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

121–130 of 516 posts

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

#121

Post by malmsteen »

chrisbennet wrote: post #75
mankash666 wrote: post #56

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…

US (wholly avoidable) intervention in Iraq led to the rise of ISIS. The world is not safer when you go around wacking hornets nests.

Is isis such a big deal in the grand scheme of things.. ?

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

#122

Post by bergoid »

realusername wrote: post #97
tozeur wrote: 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?

> 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.

It's not too much of a stretch to describe 9/11 as an act of war.

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

#123

Post by buro9 »

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.

It's not that black and white.

Working on missile guidance? Then I can see your point of view... but everything else in some way facilitates or contributes to facilitating such things.

One can rapidly reduce it to "fixing a Linux bug... facilitates the military industrial complex". You might wish to not work on things that directly are used by the military, but the vast majority of technology is indirectly used because the military and their supporting companies, processes, logistics is so broad that it's almost everything.

At which point can you say your work truly does not facilitate or contribute?

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

#124

Post by realusername »

bergoid wrote: post #122
realusername wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's not too much of a stretch to describe 9/11 as an act of war.

It's not too much of a stretch to describe the Bush claims leading to the Irak war as completely fabricated.

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

#125

Post by CamperBob2 »

bergoid wrote: post #122
realusername wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's not too much of a stretch to describe 9/11 as an act of war.

But think of how much better off we'd be today if we hadn't treated it like one.

9/11 was not an act of war. It was the work of a few deranged cultists who got lucky, nothing more and nothing less. Our response was equivalent to reacting to the Branch Davidians by bombing the Vatican.

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

#126

Post by fyfy18 »

gman83 wrote: post #101

I wonder if Silicon Valley refuses to cooperate with the military if it won't mean that America won't be able to compete with China and Russia strategically in the long term. Those countries presumably have no problems getting their tech industry to cooperate. Russia having an advanced form of AI-weaponry without any form of MAD-doctrine is probably not the best scenario.

I find your choice of words here interesting. Why does the US need to “compete” with Russia and China? I don’t want to sound too much like a hippy, but is strenthening our militaries like this really the best long term goal?

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

#127

Post by sidcool »

bigbluedots wrote: post #83
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.

Not trying to defend the killing, but military is important for a nation. Even if the US military is very ethical, the foreign militaries may not be. Hence the US military has to be on an offensive all the time. There is no dearth of countries who would want to see the fall of US, or any other western nation.

(Having said this, US military has done their share of mass murder in Cambodia, Iraq etc.)

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

#129

Post by FearOfReprisal »

manigandham wrote: post #50
randomsearch wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is our military capable? We've failed horrendously at two wars in Iraq and one war in Afghanistan. We like to claim that we defeated ISIS, but let's be real, we defeated ISIS in about the same way we defeated Germany, we let everybody else fight for us, then took the credit.

ISIS? PKK & YPG defeated ISIS, and as a thank you we're about to throw them under the bus to stay in the good graces of the Turkish dictator.

We hear a lot about the great might of the US military, and yes I will concede that we do manage to destroy a lot of countries, but we don't seem to win wars.

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

#130

Post by lordnacho »

bergoid wrote: post #122
realusername wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's not too much of a stretch to describe 9/11 as an act of war.

I think you'll find quite a few people would find it is quite a stretch.

The attack was planned by a group that wasn't the internationally recognized leadership of any country, and they hid in a war-torn country whose government was being violently contested. And the Taliban were also not recognized, at least not officially, as the leadership of Afghanistan.

So to call it an act of war is indeed a stretch.

Post reply on HN