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

Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

armscontrol.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 159 posts

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#61

Post by JohnFen »

darawk wrote: post #51
the_duke wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be implying that it's perfectly fine for the US to bomb a family home if a terrorist is in there, accepting civilian casualties, because they might harm the population? Who gets to make that determination? A random drone pilot? An officer? Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest.

> Who gets to make that determination? We do. Because we can. That is how the world works. If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other direction. > Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest. This is a pretty childish sentiment. Reasons for war are complex. The world is actually a complicated place, and admits multi…

So we haven't moved an inch past the old lie that "might makes right", then? How utterly depressing.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#62

Post by maxxxxx »

tehsauce wrote: post #8
citilife wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They track us in real-time down to a meter, predict when and where we will travel, know who we interact with, know our DNA[1], know what food we like, when we are sick, what our political leanings are, can predict what our children will like / dislike and probably can predict when we'll die... If any of that isn't completely true yet, it will be. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/23andme-is-terrif...

That's true and it's terrible. But they are not building actual weapons that kill people. That's worth something.

They are building the infrastructure for the people who want to use weapons.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#63

Post by lern_too_spel »

ryanmercer wrote: post #28
izacus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain more?

Not the person you asked but I suspect their comment is along the lines of how Google employees threw a fit when learning about working on a military project (Project Maven) fairly recently but didn't make any noticeable objections when Google was like "why yes China, we will gladly build a custom censored search engine just for you" as well as opening the Google AI China Center which you can basically guarantee is l…

It looks like Dragonfly is cancelled too. https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/google-china-censored-se...

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#64

Post by potta_coffee »

NotAnEconomist wrote: post #35
mattnewton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article makes it feel like these changes happened because less people are enlisting or know people enlisting. I think that’s just another symptom of how some military programs lost a lot of legitimacy in the minds of some of my generation who were coming of age around the war on terror. It’s hard to feel like the good guys in a lot of these issues like drone warfare against non-combatants, and so the military was…

I think the media has a lot to do with that. They run stories about how the military bombs some civilians while fighting jihadists, but not about how those same jihadists routinely round up and torture children, kill scores of locals, etc. Outside of Iraq, which fuck Bush, can you name something about the "War on Terror" you think we'd be better off not doing? I think it's a really shallow view to say it's better to…

Or we could stop arming our proxy armies who are out there killing civilians on the daily.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#65

Post by chris11 »

rifung wrote: post #53
drak0n1c wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run. Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses. Technology does not stand still, if Russia and China have more of their most talented engineers willing to work on national projects than us that will inevitably lead to a competence gap. Here is…

> Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run I work for Google, opinions are my own. I agree. However I think in the case of Google and most other companies, the issue is a little more.. awkward? Besides the fact we have offices in other countries, we also employ many people in the US from other countries. Obviously those people may have very di…

I'm sure this isn't the case for every project Google does with the US government, but do foreigners usually get placed on defense projects? Security clearances are generally limited to Americans, and exceptions are only given out on a case-by-case basis.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#66

Post by xvector »

sfotm wrote: post #34
cortesoft wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, all of those things are still being used, though....

Don't let the perfect stand in the way of the good. If the treaties help prevent 90% of the usage, they seem worth having.

That doesn't work in the real world where the remaining 10% of countries are willing to use their superior military technology to dominate others.

The only way for a country to be truly free is to be either equal in power to other countries - or barring that, the most powerful country on the block. Since the former is impossible due to the nature of reality, all countries aim for the latter.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#67

Post by abugheratwork »

darawk wrote: post #51
the_duke wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be implying that it's perfectly fine for the US to bomb a family home if a terrorist is in there, accepting civilian casualties, because they might harm the population? Who gets to make that determination? A random drone pilot? An officer? Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest.

> Who gets to make that determination? We do. Because we can. That is how the world works. If you don't make the decision, it gets made for you in the other direction. > Also please don't pretend any of the US military engagements since WW2 had any other purpose than serving national interest. This is a pretty childish sentiment. Reasons for war are complex. The world is actually a complicated place, and admits multi…

You just claimed that if we don't get them they'll get us, and then called someone childish.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#68

Post by vl »

drak0n1c wrote: post #6

Unfortunately, the divide between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon will be bad for national security in the long run. Recent news cycles keep revealing yet another piece military equipment suffering from software weaknesses. Technology does not stand still, if Russia and China have more of their most talented engineers willing to work on national projects than us that will inevitably lead to a competence gap. Here is…

A lot of Google employees supported project Maven, but with liberally-controlled company and with witch-hunt mentality most of these people choose to keep quite.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#69

Post by xvector »

izacus wrote: post #39
sdinsn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Am I wrong in assuming that if U.S. doesn't develop this tech some other country will? You are not wrong. Alibaba, Baidu, etc. work heavily with the Chinese government in this area.

Is that the old tired "if you won't help build tools to butcher people, evil chinese will?" argument? This zero-sum, jingoisti, outlook on the world has caused most damaging and bloody wars in history. World policy is not a zero sum game and every human does not have to help kill other humans for the world to be at peace.

> "if you won't help build tools to butcher people, evil chinese will?"

It's not that they will. It's that they are.

When someone who most certainly does not have your best interests at heart is building technology capable of crippling or dominating you, what response do you suggest? Passivity?

The only recourse here is to either convince them to step down or to - at the very least - match them. Anything else puts you at a disadvantage and puts your citizens in danger.

Re: Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

#70

Post by adamsea »

tengbretson wrote: post #47
mLuby wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it is defensible that a greater balance of power might be a net good for the world. (Also the devil is in defining net good). And it is also quite defensible to restrict hard power to ethical channels. There's a reason we don't use chemical weapons even though they would definitely give us an edge: The moral harm outweighs the tactical benefit. (Until it doesn't, as we saw in Syria.)

I don't want a balance of power. I want most moral actor (however flawed they may be) to have a technical and tactical advantage over those that would behave immorally. The world didn't get together and unanimously decide to stop using chemical weapons. The few strongest forces in the world decided that no one was to use chemical weapons, and by that threat of force the world became a better place.

Who watches the watcher?
Post reply on HN