote: post #34
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.

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

Sure. But if they weren’t doing that they wouldn’t be curing cancer, they’d be working on more adtech, etc. The people making a big moral stand here were all perfectly OK with mass surveillance for commercial interests remember.

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

#46

Post by throwaway2048 »

dnomad wrote: post #36
manigandham wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its arguable that the US military has never fought a defensive war in its entire history.

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

#47

Post by dnomad »

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's nothing wrong with Google wanting as many people as possible to use their cloud offering. I suspect the engineers would be happy for most government agencies to use their offering and it makes sense for Google to pursue government contracts. Governments are the ideal cloud consumers, needing to operate at scale and happy with generic solutions as they're not so interested in squeezing out some competitive advantage. Clouds can save governments a lot of money and this is indisputably a good thing. (Even in those case where they might not be happy with a particular agency using the offering they may at least know that they're not implicated as the cloud offering is a general solution that likely does more good than harm.)

Where the balance tips and they become complicit is when they offer customized and specialized solutions that further a particular mission. Here I think good engineers will draw the line as a matter of conscience.

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

#48

Post by codeisawesome »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #16
pmontra wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be not to leave all of that cake to its main competitors: if Google takes a slice from Amazon and Microsoft, they will grow a little less faster. This applies to every sector, not only government and military. If you ever played boardgames (especially German style) maybe you'll remember some games when only one player developed some resource unchecked by the other ones. This usually leads to an easy win for th…

We Must Not Allow a Tunnel Gap!

This comment taken along with the parent makes it so much more clear to me why everything has to be a competition between world powers... especially in far, far away lands.

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

#49

Post by [deleted] »

manigandham wrote: post #41
dnomad wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, it acts in the interests of the state, and as a citizen of that state, it acts in my interests, one of which is my defense. It's a complex definition but I'm interested in what you think is so deluded?

[deleted]

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

#50

Post by manigandham »

randomsearch wrote: post #40
manigandham wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I do think we have problems with certain commercial interests overriding public welfare, in pretty much all industries. Bad actors exist everywhere and unfortunately can cause much chaos in such a powerful force as the modern military.

That being said, yes, the world is safer than ever before. There have been many mishaps and sadly some of them are because of pulling back on military action prematurely, leading to a lack of control and a power vacuum that fills the void with much more turbulence than before. Proper leadership and direction still matters, but when it counts the US military is still capable and willing to keep its citizens and many others out of trouble anywhere on the planet, and there is a lot to be said for that.

Post reply on HN