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

681–690 of 888 posts

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#681

Post by FireBeyond »

chii wrote: post #627
galvarez800 wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think walking away from all your stock vs. a company walking away from a deal that would account for a small fraction of its profits is a fair comparison. A more fair comparison would be asking if employees would be willing to have their stock decrease in value 10% in exchange for their company being more moral. I expect many employees would take such an exchange, although not all.

But those employees who _did not_ care about morality also would have their stock decrease by 10% in value due to no fault of their own. Therefore, it's only ethically correct for those who want to take the stance to also accept a decrease in stock compared to those who didnt.

And if the stock rebounds? Are they then going to forego the rebound?

Or is it "all privilege, no responsibility"?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#682

Post by dane-pgp »

carapace wrote: post #665
choot wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I wonder how this policy would interact with something like the Posse Comitatus Act.

Would it effectively require applying the label "terrorist" or "national security threat" to any criminal who shows they are prepared to use lethal force against a law enforcement officer?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#683

Post by ed_elliott_asc »

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…

Why do Americans seem to do everything they can about people with guns, except take away their guns?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#684

Post by yourbandsucks »

throwawaysea wrote: post #604
beams_of_light wrote: post #490

If you think that denying information to Chinese people because their Orwellian government demands it is the same as the stone you use to grind your obviously conservative axe on, you may need to pause and think a bit more on it.

Labeling someone's thoughtful arguments ('conservative') serves only to invalidate those arguments via an appeal to emotion or an association fallacy.

What's especially funny is that in 2018, the red scare is 'liberal' and wanting to work with the Chinese is 'conservative'.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#685

Post by discordance »

all2 wrote: post #666
josho wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's pretty disconcerting watching that video. The news and commentary make it feel i'm watching a sports hunting game.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#686

Post by exoesquitur »

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 going to call the cops for anything less than assault.

> I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above.

Only ancentotal, I know, but every time I have called the cops for any reason in my life, the situation was arguably made worse for everyone present... In some cases, severely so.

In m several cases, the threat of deadly force was brought into cases where nothing but a stern hand was needed. In one, it almost resulted in the death of the person that was actually doing the most to help the situation.

I will never again call the police for any reason unless I think with some certainty that a life will be lost if I dont.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#687

Post by discordance »

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"…

It's not just about the equipment the police force use, it's also about the training. Given military equipment, the police force will also get military training matching the equipment they get. Military knowledge and tactics should not be used used to police a civilian population.

Thank you for standing up to this.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#688

Post by dsr_ »

tomschlick wrote: post #443

> MRAP's are for combat, not police work While they were designed for combat, they are effectively the same thing that Brinks uses to transport money. They are meant to stop bad things from killing the people inside. They have 0 offensive weapons. They are entirely defensive vehicles that have been used to rescue downed officers, civilians in harms way (gunfire), and multiple times in natural disasters where other ve…

Here's the outrage:

if the police have armored vehicles, that means that they perceive a need for armored vehicles. When officers walk past them, they are reminded that they are needed. When officers are inside them, they feel simultaneously invulnerable and threatened -- all this armor means that someone must want to kill them.

From the other side, a community that sees MRAPs going past has to believe that there's a need for armored protection for the police -- so there must be a corresponding threat from armed criminals. The affluent parts of the community perceive more of a threat, and the disadvantaged part of the community has solid evidence that the police are an occupying military force, not protection.

In other words, the presence of the MRAPs creates a problem for everyone. It escalates tension.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#689

Post by iainmerrick »

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…

How do you know they’re not the majority?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#690

Post by tomschlick »

dsr_ wrote: post #688
tomschlick wrote: post #443

> MRAP's are for combat, not police work While they were designed for combat, they are effectively the same thing that Brinks uses to transport money. They are meant to stop bad things from killing the people inside. They have 0 offensive weapons. They are entirely defensive vehicles that have been used to rescue downed officers, civilians in harms way (gunfire), and multiple times in natural disasters where other ve…

Here's the outrage: if the police have armored vehicles, that means that they perceive a need for armored vehicles. When officers walk past them, they are reminded that they are needed. When officers are inside them, they feel simultaneously invulnerable and threatened -- all this armor means that someone must want to kill them. From the other side, a community that sees MRAPs going past has to believe that there's a…

So we are talking about perception above all else?

Great, but there are use cases for armored vehicles. Whether its an MRAP or a Bearcat.

There are always going to be barricaded persons, hostage situations, active shooters, riots, and natural disasters that need responding to and those seem to be the best tools for the job. The goal is to get as close to the subject as possible without anyone getting hurt. From there you can control the scene and use it as a position to de-escalate.

If these tools are being used inappropriately, I am all for legislation to curb that.

Post reply on HN