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

331–340 of 516 posts

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

#331

Post by white-flame »

_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…

> There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest.

The USA was formed on a basic distrust of the government, including checks & balances, and non-federal armament in the 2nd amendment. It is not allowed to be a single, trusted federal power, but rather one whose powers are defined by limited and explicit allowance, with default powers resting on the distributed states and people.

The notion that the USA should stand in a singular trusted and empowered situation over the rest of the world neither fits with fundamental American concepts, nor notions of robustness in general. Strength of militaries should be distributed among independent allies, not focused on any single point of failure or corruption.

The military strength of the USA certainly benefits the USA. But a singular point of above-and-beyond military strength is not a model of benefiting the world.

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

#332

Post by pixl97 »

chrisbennet wrote: post #179
Viff wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What lead to ISIS was the US pulling out too soon, leaving a huge power gap that the Iraqi government could not fill. Nation building takes decades. Germany and Japan were not rebuilt overnight to become the US' top allies after WWII: they were fully occupied by Allied forces for at least a generation before control was handed back to their respective local governments.

“The reason he bled to death is because they didn’t get him medical attention.” “But you shot him!”

Yes, because he was pointing a gun at someone else.

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

#333

Post by lazysheepherd »

menacingly wrote: post #256
lazysheepherd wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I do not claim scenario you proposed is not likely, but submitting to what harms you will only increase the harm and abuse over time. Standing against will make it less and less likely, over a long period of time.

It is just like the fear of darkness. As long as you avoid the darkness, your fear will escalate.

I acknowledge that the safest condition for me, my loved ones and next generations is not the one which has draconian governments, one-button-away nuclear war and killer drones.

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

#334

Post by aplummer »

aplummer wrote: post #330
ggambetta wrote: post #321

I'm confused. When engineers from a company who deals with the military (or some other ethically objectionably client) don't refuse to work on these projects, HN questions their values and urges them to make a stand, refuse, find another job if necessary, etc. When the engineers do refuse, HN criticises them for beign self-righteous, virtue-signalling, and unpatriotic because countries with a lower ethical bar (Russi…

The problem with discourse in 2018 is outrage motivates people to comment more than anything. “What gets rewarded gets done” so the place becomes an outrage factory, then online discourse self selects for outrage, then cycle.

Maybe I should change that.

In this case frankly I can see both sides. I refused to work on a cigarette company once, but didn’t refuse to work on operation sovereign borders (because of project specifics) other people might decide differently in each case.

Bit of a dull comment probably, but I think there are two sides to it.

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

#335

Post by AsyncAwait »

_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…

> 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.

Given that the U.S. is being consistently voted as being the biggest threat to world peace, I'd vaguer not. That does not mean we want Russia or China to dominate us instead, it just means the world doesn't want to be bullied by the U.S. either. You do realize that every single empire in history assumed it has a more moral position to bully others that those that came before it, don't you?

I don't know how it reflects in American society, but in the rest of the world the fact that the U.S. killed a million Iraqis here, a few hundred thousand Afghanis elsewhere, enabled the slave-markets of Libya, funded terrorists in Syria and is currently helping to commit genocide in Yemen does not reflect anywhere near great on the U.S.

Some of us actually think that the people from these places are also valid, genuine human beings who deserve to live, so no, many people do not think the U.S. has any moral high ground here. It may be hard to swallow for some U.S. patriots, but I'd say you should be proud of the country and what it is supposed to stand for, rather than being proud of the government, (government != country), and what it is doing in many places.

Despite what many Americans seem to think, you do not have the best healthcare in the world, nor the best education system, nor the best infrastructure and I could go on and on - please focus on that instead of empire building.

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

#336

Post by AndrewKemendo »

sidr wrote: post #283
jopsen wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those high clearance level computations are more likely to be directly related to combat and AI for drones.

No. The closer you are to a bullet the further you are from JWICS.

Aside from the most compartmentalized of special operations, which typically will fall within the purview of an IC member, the majority of the military works either in the open or at the "Secret" level.

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

#337

Post by Bartweiss »

emaginniss wrote: post #323
ggambetta wrote: post #321

I'm confused. When engineers from a company who deals with the military (or some other ethically objectionably client) don't refuse to work on these projects, HN questions their values and urges them to make a stand, refuse, find another job if necessary, etc. When the engineers do refuse, HN criticises them for beign self-righteous, virtue-signalling, and unpatriotic because countries with a lower ethical bar (Russi…

There's probably more than one person on HN

True, but there's at least something to which comments end up at the top. My sense has been that "programmers need better ethics" almost always tops out the "programmers worked with the government" stories, and outside of this chain "programmers are being self-righteous and unpatriotic" has had basically all the top slots in this thread.

I suppose the easy guess is just that people who disagree with a story are more likely to come argue in the comments than people who read it and agree, so every story gets its opposite upvoted.

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

#338

Post by stonogo »

briankirby wrote: post #325
ggambetta wrote: post #321

I'm confused. When engineers from a company who deals with the military (or some other ethically objectionably client) don't refuse to work on these projects, HN questions their values and urges them to make a stand, refuse, find another job if necessary, etc. When the engineers do refuse, HN criticises them for beign self-righteous, virtue-signalling, and unpatriotic because countries with a lower ethical bar (Russi…

I'm confused. You seem to think everyone on HN agrees with each other.

Are you really confused, or did you just phrase your comment that way to mock the parent comment?

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

#339

Post by robin_reala »

rayiner wrote: post #271
SauciestGNU wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

China's recent economic development is the result of unprecedented levels of trade in an unprecedentedly peaceful world. That peace, in turn, is the direct result of U.S. efforts to maintain international stability, through the use or threat of military force.

[citation needed]

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

#340

Post by ionised »

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.

Why should you move to a different country?

It's yours and you have every right to be there, and every right to complain about and protest things you don't like.

Post reply on HN