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

721–730 of 888 posts

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#721

Post by manigandham »

sjg007 wrote: post #705
manigandham wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilians can buy heavily armored vehicles, yes. They can also buy military vehicles, provided they are certified (like not carrying weapons) but it is definitely possible to be rolling around in a MRAP style machine completely legally.

Hmm.. are you sure? Don't they have to be street legal to drive on the street? You can probably buy one to drive on private land but that's about it.

Yes, and they can be. It's really about what certifications you get regarding weapons, weight and noise, but it completely possible.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#722

Post by tomlock »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #716
kiliantics wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worker's unions helped win the majority of our rights in modern democracies. I wish this fact was more widely appreciated.

> Worker's unions helped win the majority of our rights in modern democracies. I wish this fact was more widely appreciated. The problem with modern unions, particularly in tech, is that the legacy structure is inapt for current problems. Tech workers don't need a union to negotiate compensation, they're compensated fine already. They don't need a huge bureaucratic structure for engaging in long-term detailed negotia…

> they're compensated fine already.

I disagree, given the massive cash reserves the tech companies have.

Yes, having a higher salary would be ridiculous in a lot of these cases, but we should moderate that through legislation that benefits the most people - not by a public company further lining the coffers of its owners.

Apple and Google particularly have a lot of cash just lying around, and that cash is the result of the employee's efforts, and they deserve it. I think if we think their salaries are too high in that case, we need to talk about better taxation systems.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#723

Post by AlexandrB »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #41

I respect the motivation of the people behind this but I disagree with the logic here. It seems to be a zero or none type of logic. Are Chinese better off with not having google search engine as a choice, even if censored and having only local options, or are they better off having at least some choice, even if that choice is censored? I think it's the second, not the first.

Think of it kind of like sanctions. Sanctions usually hurt the people of the countries they target in the short term, but they also embarrass the government (if only slightly) and increase dissatisfaction with the government among the population.

Another way to look at it is legitimization - Google doing the Chinese government's bidding through censorship could be construed as tacit approval. Indeed, the Chinese government may advertise it as such.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#724

Post by PunchTornado »

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…

> don't belong in a corporate environment

why not? not all companies should be money over everything. And google is still doing fine and turning on huge profits based on the work of these "liberal babies".

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#725

Post by newname2018 »

tomschlick wrote: post #702
sdenton4 wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people. Most of the time, police aren't being shot at. And they tend to react to peaceful protest exactly as if it were a riot. This is well documented. Here's an example I was present for: Peaceful protest at the university. Cops in riot gear show up, fly around in helicopters, etc. One of the cops pushes/bumps a girl who then bounces i…

> Most of the time Key phrase there. We expect our police to be equipped for any situation. So what happens when something like the North Hollywood shooting happens again and you have pinned cops/civilians? In that case officers had to commandeer actual money trucks and raid gun shops to get the equipment they needed to stop the shooters. > Here's an example I was present for If that's true then I'm all for punishmen…

It really depends on the exact location of the cops. As a younger person I personally witnessed local police use those vehicles in ways that were very much overkill. I've also personally winessed those same police officers lie " on the stand" in court to " make" thier case and the judge always buys it. Doesn't take a genius to understand that there is a huge problem with law enforcement in the US. Isn't this a thread about Google?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#726

Post by prepend »

tomschlick wrote: post #697
markdown wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These vehicles can, and have saved lives. Citation needed. Police all over the world do their jobs without these tanks. Is there any data proving crime goes down in cities where they are deployed? Is there any data proving that less lives are lost when these tanks are deployed in US cities? > Better wording would be "if you throw rocks or shoot at us we are still going to arrest you". People have been throwing rock…

> Citation needed. Several active shooter situations where they need to retrieve downed officers / civilians without exposing the rescue team to gunfire. Most recently in the Pittsburgh shooting it was reported they used an armored vehicle to get to injured officers outside. > Police all over the world do their jobs without these tanks. First of all they are not tanks. They have no offensive capabilities so they woul…

Would you please add a link to your narrative description of a citation?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#727

Post by wolfgke »

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…

> When officers are inside them, they feel simultaneously invulnerable and threatened -- all this armor means that someone must want to kill them.

And cars have airbags and seatbelts because other drivers actively want to crash onto your car?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#728

Post by CamelCaseName »

mirimir wrote: post #711

But then there's Outline, from Alphabet's Jigsaw.[0] It utterly simplifies the creation of private VPN servers on Digital Ocean droplets.[1] They use Shadowsocks obfuscation. It's apparently effective against China's Great Firewall, and seems popular among Chinese dissidents. So the main intended application is pretty obvious, no? So are they playing both sides? Or trying to con the Chinese government? Or just a larg…

Perhaps a bargaining chip in a larger negotiation? Retaliation for previous attacks?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#729

Post by rhizome »

RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u wrote: post #717
nothrabannosir wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People downthread have remarked on the lack of Chinese signatories, commenting on how the Chinese government tracks their citizens abroad. With ramifications for their family and friends as actual, real possibilities, according to some commenters. If that were true, then their silence can definitely not be construed as any kind of tacit agreement, or even disinterest. How many Chinese citizens (or people otherwise su…

While threats from the Chinese government may be valid, it's more likely that they don't want to / cannot risk their H-1B status or green card priority date. So their immediate threat is more likely (indirectly) coming from USG.

What is the risk, that their status would be changed in response to their involvement? If so, would there be an officially articulated basis?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#730

Post by wolfgke »

ssully wrote: post #556
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.

The counter argument would be police departments rarely buy this equipment - it's given to them as part of a program between the Pentagon and law enforcement. They get the vehicles (and lots of other military grade equipment) for a huge discount or free. There is also the fact that even if a civilian could technically buy one, it's not really feasible to actually do so.

> The counter argument would be police departments rarely buy this equipment - it's given to them as part of a program between the Pentagon and law enforcement. They get the vehicles (and lots of other military grade equipment) for a huge discount or free.

> There is also the fact that even if a civilian could technically buy one, it's not really feasible to actually do so.

Keep in mind that these vehicles were originally bought by the Pentagon using civilians' money (tax money). So far for feasibility.

Post reply on HN