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

Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 372 posts

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#321

Post by longerthoughts »

antidesitter wrote: post #302
longerthoughts wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the downvotes were warranted given that the comment introduced something worth discussing, but my thoughts might be in line with some of the downvoters. Human rights are not objective truths. The entire concept is something we made up based on beliefs that we formed through the course of history and we formalized the ones that a bunch of us were able to agree upon. They are a figment of our imaginations…

You can claim that morality is a fiction, but that doesn’t make it so. It’s not the most common or most plausible view.

You can claim that it’s not the most common or most plausible view, but that doesn’t make it so.

I would wager that most people have never bothered to ask the question because morality is useful either way. Even if your claim is true, most people also believed common myths like the earth being flat at one point, so that’s hardly a compelling argument.

I’m not saying morality has no place, only that it’s not a physical reality and you can’t point to a list as definitive proof of what is and is not moral.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#322

Post by jhayward »

Aunche wrote: post #192
iaw wrote: post #80

> Scott Beaumont, Google’s leader in China and a key architect of the Dragonfly project, “did not feel that the security, privacy, and legal teams should be able to question his product decisions,” If I was more eloquent I'd draw some analogy between Scott Beaumont's behavior and China...

The key words in this quote are "product decisions." In no way does this quote imply that Beaumont can bypass a legitimate security or legal issue.

No, that's not how the quote reads. It reads "If he made a decision about how the product would operate no legal, privacy, or security teams could contradict him."

So, if he says "we will deliberately expose private conversations directly to government agents", that's a product decision.

You are inventing your conclusion from nothing.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#323

Post by jayd16 »

int_19h wrote: post #199
jayd16 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's acceptable, then why was this unacceptable? Isn't this project mostly about figuring out whats blocked and caching that?

It's the difference between not actively resisting something that is morally wrong, and actively assisting in its implementation.

Maybe I'm missing a part of the plan but caching what was already going to be censored anyway doesn't seem that much further of a step. Is it that the censorship is more hidden?

If they had a "show censored results" checkbox would that be acceptable? Or is Google search currently blocked entirely and trying to get unblocked is the moral dilemma? I'm just trying to understand the moral difference.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#325

Post by tinus_hn »

ethbro wrote: post #280
tinus_hn wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just about the money. Some people can just be really persuasive and in reality most things are not really that black and white.

It's funny how things tend to get less black and white as more money is offered.

It’s funny how things tend to get less black and white if you actually look at pros and cons and listen to arguments. The fact that there actually are pros and cons to most things means they are not black and white.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#326

Post by fipple »

ionised wrote: post #268
fipple wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would completely set up my family and children for life. I’d get to quit my job and spend all day with my kids. If some people I don’t know get fucked over for that, whatever. And that kind of thinking is why the world is such a wretched place. But I can’t say I wouldn’t jump at the opportunity.

> It would completely set up my family and children for life. This isn't as good an excuse as you think it is. You might want to ask yourself if there is anything you believe in or care about beyond your own genetic code.

I don’t think it’s an excuse. I’m admitting the ways in which I am a bad person in a way I can only do on a web site not associates with my real name.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#327

Post by Aunche »

jhayward wrote: post #322
Aunche wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key words in this quote are "product decisions." In no way does this quote imply that Beaumont can bypass a legitimate security or legal issue.

No, that's not how the quote reads. It reads "If he made a decision about how the product would operate no legal, privacy, or security teams could contradict him." So, if he says "we will deliberately expose private conversations directly to government agents", that's a product decision. You are inventing your conclusion from nothing.

