Live data from Hacker News

Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

bloomberg.com

91–100 of 516 posts

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

#91
post #71

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

I don't have first-hand knowledge of this tech (if i did i probably wouldn't be able to comment) as i haven't heard anything about this during my time there, but if I had to guess, it's probably a silo'ed GCP environment on silo'ed Borg cell on silo'ed turtles all the way down to physical hardware and facilities.

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

#92
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Crockford’s original JSON licence banned the use of the technology for evil, but IBM’s lawyers knew that a bunch of their projects couldn’t be guaranteed to be 100% evil-free and negotiated an exemption.

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

#93

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…

Amazon and Microsoft are certainly pursuing the defense market for their computing products. Defense is a half trillion dollar market. It's surprising that anyone is confused why a company would want to be in it.

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

#94
post #58

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…

Slippery slope fallacy.

In this case the slope is slippery, and we are moving down it. It reminds me more of a tale of a person falling from a skyskraper and passing the 20th floor, saying to himself "so far, so good...".

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

#95
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By definition, a license that has Field of Use restrictions is not an Open Source license.

Creative Commons NonCommercial licenses, for example, are neither Open Source nor Free Software licenses.

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

#96

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.

[deleted]

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

#97
post #84

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?

> But is it morally wrong to work on contracts that ultimately protect American lives?

[citations needed]. I've not been aware of any war on US soil.

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

#98
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think the idea of free software and banning specific uses is compatible. OSI also says that they require no such discrimination: https://opensource.org/osd (points 5, 6)

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

#99
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You maybe joking but military loves them some games for training purposes. So ironically enough having a nice gaming platform actually gives you good chances of contributing (unwittingly) to military projects.

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

#100
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is a very naive, but understandable, viewpoint. Take the time to learn about how important America’s military is to global stability: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/16/world/trump-m...
Post reply on HN