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

Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 516 posts

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

#191

Post by jopsen »

ma2rten wrote: post #32
iainmerrick wrote: post #10

One thing I find strange about this is why Google is so keen to get this government business in the first place. They’re amazingly profitable already, one of the most successful companies of all time; is defense work really something that could become another major revenue stream? Given the obvious conflicts with their company culture (obvious to rank and file employees, anyway) it doesn’t seem like a very appealing…

It's like this: Google has to keep growing to justify it's stock price. In order to do that it has to expand beyond search and ads. Google's technical infrastructure is the best in the world in many aspects, so they decided to open it up to other companies. However, other companies don't just come by themselves. That is why Google hired a bunch of sales people. Now these sales people do what they were hired for, they…

Tech companies tends to not just take over an existing market. But to grow it, by opening opportunities that didn't exist before. Like how smartphones created a market for apps, inventing a need that wasn't there before.

I don't see how that's likely to happen with military contracts. What beneficial need are they going to invent?

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

#192

Post by smts »

_ptgt wrote: post #65
bad_user wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is at this point not just some US company, but a multi-national one. I'm not a US citizen, so for me the US having a strong military isn't necessarily in my best interests, depending on circumstance. So what stops me, as a Google customer (which I am), to stop doing business with them, given that I see proof after proof that they are working against my interests? This is the same problem as with the Snowden le…

>Google is at this point not just some US company, but a multi-national one. I'm not a US citizen, so for me the US having a strong military isn't necessarily in my best interests, depending on circumstance. A multi-national company is still responsible to multiple nations in differing amounts though, no? It shouldn't mean "responsible to no one." And America quite clearly should have some significant claim on Google…

Im sorry but google isn't just active in what you call demcratic countries and which country in Europe does the USA protect, the Ukraine? The last military interaction my home country had with the USA, was be accidentally beeing bombed in WW2. And you did great in protecting the dictatorships south of you, really great. So many democracies had to fall, judt because they were left leaning.

You've been using your military the get cheap resources in the midfle east, ever since the cold war.

So I dont want to work for such a military, even in proxy.

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

#193

Post by gaius »

manigandham wrote: post #57
gaius wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A military can only act as a deterrent if it has the capability to actually pull off what it claims Consider that the US military has lost every war since it was one of the victors of WW2 along with the UK and Russia. And it didn’t make any difference. All those wars were entirely optional and the consequences of losing them were nonexistent. So what’s it all for, really?

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. The world isn't static so of course there were consequences. I'm not saying the military is perfect or that everything it does is right (and much of that is due to the whims of leadership), but that having a strong military is an option that most wish they had because they see first-hand what it's like without. There is no substitute for that power and it's easy to overloo…

When America was defeated in Vietnam, the next thing that happened was not the NVA burning down the White House. In fact there was never any possibility of that happening nor a threat to the US mainland.

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

#194

Post by icebraining »

manigandham wrote: post #174
realusername wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But is it morally wrong to work on contracts that ultimately protect American lives? [citations needed]. I've not been aware of any war on US soil.

This is a good thing, it means the defense is working.

Do you want to buy my anti-tigers rock? I've never been attacked by a tiger while carrying it!

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

#195

Post by Amygaz »

iainmerrick wrote: post #39
manigandham wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feelings rarely ever help in these situations. Why would a defense force put you more at risk? The world is not a gentle place and it takes less than 30 seconds of browsing international headlines to see that. The chaos is kept in check through violence and the military has a direct impact on the peace and freedoms enjoyed by the populace. Two major nations are rapidly growing powerful tyrants with Putin and Xinping.…

I’d like to point you to Robert Peel’s principles of policing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles The whole thing is great, but your comment particularly reminded me of 4: “To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.” 30 seconds of glancing…

Stop watching Fox News /s

Kidding aside: It has already been shown that every century is less violent than the preceding one. This has nothing to do with military per se, but a lot to do with improvement in social norms helped by technologies. Steven Pinker is a good debater on that topic.

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

#196

Post by Atlantium »

_ptgt wrote: post #65
bad_user wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is at this point not just some US company, but a multi-national one. I'm not a US citizen, so for me the US having a strong military isn't necessarily in my best interests, depending on circumstance. So what stops me, as a Google customer (which I am), to stop doing business with them, given that I see proof after proof that they are working against my interests? This is the same problem as with the Snowden le…

>Google is at this point not just some US company, but a multi-national one. I'm not a US citizen, so for me the US having a strong military isn't necessarily in my best interests, depending on circumstance. A multi-national company is still responsible to multiple nations in differing amounts though, no? It shouldn't mean "responsible to no one." And America quite clearly should have some significant claim on Google…

"who have chosen to mostly rely on the US military for their own national security"

I often wonder if statements like this are disingenuous. The US military "polices" parts of the world where American interests lie; ie Natural resources, supply chains, potential markets for American companies to exploit. When you say countries "choose" American military protection you are not considering the considerable economic pressure America can leverage when it wants something you have. In developing countries this can be a difficult choice too. By not spending on military you can spend elsewhere. Even if that means resources end up in the hands of politicians directly; which is no different to any first world country.

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

#197

Post by JakeAl »

Given Google's role in surveillance through advertising and frameworks when they could actually redesign the whole system to be as private, secure and distributed as possible, I don't think they have any moral ground to stand on. IT's obvious to me why they had to drop the 'Don't Be Evil' motto. They can't help but be evil unless they give up the control that gives them all of their power and profits.

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

#198

Post by brown9-2 »

walshemj wrote: post #142
rurounijones wrote: post #7

Interesting when a multi-national company says things like "We are still doing everything we can within these guidelines to support our government, the military and our veterans," It may be the government of the company, but it ain't the government of a significant chunk of employess at Google, wonder how they feel about statementsl like this.

What do you mean like it or not (and I don't) the current president was elected so it is their government. I doubt many expat H1B's from the subcontinent will have any qualms about military work.

You’re missing the point - which is that Google does business and has offices in many countries that are not America.

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

#199

Post by JarlUlvi »

robin_reala wrote: post #5

Every company I apply to is told during the interview process that I will not work on military projects, and that I would probably leave the company if they chose to take on a military contract. If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them then no-one is the worse off; I’ve yet to be turned down for a job over it and, somewhat the opposite, companies seem to appreciate frankness.

if 10,000 more fellow brits had said the same 78 years ago, you might be speaking german now.

Moral? No.

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

#200

Post by icebraining »

_ptgt wrote: post #30

These employees are free to exercise their right to (not) work for whomever they want, but the certainty they express (as well as most commenters here) in their own self-righteousness seems misplaced to me. There's certainly a case to be made that a strong US military is in the world's best interest. In fact, I would wager that a majority of Americans (and a majority of citizens of democratic countries across the wor…

> Given that society created the environment for these tech companies (and their employees) to acquire their skills and thrive, does not society have some moral/ethical lien on how those skills are applied?

Why do these workers have such a lien, whereas the people who happened to go into a career that isn't useful for the military don't? That sounds quite unfair. I'd say they pay their obligation the same way everybody else does: through taxes. And people who benefited more from that environment will earn more, and subsequently pay more as well.

Post reply on HN