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

231–240 of 516 posts

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

#231

Post by hutzlibu »

sp332 wrote: post #220
6ue7nNMEEbHcM wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen that kind of thinking in the past and it's pretty popular view. I'm just not so sure about this moral aspect. Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? Maybe you won't do this but be sure that in some other country some similarly talented people will. If you (and many others) abstain from it on similar basis you and closest people you know may be in danger of being affected…

It's a moral point. Maybe I'd rather be dead than kill someone.

Doubt that to be honest. In theory maybe, but in a real life scenario I don't think there are many people who let themself (and their loved ones) to be killed than to kill. Even though I have a lot of respect for Ghandi, I am not sure if I could respect someone who would let his family murdered, out of a moral point.

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

#232

Post by JustSomeNobody »

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 we eliminate our military altogether you think things would just stay the same?

If you don't want to be a part of it, good for you. But those freedoms didn't come cheap.

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

#233

Post by lazysheepherd »

6ue7nNMEEbHcM wrote: post #216
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've seen that kind of thinking in the past and it's pretty popular view. I'm just not so sure about this moral aspect. Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? Maybe you won't do this but be sure that in some other country some similarly talented people will. If you (and many others) abstain from it on similar basis you and closest people you know may be in danger of being affected…

This _is_ a very valuable action logically let alone morally. In the next decades either we resolve to mitigate this "us or them" mentality on this earth, or pure physics and math will resolve to see the end of the civilization as we know it.

Google is a US company yes, but with so many engineers from all over the world and customers from every corner of the world, who is "them" for a Google employee really?

And before you say so, I know this is how things(power dynamics, etc.) work today. That is exactly why this kind of movement towards a change is good and needed.

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

#234

Post by sheepmullet »

cbg0 wrote: post #69
gok wrote: post #33

I wonder how many engineers refused to build tools to sell ads for counterfeit medicine.

I don't know if you're trying to imply that they're being hypocritical or not, but those engineers built tools to sell ads in general, not to sell specific ads, so there's probably a lot of reprehensible stuff being advertised for with these tools, things which those engineers might not agree with. You wouldn't blame a knife maker for people stabbing each other.

How is that any different than our military mostly being used to keep us safe but occasionally being used to harm others?

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

#235

Post by protonimitate »

6ue7nNMEEbHcM wrote: post #216
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've seen that kind of thinking in the past and it's pretty popular view. I'm just not so sure about this moral aspect. Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? Maybe you won't do this but be sure that in some other country some similarly talented people will. If you (and many others) abstain from it on similar basis you and closest people you know may be in danger of being affected…

I haven't had to accept/reject any form of military contract so this is all theoretical - but my biggest issue wouldn't be assisting the military, it would be not having transparency into what my contributions were being used for.

If I could write software that actually helps our military without hurting others, I would be perfectly fine with that. My fear is that you would be given a black box problem that could be used however they see fit.

But, I also wouldn't join the military for the same reasons. I would be more than willing to assist and help, but do not want to be put in a position where I have to take, or contribute, to taking some one else's life. However, for every one person like me or you, there are plenty of people who sign up eagerly to do just that.

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

#236

Post by JustSomeNobody »

greyman wrote: post #62
bad_user wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is at this point not just some US company, but a multi-national one. 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. So what stops me, as a Google customer (which I am), to stop doing business with them, given that I see proof after proof that they are working against my interests? This is the same problem as with the Snowden le…

> 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…

What if in the future your country needs the US military?

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

#238

Post by walshemj »

brown9-2 wrote: post #198
walshemj wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re missing the point - which is that Google does business and has offices in many countries that are not America.

And that makes what difference? those offices are just their to support the main business or for tax reasons.

Google wouldn't have all those people in Eire unless it was for tax and access to a cheap English speaking labour force.

And if google local offices started to diverge from the US norm they would quickly have there senior mangers replaced - for example if a local google office faced a recognition ballot from a union.

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

#239

Post by ethbro »

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?]

Imho, the important thing is the degree to which a comment contributes or adds information to the discussion.

So something like linking an article about PPT overuse in the military w/ a quip is much better than just a quip at PPT's expense. (Given that some people might not be aware of the reported overuse of PowerPoint in the US military)

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

#240

Post by traviscj »

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…

Maybe we need a “War Dove GPL”?
Post reply on HN