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

171–180 of 516 posts

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

#171

Post by pavelludiq »

rifung wrote: post #51
iainmerrick wrote: post #10

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…

> 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? Why bother with any new products when search and ads are extremely profitable? I think it makes sense to look at this from the perspecti…

> still don't really see anything wrong with supporting the government or military

As a non-American(but citizen of an allied nation), the fact that the US is currently involved in something like 12 regional conflicts(that we know of), some of which could be considered illegal wars of aggression if the US wasn't on the UN security council, in places who's combined wealth is a fraction of just one US state is very worrying to me, and the fact that few, if any Americans share that concern is certainly very disappointing. I had thought Americans better than that in my younger years, apparently not.

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

#172

Post by megous »

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…

Yes. Most of ISIS didn't deserve drone attacks. It was a state-like big organization comprised of many diffrent kinds of people who opportunistically, or out of ideology, or by being misled, or under a threat of force, or taken young and brainwashed, joined and helped said organization, which seemed or was in some important cases objectively better than the possible alternatives. Being highly sectarian it was also very horrible to groups of people deemed an underclass.

I certainly wouldn't want to live under (in?) ISIS, but that's because I had a luck of being born in a stable country where the government doesn't hate me and doesn't treat me as an underclass, where the police doesn't rob me or beat me,...

Many other people had no such luck, and I will not simply say that they deserve to die, just because someone slaps some label on them without any obvious nuance.

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

#173

Post by majewsky »

implements wrote: post #160
TotempaaltJ wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?]

I think it's okay. Just a small quip thrown in from the side that's still relevant to the topic of discussion. It would not be okay (IMO) if you tried to derail the discussion to focus on your link instead; in this case, a regular submission should be made.

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

#174

Post by manigandham »

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.

This is a good thing, it means the defense is working.

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

#175

Post by jojo64 »

derping_hacker wrote: post #170
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.

The current era of peace between world powers is unprecedented in human history and is only possible because the power of the US military makes it pointless for anyone to start a war. The US military also makes your welfare state in Sweden possible, we've spent 10s of trillions over the last 70 years protecting Europe for free, the least you could do is show some appreciation. I look forward to the day America Shrugs…

If the service is free, then your are the product.

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

#176

Post by [deleted] »

johnday wrote: post #167
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…

I'm not sure you've been paying attention. By most accounts, the USA in the next war will be the bad guys.

[deleted]

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

#178

Post by kimdotcom »

gaius wrote: post #45
lexs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

don't you think there are better uses for "the smartest people on the planet" other than defense work?

Sure. But if they weren’t doing that they wouldn’t be curing cancer, they’d be working on more adtech, etc. The people making a big moral stand here were all perfectly OK with mass surveillance for commercial interests remember.

Unfortunately, I agree.

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

#179

Post by chrisbennet »

Viff wrote: post #116
chrisbennet wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What lead to ISIS was the US pulling out too soon, leaving a huge power gap that the Iraqi government could not fill. Nation building takes decades. Germany and Japan were not rebuilt overnight to become the US' top allies after WWII: they were fully occupied by Allied forces for at least a generation before control was handed back to their respective local governments.

“The reason he bled to death is because they didn’t get him medical attention.”

“But you shot him!”

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

#180

Post by Amygaz »

tozeur wrote: post #88
onion2k wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re amazingly profitable already That isn't enough. Due to the frankly idiotic way corporate investors think 'any company that isn't growing must be dying'. Google will need to continue to demonstrate growth forever despite that being impossible. Growing in the ad market is hard because they're already the biggest player, so Google are looking at new things to do. This is just one of them.

That’s not true. Google is trying to grow because it thinks it still can, and thus investors expect it to. Companies like GE or Maersk have already saturated their market positions, and are now considered value stocks that return dividends, rather than increasing investors stock holding value.

Not true about either GE or Maersk.

They have businesses in very broad areas, including areas of high growth and innovation. Lack of imagination, poor management, poor judgement, poor execution... That's what is happening. Both are run by greedy people with a dinosaur mentality.

Post reply on HN