
Nadella: Microsoft will sell war tech to democracies to “protect freedoms” - eysquared
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/02/nadella-microsoft-will-sell-war-tech-to-democracies-to-protect-freedoms/
======
simonh
I understand why people are uncomfortable with this, but in the end I'm with
Socrates. If we accept the protection and benefits of a society, it is
incumbent on us to contribute to it's defence. Furthermore in a democracy we
get to vote, and in doing so agree to be bound by it's outcome even if we
disagree with it. That's the deal, like it or not.

Of course that doesn't mean we can't protest, or campaign for a different
outcome, or explore legal means to prevent or limit policies we disagree with.
Those are legitimate forms of engagement, they're taking a stand and taking
some personal moral responsibility I can respect. Ultimately though, our
freedoms and those of our allies and neighbours have to be fought for if we
are going to keep them. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait could not be allowed to
stand. Russia's annexation of Crimea and bullying of Ukraine should not be
allowed to stand. Britain's occupation of the Chagos islands probably
shouldn't be allowed to stand either, it's not a perfect world.

Of course there are extremely complex, dangerous issues that are hard to
resolve out there. Those problems won't go away by refusing to think or worry
about them and refusing to do anything about it. Inaction is just as much of a
moral choice with it's own potentially catastrophic consequences.

I'm not advising anyone what to do. Sure, make up your own mind. But I don't
think it's obvious that refusing to engage is a morally superior position.

~~~
jwr
> contribute to it's defence

What defense? Against whom? When was the last time the United States had to
defend itself against invaders?

We've grown accustomed to how military technology (for killing people) is
called "defense". It sounds benign. It feels better to work on advancing
"defense" technology than on building tools to kill people.

Pretty much all "Defense" technology after WWII has only been used to invade
and occupy other countries (by means of killing people).

~~~
loco5niner
> When was the last time the United States had to defend itself against
> invaders?

Every. Day.

The fact that you are able to ask this question means the military is doing
this job well and most people don't even notice.

~~~
sir_brickalot
Where, when, how? Reference needed.

~~~
akie
Against our very dangerous neighbors Mexico and Canada, obviously.

~~~
m463
I just realized a wall is actually a defensive technology.

------
Golfkid2Gadfly
A lot of the “don’t want to work on killing people” rhetoric is arguably a bit
naive. First, sometimes governments legitimately need to use weapons to defend
us, and they don’t grow on trees. More relevant to big tech specifically, some
of the technologies (facial recognition, AR etc.) can legitimately claim to
help improve targeting (and thus reduce chances of killing innocent
bystanders). It’s rarely black and white. At the end of the day, if you are an
employee who (quite legitimately) is uncomfortable with it, is it ok to
petition company should stop, as opposed to simply taking your labor
elsewhere?

------
Tepix
I don't like it. But it raises another problem: What's a democracy? Is Turkey
a democracy? If not, why not? Is it a flawed [1] democracy then?

[1] Like the US? [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-
de...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-democracy-
rated-donald-trump-not-fully-democratic-us-president-report-the-
economist-a8195121.html)

~~~
hguhghuff
Democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.

The problem with our form of democracy is that once voted in, the winner is
given power.

Instead, power should be expendable.

Votes that a party wins should be able to be used to either to push through
legislation or to defeat legislation, and once those votes are used, they’re
gone. This would lead politicians to be much more careful about how they
expend their power, spending votes in what they really want, and spending
votes to stop what they really disagree with.

Closely related concept is that it should not be “one person, one vote”.
Instead, everyone should get 100 or 1000 votes to distribute across the
politicians/parties that represent their many interests and values.

~~~
Joakal
This already happens in most countries. No one votes for a lone
representative's crazy proposal.

I notice something, with your proposal one person can keep proposing 100 to
1000 votes to make all taxes go to them, effectively killing the government.

~~~
hguhghuff
Actually it should definitely be the case that a line crazy proposal can be
put up by an independent politician, who backs it with the votes they won. If
other politicians oppose it, then they can spend their votes/power on
defeating it. But of course if they spend all their votes on defeating things
then they get nothing done. So so small initiatives would be able to get
through, that currently cannot because there is currently no cost to
politician opposing things.

Expendable power is the idea, not unlimited power, which is what we have now.

~~~
Joakal
Well, having trillions of dollars go to one person instead of defeating a bill
because a politician wants to cling to power. That's.. unrealistic.

In fact, if I offer 1 billion dollars to each politician that votes for my
bill of 1 trillion dollars for me? Well, I get 1 trillion dollars, and
politicians get a cut. I keep at least 600 billion dollars. Still overall a
loss for democracy.

I think culture is the issue. Independence of judiciary and anti-corruption
investigations will lead to a golden democracy. Few countries can accomplish
this.

------
hguhghuff
If/when the missiles start flying, I’d like to feel that the US systems are
built by America’s best technology companies, which yes, very much includes
Microsoft.

Other large, economically successful countries are spending huge on military
tech and have their best people on it.

You’ll care when it matters.

If you’ve got a fundamental point of principle disagreement with the idea of
there being a military, and the need for countries to project power, then you
should perhaps consider working in a different corner of the it industry.

If anything, the world is heading to a much more militarized future. Rising
economic powers are spending vast amount of money on building modern naval
capability. Only a fool would think that now is the time to turn away from the
countries need for increased military capability.

