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

471–480 of 516 posts

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

#471

Post by mankash666 »

pofilat wrote: post #396
mankash666 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you are. The "military" follows the orders of the executive branch. Period.

Employees at Google are protesting the military's efforts to advance itself, while their real beef is with the executive branch.

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

#472

Post by 394549 »

sdenton4 wrote: post #464
394549 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

> Sorta like how increasing surgical strikes in Vietnam will end the war faster and save thousands of lives?

Maybe not the former, but certainly the latter if it meant a reduction in alternatives like carpet bombing, etc.

In World War II, the military would drop thousands of bombs over a wide area in the hope that a few would land on a German ball bearing factory. Now that they have more precise weapons, they don't need to do that anymore to accomplish similar missions. If the military feels it needs to smash something small, they'll use a big, oversize hammer if they don't have a small one available. They don't give up and go home.

> More efficient targeting just means more strikes.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know how you could reasonably be so certain about that.

> And all of this targeting is extra judicial anyway...

As is de rigueur for military targeting.

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

#473

Post by engi_nerd »

oldcynic wrote: post #187
slavik81 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how things are done today. Military technology is shared widely among allies. If we cannot trust our friends, we are doomed. There might be national secret-sauce here or there, but the major military contractors are all international. Lots of projects involve R&D spread across multiple nations. Things mostly get dicey when looking at nations that are too unstable to trust (Egypt, Pakistan, etc.), or those…

Isn't it the case that the only nation getting an F35 comparable to the US version is the UK? It's unclear if even that version is the same. Everyone else seems to be getting some sort of F35 lite export version, including Australia, Italy and possibly others. Is that trusting one's friends or are they too unstable to trust?

There is no such thing as an "export version" of the F-35. All F-35s have the same installed mission systems, the same avionics, and the same mission performance. This was one of the big goals of the program -- to give the US, allies, and other friendly nations a common, capable, 5th generation strike aircraft.

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

#475

Post by AmericanChopper »

wolfgke wrote: post #299
AmericanChopper wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I bet Afghanis sit around at night reminiscing of the good old days under the taliban... However this is completely irrelevant to the point. The question was why do we need to have a superior military to our adversaries, and the answer is because our adversaries are real, and if we care about our liberty we need to take them seriously. To say otherwise is either laughably naive, or is an outright rejection of l…

> Sure, I bet Afghanis sit around at night reminiscing of the good old days under the taliban... Who were strongly financially supported (and thus in some sense "enthroned") by the CIA: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taliban&oldid=846... "A while later, the U.S. CIA and Saudi Arabic General Intelligence Directorate (GID) funneled funding and equipment through the PakistanI Inter-Service Intelligence Age…

Which again is completely irrelevant to the point I’m making.

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

#476

Post by AmericanChopper »

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.

You’re also leaving out the part where the Taliban didn’t exist during the time that Afghani forces were receiving US support. If you look at the reason for getting involved in the first place, most people would agree that it wasn’t entirely unreasonable. That said if you look at how they handled the aftermath, most people would agree that part was a fuck up.

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

#477

Post by gurkendoktor »

vbezhenar wrote: post #446
gurkendoktor wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fellow Western European here, and I understand that sentiment. However, it seems that countries which are closer to Russia or China don't mind the American military nearly as much. See: Baltic States, Sweden, Taiwan. Pax Americana is a thing, even if it's usually overshadowed by completely braindead interventions like the Iraq War.

I doubt that US would help those countries in the war with Russia. US didn't help Georgia, US didn't help Ukraine. It's naïve to expect that US would protect someone on the other end of earth.

Fair enough, but even a miniscule chance of having to deal with the US makes it a lot riskier to invade a small country.

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

#478

Post by _dps »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #468
jimbofisher1 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know if it's true or not, but based on a little thinking about availability bias and publication bias suggest it's plausible.

No one is likely to write about "targets hit exactly as planned, no collateral damage" and even if they do as a puff piece for the military we're unlikely to remember that.

In contrast, every single mistargeting is plausibly worldwide news and our brains are wired to remember such things.

To be clear, I don't have any hard data either way. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's true given the asymmetry of typical cognitive bias in evaluating such a claim. The folk version of this is that you "only ever hear about the CIA's mistakes and not of their successes".

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

#479

Post by sremani »

snowwrestler wrote: post #404
sremani wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who ensures a Ship with South Korean flag which does not a solid Navy reaches its destination ? I understand the analogy of Container being an innovative idea. With out calm seas under-written by US Navy, its not so great. Without US Navy and its 10 carriers, we will be back to 19th century mercantilism and how much fun colonialism which is its off-shoot has been.

You're acting like shipping never worked before 1950. Many thanks to the U.S. Navy for what they do today, but they did not invent the concept of safe passage. Shipping containers have made an impact in the efficiency of shipping, not the existence of shipping.

The Shipping Container comment was a response to the other poster.

I understand safe passage.. Safe Passage does not mean that Fifth fleet sits in the Persian Gulf round the fucking clock!

I will not engage in word play, I am not good at it, and it comes from an agenda of being cute or clever.

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

#480

Post by chrisbennet »

mankash666 wrote: post #471
pofilat wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But you are. The "military" follows the orders of the executive branch. Period. Employees at Google are protesting the military's efforts to advance itself, while their real beef is with the executive branch.

Google employees didn’t want to be complicit with certain things the government was going use their work for. They stood up for what they believed in.

If you are asked to say, make poison gas to exterminate the “enemies of the state”, you can always say: “Take it up with the executive branch.” I guess. When faced with the same situation, others may choose to a different response.

Post reply on HN