Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts • Hacker News Board

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

#491

Post by engi_nerd » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 11:45 PM UTC

oldcynic wrote: post #482

engi_nerd wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's funny, I've read the claim multiple times in the media amongst the controversy over its procurement. Not least because it took years for the US:UK dispute over technology transfer to resolve during the Bush+Blair years. Even since resolution there's unprecedented restrictions of maintenance in RAF service, requiring some major components returned to BAe in the US when BAe are a British based company. I'm on my…

The major components returned to BAE in the US are probably related to the AN/ALQ-239 Electronic Warfare suite, which is made by BAE's US subsidiary. BAE UK does not directly control its US subsidiary.

Just because Israel is allowed to add additional equipment to the F-35 doesn't mean anything in terms of the F-35 itself. Which, as I said, is the same as everyone else's.

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

#492

Post by woodruffw » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 3:24 AM UTC

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #381

woodruffw wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This country only exists because of Puritan persecution in England, but you don't see me thanking the Anglican church for America. Bad means result in good ends all the time; that doesn't mean we should celebrate bad means. I agree that the US military has made positive contributions to the world, but I don't think it's the main source of the Pax Americana -- strong international bodies (NATO, UN, &c), the tendency f…

At the end of it all, the threat of violence moves humans. We don't need to qualify it with good or bad. It is in our nature.

The fact that people are spurred into action by violence doesn't mean that we ought to be violent, or that violence is even the most effective way to get people to act in the way you want.

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

#493

Post by woodruffw » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 3:37 AM UTC

jimbofisher1 wrote: post #390

woodruffw wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This country only exists because of Puritan persecution in England, but you don't see me thanking the Anglican church for America. Bad means result in good ends all the time; that doesn't mean we should celebrate bad means. I agree that the US military has made positive contributions to the world, but I don't think it's the main source of the Pax Americana -- strong international bodies (NATO, UN, &c), the tendency f…

Name 1 Major thing NATO or the UN has done without US support. The idea that they have any power outside what the US sanctions is to be pretty ignorant of the reality of power in world affairs.

You're missing the point. It's not that NATO and the UN are powerful or effective as bodies independent of the US, it's that their greatest achievements have occurred without direct US military intervention.

NATO and the UN both benefit (and suffer) from the power and presence of the US military, but their proudest moments (the German economic miracle, smallpox eradication, historic decreases in child mortality and malnutrition) all stem from smart policy and liberal principles, not from the looming threat of American tanks.

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

#494

Post by woodruffw » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 3:45 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #441

woodruffw wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This country only exists because of Puritan persecution in England, but you don't see me thanking the Anglican church for America. Bad means result in good ends all the time; that doesn't mean we should celebrate bad means. I agree that the US military has made positive contributions to the world, but I don't think it's the main source of the Pax Americana -- strong international bodies (NATO, UN, &c), the tendency f…

> This country only exists because of Puritan persecution in England, but you don't see me thanking the Anglican church for America. Bad means result in good ends all the time; that doesn't mean we should celebrate bad means. You’re begging the question. If a particular means consistently yields good results, is it bad means? When the Roman Empire fell, we call the subsequent period the dark ages. What does that say…

> If a particular means consistently yields good results, is it bad means?

I think so. Here's an example: over 3/4ths of released prisoners are re-arrested within five years. Half are re-arrested within a year of release[1]. If my end is substantially reducing the crime rate, I could reasonably claim that mandatory lifelong sentences would achieve that end: recidivism would be eliminated, and there would be a strong disincentive for anybody to commit even minor crimes. But this is clearly a terrible means, both legally and morally: the punishment doesn't fit the crime, and we end up condemning 25% of the prison population to a life in jail because of a statistic.

[1]: https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welc...

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

#495

Post by drawnwren » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 4:27 AM UTC

chrisper wrote: post #158

drawnwren wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good news then, you aren't eligible to work on the vast majority of USG software projects. Definitely anything remotely related to military drones.

The US is not the only country with a military and companies...

No but in the context of Google refusing to work for the US DoD, it's pretty clear that most of the posters in this thread are talking about the US DoD/Silicon Valley relationship. Further, a comment like "I always tell employers I won't work for the military..." has a significantly different meaning if we're talking about Swedish tech companies and the Swedish military than if we're talking about US companies, so it would probably have been helpful to clear up the setting in this context.

