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

391–400 of 516 posts

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

#391

Post by pofilat »

walshemj wrote: post #238
brown9-2 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re missing the point - which is that Google does business and has offices in many countries that are not America.

And that makes what difference? those offices are just their to support the main business or for tax reasons. Google wouldn't have all those people in Eire unless it was for tax and access to a cheap English speaking labour force. And if google local offices started to diverge from the US norm they would quickly have there senior mangers replaced - for example if a local google office faced a recognition ballot from…

The USA employees are also there just to support the main business. So?

Some offices only exist because an influential individual wanted to live in that location.

Do you think Google is largely in Mountain View because they have a deep allegiance to Mountain View, or because that's where they can get lots of employees and (historically) cheap real estate?

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

#392

Post by pofilat »

kjgkjhfkjf wrote: post #211

FWIW if someone were to build AI technology to classify militants vs civilians in images from drones then I'd prefer it to be a competent company such as Google, since presumably an accurate well-engineered classifier would reduce collateral damage.

Why do you think the tech in question is for classifying militants vs civilians, vs just classifying humans vs trees?

AI wishful thinking is not helpful.

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

#393

Post by pofilat »

pixl97 wrote: post #329
ionised wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you think this somehow proves a point.

I'm guessing his point is "Taking a stand against war is great, right up till the enemy jackboots are stepping on your face"

Why do I care what color are the jackboots?

Why do you say China is wearing jackboots?

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

#394

Post by snowwrestler »

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #377

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 gove…

"Cyber warfare" as you're referring to it ("cripple a nation") is a subset of total war: targeting the civilian population to achieve a military goal.

In the physical version of total war, you can only provide defense with military tools. You need military anti-aircraft guns to shoot down military aircraft. You need tanks and artillery to stop enemy tanks and artillery.

To provide defense against cyber total warfare, you don't necessarily need military technology. You just need secure civilian technology. Google is already doing a lot of work in that area. Examples include Project Zero to find and close security vulnerabilities; their work to normalize, monitor, and enforce proper use of TLS across the Internet; Chrome browser and OS security work; Gmail security work, etc.

Government institutions can provide predictive surveillance that Google cannot. Only the Cyber Command, CIA, NSA, DIA, etc., and their international partners, have the ability to see inside the HQs of potential enemies. And those are the only agencies permitted to act in an offensive cyber capacity.

Is Google under any obligation to support that work? I don't think so. Google can do, and is already doing, A LOT to help the U.S. defend against cyber warfare.

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

#396

Post by pofilat »

mankash666 wrote: post #346
chrisbennet wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A military invasion is performed by the military. No one here is blaming the servicemembers.

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

#397

Post by pofilat »

walshemj wrote: post #135

I cant quite see what this supposed military tech is "air gap technology". From the article it seems to be setting up a separate air gaped clone of google infrastructure for use on DoD contracts. This isn't exactly improving image recognition for drone strikes or identifying cars containing brown skinned kids near the Mexican border for Donalds child catchers to intern in the camps.

Yeah, it's not a "cutting edge security feature", it's quite the opposite -- it's decades old Luddite security: "unplug the device".

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

#398

Post by 794CD01 »

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…

Work towards the destruction of the westphalian nationstate-based system by undermining and disrupting the institutions of media and commerce they are built on. AKA work for facebook.

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

#399

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Air gap stuff isn't all that cutting edge (as the article states) and is inherently a defensive technology.

Google is basically critical infrastructure (think power grid) at this point. Why would anyone in their right mind not want a company that's basically critical infrastructure developing technologies that it can deploy in order to make itself (and everyone who depends on it) more secure?

This is like the IT guy at a power plant quitting over being asked to integrate a bunch of systems to better track who is where and when on the property.

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

#400

Post by jimbofisher1 »

blitmap wrote: post #210
buro9 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that black and white. Working on missile guidance? Then I can see your point of view... but everything else in some way facilitates or contributes to facilitating such things. One can rapidly reduce it to "fixing a Linux bug... facilitates the military industrial complex". You might wish to not work on things that directly are used by the military, but the vast majority of technology is indirectly used becau…

I am not trying to over-simplify, but should I stop buying goods and services because the taxes taken on these transactions benefit the military? The dividing line varies from person to person, of course. I think most would agree that improving a guidance algorithm for missile targeting is directly supporting the military. Fixing a kernel bug is not directly supporting the military. I'm a pacifist and I would go by m…

What a luxury to be a pacifist. Definition of 1st world privilege.
Post reply on HN