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

131–140 of 516 posts

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

#131

Post by robin_reala »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #115
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.

And if I were hiring, I'd certainly think less of you for taking that stance. Picture this: we're deep in the Cold War era, and Ronny Raygun is the president. The Star Wars initiative is in full swing. Nuclear mishaps and near-misses are still an all-too-frequent occurrence. Nena's red balloons are ready to fly. The President has just gone on the air and promised to "Outlaw Russia," and that "The bombing starts in fi…

I don’t disagree that a lot of technological benefits have come out of military technology, it’s just that your comment completely ignores the death, destruction and calamity that’s also arisen. You’re fine to believe that the military is a net benefit for society, that’s your choice. I just don’t, and that’s mine. And while yes, I’m sure you’d think less of me in an interview situation that’s not been my general experience of hiring managers.

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

#132

Post by Derbasti »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #115
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.

And if I were hiring, I'd certainly think less of you for taking that stance. Picture this: we're deep in the Cold War era, and Ronny Raygun is the president. The Star Wars initiative is in full swing. Nuclear mishaps and near-misses are still an all-too-frequent occurrence. Nena's red balloons are ready to fly. The President has just gone on the air and promised to "Outlaw Russia," and that "The bombing starts in fi…

> And if I were hiring, I'd certainly think less of you for taking that stance.

If you don't want to hire me because of this fact, I am perfectly fine with that. In fact, that is exactly what I and the OP would want. I do not blame you for working on military projects. You are free to do that, and I think no less of you for it. But by the same token, the OP and I are free to not wanting to work on military projects.

If you want to judge people for their personal preferences, that is your choice to make. They might reciprocate, though.

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

#133

Post by FearOfReprisal »

opless wrote: post #87
throwaway2048 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You might have forgotten WW2?

To be fair, America didn't really win WW2, we hardly even fought, mostly we just supplied Hitler with arms, and when that wasn't fashionable anymore, we supplied the allies with arms.. Then we swooped in at the end to take all the credit and the fat construction contracts.

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

#134

Post by bergoid »

realusername wrote: post #124
bergoid wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed.

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

#135

Post by walshemj »

I cant quite see what this supposed military tech is "air gap technology".

From the article it seems to be setting up a separate air gaped clone of google infrastructure for use on DoD contracts.

This isn't exactly improving image recognition for drone strikes or identifying cars containing brown skinned kids near the Mexican border for Donalds child catchers to intern in the camps.

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

#136

Post by dirtshell »

inglor wrote: post #118
Rotten194 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As an Israeli, I believe that US intervention in the long term and the fact we were stuck in a proxy of the cold war did us mostly harm. While we see the US as an ally here - we haven't traditionally been at war with Arab countries and I think a big part of it was the influx of military equipment from the US to Israel and from the USSR (and later Russia) to the surrounding countries. (This is an oversimplification bu…

"While we see the US as an ally here - we haven't traditionally been at war with Arab countries"

Literally since the founding of the state of Israel the country has been at war with the Arab nations. Could you expand on what you mean by this?

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

#137

Post by Derbasti »

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.

Also, to world peace. And crime. And law enforcement. And... humanity.

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

#138

Post by ionised »

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?

The US military is used as an invasion/occupation force way more often than any 'protecting American lives'.

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

#139

Post by iainmerrick »

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…

Police != military

The US is (or was) often referred to as the world’s policeman. I think it’s a fairly useful analogy.

Police certainly can (and often do) control the populace through violence and intimidation. It’s also possible to reduce crime via cooperation and consent.

On the world stage, you can regard nations as individual actors and think about what those actors can do to coexist peacefully. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a brutal “survival of the fittest” struggle. The same strategies used by individuals could work at the nation state level too. And they do! Look at the role of treaties, trade deals, mutual migration, art and literature, economic interdependence, etc in maintaining the peace.

I am definitely not saying we don’t need a military. We sometimes need armed police too. But not every police officer needs to carry a gun around.

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

#140

Post by ionised »

tozeur wrote: post #100
Rotten194 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

And by 'global stability' you of course mean, 'American financial interests'.
Post reply on HN