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

421–430 of 516 posts

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

#421

Post by mips_avatar »

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.

It doesn't really help any military to kill non-combatants. The types of tools google was developing were for detecting terrorists in Afghanistan placing road-side bombs. Right now the video tapes from drones above Kabul are only analyzed after an explosion kills people. If project Maven had been finished by google these bombs could have been identified and civilians could be evacuated from the areas.

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

#422

Post by [deleted] »

FearOfReprisal wrote: post #205
manigandham wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The might of the US military is still beyond any other nation, even though that advantage is being threatened recently. ISIS was very much defeated, and it was actually the lack of military followthrough that let it grow back, although it is still severely diminished. The citizens of those countries that were ravaged are incredibly thankful for US military assistance, and I advise you actually talk to some of them if…

The US military is mighty, but not terribly effective. I mean, we're 17 years into the second gulf war. 17 years and we still can't pull-out because we screwed up the first one so royally. I'm writing this from a refugee community center here in Istanbul, the Ad'Dar Center, where I volunteer a couple of hours every day helping helping kids with their lessons, especially in English and Math, cooking, making music, tal…

[deleted]

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

#423

Post by s73v3r_ »

hsivonen wrote: post #95
cs02rm0 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite sure why this is downvoted, although I understand the nuance, it seems an interesting and related point. Out of interest, are there open source licenses that prevent use in military projects? ISTR reading something recently about it being legally questionable to discriminate between who can accept a license, but that was in the context of allowing open source for non-commercial purposes.

By definition, a license that has Field of Use restrictions is not an Open Source license. Creative Commons NonCommercial licenses, for example, are neither Open Source nor Free Software licenses.

I imagine that someone who wants to prevent use of their work by the military would not be concerned over whether something is technically not open source or not.

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

#424

Post by dpeck »

oh_sigh wrote: post #420
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'.

Quite a bit of historical and contemporary evidence indicates otherwise. It may not be a goal, but it certainly isn’t a dealbreaker in achieving whatever aims of the time.

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

#425

Post by gaius »

manigandham wrote: post #353
gaius wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When America was defeated in Vietnam, the next thing that happened was not the NVA burning down the White House. In fact there was never any possibility of that happening nor a threat to the US mainland.

So every other country is some tiny 3rd world nation? You do realize there are major superpowers that are currently kept at bay through the promise of force? Or do you think they’re just being nice?

You do realize there are major superpowers that are currently kept at bay through the promise of force?

Do you think they are deterred by observing American success in the ground campaigns it keeps losing or by the nuclear arsenal?

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

#426

Post by jimbofisher1 »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #415
jimbofisher1 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That may be your opinion but I can assure you it is not accurate. Your hysteria is clouding your judgement.

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

#427

Post by jimbofisher1 »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #419
jimbofisher1 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No and I never said that nor implied it but you should recognize that it is absolutely a luxury. There are people around the world literally fighting for their right to exist while you sit here on your "Moral High Ground" as though your position is unassailable but it isn't.

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

#428

Post by manigandham »

icebraining wrote: post #194
manigandham wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good thing, it means the defense is working.

Do you want to buy my anti-tigers rock? I've never been attacked by a tiger while carrying it!

What you and the other comment seem to miss is that there's nothing fake about the military which actively works for its citizens. But maybe it's all a big joke to you...

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

#429

Post by 394549 »

pofilat wrote: post #363
Nimitz14 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because some people who don't know any better say the US invaded Iraq for oil does not make it true. And ignoring Iraq, did the US intervene in the Balkans because of natural resources or potential markets? Or in Somalia? Please try and put in a little more effort into your thought process.

The US occupied Iraq for over a decade, and installed a new government. The US spent a little time in the Balkans and Somalia and then gave up. There's a difference.

> The US occupied Iraq for over a decade, and installed a new government. The US spent a little time in the Balkans and Somalia and then gave up. There's a difference.

A similar difference to the one that motivated its even longer occupation of the oil-less Afghanistan.

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

#430

Post by [deleted] »

bayfullofrays wrote: post #406
kadenshep wrote: post #263

My employer knows two things about me: A) I will not work on/for military/defense products/clients, unless there is some blatantly obvious noble characteristic about the project (I come from a background in video analytics). B) I will not work on/for conservative products/clients. Luckily I'm in a job and industry where both of these are pretty unlikely. I've done the latter (B) once and I really, really regret my ro…

I am with you on this. I am a recruiter for a large tech company in Seattle and with the recent political environment, I have asked my team to take it upon themselves to ask if the person they are going to bring into our team and our community is going to help us progress as a whole. I get angered when people tell me to look at just their CV, but there is so much more there. If I know that someone on their Facebook p…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN