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

201–210 of 516 posts

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

#201

Post by giancarlostoro »

I don't understand why Alphabet (parent of Google) does not just start a new government contracting firm, they should of done that or started a new division within Google dedicated to the matter. Don't expect engineers to switch their entire career tract just because you tell them to because they work for you, that's just not a good idea. They would clearly have the resources to hire talented people who've already done government contracts or are willing to, people who already have the necessary government clearance.

Disclaimer: I do work for a government contracting company.

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

#202

Post by jopsen »

pmorici wrote: post #93
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…

Amazon and Microsoft are certainly pursuing the defense market for their computing products. Defense is a half trillion dollar market. It's surprising that anyone is confused why a company would want to be in it.

If all they need is generic services with various certification and isolation, I see no reason not to sell that.

And the "air gap" mentioned in this article doesn't seem controversial. Doing AI for drones, however, could easily become controversial.

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

#203

Post by giancarlostoro »

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.

Silicon Valley isn't lacking in government contracting firms, and it's not the only place where talented developers exist... You need to get out of that bubble that SV is the only place with competent developers, you do a disservice to developers everywhere.

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

#204

Post by finnthehuman »

I like the idea that Google's employees can have some backbone about what they're building.

It's still comically stereotypical to see every exercise of Google's corporate power rationalized away left and right even though they're more economically powerful than many nation-states; but then they gain perspective when their "military = bad" mental filter can finally override "I trust us."

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

#205

Post by FearOfReprisal »

manigandham wrote: post #143
FearOfReprisal wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The might of the US military is still beyond any other nation, even though that advantage is being threatened recently. ISIS was very much defeated, and it was actually the lack of military followthrough that let it grow back, although it is still severely diminished. The citizens of those countries that were ravaged are incredibly thankful for US military assistance, and I advise you actually talk to some of them if…

The US military is mighty, but not terribly effective. I mean, we're 17 years into the second gulf war. 17 years and we still can't pull-out because we screwed up the first one so royally.

I'm writing this from a refugee community center here in Istanbul, the Ad'Dar Center, where I volunteer a couple of hours every day helping helping kids with their lessons, especially in English and Math, cooking, making music, talking, and listening. (To a lesser extent I help people with paperwork and UN refugee processes, but I don't really have the patience for bureaucracy, so I leave that to the experts).

I'm not a political or military expert, but over the past five years 25% of my life was spent backpacking around the middle-east / balkans / black sea / eastern block regions studying languages and music, while the other 75% has been spent living / studying / working in Istanbul. I say this so that you know my perspective is not that of a SJW sipping $10 lattes while pigging out on $20 avocado toasts in SOMA. I haven't been in a war, but I've been through a coup, bribed my way through checkpoints, volunteered at refugee camps in Bulgaria, Greece & Albania, and have spoken to many hundreds of people who have been privvy 1st-hand to direct and indirect American "wars". Back stateside, I grew up in Michigan and 1/2 of our family friends were Afghani & Iraqi engineers who had fled to the US in the 1980s (the other 1/2 were white-trash patriotic biker gangs. Michigan is a weird place).

As you would expect, the feelings and views about America here are quite varied and diverse, but the two constants that come up in every conversation:

- America should stop policing the middle-east, we do more harm than good. - Supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia makes us the real financiers of terrorism - America is using the Kurds, our best allies in the war against terror, and will be stabbing them in the back at the first opportunity for political favor

ISIS isn't defeated, by the way, they've just re-branded.

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

#206

Post by realusername »

manigandham wrote: post #174
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.

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

This is the same line of defense as the fake bomb detectors beeping randomly and sold a fortune.

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

#207

Post by gbear605 »

walshemj wrote: post #142
rurounijones wrote: post #7

Interesting when a multi-national company says things like "We are still doing everything we can within these guidelines to support our government, the military and our veterans," It may be the government of the company, but it ain't the government of a significant chunk of employess at Google, wonder how they feel about statementsl like this.

What do you mean like it or not (and I don't) the current president was elected so it is their government. I doubt many expat H1B's from the subcontinent will have any qualms about military work.

A significant fraction of Google employees don't live in America.

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

#208

Post by tonfa »

_ptgt wrote: post #30

These employees are free to exercise their right to (not) work for whomever they want, but the certainty they express (as well as most commenters here) in their own self-righteousness seems misplaced to me. There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest. In fact, I would wager that a majority of Americans (and a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the wor…

> There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest. In fact, I would wager that a majority of Americans (and a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the world) hold the belief expressed in the previous statement.

That's probably true for US citizens, but I highly doubt non-US folks share that view (at least from a western European perspective I'd say definitely not).

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

#210

Post by blitmap »

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…

I am not trying to over-simplify, but should I stop buying goods and services because the taxes taken on these transactions benefit the military?

The dividing line varies from person to person, of course. I think most would agree that improving a guidance algorithm for missile targeting is directly supporting the military. Fixing a kernel bug is not directly supporting the military. I'm a pacifist and I would go by my definition of direct support.

Post reply on HN