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

341–350 of 516 posts

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

#341

Post by Bartweiss »

_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…

> a strong US military

One point I haven't seen raised here is that "a strong military" is not a one-dimensional proposition. The military does a lot of things in a lot of contexts, and they don't all have the same moral value.

If someone wants to build better Humvee armor for the US Army, I wouldn't criticize them at all. I don't think there's a reasonable case that better-armored Humvees are worse for the world. (Not least because we proved in 2003 that a lack of proper armor doesn't deter the US from starting wars.)

But I think the work Google engineers are likely to do for the US military is not likely to advance Pax Americana, which is mostly about a nuclear umbrella and secure international shipping lanes. Instead, it's very likely to abet either the drone war or mass surveillance, since those are closer to Google's area of expertise.

Quite a lot of people who are not strictly against US superpower status are still deeply opposed to the specific sorts of action Google would be best-placed to enable. And since they haven't actually signed on with the military, it seems totally reasonable that they would object to doing such work even if they do value a strong US military in other domains.

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

#342

Post by gcb0 »

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…

lol. right now the HN front page item right under this one has everyone celebrating a spacex military contract.

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

#343

Post by ionised »

tomohawk wrote: post #177
gambiting wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> Was that regime interested in keeping the people safe

Interesting that you think the US military's operations over the last 100 years have been about protecting its citizens instead of protecting the financial interests of the 0.1% ruling class.

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

#344

Post by AndrewKemendo »

ionised wrote: post #340
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course, but if you don't believe in what the government is doing then why would you support it, and the community you live in, with your taxes or your additions to the GDP?

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

#345

Post by taneq »

Bartweiss wrote: post #337
emaginniss wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's probably more than one person voting on HN.

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

#346

Post by mankash666 »

chrisbennet wrote: post #75
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…

US (wholly avoidable) intervention in Iraq led to the rise of ISIS. The world is not safer when you go around wacking hornets nests.

And how's that the fault of the military? Go after Rumsfeld and his falsification of intelligence if you have to, the people who gave their lives, and those who continue to put themselves in harm's way for your right to shame them on HN, are not at fault

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

#347

Post by bradleyjg »

086421357909764 wrote: post #272
bradleyjg wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make it concrete, currently the US spends more than the next ten countries combined on its military and associated projects and has done so since at least the end of the Cold War. It has far and away the most ships, planes, missiles and bombs. While it doesn’t have the most troops the two countries with more troops do not nearly have the same as much training or as good equipment. Presuming the OP is in the US, an…

Everyone seems to forget that the projection of might in of itself is a deterrent leveraged by all nations. Further, the US is part of multi nation programs, such as NATO in which it's the largest supplier of Capital and Manpower by a large margin. Most of the countries external to the US that bring up this argument, are happily accepting Military and in some instances Economic Aide. You can't look at the % of spendi…

I don’t see how that’s relevant to the point I made. Regardless of any self imposed “responsibilities” at the end of the day if it was ever necessary the entire US military would be available to protect the United States and the people living here.

There’s no way to recontexualize the numbers such that we are in imminent danger if some software engineers decide they will not work on military contracts. We are absurdly far away from such a scenario.

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

#348

Post by Bartweiss »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #307
XalvinX wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, Eric Schmidt is a member of the Bilderberg Group....AND the Trilateral Commission too.

I am only vaguely familiar with these groups, but it seems they exist to bring influential political and business people together to discuss current issues. This doesn't seem so bad, so why whenever they're brought up is it always suggested it should be shameful?

It's a very weird criticism - the membership list for these things is extensive, and it would honestly have surprised me if Schmidt wasn't a member of some of them. The Bilderberg conspiracies are especially funny, because so many of them amount to whispering darkly about stuff that's literally posted on the Bilderberg Meeting website. It's an off-the-record meeting of the rich and power to talk about the issues of the day, you say? Well yes, that's the stated intention!

On a related note, the parent comment would be way better off looking at Schmidt's co-author on The New Digital Age. Jared Cohen came out of the Department of State, headed up Google Ideas, and is now looking at technical issues around censorship and "countering extremism". It's hard for me to understand how a vague reference to the Bilderbergs could possibly be more meaningful than the very open "hiring State Department staffers" connection.

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

#349

Post by Cthulhu_ »

Bartweiss wrote: post #337
emaginniss wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When it comes to voting, strong opinions (one way or the other) will always end up on top.

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

#350

Post by ionised »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #307
XalvinX wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, Eric Schmidt is a member of the Bilderberg Group....AND the Trilateral Commission too.

I am only vaguely familiar with these groups, but it seems they exist to bring influential political and business people together to discuss current issues. This doesn't seem so bad, so why whenever they're brought up is it always suggested it should be shameful?

Keeping the proceedings/minutes entirely secret doesn't exactly inspire a lot of trust.
Post reply on HN