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

51–60 of 516 posts

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

#51

Post by rifung »

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…

> 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?

Why bother with any new products when search and ads are extremely profitable?

I think it makes sense to look at this from the perspective of Google Cloud since I imagine that's where the contracts are. Google Cloud isn't a leader in this space. In cloud, having more customers is a competitive advantage both because of marketing and also because of technology/cost.

With more users, you can share costs more and have better forecasting since any given customer's specific usage will should not affect your total usage assuming customers are fairly similar in size (not true in reality..). Then hopefully you can run closer to capacity, lower prices, and then gain even more customers.

> Given the obvious conflicts with their company culture (obvious to rank and file employees, anyway) it doesn’t seem like a very appealing trade-off.

I don't agree with this to be honest. At least, I certainly wouldn't consider it "obvious". I'm a rank and file employee and I was surprised at the outrage. I still don't really see anything wrong with supporting the government or military but I can understand how this makes some people uncomfortable, especially if they are not US citizens.

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

#52

Post by gaius »

manigandham wrote: post #43
iainmerrick wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dep…

A military can only act as a deterrent if it has the capability to actually pull off what it claims

Consider that the US military has lost every war since it was one of the victors of WW2 along with the UK and Russia. And it didn’t make any difference. All those wars were entirely optional and the consequences of losing them were nonexistent. So what’s it all for, really?

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

#53

Post by StreamBright »

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…

Companies do not have a conscience or moral considerations.

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

#54

Post by codeisawesome »

manigandham wrote: post #22
berti wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The military has been behind most of the technological advances in society, and is directly behind the birth of Silicon Valley itself.

I don’t have facts on hand to back this up, but I think even the space race which advanced everyone so much, was a result of militaristic competition

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

#55

Post by manigandham »

codeisawesome wrote: post #54
manigandham wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military has been behind most of the technological advances in society, and is directly behind the birth of Silicon Valley itself.

I don’t have facts on hand to back this up, but I think even the space race which advanced everyone so much, was a result of militaristic competition

Yes, that is well known now. The cold-war is the only reason we went to the moon and we are still benefiting from that technology today.

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

#56

Post by mankash666 »

Software engineers in the valley seem disconnected from reality. Maybe they believe politically correct fairies drop from the heavens and secure the US, it's borders and interests. Or maybe the Taliban and ISIS don't deserve drone attacks.

Whatever their delusion, it's for the good. Military and defense funding yielded everything from the transistor to the internet. Let the next wave of innovation happen outside the smug cesspool of hypocrisy that's silicon valley.

FYI - I'll gladly work for the defense forces sworn to protect our borders as against companies whose very existence relies on slicing axnd dicing personal, private information and interactions, and serving ads against them. Or worse, selling it to the highest bidder and colluding with adversarial powers. Fuck off silicon valley

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

#57

Post by manigandham »

gaius wrote: post #52
manigandham wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dep…

A military can only act as a deterrent if it has the capability to actually pull off what it claims Consider that the US military has lost every war since it was one of the victors of WW2 along with the UK and Russia. And it didn’t make any difference. All those wars were entirely optional and the consequences of losing them were nonexistent. So what’s it all for, really?

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. The world isn't static so of course there were consequences.

I'm not saying the military is perfect or that everything it does is right (and much of that is due to the whims of leadership), but that having a strong military is an option that most wish they had because they see first-hand what it's like without. There is no substitute for that power and it's easy to overlook in the several decades and generations of relative peace that has endured so far.

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

#58

Post by smsm42 »

So, looks like it's not some bad feature. It's just because it's for the military. It's unacceptable to contribute to the military. And ICE. And police. And any law enforcement at all. What's next? Licenses refusing use of software to political opponents? Firing people because they have wrong political opinions? Oops, that's already been done. Refusing to work on software which is being used by companies that didn't fire people with wrong political opinions? Refusing to cooperate with somebody who ever ate at Chik-fil-A? Where does it stop?

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

#59

Post by barrystaes »

dagaci wrote: post #6

Ok but why was air-gap so controversial ? Is it more than having isolated servers ?

Could be.

This article certainly raises that eyebrow. It stipulates the problem back then was a feature called "airgap" which (in the normal meaning of the word) is rather trivial and usually is for defense and not offense.

But to me it all reads like a per-usual politics BS story to discredit a group and downplay a problem.

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

#60

Post by bad_user »

_ptgt wrote: post #30

These employees are free to exercise their right to (not) work for whomever they want, but the certainty they express (as well as most commenters here) in their own self-righteousness seems misplaced to me. There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest. In fact, I would wager that a majority of Americans (and a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the wor…

Google is at this point not just some US company, but a multi-national one. I'm not a US citizen, so for me the US having a strong military isn't necessarily in my best interests, depending on circumstance.

So what stops me, as a Google customer (which I am), to stop doing business with them, given that I see proof after proof that they are working against my interests?

This is the same problem as with the Snowden leaks. I don't care if Americans feel more safe with the NSA secretly watching their emails via gag orders, if my privacy as a non-US citizen is being violated, therefore at this point absolutely all US companies are suspects, starting with a negative ranking in my book; at this point I always prefer European ones. Also the usual arguments that countries collaborate with each other is bullshit, because in the EU I can sue companies, or my government, for cheap too, whereas in the US I have no rights.

And if you find that acceptable, then maybe balkanizing the Internet isn't such a bad thing after all, lets start with ICANN.

> There's also a real chance (though perhaps small) that an industry-wide refusal to cooperate with the US military could have disastrous consequences for the world

There's also a real chance that I might get hit by a brick and die tomorrow, yet that doesn't stop me from going out.

If you don't have an assessment done by experts of what might actually happen, then such arguments are bullshit.

Post reply on HN