No, it's the Intercept that invented its own conclusion from out-of-context quotes from an interview with a disgruntled ex-employee. The only substance from that interview was that Google was being less open than they usually were. Zunger had a political objection, which was outside the scope of his field of work, and leadership dismissed it as unimportant. Zunger deemed this unfair. The Intercept chose to interpret that as Dragonfly completely bypassing security and privacy, which other Googlers on that team claim never happened.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#328

Post by Nasrudith »

debt wrote: post #166
Nasrudith wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it is clearly an authoritarian personality - don't question his decisions and just obey. Sucks to work under but isn't usually quite as bad as an authoritarian government . And really that sort of thing should be a reason to be fired instantly from a tech company - not because of employee morale, expecting people you pay to think not to think being bad management, ethics, or anything like that but just because t…

Idk probably knew they weren’t breaking any laws and also wanted to hit an aggressive deadline. That is if any of his engineers had qualms about what they were doing they’d be checked at the door because again it’s all legal according to the law and they had to hit a deadline. Especially because there’s nothing here that’s technically exceptional other than it runs counter to what we Americans considered ethical. Gla…

I think the issue is less PR but more labor dispute essentially - the high end having greviances is rarer but it does happen. They can weather being just another evil corporation reputationally - they can't weather mass defections of expensive talent that may decide to go to competitors or go Traitorous Eight on them.

They have a pattern there of being forced to bend since at least the "memo-gate" and although they don't like it the math is clear enough to them. If employees are making money net it is rational to replace them if the alternative could make more money. Willful employees are an annoyance with a relative liability to corporate but their productivity gives them cold rational sway that says "just add it to the employee expenses section if you know what is good for you".

It isn't ideal for everyone - indeed it works because they are outliers. If everyone can do flawless brain surgery it no longer demands a premium no matter how difficult it is. It is in some ways more powerful than traditional labor - they organize because they need the company. Companies can decide to leave and out source to cheaper locales in response. Powerful labor has few equivalent alternatives. I say powerful and not scarce because mere obscurity can be subsituited for - powerful less so. If they could have already they would have. The companies need the high end and they know it. Just look at Hollywood movie budgets to the stars - they can ask for such outrageous sums because the alternative is worse in the current climate.

Of course there is a caveat - if they ever become obsolete they will be dropped quickly due to their leveraging. Things can be very fickle especially with advances that can metaphorically turn weaving from an apprentice-journeyman-master trade to a factory job worked by illiterate women and children.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#329

Post by drited »

Despegar wrote: post #2

Great reporting by Gallagher. He should win a Pulitzer for his reporting on Dragonfly. The fact that Pichai refused to say they wouldn't re-enter China shows this is probably just a pause until things die down.

Yeah Pichai came across as sneakily dishonest in in the recent congressional hearing. He implied they weren't currently planning to enter Chinese search with a filtered search tool but then admitted they had 100 engineers working on dragonfly. Okay sleazebag so you're not currently planning to enter but you are building the systems that will allow a future plan to happen. Him saying they have no plans to enter prior to that admission indicates that he has flexible morals. Why wouldn't a sleazebag like that continue 'not planning' until the time is right for him to reap his profits?

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#330

Post by antidesitter »

longerthoughts wrote: post #321
antidesitter wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can claim that morality is a fiction, but that doesn’t make it so. It’s not the most common or most plausible view.

You can claim that it’s not the most common or most plausible view, but that doesn’t make it so. I would wager that most people have never bothered to ask the question because morality is useful either way. Even if your claim is true, most people also believed common myths like the earth being flat at one point, so that’s hardly a compelling argument. I’m not saying morality has no place, only that it’s not a physica…

> You can claim that it’s not the most common or most plausible view, but that doesn’t make it so.

You're right. But if it's a question of evidence, I can certainly provide it.

The fact that most people in the world adhere to one of the major religions [1] [2], which have moral duties, a fortiori implies that your view isn't the most common. Even this is vastly under-counting, of course, since it excludes humanists and non-humanists who adhere to secular ethics. I think the uncommonness of your view is quite clear and it would be disingenuous to deny that.

Second, your view isn't the most common even among professional philosophers whose raison d'etre is precisely to ask and analyze these questions. Specifically, your view is the most common neither among those who study meta-ethics nor among the general population [3].

> Even if your claim is true, most people also believed common myths like the earth being flat at one point, so that’s hardly a compelling argument.

I didn't say its uncommonness makes it untrue. I said it's neither the most common (which may or may not warrant a higher burden of proof) nor the most plausible.

[1] http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-relig...

[2] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

[3] https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Post reply on HN