
Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Military Contracts - dsr12
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-21/google-engineers-refused-to-build-security-tool-to-win-military-contracts
======
robin_reala
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.

~~~
dev_dull
If you contribute to open source software then you’re contributing to military
projects.

~~~
cs02rm0
I'm not quite sure why this is downvoted, although I understand the nuance, it
seems an interesting and related point.

Out of interest, are there open source licenses that prevent use in military
projects? ISTR reading something recently about it being legally questionable
to discriminate between who can accept a license, but that was in the context
of allowing open source for non-commercial purposes.

~~~
hsivonen
By definition, a license that has Field of Use restrictions is not an Open
Source license.

Creative Commons NonCommercial licenses, for example, are neither Open Source
nor Free Software licenses.

~~~
s73v3r_
I imagine that someone who wants to prevent use of their work by the military
would not be concerned over whether something is technically not open source
or not.

------
chibg10
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 world) hold the belief expressed in the
previous statement.

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?

Granted, as stated in the first sentence, I'm not in favor of compelling
anyone to work for any purpose, let alone military ones. But to pretend such a
lien doesn't exist strikes me as somewhat selfish/narrow-minded in its own
right. For that reason, I think the ostensible certainty that these employees
(and their abundant proponents here) have in their convictions seems a little
naive to me.

There's also a real chance (though perhaps small) that an industry-wide
refusal to cooperate with the US military could have disastrous consequences
for the world, and that alone should give one pause before being so self-
assured about such a decision. I agree that there is also a real chance (also
perhaps small) that the US military could use the technology with disastrous
consequences for the world, but--again--that makes this a _difficult_ ethical
conundrum, not the clear right/wrong moral issue as I often see it portrayed
as in the industry.

~~~
bad_user
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 leaks. I don't care if Americans
feel more safe with the NSA secretly watching their emails via gag orders, if
my privacy as a non-US citizen is being violated, therefore at this point
absolutely all US companies are suspects, starting with a negative ranking in
my book; at this point I always prefer European ones. Also the usual arguments
that countries collaborate with each other is bullshit, because in the EU I
can sue companies, or my government, for cheap too, whereas in the US I have
no rights.

And if you find that acceptable, then maybe balkanizing the Internet isn't
such a bad thing after all, lets start with ICANN.

> _There 's also a real chance (though perhaps small) that an industry-wide
> refusal to cooperate with the US military could have disastrous consequences
> for the world_

There's also a real chance that I might get hit by a brick and die tomorrow,
yet that doesn't stop me from going out.

If you don't have an assessment done by experts of what might actually happen,
then such arguments are bullshit.

~~~
walshemj
Sorry to rain on your parade Google is a "US" company - just because its sets
up in Europe to get access to cheap labour and as a lobbying tool "look we
employ x people in your country" \- doesn't make any difference.

Eu companies do the same German pro union at home hire dodgy American union
busters in the UK for example

~~~
pofilat
How many thousands of employees, including executive roles, does a company
need before it is an international company?

------
iainmerrick
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 trade-off. Or is the leadership
looking to other potential benefits, like increased leverage for lobbying?

~~~
dev_dull
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.

~~~
mark_edward
Maybe "many people here" feel that what our military does has little to
nothing to do with defending our country, and often puts us at more risk
and/or makes the world a worse place.

This is such a weird and controversial concept to so many people here.

~~~
manigandham
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.
Do you think these situations just magically go away? Military action has
already been brewing in recent years and you either have an answer when it
comes to blows or prepare for a lot of misery.

I've come to find that most people (in the US anyway) who think that the
military only does harm have never really witnessed or experienced any
violence or unrest to see how bad things can be, which is good for them and
proof that it works, but it does lead to a strange disconnection as evidenced
by the comments and votes.

~~~
iainmerrick
I’d like to point you to Robert Peel’s principles of policing:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles](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 at the international news is enough to see that the
world is a much more peaceful place than it was in the early 20th century,
say.

It is definitely necessary to have a military, even if only as a deterrent,
but it can also be counter-productive to depend on the military too much.
Those aren’t contradictory statements.

~~~
manigandham
Police != military. Those principles don't really apply here as they are
different forces both in duty and power.

A military can only act as a deterrent if it has the capability to actually
pull off what it claims, otherwise it very quickly loses standing. It's far
better to have the ability to defend and never need it then to be wishing you
had it when something goes wrong.

