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

301–310 of 516 posts

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

#301

Post by tjr225 »

_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…

I think that this sentiment is jingoistic and stupid. I hope the US ant-war movement comes back, and bigger than ever.

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

#302

Post by XalvinX »

greyman wrote: post #61
dev_dull wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want them to have these contracts because I want the smartest people on the planet working to defend our country. This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.

But there are also people outside of your country. Google is a global company, and I am also their customer... It doesn't feel right to support a company, which in turn supports military of another country than mine.

I'm sure if you dug down a little, you would see that you have supported companies that are involved in building weapons for the US...some of those conglomerates have tentacles in everything, all over the world.

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

#303

Post by sremani »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #298
rayiner wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic on so many levels. The first level is, of course, the irony of refusing to do military work at a company that only exists because of defense contractors working on a military project (ARPANET). More generally, the irony is that the U.S. military has made a far greater positive contribution to the world than Google. Under the Pax Americana , we have seen the greatest number of people rise out of abject pov…

The best the military does is keep stability. Google changed everything. One is static; the other, change. I don't see them as comparable at all. Anyway I've heard it said that the container ship has done more to lift the world standard up, than all the political action of the last 1000 years. By distributing goods to all the corners of the world at a cheap price.

Who ensures a Ship with South Korean flag which does not a solid Navy reaches its destination ?

I understand the analogy of Container being an innovative idea. With out calm seas under-written by US Navy, its not so great.

Without US Navy and its 10 carriers, we will be back to 19th century mercantilism and how much fun colonialism which is its off-shoot has been.

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

#304

Post by jeffreyrogers »

sshine wrote: post #163
Vinnl wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have personal moral limits and you’re upfront about them Problematic here is that I might not be aware of all my moral limits until I encounter a situation they might be relevant to.

Temet nosce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself

Interestingly enough, "know thyself" in the original context actually means something like "know your place".

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

#305

Post by ska »

6ue7nNMEEbHcM wrote: post #216
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.

I've seen that kind of thinking in the past and it's pretty popular view. I'm just not so sure about this moral aspect. Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military? Maybe you won't do this but be sure that in some other country some similarly talented people will. If you (and many others) abstain from it on similar basis you and closest people you know may be in danger of being affected…

   Why do you think it's more moral/ethical to abstain of supporting military?
What should you do if you support the ethics of self-defense aspects, but do not believe that [your countries] military is acting ethically? What is your morally consistent path? Other than voting, which is part of it.

This is a very old form of the argument you are putting forward, and while I can see how people will take it to inform their morals, it's also easy to see reasonable versions that reject it.

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

#306

Post by ocdtrekkie »

kjgkjhfkjf wrote: post #211

FWIW if someone were to build AI technology to classify militants vs civilians in images from drones then I'd prefer it to be a competent company such as Google, since presumably an accurate well-engineered classifier would reduce collateral damage.

Our drone warfare already has exceptional ability to classify militants vs. humans and we has massive collateral damage anyways: Our government would rather get the target even if it means civilian casualties.

If you were to build AI technology to do this, you want it to be as incompetent as possible, so the military doesn't use it.

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

#307

Post by jeffreyrogers »

XalvinX wrote: post #291
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…

FWIW, Eric Schmidt is a member of the Bilderberg Group....AND the Trilateral Commission too.

I am only vaguely familiar with these groups, but it seems they exist to bring influential political and business people together to discuss current issues. This doesn't seem so bad, so why whenever they're brought up is it always suggested it should be shameful?

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

#308

Post by Zigurd »

_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…

Militaries, police, and other government security organs have benefits, but they also have downsides. It's not purely up to them which is which. Tools are not neutral, and tool-makers even less so.

The general reputation of private sector weapons makers used to be very low. They were "merchants of death." This comment assumes their legitimacy.

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

#309

Post by jeffreyrogers »

ionised wrote: post #155
carlosrg wrote: post #117

Meanwhile, regimes like China, North Korea or even Russia won’t have this kind of issues.

I feel like you think this somehow proves a point.

The point is that if you have a weak military you have to bow to will of the country with the stronger military if an altercation is imminent.

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

#310

Post by quakenul »

v_lisivka wrote: post #269
quakenul wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it okay to not torture someone, if by doing so other people might die? Is it okay to not (legally or illegally) surveil a people, if that might result in physical harm to them? How much does the chance of missing out on action x to (maybe) defer undesirable outcome y weight against the mere consequences of pursuing action x in the first place? You tell me and then I'll tell you. It is a question of morality and as…

If we are in peaceful state, then it isn't. If we are in state of war, then it may be okay (it depends). My turn: when war starts, is it okay to send someone else to die at war to protect your children? Or it better to let your children die, but save soldier lives instead? http://justiceharvard.org/justicecourse/

The answer can be both or neither, or an variable amount of "to approach an (as in 'one possible') answer let's get a whole lot more specific"

That is the essence or morality (at least to me).

Very interesting link, thanks for sharing! :)

Post reply on HN