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

431–440 of 516 posts

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

#431

Post by always_good »

hungerstrike wrote: post #389
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have pretty strong opinions that never get to the top, such as "Apple tech is mostly gimmicky, trendy garbage whereas Microsoft tech is mostly the best mix of freedom, flexibility and quality". Probably even just using that as my example here will harm me! There are definite, identifiable leanings from the denizens here on HN.

Yes, but that's a poor example since the reverse would get downvoted as well.

If you want to be the top comment, your dismissal needs to be more middlebrow and noncommittal.

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

#432

Post by skybrian »

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.

Can you be pro peace and work on open source code that anyone may use, including all governments?

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

#433

Post by asafira »

nemild wrote: post #379
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; bet…

To expand a bit: I think we need to embrace the fact that often times we have posts that don't have a "right" response --- i.e., where you can get a good view of exactly the right way to feel about something given the first few comments. Lots of these issues have many angles you can come from, and I hope people are

(a) willing to keep themselves to a high-enough standard to think for themselves and see that it's a grey area (that they might have a bias for one side or another). You can't just assume the top post is definitely the right thing, even with a good number of upvotes.

(b) willing to read more posts further down, giving them plenty of respect, and contribute to the conversation.

Maybe a better way to rank comments is something more probabilistic rather than just ranking by (num_upvotes - num_downvotes). (Actually, how is it done now?)

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

#434

Post by ggambetta »

Kluny wrote: post #418
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?

Not at all. I'm just surprised that when an article says X, everyone seems to be against X. Then shortly afterwards there's an article that says (not X), and everyone seems to be against (not X).

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

#435

Post by rayiner »

SolarNet wrote: post #314
rayiner wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic on so many levels. The first level is, of course, the irony of refusing to do military work at a company that only exists because of defense contractors working on a military project (ARPANET). More generally, the irony is that the U.S. military has made a far greater positive contribution to the world than Google. Under the Pax Americana , we have seen the greatest number of people rise out of abject pov…

> because of defense contractors working on a military project (ARPANET). Ehh, kinda, but not really. Less military contractors and more research grants given to academics. The difference is subtle, but an academic institution is a public institution focused on advancing science and teaching it to the public. A corporation or contractor is in it for the profit. Notably, the academics involved were able to publish the…

Cerf (Stanford) and Kahn (DARPA) designed TCP. But BBN (now a subsidiary of Raytheon) built ARPANET.

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

#436

Post by dominotw »

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…

You can refuse the work assigned to you and not get fired? Sounds like my dream job :D.

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

#437

Post by Judgmentality »

nemild wrote: post #379
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; bet…

> 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)

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07

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

#438

Post by benchaney »

jimbofisher1 wrote: post #373
Scipio_Afri wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It’s hard to imagine we secretly spend significantly more than we say we do, because we publicly spend a lot. I’m sure there are some secret projects with secret funding, but they couldn’t be more than a rounding error compared to the amount of money the military officially spends.

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

#439

Post by crankylinuxuser »

asafira wrote: post #433
nemild wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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; bet…

To expand a bit: I think we need to embrace the fact that often times we have posts that don't have a "right" response --- i.e., where you can get a good view of exactly the right way to feel about something given the first few comments. Lots of these issues have many angles you can come from, and I hope people are (a) willing to keep themselves to a high-enough standard to think for themselves and see that it's a gr…

> I think we need to embrace the fact that often times we have posts that don't have a "right" response

Indeed. I know I keep seeing during the immigration debate (of which is recent). Liberal-leaning say that we should provide due process and let in refugees. This is argument in good faith.

Conservatives say that we have a body of law that must be adhered to regarding immigration. This too is a valid argument. I may disagree with its interpretation, but I believe it too is in good faith.

"Womp womp", "I dont really care do u" is the style of discourse we're seeing. If the administration comments were on here with HN, dang would likely make the comment dead and leave a message of a ban.

Back to the main point - it feels like society as a whole (and HN within that) is lowering the accuracy and persuasive qualities of language to something I saw elsewhere. Idiocracy. Who can shout the loudest; Who can rapid-fire lies and half-truths; who can redirect hatred and bile - these people seem to be the ones on top dictating properness these days.

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

#440

Post by jeffreyrogers »

pofilat wrote: post #376
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because it's an important part of the context and explains why the US funded the Taliban.
Post reply on HN