There is no such world where you don't depend on the military. The world is
literally controlled through violence. Everything comes down to either direct
action or the threat of it (backed by the capabilities as mentioned). Sure you
can avoid a lot through diplomatic means, and we should always look for
peaceful solutions, but reducing military power is only done at your peril.

~~~
gaius
_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?

~~~
manigandham
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
overlook in the several decades and generations of relative peace that has
endured so far.

~~~
gaius
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.

~~~
manigandham
So every other country is some tiny 3rd world nation? You do realize there are
major superpowers that are currently kept at bay through the promise of force?
Or do you think they’re just being nice?

~~~
gaius
_You do realize there are major superpowers that are currently kept at bay
through the promise of force?_

Do you think they are deterred by observing American success in the ground
campaigns it keeps losing or by the nuclear arsenal?

~~~
manigandham
Nuclear arsenals are part of the military, and what campaigns do you think the
US is losing? What materially have we actually lost?

Let's not conflate foreign policy and politics with military might. Things can
go wrong from bad leadership regardless of what powers are at command, but
those powers at the same time guarantee a certain level of safety and
capability on behalf of the nation's interests. I don't see how you can deny
that with any sense of reality.

~~~
gaius
_what campaigns do you think the US is losing? What materially have we
actually lost?_

There's no sign of a stable liberal secular democracy emerging anytime soon in
Afghanistan or Iraq is there? At the cost of trillions upon trillions of
dollars if you only want to focus on material things. But you can point at an
American campaign, Somalia, Vietnam as I've mentioned, any adventures in Latin
America... And then there's Ukraine, whose territorial integrity America
guaranteed in return for giving up its own nuclear weapons, and yet the
Russians waltzed in an annexed the Crimea without any trouble at all.

America does all these things when it is in no danger itself, and millions
upon millions of innocent people die because of it, and _that_ is why people
have misgivings about working on drone targeting.

~~~
manigandham
I'm talking about having the biggest gun to make sure we can defend ourselves
against any threat. You're talking about who uses that gun and for what.
That's a fine debate to have, but it's not the same topic.

I agree foreign policy needs work, and there is harm caused, but that has
nothing to do with military strength. Perhaps this conflation is the real
issue with these threads as people can't seem to separate power and
capabilities from its application.

~~~
gaius
_I 'm talking about having the biggest gun to make sure we can defend
ourselves against any threat_

Yes that's fine. If America were facing an existential threat. Defence of
one's home/property is the fundamental human right that is the basis of all
rights. No question from me there.

 _You 're talking about who uses that gun and for what. That's a fine debate
to have, but it's not the same topic._

I believe they are inextricably linked. I would wager many of those reluctant
to work on dronetech right now, in the present circumstances of its use, would
be perfectly willing to do so if the enemy really were at the gates.

~~~
manigandham
That's the thing, a strong defense keeps the enemy from ever getting to the
gates in the first place. If you wait until they're already there, it's too
late. In the age of AI delivering exponential advancements, time is only more
important.

------
gman83
I wonder if Silicon Valley refuses to cooperate with the military if it won't
mean that America won't be able to compete with China and Russia strategically
in the long term. Those countries presumably have no problems getting their
tech industry to cooperate. Russia having an advanced form of AI-weaponry
without any form of MAD-doctrine is probably not the best scenario.

~~~
paganel
> Russia having an advanced form of AI-weaponry without any form of MAD-
> doctrine is probably not the best scenario.

They're a very long way from there, see for example this: [http://defence-
blog.com/army/combat-tests-syria-brought-ligh...](http://defence-
blog.com/army/combat-tests-syria-brought-light-deficiencies-russian-unmanned-
mini-tank.html) (which also happens to be my latest separate post submission).
People tend to over-estimate the technical prowess of the Russians, there's
only so much that the military of a country with ~160 million people can do to
technically compete against both the US and the EU.

~~~
klibertp
On the other hand, North Korea got nukes in a few years, while being two
orders of magnitude smaller. If anything, I'd say people tend to underestimate
how much (money, effort) a totalitarian state can invest if they think it's
needed. Basically - all of it, and then some. Dictatorships can be more
efficient in selected categories than democracies, and they often are - it's
"in the long run" and "across the board" that they are worse. If you remove
all the "checks and balances", you risk having an un-removable psychopath to
be a dictator for life; but you also unlock the "full power of the state" to
work on a single thing, which - in some circumstances - can give you amazing
results.

