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

311–320 of 516 posts

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

#311

Post by Brockenstein »

jdietrich wrote: post #281
_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…

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 imperiali…

It is fascinating as an American how cold war military spending has basically become so traditional that even when our military budget is larger than the next ten nations combined you have people carrying on about rebuilding and strengthening our military.

Give it fifty or a hundred years and Americans will be thanking the Chinese for the same reasons.

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

#312

Post by jeffreyrogers »

paganel wrote: post #107
gman83 wrote: post #101

I wonder if Silicon Valley refuses to cooperate with the military if it won't mean that America won't be able to compete with China and Russia strategically in the long term. Those countries presumably have no problems getting their tech industry to cooperate. Russia having an advanced form of AI-weaponry without any form of MAD-doctrine is probably not the best scenario.

> Russia having an advanced form of AI-weaponry without any form of MAD-doctrine is probably not the best scenario. They're a very long way from there, see for example this: http://defence-blog.com/army/combat-tests-syria-brought-ligh... (which also happens to be my latest separate post submission). People tend to over-estimate the technical prowess of the Russians, there's only so much that the military of a country…

Plus their economy is about 1/15th of the US's and seems to be declining.

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

#313

Post by AndrewKemendo »

ska wrote: post #305
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…

Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? What should you do if you support the ethics of self-defense aspects, but do not believe that [your countries] military is acting ethically? What is your morally consistent path? Other than voting, which is part of it. This is a very old form of the argument you are putting forward, and while I can see how people will take it to inform their…

Move to a different country, where you feel the history and current administration more closely align with your worldview. Voting with your feet is the best way to do so - especially if you feel you have the skills to do it.

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

#314

Post by SolarNet »

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…

> because of defense contractors working on a military project (ARPANET).

Ehh, kinda, but not really. Less military contractors and more research grants given to academics. The difference is subtle, but an academic institution is a public institution focused on advancing science and teaching it to the public. A corporation or contractor is in it for the profit. Notably, the academics involved were able to publish their work as the TCP/IP standard (and others), and anyone was able to use it.

If it had actually been military contractors we would not have the internet as it is today.

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

#315

Post by jeffreyrogers »

wolfgke wrote: post #299
AmericanChopper wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I bet Afghanis sit around at night reminiscing of the good old days under the taliban... However this is completely irrelevant to the point. The question was why do we need to have a superior military to our adversaries, and the answer is because our adversaries are real, and if we care about our liberty we need to take them seriously. To say otherwise is either laughably naive, or is an outright rejection of l…

> Sure, I bet Afghanis sit around at night reminiscing of the good old days under the taliban... Who were strongly financially supported (and thus in some sense "enthroned") by the CIA: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taliban&oldid=846... "A while later, the U.S. CIA and Saudi Arabic General Intelligence Directorate (GID) funneled funding and equipment through the PakistanI Inter-Service Intelligence Age…

You're leaving out why they were given money: to fight back against a Communist coup supported by the Soviet Union.

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

#316

Post by Scipio_Afri »

Brockenstein wrote: post #311
jdietrich wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 imperiali…

It is fascinating as an American how cold war military spending has basically become so traditional that even when our military budget is larger than the next ten nations combined you have people carrying on about rebuilding and strengthening our military. Give it fifty or a hundred years and Americans will be thanking the Chinese for the same reasons.

It's slightly misleading to say that because other countries, like China and Russia, aren't as transparent with their budgets and there is some hiding of military spending in other parts of their government, from what I've read.

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

#317

Post by tonfa »

blueatlas wrote: post #273
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…

I'm genuinely curious - what do you think the world would look like if the US decreased their military capabilities and stopped involvement in any world conflicts or terrorism? I'm a US citizen and I would like to see the US stop being the worlds police for 5 to 10 years, just to see what the world looks like at the end of that.

No idea, but I'm not convinced it would be worse. Maybe we'd try more international consensus and only do UN sanctioned intervention and peace keeping.

Best way to figure it out might be for the US to try it :) (but it seems to go in a different, likely more dangerous way instead: isolationism from the international scene with increased military spending).

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

#318

Post by ska »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #313
ska wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? What should you do if you support the ethics of self-defense aspects, but do not believe that [your countries] military is acting ethically? What is your morally consistent path? Other than voting, which is part of it. This is a very old form of the argument you are putting forward, and while I can see how people will take it to inform their…

Move to a different country, where you feel the history and current administration more closely align with your worldview. Voting with your feet is the best way to do so - especially if you feel you have the skills to do it.

That is also an old argument, but has fairly obvious weaknesses.

We are talking about morals here, after all. It can be the most rational path for you to work towards improving [in your mind] how things work where you are.

My question was genuine, by the way. I don't have the answers to any of this. I do distrust moral arguments that seem naive or overly simplistic.

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

#319

Post by v_lisivka »

megous wrote: post #172
mankash666 wrote: post #56

Software engineers in the valley seem disconnected from reality. Maybe they believe politically correct fairies drop from the heavens and secure the US, it's borders and interests. Or maybe the Taliban and ISIS don't deserve drone attacks. Whatever their delusion, it's for the good. Military and defense funding yielded everything from the transistor to the internet. Let the next wave of innovation happen outside the…

Yes. Most of ISIS didn't deserve drone attacks. It was a state-like big organization comprised of many diffrent kinds of people who opportunistically, or out of ideology, or by being misled, or under a threat of force, or taken young and brainwashed, joined and helped said organization, which seemed or was in some important cases objectively better than the possible alternatives. Being highly sectarian it was also ve…

You should go to ISIS and change their ideology, arrest their leaders, protect them from threats, stop brainwashing, lead them to proper direction, and stop any help to ISIS. If it looks easy for you, maybe it really easy. Just do it.

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

#320

Post by AndrewKemendo »

bad_user wrote: post #60
_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…

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…

Google isn't the first or last MNC

Does anyone not think of Toyota as Japanese? General Electric is certainly an MNC, but they are quite proudly "American" as is Volkswagen proudly "German."

So, it's silly to think that MNC's, by virtue of their MNC nature, jettison their national allegiance in the ultimate case.

If you want to make the case that they should be truly "multi-national", then we're off to my favorite possible dystopian world, where a corporation becomes a sovereign entity with the power of a state, which is the ultimate conclusion of such thinking.

Post reply on HN