Live data from Hacker News

Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

bloomberg.com

281–290 of 516 posts

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

#281
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…

As a Brit, I'm very grateful to the Americans. By antagonising a substantial proportion of the global population, you've really taken the heat off us.

The people of Afghanistan have a long and justifiable tradition of hating the British, mainly thanks to the three Anglo-Afghan wars of 1839, 1878 and 1919. Since the American-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, we seem almost quaint by comparison; our brutal imperialism is tinged with a vague hint of nostalgia for the days before cluster bombs and counter-insurgency tactics.

We invaded Iran during the first world war, backed a military coup of their government and ruthlessly looted the country for oil, but all of that seems like water under the bridge compared to the CIA's persistent efforts to destabilise Iranian society.

Pakistanis have every reason to hate the British - we imposed a bloody and brutal regime across the Indian subcontinent, then so badly botched the transition to self-governance that at least a million people died. Thanks to a decade of poorly-targeted and possibly illegal drone strikes by the US, nearly a century of totalitarian rule under the British is almost forgotten.

I can't remember the last time I saw a British flag being burned by an angry mob. Your government's decision to remain constantly at war probably hasn't done a great deal for your safety, but it's really distracted attention from our barbarism.

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

#282
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, HackerNews' other greatest sin

"If someone's freethinking, they'll think exactly like me"

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

#283
post #202
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The air gap itself is so that the military can use Google cloud to run computations that require a higher level of clearance. Those high clearance level computations are more likely to be directly related to combat and AI for drones. Air gap itself is no biggie, but the only reason they're building it is to enable the use of Google cloud for drone AI.

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

#284
post #110

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.

That damn Newton and his laws....mass murdering bastard that enabled all kinds of weapons to be developed. And ol' baby-killer Franklin should have never flown that damned kite of his either... some people, i'll tell ya' what...

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

#285

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…

> has made [...] have seen [...] has been [...]

It's unfair to pretend these institutions, their purposes, and their effects stay the same across generations. It is similarly unfair to pretend people's perception shouldn't change across those same generations while the other factors do change.

It's like telling someone writing something critical of the Mexican government that it's ironic because of Mayan contributions to writing. Sure the timescales of the analogy may appear off, but so do the ones of technological advancement lately.

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

#286
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

God dammit, I knew my open source game framework was going to be used for nefarious purposes, how could I have been so short sighted?

Just kill yourself now.

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

#287
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."

Then make a case, don't just state that you can and move on as if you did. For example here is my counter argument:

The US is currently stealing children, this is obviously not in the best interests of anyone, womp womp.

"a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the world"

Democratic countries like to keep their democracy not be ruled by a tyrant. The US Military is very tyrannical, the CIA has been a massive destabilising force in a lot of democratic countries.

"Given that society created the environment"

The tech companies created their environment, just like their employees spent their time and effort acquiring their skills. You are claiming authority over other peoples work with no justification.

"I'm not in favor of compelling anyone to work for any purpose"

You just stated the opposite. These are hypocritical weasel words so you can walk back your argument.

"There's also a real chance -sic- refusal to cooperate -sic- could have disastrous consequences for the world"

Such as? You make a lot of wild claims with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Your argument is ultimately trying to make a case for totalitarianism as long as the US are the totalitarians.

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

#288
post #191
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like this: Google has to keep growing to justify it's stock price. In order to do that it has to expand beyond search and ads. Google's technical infrastructure is the best in the world in many aspects, so they decided to open it up to other companies. However, other companies don't just come by themselves. That is why Google hired a bunch of sales people. Now these sales people do what they were hired for, they…

Tech companies tends to not just take over an existing market. But to grow it, by opening opportunities that didn't exist before. Like how smartphones created a market for apps, inventing a need that wasn't there before. I don't see how that's likely to happen with military contracts. What beneficial need are they going to invent?

I think you misunderstand military contracts.

Google wants in so more senators lobby for them. Anytime you talk about cutting military budgets a whole load of people get on the news and talk about how you're hurting Americans with jobs. Google just wants in on the political action and guaranteed income.

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

#289
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…

Did you kind of forget that Russia pretty much controlled half of Europe not too long ago, and sent tanks to fight citizens when it was needed to maintain "order". Countries under US rule never faced such severe repression.

I understand what you're saying, but you're not quite accurate, there was the Philippine–American War.

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

#290

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…

This country only exists because of Puritan persecution in England, but you don't see me thanking the Anglican church for America. Bad means result in good ends all the time; that doesn't mean we should celebrate bad means.

I agree that the US military has made positive contributions to the world, but I don't think it's the main source of the Pax Americana -- strong international bodies (NATO, UN, &c), the tendency for democratic nations (the dominant sort in the 20th century) to avoid wars with each other, and advancements in crop science are all individually more responsible for the relative global stability of the last 30 years.

I don't deny that the military had a role (usually financial) in any or all of the above, but I wouldn't call it a causal role: virtually all academic research funding hits the defense world eventually ("food security", "ecological security", &c), especially during the Cold War. That's the result of political contrivances, not any sort of deep connection between the U.S. military and scientific progress.

Finally, I wonder about drawing comparisons between the past U.S. military and current ventures. The Google engineers in question probably wouldn't be designing waterproof radios for fastboats; they'd be training models that "recognize" "terrorists" from afar and systems that pass that information to drones for remote killing. Put another way: the shift away from conventional warfare changes the moral dimensions of working for the military.

Post reply on HN