------
allegedganon
The many stories that have been appearing recently on Google's deep cultural
changes point to a very basic fact of life: organizations, and even more so,
their culture, aren't forever.

As a matter of fact, organization cultural changes can happen very quickly, at
the whim of leadership changes.

The trust their users/customers extend these organizations ( _way_ too much in
the cast of Google) rarely takes this basic fact of life into account.

In the case of Google, the two strong voices of Larry and Sergey held fast the
ethical compass of the company for quite a long time and that allowed Google
to accumulate _massive_ amounts of goodwill in the market: the average Google
user still believes the company is "good" and "can be trusted" and are
therefore willing to freely give them massive chunks of their personal data.

Unfortunately, as is wont to happen, the two founders are now sitting on a
mountain of money, have pretty much lost all interest in their baby (who
wouldn't to be honest) and have for all intent and purposes surrendered the
reins to a team of far less ethical-minded, far less principle-guided, far
less charismatic, far more greedy set of leaders (Pichai, Green, Wojcicki,
...)

Specifically, when Google hired Diane Green (who's behind the push to work
with the military), they totally let the fox in the henhouse.

That SVP has precious little regard for Google's historical cultural tenets
(she does pay lip service to them when required, of course, she's smart enough
to do that) and is busy doing within Google what she's done previously at
VMWare: building a money-making juggernaut (Cloud) using all the tools at her
disposal, with precious little regard for the company culture.

She will take on any customers, independent of the ethical aspects of that
decision, as long as she's operating within the law.

Consideration such as good or evil (something which, for those who drank the
Kool-aid when Google was still young and naive, mattered a whole lot) has
exactly zero bearing on her business decisions.

In conclusion: the laws of gravity are what they are, and Google is subject to
them like every other corporations. Even if it took longer than for most, they
are slowly becoming a standard run-of-the-mill, large, short-sighted, evil
corporation with the sole purpose of turning in quarterly profits and making
their execs into billionaires.

~~~
pofilat
Green joined Google a few years ago. michaelochurch will explain how the foxes
had long since taken over.

------
ta1234567890
Great for the people that protested and stood their ground, hopefully that
kind of behavior and mentality towards war becomes more wide-spread.

Although it's hard not to be skeptical given...

> It's unclear if Google has abandoned air gap technology or is still planning
> to build it over employees’ objections. The feature is not technically very
> difficult, so Google could easily find other engineers to do the work.

And

> For now, Google falls short of rivals. Both Microsoft's Azure and Amazon Web
> Services (AWS) have “High” certificates that authorize them to hold
> sensitive or classified data and sell to bodies like the Central
> Intelligence Agency. To do so, both companies had to set up a separate
> service called a government cloud.

~~~
robin_reala
Government cloud isn’t purely for nefarious purposes. I’ve worked in the past
on GOV.UK Verify: an identity verification scheme for logging into government
services. We wanted all the benefits that cloud providers give you, but we
also needed additional assurance levels above and beyond the norm for our
users’ protection.

------
gok
I wonder how many engineers refused to build tools to sell ads for counterfeit
medicine.

~~~
cbg0
I don't know if you're trying to imply that they're being hypocritical or not,
but those engineers built tools to sell ads in general, not to sell specific
ads, so there's probably a lot of reprehensible stuff being advertised for
with these tools, things which those engineers might not agree with. You
wouldn't blame a knife maker for people stabbing each other.

~~~
gok
Well it never went to court, so we may never know the details, but the FDA
claims it went way beyond that.

[https://www.seattletimes.com/business/google-settles-over-
on...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/google-settles-over-online-drug-
ads/)

> An undercover investigator informed Google employees creating the
> advertising for the products that they were manufactured overseas and did
> not require customers have a valid prescription, she said. “In each
> instance, despite this knowledge, Google employees created a full
> advertising campaign for each of the undercover websites,” Martin-Weis said.

~~~
pofilat
FDA didn't claim the advertised medicine was counterfeit, only that some
companies in the industry ship counterfeits.

Anyway, yeah, I'd assume that the individuals who don't want to build for the
military don't want to build for counterfeit pharmacies. Other individuals
would do both. Google has many employees.

------
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.

