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

411–420 of 516 posts

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

#411

Post by trophycase »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #320
bad_user wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

We're already getting there with stuff like Foxconn city and private security teams.

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

#412

Post by s73v3r_ »

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…

It's almost like there's more than one person on HN, with different thoughts and ideas.

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

#413

Post by fixermark »

throwaway37585 wrote: post #405
jimbofisher1 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon Musk is some kind of enlightened prophet to most techies despite mountains of evidence that he is a shitty person running shitty companies.

> mountains of evidence > shitty person > shitty companies Elaborate?

He's in the middle of a culture clash between (traditionally union-friendly) automotive industry and (traditionally union-hostile) Silicon Valley startup, and he appears to be tossing his lot with the SV startup ecosystem.

That has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.

(Possibly more importantly: he's also fallen prey, it seems, to the traditional SV startup ecosystem behavior of overselling capabilities in the Tesla cars, which may be contributing to avoidable deaths as people assume the low-tier driver assist the cars actually have is real self-driving functionality. I'm not sure why this bug hasn't propagated to SpaceX; perhaps he's populated the company with enough rocketeers to know that it's very much a "Screw up and people die" industry, and he's hands-off enough to let them succeed).

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

#414

Post by fixermark »

walshemj wrote: post #181
bad_user wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sorry to rain on your parade Google is a "US" company - just because its sets up in Europe to get access to cheap labour and as a lobbying tool "look we employ x people in your country" - doesn't make any difference. Eu companies do the same German pro union at home hire dodgy American union busters in the UK for example

Legally, absolutely. If the US declared war on all of Europe tomorrow, there's no meaningful question what Google would do.

... but practically and on the ground, the Google employee base is large and international enough that there may very well be employees with friends or relatives in US military hot-zones where the US has not successfully demonstrated sufficient care about civilian casualties. Their desire to only work for the company in relatively peaceful times is pretty understandable.

Nobody wants to wake up one morning and realize they're an IBM employee in 1940.

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

#415

Post by s73v3r_ »

jimbofisher1 wrote: post #402
sdenton4 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lemme just underline this. Google engineers come from all over the world, and Google products are built to serve people all over the world. The Googlers opposed to Maven believe that building software that enables one government to enact (more) drone strikes against civilians in other countries is contrary to the mission of making people's lives better. Preemptive lazy answers for lazy replies: Companies only exist t…

Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me. If you build better recognition systems for drones they will be better able to mitigate collateral damage. Is this not exactly what you want?

"Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me"

Because it's for the US military. They have an unbelievably shitty track record in not hitting civilians. It was shitty under Obama, and it's gotten even shittier under Trump. And the issue isn't the ability to target better; it's that the military simply does not care.

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

#416

Post by s73v3r_ »

astura wrote: post #276
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…

All that American military spending bankrolled Silicon Valley. Now suddenly Silicon Valley thinks it's better than the US military that bore it?

Well, for the past 20 years, the military has been preoccupied with bombing brown people halfway around the world. I'd say simply by virtue of not doing that, Silicon Valley is better, yes.

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

#417

Post by trophycase »

pavelludiq wrote: post #171
rifung wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One thing I find strange about this is why Google is so keen to get this government business in the first place. They’re amazingly profitable already, one of the most successful companies of all time; is defense work really something that could become another major revenue stream? Why bother with any new products when search and ads are extremely profitable? I think it makes sense to look at this from the perspecti…

> still don't really see anything wrong with supporting the government or military As a non-American(but citizen of an allied nation), the fact that the US is currently involved in something like 12 regional conflicts(that we know of), some of which could be considered illegal wars of aggression if the US wasn't on the UN security council, in places who's combined wealth is a fraction of just one US state is very wor…

Most americans don't know or don't care. I don't know if you've seen the news in our country but it is horrifying. They are more focused on what Trump tweeted or what Melania is wearing than actual geopolitics.

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

#418

Post by Kluny »

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 personally glad that HN is not a complete echo chamber and that multiple points of view can surface to the top. Do you find it a problem that the thousands of people who read this site don't all share a consistent philosophy?

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

#419

Post by s73v3r_ »

jimbofisher1 wrote: post #400
blitmap wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So because other people might not be in such a position, I shouldn't use my ability to choose not to support the military?

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

#420

Post by oh_sigh »

bayfullofrays wrote: post #408

You can't be pro peace and work for a company that is supplying your code to a government that wants to kill brown people a half world away. I hope more engineers do the same when working with the American government and understand that something they may see as benign as Excel can be used to facilitate harm.

Sure, but what government are you talking about? I'm fairly sure the USG doesn't 'want to kill brown people'.
Post reply on HN