Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Do yourself a favor and re-read my post. And yes. It's an agreed upon view point.
[deleted]
Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
461–470 of 516 posts
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#462Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if I were hiring, I'd certainly think less of you for taking that stance. Picture this: we're deep in the Cold War era, and Ronny Raygun is the president. The Star Wars initiative is in full swing. Nuclear mishaps and near-misses are still an all-too-frequent occurrence. Nena's red balloons are ready to fly. The President has just gone on the air and promised to "Outlaw Russia," and that "The bombing starts in fi…
I don’t disagree that a lot of technological benefits have come out of military technology, it’s just that your comment completely ignores the death, destruction and calamity that’s also arisen. You’re fine to believe that the military is a net benefit for society, that’s your choice. I just don’t, and that’s mine. And while yes, I’m sure you’d think less of me in an interview situation that’s not been my general exp…
I don’t disagree that a lot of technological benefits have come out of military technology, it’s just that your comment completely ignores the death, destruction and calamity that’s also arisen.
Let me know when you find a job where you know your work will never be misused.
Meantime, your comment completely ignores the irony inherent in having been made over a network that was created by people you reflexively refuse to work for.
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#464Earlier 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…
> 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. I think that's a mischaracterization that's important to correct in the name of accuracy: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/technology/google-project... : > The polarized debate about Google and the military may leave out som…
Sorta like how increasing surgical strikes in Vietnam will end the war faster and save thousands of lives?
These sorts of arguments come up constantly in these discussions, and are laughable. More efficient targeting just means more strikes. And all of this targeting is extra judicial anyway...
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#465My 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…
[deleted]
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#466Earlier 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…
> the fact that few, if any Americans share that concern is certainly very disappointing. I had thought Americans better than that in my younger years, apparently not.
I would not be surprised to know that this is correct, but the only thing I can do is speak to my own opinion.
That I see nothing inherently wrong with supporting the government or military does not mean I agree with everything they do.
Perhaps my beliefs are mistaken, but as far as I know the military does not act on its own accord but from orders of elected officials. This being the case, the correct action to me doesn't appear to be weakening the military but to elect people who you think will act in ways you agree with.
Developing military strength is a long term effort, and given the people I vote for likely will not win every time, I don't think going back and forth between supporting or not supporting the military makes sense.
Perhaps this is very naive of me, but I also think that it's entirely possible I don't have the context to know better than those who make these decisions, or I could frankly just be wrong. This being the case I trust that others are still working to the common good even if they do it through means different than I.
To be completely honest, I do not understand why we keep fighting wars or why we want to behave like we are the world police. Nevertheless this behavior seems to continue no matter which party is in office, so I can only assume there's a good reason for it.
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So basically, you're complaining that some people do have the ability to take a stand.
Here's the deal: Yes, some people are not as fortunate. That does not matter one iota in this conversation. Just because others have it worse does not in any way, shape, or form mean that we shouldn't continue fighting for better. You complaining about this is nothing more than you advocating a race to the bottom.
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
It's not accurate that the military has a terrible track record regarding civilian casualties? Go ahead and offer your proof to the contrary, then.
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#469I 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.
> Russia having an advanced form of AI-weaponry without any form of MAD-doctrine is probably not the best scenario. They're a very long way from there, see for example this: http://defence-blog.com/army/combat-tests-syria-brought-ligh... (which also happens to be my latest separate post submission). People tend to over-estimate the technical prowess of the Russians, there's only so much that the military of a country…
On the other hand, North Korea got nukes in a few years, while being two orders of magnitude smaller. If anything, I'd say people tend to underestimate how much (money, effort) a totalitarian state can invest if they think it's needed. Basically - all of it, and then some. Dictatorships can be more efficient in selected categories than democracies, and they often are - it's "in the long run" and "across the board" that they are worse. If you remove all the "checks and balances", you risk having an un-removable psychopath to be a dictator for life; but you also unlock the "full power of the state" to work on a single thing, which - in some circumstances - can give you amazing results.
Re: Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Nuclear arsenals are part of the military, and what campaigns do you think the US is losing? What materially have we actually lost? Let's not conflate foreign policy and politics with military might. Things can go wrong from bad leadership regardless of what powers are at command, but those powers at the same time guarantee a certain level of safety and capability on behalf of the nation's interests. I don't see how…
what campaigns do you think the US is losing? What materially have we actually lost?
There's no sign of a stable liberal secular democracy emerging anytime soon in Afghanistan or Iraq is there? At the cost of trillions upon trillions of dollars if you only want to focus on material things. But you can point at an American campaign, Somalia, Vietnam as I've mentioned, any adventures in Latin America... And then there's Ukraine, whose territorial integrity America guaranteed in return for giving up its own nuclear weapons, and yet the Russians waltzed in an annexed the Crimea without any trouble at all.
America does all these things when it is in no danger itself, and millions upon millions of innocent people die because of it, and that is why people have misgivings about working on drone targeting.