~~~
oh_sigh
Sure, but what government are you talking about? I'm fairly sure the USG
doesn't 'want to kill brown people'.

~~~
dpeck
Quite a bit of historical and contemporary evidence indicates otherwise. It
may not be a goal, but it certainly isn’t a dealbreaker in achieving whatever
aims of the time.

------
giancarlostoro
I don't understand why Alphabet (parent of Google) does not just start a new
government contracting firm, they should of done that or started a new
division within Google dedicated to the matter. Don't expect engineers to
switch their entire career tract just because you tell them to because they
work for you, that's just not a good idea. They would clearly have the
resources to hire talented people who've already done government contracts or
are willing to, people who already have the necessary government clearance.

Disclaimer: I do work for a government contracting company.

------
rurounijones
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.

~~~
walshemj
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.

~~~
brown9-2
You’re missing the point - which is that Google does business and has offices
in many countries that are not America.

~~~
walshemj
And that makes what difference? those offices are just their to support the
main business or for tax reasons.

Google wouldn't have all those people in Eire unless it was for tax and access
to a cheap English speaking labour force.

And if google local offices started to diverge from the US norm they would
quickly have there senior mangers replaced - for example if a local google
office faced a recognition ballot from a union.

~~~
pofilat
The USA employees are also there just to support the main business. So?

Some offices only exist because an influential individual wanted to live in
that location.

Do you think Google is largely in Mountain View because they have a deep
allegiance to Mountain View, or because that's where they can get lots of
employees and (historically) cheap real estate?

------
ForHackernews
Good for them! I tend to be cynical about Google's advertising business, but
it's nice to see some engineers sticking their necks out for their values.

------
kjgkjhfkjf
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.

~~~
pofilat
Why do you think the tech in question is for classifying militants vs
civilians, vs just classifying humans vs trees?

AI wishful thinking is not helpful.

------
eksu
Somewhat related: I’d be thrilled to work on a contract with the U.S. Dept. of
Defense, willing to seek clerences etc.

Where should I be applying? Do the companies offering these jobs compensate
comparably to companies working on other stuff?

------
DanielBMarkham
This reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Homer leaves the nuclear power
plant and gets a job with a new, great company. Great pay, lots of vacation,
plenty of benefits, a great boss, and so on. The gag was that the boss was a
super villain, and all through the show there was a James Bond kind of attack
on his hidden base while Homer worried about work-related matters. The thrust
of the joke was that you can be doing anything -- as long as your employees
are happy at what they _think_ the situation is.

There's a hard, cold fact that we technology people hate to keep in our heads:
once you make or record something, you lose control over how it's used.
Whether user telemetry from you app or some code Google puts together to help
users, once it's created, it's gone. The only reasonable thing to assume is
that whatever we create or record will be used in the worst way possible. To
think otherwise, at least to me, looks like a fool's game. We fool ourselves
-- probably because the alternative is too difficult to contemplate.

Applying a Simpon's joke to a real-world situation is probably dumb, but the
lesson here seems pretty clear: tell people what they want to hear and build
what you want. The world ends up in the same exact situation as being a true
believer and building what you want. There's no effective difference between
all the big tech companies tracking you like lab rat and then intelligence
services stealing the data -- and the big tech companies giving the data
freely to the intelligence services. Yes, one may feel good inside better than
the other, but hell, if something I disagree with is going to happen, I'd much
rather the people involved be honest about it than preach to me how good their
motives were.

You make it or record it, you're making and recording it for everybody. The
only mystery is how long it takes to get out.

------
dagaci
Ok but why was air-gap so controversial ? Is it more than having isolated
servers ?

~~~
barrystaes
Could be.

This article certainly raises that eyebrow. It stipulates the problem back
then was a feature called "airgap" which (in the normal meaning of the word)
is rather trivial and usually is for defense and not offense.

But to me it all reads like a per-usual politics BS story to discredit a group
and downplay a problem.

------
finnthehuman
I like the idea that Google's employees can have some backbone about what
they're building.

It's still comically stereotypical to see every exercise of Google's corporate
power rationalized away left and right even though they're more economically
powerful than many nation-states; but then they gain perspective when their
"military = bad" mental filter can finally override "I trust us."

------
sidcool
I really want a cogent argument of not working on Military projects. Isn't it
almost like other businesses? I am really looking for a discussion.

