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

371–380 of 516 posts

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

#371

Post by vbezhenar »

taneq wrote: post #345
Bartweiss wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also different topics attract people with different views.

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

#372

Post by pofilat »

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?

Why aren't any representatives from the 99.9% of humanity invited to these meetings? Many (most?) would prefer a more democratic sort of world leadership.

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

#373

Post by jimbofisher1 »

Scipio_Afri wrote: post #316
Brockenstein wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You think the US itself doesn't do this?

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

#374

Post by pofilat »

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.

The US won WII not because our military was super powerful (though that helped), but because most of Germany's technical geniuses defected or deported or were deposed/killed. Chinese in large part flee China when they can. Foreigners aren't knocking down walls to join China.

The value of (relative) freedom made the US powerful. If the US becomes just like the bad parts of China or Russia, who cares of China or Russia come out on top instead of the US? They will have already won the war of ideas.

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

#376

Post by pofilat »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #315
wolfgke wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So? The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight a few years later. The (negative) dividends of US militarization are still being paid.

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

#377

Post by joyeuse6701 »

Back in the day, there was controversy over the idea of a standing army... the usual moral and economic issues. As war became a faster and larger affair the standing professional army made more sense.

The speed at which cyber warfare could happen and cripple a nation and the chaos that would ensue has me lean on the side of the necessity of our civilian industries working with the military-industrial complex and government.

This might be easier to do if we trusted our government institutions especially the clandestine ones, which I think we rightly question.

Of course, if they don't develop the tech, someone else will, and it might come to bite them in the end. May as well have a say.

edited: for clarity

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

#378

Post by detaro »

sidcool wrote: post #127
bigbluedots wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see: The military's job is partly to kill people. Some people have a moral objection to being involved in that, surprisingly.

Not trying to defend the killing, but military is important for a nation. Even if the US military is very ethical, the foreign militaries may not be. Hence the US military has to be on an offensive all the time. There is no dearth of countries who would want to see the fall of US, or any other western nation. (Having said this, US military has done their share of mass murder in Cambodia, Iraq etc.)

I'd guess many people would argue that the US military is not that ethical and actively involved in a lot of campaigns they shouldn't be in.

See e.g. the discussions around the drone projects, where many argued that the drone program is used in a bad way, and thus shouldn't be supported, where a military that's less involved or work on technology that's seems harder to "misuse" might be seen differently. E.g. I'd expect a lot fewer people would argue that the US shouldn't be prepared to defend against China.

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

#379

Post by nemild »

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 is not often a monolithic "HN", but instead a group of people who decide to engage or not based on the subject matter.

We need more media literacy around HN and Reddit. You just need a few users to upvote something, and people often respond when they see the opposing view (this is why conservatives and liberals in the US so often take the most extreme statements on the other side, and critique/retweet them; better engagement and an easier way to caricature the opposing side).

It's interesting to think about how different posts attract wholly different tribes, meaning HN is hundreds of sub-groups not a monolith. There might be a post on a Ruby gem, and the entire commenter group are Ruby-ists who hold common views on opposing languages. You might see this as "HN believes X", but instead it's the subset of people attracted by that post that you're really interacting with.

Will add this as an example to my media literacy guide for engs:

https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer

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

#380

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN