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

241–250 of 516 posts

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

#241

Post by carlosrg »

PostOnce wrote: post #119
carlosrg wrote: post #117

Meanwhile, regimes like China, North Korea or even Russia won’t have this kind of issues.

Well, the neighbor beats his wife, so I might as well beat mine. What kind of logic is that? We don't necessarily need to match lock-step with terrible regimes to ensure our own security, and our own security is the only argument for matching them in the military field. For example, if someone else uses gas or landmines, we can use masks and airplanes to defeat them, without having to resort to those things that can'…

Riiiight. For example, USA could abandon nuclear weapons, while letting others continue to develop them. That would work fine, both for them and their allies. If Hitler had them and the allies didn’t, that would have worked fine.

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

#242

Post by hutzlibu »

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…

"Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? .... Maybe it's just not in people heads that world and homeland safety is not given for free and granted forever."

Well unfortunately most armys today (and especially your US-Forces) are not really "defensive" armys. Despite they all hypocritely call themself that. They are mostly very offensive conquering ones. Where is the connection again to homeland safety, when you invaded Iraq, Libya, Syria...? It is simply about dominance. So sure you can say, it is for world peace - all accept our empire and we will have peace. But that is not really my definition of peace nor freedom. (and not a working one, with so many other wannabe nuclear empires around)

I was also not in the military because of that. I would defend germany in germany, but not in Afghanistan. But when you join the military or work for them - you can't really choose only for the defense part. This would only be possible if we would have only armys for defending (so in switzerland I probably would have served).

And about real international peace-keeping missions, to protect against genocide etc. - well, that is a different story. UN-Troops are an option, even they got used for dominance and powerplay as well and lost credibility because of it. But when a nations army goes into a different country to fight a war - it is allmost allways about dominance.

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

#243

Post by ethbro »

robin_reala wrote: post #20
dev_dull wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you contribute to open source software then you’re contributing to military projects.

That’s the standard argument, and yes, it’s true. There’s a difference between actively working on a defined project and putting some stuff out into the open though, and that at least for me is a reasonable border.

To me this is a non-trivial distinction.

Especially with dual-use technology, e.g. open source infrastructure, open accessibility moots some qualms about empowering a specific military at the expense of others.

(On the other hand, in terms of wars not happening and pure global peace and stability, there are arguments for elevating between 1 and 5 powers above others)

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

#244

Post by bradleyjg »

maroonblazer wrote: post #229
bradleyjg wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One needn’t make a decision that would stand up in all times and all places. It’s perfectly reasonable to take a stand based on the current circumstances in particular country.

Agree, not all times and places. But it's not like you can flip a switch and suddenly have all the technology you need when your quality of life is in imminent danger.

To make it concrete, currently the US spends more than the next ten countries combined on its military and associated projects and has done so since at least the end of the Cold War. It has far and away the most ships, planes, missiles and bombs. While it doesn’t have the most troops the two countries with more troops do not nearly have the same as much training or as good equipment.

Presuming the OP is in the US, and in light of the above, it seems perverse to suggest that his refusal to work on military projects is endangering his loved ones.

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

#245

Post by dahdum »

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?]

Including the article makes it an interesting tangent in my view.

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

#246

Post by v_lisivka »

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.

What about your children?

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

#247

Post by quakenul »

6ue7nNMEEbHcM wrote: post #230
sp332 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is it still moral if by your decision not only you but many other people die?

Is it okay to not torture someone, if by doing so other people might die? Is it okay to not (legally or illegally) surveil a people, if that might result in physical harm to them?

How much does the chance of missing out on action x to (maybe) defer undesirable outcome y weight against the mere consequences of pursuing action x in the first place?

You tell me and then I'll tell you. It is a question of morality and as such has an infinite number of right and wrong answers.

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

#248

Post by brightball »

_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…

It just means that other companies will get these contracts.

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

#249

Post by eaandkw »

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?]

Ha. I was going to say death by PowerPoint. Or even PowerPoint commandos. I hated working with PowerPoint when I was in the USMC.

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

#250

Post by wolfgke »

acchow wrote: post #110
dev_dull wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you contribute to open source software then you’re contributing to military projects.

And if you contribute to science, you're contributing to military projects. If you've taught kindergarten or middle school, you've probably helped raise a soldier. Yeah ok.

> If you've taught kindergarten or middle school, you've probably helped raise a soldier.

I believe that on HN you perhaps talk to the wrong audience for this argument. If the teacher really had the "hacker spirit" in teaching, the pupils will be too freethinking (as in hacker) to be suitable soldiers.

Post reply on HN