~~~
bigbluedots
Let's see: The military's job is partly to kill people. Some people have a
moral objection to being involved in that, surprisingly.

~~~
sidcool
Not trying to defend the killing, but military is important for a nation. Even
if the US military is very ethical, the foreign militaries may not be. Hence
the US military has to be on an offensive all the time. There is no dearth of
countries who would want to see the fall of US, or any other western nation.

(Having said this, US military has done their share of mass murder in
Cambodia, Iraq etc.)

~~~
detaro
I'd guess many people would argue that the US military is not _that_ ethical
and actively involved in a lot of campaigns they shouldn't be in.

See e.g. the discussions around the drone projects, where many argued that the
drone program is used in a bad way, and thus shouldn't be supported, where a
military that's less involved or work on technology that's seems harder to
"misuse" might be seen differently. E.g. I'd expect a lot fewer people would
argue that the US shouldn't be prepared to defend against China.

------
walshemj
I cant quite see what this supposed military tech is "air gap technology".

From the article it seems to be setting up a separate air gaped clone of
google infrastructure for use on DoD contracts.

This isn't exactly improving image recognition for drone strikes or
identifying cars containing brown skinned kids near the Mexican border for
Donalds child catchers to intern in the camps.

~~~
pofilat
Yeah, it's not a "cutting edge security feature", it's quite the opposite --
it's decades old Luddite security: "unplug the device".

------
mankash666
Software engineers in the valley seem disconnected from reality. Maybe they
believe politically correct fairies drop from the heavens and secure the US,
it's borders and interests. Or maybe the Taliban and ISIS don't deserve drone
attacks.

Whatever their delusion, it's for the good. Military and defense funding
yielded everything from the transistor to the internet. Let the next wave of
innovation happen outside the smug cesspool of hypocrisy that's silicon
valley.

FYI - I'll gladly work for the defense forces sworn to protect our borders as
against companies whose very existence relies on slicing axnd dicing personal,
private information and interactions, and serving ads against them. Or worse,
selling it to the highest bidder and colluding with adversarial powers. Fuck
off silicon valley

~~~
chrisbennet
US (wholly avoidable) intervention in Iraq led to the rise of ISIS. The world
is not safer when you go around wacking hornets nests.

~~~
mankash666
And how's that the fault of the military? Go after Rumsfeld and his
falsification of intelligence if you have to, the people who gave their lives,
and those who continue to put themselves in harm's way for your right to shame
them on HN, are not at fault

~~~
pofilat
A military invasion is performed by the military. No one here is blaming the
servicemembers.

~~~
mankash666
But you are. The "military" follows the orders of the executive branch.
Period.

Employees at Google are protesting the military's efforts to advance itself,
while their real beef is with the executive branch.

~~~
chrisbennet
Google employees didn’t want to be complicit with certain things the
government was going use their work for. They stood up for what they believed
in.

If you are asked to say, make poison gas to exterminate the “enemies of the
state”, you can always say: “Take it up with the executive branch.” I guess.
When faced with the same situation, others may choose to a different response.

------
jath
My personal hunch is Google will still work on ‘air-gapped’ technology as this
is critical for many non military applications as well. Google is eyeing to
catch up with AWS in its cloud business and will take a leaf out of AWS’s
GovCloud service and the money spinner it is for Amazon.

------
gbajson
Can anyone explain what's their "air gap" technology, please?

~~~
dchest
It's explained in the linked article.

~~~
Brotkrumen
Not really. Being "on a single piece of hardware" is not necessary for a
system to be air gapped. Its not cutting edge tech either and questioning the
requirement of some systems to be air gapped is... not smart.

------
dsfyu404ed
Air gap stuff isn't all that cutting edge (as the article states) and is
inherently a defensive technology.

Google is basically critical infrastructure (think power grid) at this point.
Why would anyone in their right mind not want a company that's basically
critical infrastructure developing technologies that it can deploy in order to
make itself (and everyone who depends on it) more secure?

This is like the IT guy at a power plant quitting over being asked to
integrate a bunch of systems to better track who is where and when on the
property.

------
Doyniish
Am I the only who finds working on military projects fun and rewarding?!

------
ggambetta
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
(Russia and China are the usual ones) are going to surpass the US in cyberwar.

