Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 888 posts

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#661

Post by qaq »

crispinb wrote: post #642
partiallypro wrote: post #453

I find the Google/Chinese search engine troubling, but I do think people are playing this up to be a lot more than it should be. I think one fact is that Google is in an area and recruits people that are hyper liberal individuals. For example: not wanting to work with the U.S. military on projects, having AI use gender neutral writing, random PC things, little diversity in political thought etc. I don't think Google…

> recruits people that are hyper liberal individuals Only from the very narrow perspective of current US politics - just normal in the mainstream West.

??? Define mainstream West

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#662

Post by dragonwriter »

tomschlick wrote: post #499
yarrel wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. They are civilian vehicles and all of the tasks you list are civilian tasks. Militarization of the police force is a very, very, very bad idea.

> I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. Anecdotal opinions. I know plenty of vets who don't think MRAPs are a big deal at all. > If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. Armored cars cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and outfit from companies like Lenco. MRAPs are bought for ~$1k (transport costs) from the federal government. > Militarization of the police force is a very, very,…

> If the vehicles do the same tasks, in mostly the same way, what's the difference?

The difference is that the 1033 program comes with a use-it-or-lose-it utilization requirement, which means that the cheap transfer of military equipment has a built in incentive to overuse it. They are often suitable for tasks that police rarely face, which at a steep discount makes them seem like good deals anyway. But then they must be used soon to be kept. So they get used in less appropriate circumstances as a direct consequence of the terms of transfer.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#663

Post by Geekette »

Wow. It's fascinating to watch this issue grow in realtime: When I started reading, I saw earlier comments indicating the letter had 139 signatories. Then I checked and noticed it was at 250 and it's now at 276. Curious to see what the tally will be by tomorrow.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#664

Post by all2 »

omnimus wrote: post #579
electrograv wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, I'm definitely convinced to your side of the argument! If a civilian can buy it, I see no reason why a police force shouldn't be able to as well. That said, I'd love to hear any counter-arguments to this notion, if they exist.

Well in USA civilians can buy automatic rifles and high caliber armor piercing sniper rifles... that does not necessary mean that its a good idea.

It is an excellent idea. An armed populous is an excellent deterrent of tyranny. And with the way the US is headed, an armed populous may be the only thing that stands between freedom and absolute tyranny.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#665

Post by carapace »

choot wrote: post #656
nimbius wrote: post #33

Pretty bold. A lot of people are saying this wont work, but speaking from my own experience, you'd be surprised what companies are amicable to when it comes to business. Im an engine mechanic by trade, and our shops handle bids for cash strapped local governments that outsource their motor pool maintenance. We do things like fire trucks and police cars, but we were working on a new regional idea as a "service center"…

Wow! So basically, someone managed to risk police offier lives with their ill thought out plan and people on HN are applauding them? What should a police crew use against a criminal equipped with high caliber armor piercing guns?

> What should a police crew use against a criminal equipped with high caliber armor piercing guns?

The Army?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#666

Post by all2 »

josho wrote: post #660
markdown wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I get that they "look scary" to some people . That's more than enough reason not to deploy them. It changes "we're here to serve and protect" to "we will crush you if you step out of line".

Here's a great example of how the police have failed to live up to 'serve and protect'. Here is an EU police car. Note it's bright colours to be easily spotted. Dare I say this car looks friendly. http://cdn1.blog.powerblocktv.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10... Now, here's a US police _interceptor_. The front grill looks like it's ready to ram me. http://s3.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/2011-F... The MRA…

That grill is designed for ramming, shoving, and a hammer-head maneuver that destabilizes the target vehicle.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIT_maneuver [1] https://youtu.be/OjvBYk8_8HI?t=19

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#667

Post by jiveturkey »

It's nice to see a lot of signatures, 277 at the time of writing. Given the culture at Google I wouldn't call them brave (they aren't putting their jobs or future promo at risk, at least within Google), but certainly it's a powerful statement.

However, let's guesstimate 55k full-time staff. That's .5%. At that level, it's a gesture that will get addressed in corporate-speak if at all. It's a vocal minority. You will not hear from the 20% that are in favor and the 79.5% that don't care much either way.

Now if they would all commit to (say) a 6-12 month timeline to "divest" or they will leave, that's saying something that Google will have to listen to. Sure, there is an unlimited supply of equally capable others that will be thrilled to take their place, but it will be a cultural game-changer, a risk the powers-that-be probably don't want to see play out.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#668

Post by lovehashbrowns »

tomschlick wrote: post #558
sdenton4 wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's exactly the riot cop problem. On the cop side, the more armor you have, the less you see and the more hostile the world /seems/; this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation. On the civilian side, you get to feel like you live in a goddamned war zone, with the police as combatants. It's not a nice feeling. My own approach is to treat cops as large, gun-wielding wild animal…

> this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation. I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people. If people are rioting (actually rioting, not protesting) then I honestly don't care how the presence of a MRAP makes them feel. It's the police's job to stop the riot and they need tools to do that. > I'm not going to call the cops for anything…

> I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people.

So the best option is to go to the other extreme, and give our police military weapons, vehicles, and armor--except that police get a looser RoE, they investigate themselves, and have a great history of murdering civilians.

> If people are rioting (actually rioting, not protesting) then I honestly don't care how the presence of a MRAP makes them feel. It's the police's job to stop the riot and they need tools to do that.

These vehicles show up at protests. Someone else here suggested we look them up on YouTube so we can see how they SAVE LIVES when police use them. Except the only video that I found in my admittedly short YouTube search was the police using these at a protest, lol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71-R2D0-wOI&t=3462s I'm so glad the police had all of that protection there. Phew. Saved so many police lives.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#669

Post by ben509 »

tomschlick wrote: post #547
driverdan wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not the same thing as a standard armored truck. The name itself gives that away (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected). Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles. MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs. The simple fact that they are former military vehicles contributes to the military mindset of many police depts, something that should be avoided. Militarization of police forces is bad for citizens.

> Police do not need mine-resistant vehicles. Serious eye roll here. You're discarding all of the other capabilities and suggesting that because it is ALSO mine resistant it must be bad. > MRAPs have high maintenance and running costs. That's assuming they are used all the time. Most departments have them parked at their HQs and only use them for call outs or training. Regular maintenance wouldn't reach the same leve…

> You're discarding all of the other capabilities and suggesting that because it is ALSO mine resistant it must be bad.

Having driven and gunned on an MRAP... yes, the mine resistance makes it bad. You resist mines by 1. moving away from them and 2. presenting armor at an angle. On a truck like an MRAPs, you mount it very high above the ground and for the size and weight, the interior space is limited because the chassis is sloped upwards.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#670

Post by pazimzadeh »

mbrumlow wrote: post #480
tjoff wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter. Shareholders must do their research. If they don't subscribe to the values then they can either not buy or suit themselves.

That is not how that works. A company -- with a few special exceptions and special charters -- ONLY goal is to increase value for this shareholders. A single shareholder with a non majority holding can sue if the company knowingly does something that causes the values of his shares to decrease -- even if the rest of the shareholders are okay with the loss because they agree with the sentiment. There is some grey area…

How does a shareholder prove that it's not just a short term loss in value, and that the decision won't actually benefit the company in the long run?
Post reply on HN