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

251–260 of 516 posts

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

#251

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#252

Post by jcranmer »

FearOfReprisal wrote: post #133
opless wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might have forgotten WW2?

To be fair, America didn't really win WW2, we hardly even fought, mostly we just supplied Hitler with arms, and when that wasn't fashionable anymore, we supplied the allies with arms.. Then we swooped in at the end to take all the credit and the fat construction contracts.

That is wrong on just about every level.

In the 20s and the early 30s (that is to say, before Hitler rose to power), the US brokered efforts to reduce the burden of WWI reparations, as well as inject loans into Germany to help its moribund economy. FDR was opposed to Hitler, and would have brought the US into the war earlier, but US public opinion was firmly isolationist. Even then, the US was neutral really in name only, as it devised conditions for selling weapons that amounted to "only the UK can buy them." Yes, the US logistical support to the Allies was crucial both to keeping them collapsing and actually decisively winning the war, but the US military did prove superior to both Axis and other Allies in several regards, most notably artillery, amphibious assaults, and carrier operations.

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

#253

Post by paulie_a »

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?]

To be fair you should just refuse to work on PowerPoint because you will save millions, potentially billions of hours of other people's time that have to endure those presentations.

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

#254

Post by black_puppydog »

_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…

> 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.

wow. words fail me. I used to see the US as the "big partner overseas". That was 20 years ago. Maybe I'm projecting my own views and development here, but IMHO the picture the US as friendly or even just benign faded over a decade or so, then got utterly destroyed by whatever the heck US politics is today.

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

#255

Post by mtgx »

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…

At some point someone has to take a stand against all the objectively evil/bad actions the U.S. military is taking every day abroad.

Maybe when enough people do it, the U.S. leaders will have a more reasonable approach to foreign policy/invading other countries.

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

#256

Post by menacingly »

lazysheepherd wrote: post #233
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…

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 befo…

For Google, "Us" is the government that could in a pinch just grab the damned technology and leave them with next to no recourse, and "Them" is the governments who can't.

Hopefully, if you're choosing to work for a company, you understand that you're at least implicitly adopting those definitions, and that you may find the licensing requirements of your work hastily restructured in an emergency situation.

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

#257

Post by black_puppydog »

_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…

> Given that society created the environment for these tech companies (and their employees) to acquire their skills and thrive, does not society have some moral/ethical lien on how those skills are applied?

No. Education ideally is a gift from society to the individual, in the hope that it will be reciprocated, by work, but also by making informed decisions. And those can easily include refusing to work on a project (military or not) if the individual deems it harmful. Harmful to who? To the society that financed the education, to their family, or to "the world"? That's up to the individual to decide, too.

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

#259

Post by wolfgke »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #164
fyfy18 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find your choice of words here interesting. Why does the US need to “compete” with Russia and China? I don’t want to sound too much like a hippy, but is strenthening our militaries like this really the best long term goal?

However bad you think America is, every other super power is much worse. A few years ago Russia literally conquered a neighboring country just because they wanted to. The engineers who object to these programs are very lucky to live in a country that guarantees them the liberty to do so, but at the end of the day that liberty is protected by the US military.

> but at the end of the day that liberty is protected by the US military.

I think the citizens in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. are quite happy that their liberty is protected. :-(

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

#260

Post by sseveran »

nova22033 wrote: post #258

>Known as “air gap,” Does anyone know what this is? My guess: This is a one way low to high side transfer device.

It's an isolated cloud region(s) not connected to the internet and connected to a private government network. AWS built one of these for the CIA.
Post reply on HN