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

401–410 of 516 posts

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

#401

Post by engi_nerd »

woodruffw wrote: post #290
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…

This country only exists because of Puritan persecution in England, but you don't see me thanking the Anglican church for America. Bad means result in good ends all the time; that doesn't mean we should celebrate bad means. I agree that the US military has made positive contributions to the world, but I don't think it's the main source of the Pax Americana -- strong international bodies (NATO, UN, &c), the tendency f…

>That's the result of political contrivances, not any sort of deep connection between the U.S. military and scientific progress.

The DoD sure wants to have a major influence on fundamental research and scientific progress. http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/FFRDC_UARC.html

The UARCs are DoD's attempts to have influence into fundamental research and engineering.

Those positive impacts probably are still likely due to political factors like you said, but it isn't for lack of the DoD trying.

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

#402

Post by jimbofisher1 »

sdenton4 wrote: post #360
lazysheepherd wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This _is_ a very valuable action logically let alone morally. In the next decades either we resolve to mitigate this "us or them" mentality on this earth, or pure physics and math will resolve to see the end of the civilization as we know it. Google is a US company yes, but with so many engineers from all over the world and customers from every corner of the world, who is "them" for a Google employee really? And befo…

Lemme just underline this. Google engineers come from all over the world, and Google products are built to serve people all over the world. The Googlers opposed to Maven believe that building software that enables one government to enact (more) drone strikes against civilians in other countries is contrary to the mission of making people's lives better. Preemptive lazy answers for lazy replies: Companies only exist t…

Why you seem to think Maven will target civilians is beyond me. If you build better recognition systems for drones they will be better able to mitigate collateral damage. Is this not exactly what you want?

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

#403

Post by snowwrestler »

rayiner wrote: post #261
6ue7nNMEEbHcM wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Militaries don't create good results, they only remove impediments to good results. You can't grow an economy by bombing infrastructure and killing people.

Where your analysis is incomplete is that military might is not the only reason that people will avoid fighting. A strong military is a negative incentive ("I might lose or die"), but there are plenty of positive incentives for nations to avoid warfare.

In fact, international relations tend to be dominated by positive incentives, which is why "cheeseburger diplomacy" is such a reliable concept, and open warfare is historically rare, even before Pax Americana.

Google is a much smaller and younger entity than the U.S. military, so you might still be technically right on total quantitative impact. But that's not really a fair way to look at it.

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

#404

Post by snowwrestler »

sremani wrote: post #303
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're acting like shipping never worked before 1950. Many thanks to the U.S. Navy for what they do today, but they did not invent the concept of safe passage.

Shipping containers have made an impact in the efficiency of shipping, not the existence of shipping.

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

#405

Post by throwaway37585 »

jimbofisher1 wrote: post #385
gcb0 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol. right now the HN front page item right under this one has everyone celebrating a spacex military contract.

Elon Musk is some kind of enlightened prophet to most techies despite mountains of evidence that he is a shitty person running shitty companies.

> mountains of evidence

> shitty person

> shitty companies

Elaborate?

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

#406

Post by bayfullofrays »

kadenshep wrote: post #263

My employer knows two things about me: A) I will not work on/for military/defense products/clients, unless there is some blatantly obvious noble characteristic about the project (I come from a background in video analytics). B) I will not work on/for conservative products/clients. Luckily I'm in a job and industry where both of these are pretty unlikely. I've done the latter (B) once and I really, really regret my ro…

I am with you on this. I am a recruiter for a large tech company in Seattle and with the recent political environment, I have asked my team to take it upon themselves to ask if the person they are going to bring into our team and our community is going to help us progress as a whole. I get angered when people tell me to look at just their CV, but there is so much more there. If I know that someone on their Facebook profile liked some Alt-Right podcast or calls themselves a "Libertarian" on their Twitter profile, I know that there is a good chance that they are not going to work well in an inclusive environment. So I save us both the trouble and move past the candidate.

We have an obligation to stand up for our beliefs if we are going to see the change we need.

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

#407

Post by dragonwriter »

snowwrestler wrote: post #403
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…

Militaries don't create good results, they only remove impediments to good results. You can't grow an economy by bombing infrastructure and killing people. Where your analysis is incomplete is that military might is not the only reason that people will avoid fighting. A strong military is a negative incentive ("I might lose or die"), but there are plenty of positive incentives for nations to avoid warfare. In fact, i…

> In fact, international relations tend to be dominated by positive incentives, which is why "cheeseburger diplomacy" is such a reliable concept

“Cheeseburger diplomacy” is not a reliable concept, either the Obama practice to which the media gave the name or Friedman's McDonald's peace theory, which makes more sense in the context of your comment.

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

#408

Post by bayfullofrays »

You can't be pro peace and work for a company that is supplying your code to a government that wants to kill brown people a half world away.

I hope more engineers do the same when working with the American government and understand that something they may see as benign as Excel can be used to facilitate harm.

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

#409

Post by trophycase »

pofilat wrote: post #363
Nimitz14 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because some people who don't know any better say the US invaded Iraq for oil does not make it true. And ignoring Iraq, did the US intervene in the Balkans because of natural resources or potential markets? Or in Somalia? Please try and put in a little more effort into your thought process.

The US occupied Iraq for over a decade, and installed a new government. The US spent a little time in the Balkans and Somalia and then gave up. There's a difference.

So removing Saddam and stabilizing the power vacuum aren't justifications for spending 10 years?

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

#410

Post by fixermark »

emaginniss wrote: post #323
ggambetta wrote: post #321

I'm confused. When engineers from a company who deals with the military (or some other ethically objectionably client) don't refuse to work on these projects, HN questions their values and urges them to make a stand, refuse, find another job if necessary, etc. When the engineers do refuse, HN criticises them for beign self-righteous, virtue-signalling, and unpatriotic because countries with a lower ethical bar (Russi…

There's probably more than one person on HN

[citation needed] ;)
Post reply on HN