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

151–160 of 516 posts

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

#151

Post by manigandham »

ionised wrote: post #145
manigandham wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feelings rarely ever help in these situations. Why would a defense force put you more at risk? The world is not a gentle place and it takes less than 30 seconds of browsing international headlines to see that. The chaos is kept in check through violence and the military has a direct impact on the peace and freedoms enjoyed by the populace. Two major nations are rapidly growing powerful tyrants with Putin and Xinping.…

> Feelings rarely ever help in these situations. So don't go with feelings, go with facts. Any real reading into the US' military and intelligence operations in South America, Africa and the Middle East should be all the evidence you need.

Evidence of what? The American people are safe and sound and the interests of America are still protected, and very few countries even think about threatening us here, thanks to a strong military force.

Those ares you mentioned would be better off if they had a strong military to keep order and protect their citizens.

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

#152

Post by tomohawk »

Derbasti wrote: post #132
CamperBob2 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

[flagged]

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

#153

Post by bergoid »

lordnacho wrote: post #130
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.

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.

I think the idea of "asymmetric warfare" is well established and it fits totally your description.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

Sure, there will always be people who think this not "real" war. But that's an irrelevant classification detail to the belligerents or the people caught up in the collateral damage.

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

#154

Post by FanaHOVA »

gambiting wrote: post #105
tozeur wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the New York Time's view on this issue is also understandable, but I sincerely believe that had it not been for US and its ventures abroad, we(over here in Europe) wouldn't need defending. Like when US wants to build anti-missile defense systems in Europe, and goes "look, we're just trying to save you from strikes from Middle East guys!" - great, but why would Middle East strike Poland for example? Oh that's righ…

Europe has such a peaceful history, we never had wars over here until the US came around right? C'mon...

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

#156

Post by FearOfReprisal »

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.

An act of war by whom? Which nation? Osama Bin Laden was trained in the United States by Reagan's authority when he funded/supported the Mujahadeen in a proxy war against Russia.

Fast-forward 20 years to 9/11. Osama Bin Laden is funded by his family, and by other rich Saudis, which means the government of Saudi Arabia because all Saudi wealth is owned by the House of Saud.

But they're our allies, so instead, we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan, even though none of the 9/11 attackers were from either country. To get approval, we lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, which we never found, because they didn't exist.

I'm not really following your war narrative, but I am finding a lot of cronyism and false flags.

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

#157

Post by TotempaaltJ »

buro9 wrote: post #123
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 becau…

Right, what about Microsoft Office? I'm sure that's used by some military. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it makes up a vital part in planning real military operations, where people die.

But would you refuse to work on Office if you worked at MS?

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

#158

Post by chrisper »

drawnwren wrote: post #120
robin_reala wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not American.

Good news then, you aren't eligible to work on the vast majority of USG software projects. Definitely anything remotely related to military drones.

The US is not the only country with a military and companies...

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

#159

Post by wencha »

fyfy18 wrote: post #126
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?

China and Russia won’t stop just because America does. It’s best to keep all forces balanced, akin to the nuclear deterrence theory.

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

#160

Post by implements »

TotempaaltJ wrote: post #157
buro9 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 becau…

Right, what about Microsoft Office? I'm sure that's used by some military. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it makes up a vital part in planning real military operations, where people die. But would you refuse to work on Office if you worked at MS?

There's some in the military that'd beg you not to work on MS Office - specifically Powepoint:

http://theweek.com/articles/673091/general-mattis-save-milit...

[Genuine question: New here, is this style of post too Reddit for HN?]

Post reply on HN