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

81–90 of 516 posts

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

#81

Post by rusk »

pmontra wrote: post #14
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 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…

This makes absolute sense actually. But in one sense it's a game, and in another sense we mostly accept that war is a travesty, and generally very bad news for a civilian population. Analog to this is society, customers, employess etc. why are we tolerating an approach to business that is destructive for all but a few?

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

#82

Post by Brotkrumen »

dchest wrote: post #74
gbajson wrote: post #71

Can anyone explain what's their "air gap" technology, please?

It's explained in the linked article.

Not really. Being "on a single piece of hardware" is not necessary for a system to be air gapped. Its not cutting edge tech either and questioning the requirement of some systems to be air gapped is... not smart.

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

#83

Post by bigbluedots »

sidcool wrote: post #68

I really want a cogent argument of not working on Military projects. Isn't it almost like other businesses? I am really looking for a discussion.

Let's see: The military's job is partly to kill people. Some people have a moral objection to being involved in that, surprisingly.

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

#84

Post by tozeur »

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.

I don’t think you realize the security of our country has been built by hundreds of thousands of mechanical and electrical engineers, computer scientists, and physicists. Sure, working on military contracts may include uncomfortable problem spaces. But is it morally wrong to work on contracts that ultimately protect American lives?

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

#85

Post by robin_reala »

tozeur wrote: post #84
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.

I don’t think you realize the security of our country has been built by hundreds of thousands of mechanical and electrical engineers, computer scientists, and physicists. Sure, working on military contracts may include uncomfortable problem spaces. But is it morally wrong to work on contracts that ultimately protect American lives?

I’m not American.

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

#86

Post by dilyevsky »

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…

They're keen on advancing their cloud business. And government is potentially large client with deep pockets.

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

#87

Post by opless »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #46
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.

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

You might have forgotten WW2?

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

#88

Post by tozeur »

onion2k wrote: post #27
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…

They’re amazingly profitable already That isn't enough. Due to the frankly idiotic way corporate investors think 'any company that isn't growing must be dying'. Google will need to continue to demonstrate growth forever despite that being impossible. Growing in the ad market is hard because they're already the biggest player, so Google are looking at new things to do. This is just one of them.

That’s not true. Google is trying to grow because it thinks it still can, and thus investors expect it to. Companies like GE or Maersk have already saturated their market positions, and are now considered value stocks that return dividends, rather than increasing investors stock holding value.

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

#89

Post by cs02rm0 »

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.

I'm not quite sure why this is downvoted, although I understand the nuance, it seems an interesting and related point.

Out of interest, are there open source licenses that prevent use in military projects? ISTR reading something recently about it being legally questionable to discriminate between who can accept a license, but that was in the context of allowing open source for non-commercial purposes.

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

#90

Post by Rotten194 »

tozeur wrote: post #84
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.

I don’t think you realize the security of our country has been built by hundreds of thousands of mechanical and electrical engineers, computer scientists, and physicists. Sure, working on military contracts may include uncomfortable problem spaces. But is it morally wrong to work on contracts that ultimately protect American lives?

Do you sincerely believe that us dropping bombs in the middle east is "protecting American lives"? If anything, it's spawned a whole generation of terrorists who hate the US for destroying their country.

The best way to protect Americans would be for our country to get out of expensive, overseas wars and invest that money in healthcare and ending the drug war, things that actually kill Americans in large numbers.

Post reply on HN