Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

Post by greyman » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:34 AM UTC

slavik81 wrote: post #144

greyman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not a US citizen, so for me the US having a strong military isn't necessarily in my best interests, depending on circumstance. Yes, that's exactly the problem. What if in the future, my country and USA will be enemies? It is not very probable, but so wasn't a prospect of war in Ukraine, for example. You just don't know how things will develop, and if a company want's to be global, it shouldn't directly support…

That's not how things are done today. Military technology is shared widely among allies. If we cannot trust our friends, we are doomed. There might be national secret-sauce here or there, but the major military contractors are all international. Lots of projects involve R&D spread across multiple nations. Things mostly get dicey when looking at nations that are too unstable to trust (Egypt, Pakistan, etc.), or those…

Post by sshine » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:35 AM UTC

Vinnl wrote: post #106

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 have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them Problematic here is that I might not be aware of all my moral limits until I encounter a situation they might be relevant to.

Post by wildmusings » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:42 AM UTC

Post by johnday » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:45 AM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #165

I hope these engineers stop and rethink what they’re doing. I’m sure they think they’re doing the right thing, but they should expand their outlook and consider that one day America may be in another war for its life or for the survival of freedom in the world. Do not be overly comforted by the relative peace since WW2. It was built by American military dominance, quickly fading as China becomes a formidable power. I…

Post by manigandham » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:47 AM UTC

iainmerrick wrote: post #139

manigandham wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 neces…