So... which is it?

~~~
nemild
There is not often a monolithic "HN", but instead a group of people who decide
to engage or not based on the subject matter.

We need more media literacy around HN and Reddit. You just need a few users to
upvote something, and people often respond when they see the opposing view
(this is why conservatives and liberals in the US so often take the most
extreme statements on the other side, and critique/retweet them; better
engagement and an easier way to caricature the opposing side).

It's interesting to think about how different posts attract wholly different
tribes, meaning HN is hundreds of sub-groups not a monolith. There might be a
post on a Ruby gem, and the entire commenter group are Ruby-ists who hold
common views on opposing languages. You might see this as "HN believes X", but
instead it's the subset of people attracted by that post that you're really
interacting with.

Will add this as an example to my media literacy guide for engs:

[https://github.com/nemild/hack-an-engineer](https://github.com/nemild/hack-
an-engineer)

~~~
asafira
To expand a bit: I think we need to embrace the fact that often times we have
posts that don't have a "right" response --- i.e., where you can get a good
view of exactly the right way to feel about something given the first few
comments. Lots of these issues have many angles you can come from, and I hope
people are

(a) willing to keep themselves to a high-enough standard to think for
themselves and see that it's a grey area (that they might have a bias for one
side or another). You can't just assume the top post is definitely the right
thing, even with a good number of upvotes.

(b) willing to read more posts further down, giving them plenty of respect,
and contribute to the conversation.

Maybe a better way to rank comments is something more probabilistic rather
than just ranking by (num_upvotes - num_downvotes). (Actually, how is it done
now?)

~~~
crankylinuxuser
> I think we need to embrace the fact that often times we have posts that
> don't have a "right" response

Indeed. I know I keep seeing during the immigration debate (of which is
recent). Liberal-leaning say that we should provide due process and let in
refugees. This is argument in good faith.

Conservatives say that we have a body of law that must be adhered to regarding
immigration. This too is a valid argument. I may disagree with its
interpretation, but I believe it too is in good faith.

"Womp womp", "I dont really care do u" is the style of discourse we're seeing.
If the administration comments were on here with HN, dang would likely make
the comment dead and leave a message of a ban.

Back to the main point - it feels like society as a whole (and HN within that)
is lowering the accuracy and persuasive qualities of language to something I
saw elsewhere. Idiocracy. Who can shout the loudest; Who can rapid-fire lies
and half-truths; who can redirect hatred and bile - these people seem to be
the ones on top dictating properness these days.

~~~
nemild
But even Dang is just a single person. We really need to design systems
(social networks) that encourage this type of thoughtful debate. Right now,
all the incentives in social media are around "engagement" (upvotes, likes,
retweets, large amounts of comments)

------
Sir_Cmpwn
OT: it now takes two clicks to stop the obnoxious autoplaying video on this
website. One to unmute it and access the controls, and another to stop it.

I'm glad when ethics are as black and white as military contracts we're ready
to stand up and refuse to write the code, but when it comes to smaller things
like implementing dark patterns to bother users we'll step right up.

------
verelo
I struggle with this. Generally I’d rather be involved so at least i know the
decisions being made were made by someone not trying to achieve a pure evil
outcome. I trust myself, but i certainly do not trust most others. Having said
that, yes i wish there were no military contracts to win and that no one was
working on tools for groups like this.

------
johncole
I wonder if the same engineers also refuse to work on the strategic
partnership with the PRC?

~~~
commandlinefan
How many of Google's engineers _come from_ there?

------
philip1209
Another angle: Having to get security clearance affects your personal life and
opens you to criminal problems you wouldn't otherwise have. I would think
people could opt out for this reason if it wasn't a upfront requirement of the
job.

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

~~~
ionised
I feel like you think this somehow proves a point.

~~~
pixl97
I'm guessing his point is

"Taking a stand against war is great, right up till the enemy jackboots are
stepping on your face"

~~~
pofilat
Why do I care what color are the jackboots?

Why do you say China is wearing jackboots?

------
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.

