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

261–270 of 516 posts

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

#261

Post by rayiner »

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…

It's ironic on so many levels. The first level is, of course, the irony of refusing to do military work at a company that only exists because of defense contractors working on a military project (ARPANET).

More generally, the irony is that the U.S. military has made a far greater positive contribution to the world than Google. Under the Pax Americana, we have seen the greatest number of people rise out of abject poverty in human history. The stable, liberal world order that has been beneficial to so many people has been bankrolled by the U.S. and backed by the U.S. military.

This world where people in India and Pakistan are using Gchat Facebook to talk to each other instead of waging nuclear war against each other is not the result of Google or Facebook. It's not the result of humans evolving beyond their tendencies towards warfare. It's because the U.S. military has made entire classes of armed conflicts untenable.

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

#262

Post by Shorel »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #221
tonfa wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 definite…

Fellow Western European here, and I understand that sentiment. However, it seems that countries which are closer to Russia or China don't mind the American military nearly as much. See: Baltic States, Sweden, Taiwan. Pax Americana is a thing, even if it's usually overshadowed by completely braindead interventions like the Iraq War.

In my opinion it is not Pax Americana.

It is Pax Atomica.

The world leaders will do anything to prevent nuclear warfare. This includes doing war with nations that have no nukes.

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

#263

Post by kadenshep »

My employer knows two things about me:

A) I will not work on/for military/defense products/clients, unless there is some blatantly obvious noble characteristic about the project (I come from a background in video analytics).

B) I will not work on/for conservative products/clients.

Luckily I'm in a job and industry where both of these are pretty unlikely.

I've done the latter (B) once and I really, really regret my role in it to this day. It only took once, just once, but it just happened to be one of the of the worst offenders in the U.S. political landscape. Knowing that I basically optimized disinformation campaigns and built media platforms for some of these people eats at my soul, especially when I see the current state of the U.S. -- I helped some jackass convince a whole slew of people that electing a fraud was the Right (TM) choice. Now we have concentration camps for children (with no reunification process), our healthcare is even worse than it was somehow, we're in multiple trade wars, and we definitely don't give a single shit about the environment (look at today's news feed about the U.S. drilling policies). And I helped it happen.

Sorry for the rant. But engineers have a moral duty to be selective in who they're aiding. I was all too happy to watch pretty graphs go up, and up, and up. I was foolish. I just cared about the project and how challenging it was. Good on the engineers at Google for being principled.

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

#264

Post by SauciestGNU »

rayiner wrote: post #261
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 ironic on so many levels. The first level is, of course, the irony of refusing to do military work at a company that only exists because of defense contractors working on a military project (ARPANET). More generally, the irony is that the U.S. military has made a far greater positive contribution to the world than Google. Under the Pax Americana , we have seen the greatest number of people rise out of abject pov…

What does the American military have to do with the economic development of, for instance, China? I'm not sure America should be credited for its adversaries' successful pushes to mitigate poverty.

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

#265

Post by johannes1234321 »

_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…

Even if one agrees that a "strong US military" is beneficial this doesn't neccissarily includes all forms of warfare.

For example I can argue that a strong military is important to defend the country (or maybe even the West or whatever) while a military made out of drones and robots mixed with AI, driven by a Space Force is too easily deployed in combat, since risk on own loss is low, while the opponent might see civilian casualties, causing more harm than good.

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

#267

Post by nosequel »

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…

I worked for a company who lost money on their government contracts or at the most broke even. The CEO said that no matter what happened, they'd keep the Government business side moving because large companies need the Government of their city/state/country to look favorably on them. So Google might not make any money on the contract, but it is a pretty great lobbying tool the next time say some radio spectrum comes up for sale by the government. Way back in 2007, Google was bidding $4.6 billion for 22MHz block in the 700MHz range. I can't imagine what 22MHz of bandwidth is going for these days.

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

#268

Post by 5874-4b22-a4e0 »

paulie_a wrote: post #253
implements wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Crimes against humanity.

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

#269

Post by v_lisivka »

quakenul wrote: post #247
6ue7nNMEEbHcM wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If we are in peaceful state, then it isn't. If we are in state of war, then it may be okay (it depends).

My turn: when war starts, is it okay to send someone else to die at war to protect your children? Or it better to let your children die, but save soldier lives instead?

http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/

Post reply on HN