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

#496

Post by whatcanthisbee » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 4:41 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #261

6ue7nNMEEbHcM wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen that kind of thinking in the past and it's pretty popular view. I'm just not so sure about this moral aspect. Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? Maybe you won't do this but be sure that in some other country some similarly talented people will. If you (and many others) abstain from it on similar basis you and closest people you know may be in danger of being affected…

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…

+1 on this...

even on Vietnam war, look at the aftermath of US army giving up - for South Vietnamese: mass concentration camps, shoving inside CONEX boxes, a lot of deaths...

...all of this when the war is over and the communist gov. isn't desperate for anything...

...and US media doesn't cover this because Americans want to think "we lost because we were bad (yay justice!), not because we were stupid/weak/etc"

Of course, US army was too desperate & chose to "shoot/bomb whoever (isn't wearing US army uniforms)" - a combination of stupidity / lack of discipline / common sense

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

#497

Post by gaius » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 7:00 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #481

gaius wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

I'm talking about having the biggest gun to make sure we can defend ourselves against any threat. You're talking about who uses that gun and for what. That's a fine debate to have, but it's not the same topic. I agree foreign policy needs work, and there is harm caused, but that has nothing to do with military strength. Perhaps this conflation is the real issue with these threads as people can't seem to separate powe…

I'm talking about having the biggest gun to make sure we can defend ourselves against any threat

Yes that's fine. If America were facing an existential threat. Defence of one's home/property is the fundamental human right that is the basis of all rights. No question from me there.

You're talking about who uses that gun and for what. That's a fine debate to have, but it's not the same topic.

I believe they are inextricably linked. I would wager many of those reluctant to work on dronetech right now, in the present circumstances of its use, would be perfectly willing to do so if the enemy really were at the gates.

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

#498

Post by PostOnce » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 8:16 AM UTC

carlosrg wrote: post #241

PostOnce wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the neighbor beats his wife, so I might as well beat mine. What kind of logic is that? We don't necessarily need to match lock-step with terrible regimes to ensure our own security, and our own security is the only argument for matching them in the military field. For example, if someone else uses gas or landmines, we can use masks and airplanes to defeat them, without having to resort to those things that can'…

Riiiight. For example, USA could abandon nuclear weapons, while letting others continue to develop them. That would work fine, both for them and their allies. If Hitler had them and the allies didn’t, that would have worked fine.

Well, we are literally fighting Iranian nuclear weapons with computer viruses.

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

#499

Post by manigandham » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 9:43 AM UTC

gaius wrote: post #497

manigandham wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about having the biggest gun to make sure we can defend ourselves against any threat. You're talking about who uses that gun and for what. That's a fine debate to have, but it's not the same topic. I agree foreign policy needs work, and there is harm caused, but that has nothing to do with military strength. Perhaps this conflation is the real issue with these threads as people can't seem to separate powe…

I'm talking about having the biggest gun to make sure we can defend ourselves against any threat Yes that's fine. If America were facing an existential threat. Defence of one's home/property is the fundamental human right that is the basis of all rights. No question from me there. You're talking about who uses that gun and for what. That's a fine debate to have, but it's not the same topic. I believe they are inextri…

That's the thing, a strong defense keeps the enemy from ever getting to the gates in the first place. If you wait until they're already there, it's too late. In the age of AI delivering exponential advancements, time is only more important.

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

#500

Post by hutzlibu » Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 10:59 AM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #368

hutzlibu wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubt that to be honest. In theory maybe, but in a real life scenario I don't think there are many people who let themself (and their loved ones) to be killed than to kill. Even though I have a lot of respect for Ghandi, I am not sure if I could respect someone who would let his family murdered, out of a moral point.

Here's how I see it: I'm not going to be held accountable for someone else's actions. I'm going to be held accountable for my actions. I'm not going to plan ahead to make it easier to kill someone in some as-yet hypothetical self-defense scenario.

"I'm not going to be held accountable for someone else's actions"

I agree, you are not. You are responsible for your own actions. So if you choose a life of non-violence - that is allright and it allways depends on the real situation, so I am not saying you should buy a gun. Because there is also this old proverb "Live by the sword, die by the sword" meaning I guess you also think that the more someone spends energy with something - like preparing to shoot someone for self-defense - the more likely it is, that he will have to do it at some point, so you just completely refuse it. Well, there is some truth to it, but on the other hand - I for example train martial arts since I am young, but I never had to use it for real - even though there were many situations where I was glad, that I could - I never had to back off in critical situations. The knowledge that I could probably beat the aggressor, gave me the confidence to defuse the situtation calmly.

My point is, you should be aware, that there are indeed many bad persons around and if you choose the path of non-violence than you will have to rely on other people to protect you. And even if you never encountered violence, than this will just mean that those protectors (usually police) did allready a good job of keeping the violence away from you.