------
sunstone
See, this is what happens when you pay tech people too much. They get uppity
and start dictating terms. :)

------
nova22033
>Known as “air gap,”

Does anyone know what this is? My guess: This is a one way low to high side
transfer device.

~~~
sseveran
It's an isolated cloud region(s) not connected to the internet and connected
to a private government network. AWS built one of these for the CIA.

------
filereaper
"Don't be evil"

Culture is hard to kill, good on the "Group of Nine".

------
omegbule
I feel for engineers that take on positions involving military contracts. It
seems like another group of people that would be marginalized in SV.

------
eruci
Why?

------
XalvinX
I'm proud of them for taking this stand.

------
lihaciudaniel
Don't be evil

------
smsm42
So, looks like it's not some bad feature. It's just because it's for the
military. It's unacceptable to contribute to the military. And ICE. And
police. And any law enforcement at all. What's next? Licenses refusing use of
software to political opponents? Firing people because they have wrong
political opinions? Oops, that's already been done. Refusing to work on
software which is being used by companies that didn't fire people with wrong
political opinions? Refusing to cooperate with somebody who ever ate at Chik-
fil-A? Where does it stop?

~~~
Etheryte
Slippery slope fallacy.

~~~
smsm42
In this case the slope _is_ slippery, and we _are_ moving down it. It reminds
me more of a tale of a person falling from a skyskraper and passing the 20th
floor, saying to himself "so far, so good...".

------
joyeuse6701
Back in the day, there was controversy over the idea of a standing army... the
usual moral and economic issues. As war became a faster and larger affair the
standing professional army made more sense.

The speed at which cyber warfare could happen and cripple a nation and the
chaos that would ensue has me lean on the side of the necessity of our
civilian industries working with the military-industrial complex and
government.

This might be easier to do if we trusted our government institutions
especially the clandestine ones, which I think we rightly question.

Of course, if they don't develop the tech, someone else will, and it might
come to bite them in the end. May as well have a say.

edited: for clarity

~~~
snowwrestler
"Cyber warfare" as you're referring to it ("cripple a nation") is a subset of
total war: targeting the civilian population to achieve a military goal.

In the physical version of total war, you can only provide defense with
military tools. You need military anti-aircraft guns to shoot down military
aircraft. You need tanks and artillery to stop enemy tanks and artillery.

To provide defense against cyber total warfare, you don't necessarily need
military technology. You just need secure civilian technology. Google is
already doing a lot of work in that area. Examples include Project Zero to
find and close security vulnerabilities; their work to normalize, monitor, and
enforce proper use of TLS across the Internet; Chrome browser and OS security
work; Gmail security work, etc.

Government institutions can provide predictive surveillance that Google
cannot. Only the Cyber Command, CIA, NSA, DIA, etc., and their international
partners, have the ability to see inside the HQs of potential enemies. And
those are the only agencies permitted to act in an offensive cyber capacity.

Is Google under any obligation to support that work? I don't think so. Google
can do, and is already doing, A LOT to help the U.S. defend against cyber
warfare.

------
kadenshep
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 role in it to
this day. It only took once, just once, but it just happened to be one of the
of the worst offenders in the U.S. political landscape. Knowing that I
basically optimized disinformation campaigns and built media platforms for
some of these people eats at my soul, especially when I see the current state
of the U.S. -- I helped some jackass convince a whole slew of people that
electing a fraud was the Right (TM) choice. Now we have concentration camps
for children (with no reunification process), our healthcare is even worse
than it was somehow, we're in multiple trade wars, and we definitely don't
give a single shit about the environment (look at today's news feed about the
U.S. drilling policies). And I helped it happen.

Sorry for the rant. But engineers have a moral duty to be selective in who
they're aiding. I was all too happy to watch pretty graphs go up, and up, and
up. I was foolish. I just cared about the project and how challenging it was.
Good on the engineers at Google for being principled.

~~~
bayfullofrays
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.

------
marcoperaza
I hope these engineers stop and rethink what they’re doing. I’m sure they
think they’re doing the right thing, but they should expand their outlook and
consider that one day America may be in another war for its life or for the
survival of freedom in the world.

Do not be overly comforted by the relative peace since WW2. It was built by
American military dominance, quickly fading as China becomes a formidable
power. It is also fragile. A century is nothing in the grand scheme of things.
If history is any guide, this period of extraordinary (but still relative)
peace is an aberration that will pass.

How will you feel when your sons and daughters are fighting for their
country’s survival or against an expansionary tyranny, and all you ever did
for the effort was try to leave your own military in as weak a position as
possible.

~~~
johnday
I'm not sure you've been paying attention.

By most accounts, the USA in the next war will be the bad guys.