~~~
pjc50
Is nobody else here old enough to remember the 80s and MAD? The doctrine back
then was that once the missiles start flying you have about four minutes left
before every city in the US is nuked.

We have to be realistic about the actual threats, which are either trivial or
overwhelming. There's no scope for the US to fight a roughly equal opponent.

~~~
rjf72
Skirmish and proxy wars can be carried out without turning to the nuclear
option. For instance Vietnam was in part a proxy war between the US and China
-- both nuclear powers at the time. Even outright war might not result in the
nuclear option if it looks unlikely to threaten a nation's sovereignty.

There is asymmetric warfare. Imagine a scenario where a large unit of e.g.
terrorists attack a city. Imagine what just 100 armed and armor wearing
individuals could do. This would likely result in a military response and the
skill/capability of the military is largely going to determine the outcome and
'efficiency' there.

Finally there is also the issue that nuclear deterrence may not always be a
thing. Anti-missile technology is constantly improving and we could develop
even more efficient means of developing any sort of concentrated nuclear
threat. If and when we reach this time, the world's geopolitical equilibrium
would radically shift overnight and trying to play catch-up from that point
would be unlikely to be effective.

~~~
pjc50
> Vietnam was in part a proxy war between the US and China

Perhaps; but why? What, ultimately, was the point of that? In whose interests
was it fought? Did the loss of Vietnam (now an independent country) make any
long term difference to the US?

> Imagine a scenario where a large unit of e.g. terrorists attack a city.
> Imagine what just 100 armed and armor wearing individuals could do

City in the continental US, or are we talking about somewhere like Raqqa here?

------
ahartmetz
The normalization of obvious lies in corporate communication. They are doing
it for money and not selling to "bad" governments for maybe ethical, maybe PR,
maybe staff protest reasons.

~~~
nine_k
Not selling to "bad guys" can also be influenced by the state, directly or
more often not.

------
natch
Democracies can be just as bad as anything else if there is no protection from
tyranny of the majority.

~~~
HunOL
Democracy is exactly about majority.

~~~
natch
Yes, obviously. And sometimes that’s the problem.

------
tibbydudeza
As we have seen in the case of the US even democratically elected govts do
reprehensible stuff like the Iraq invasion and the Contras.

~~~
turndown
I think the focus, then, should be on holding elected officials accountable
for their actions. I don't think Nadella's argument is particularly
persuasive, but we should all understand our way of life is worth fighting
for, and in those justified circumstances our government should have the
required tools to carry that job out, no matter how unfortunate war is.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
So if India and Pakistan, both democracies, go to war over Kashmir, whose way
of life is worth fighting for?

~~~
pritishc
Pakistan is a faux-democracy at best. Their army controls the government[1],
and I would rather not talk about their proxy war against India and terrorist
funding, given my strong bias towards my country. Perhaps a neutral party can
elaborate.

India, on the other hand, is a melting pot of multiple cultures, ethnicities,
and religions that have managed to co-exist harmoniously, despite the odd riot
or skirmish. Based on this alone, I would support India's "way of life" to be
worth fighting for.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Pakistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Pakistan)

~~~
saiya-jin
I tend to agree with you, I love India and even if it has many flaws (I think
corruption is the worst), it is fascinating and very diverse place which is
considered biggest democracy in the world. Can't comment on Pakistan since I
was never there, but I would expect more homogeneous place. And I guess
everybody heard about ISI supporting terrorist groups and fueling problems in
Kashmir.

I don't think though it makes sense to try to paint every single conflict as
good-vs-bad, democracy-vs-dictatorship, since you can easily have full
democracies fighting each other for any possible reason (imagine potentially
UK-France, Yugoslavia breakup or anything else)

------
jhanschoo
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"—if you wish for peace, prepare for war.

------
pasta
A lot of people are switching banks because they don't like that their current
bank is investing in war.

I think Microsoft is going to lose users over this. Not much for sure, but
it's naive to think people don't care.

~~~
3327
Yeah not really actually, people don't care everyone is on their phones reads
this once and then moves on. Its not the 70s any more, just because people say
on social media they are going to do something doesn't mean they are indeed
following through... I do sincerely wish you were right, but sadly you are
mistaken.

And let's face it, The military is a big part of the American institution -
you can disagree and argue against it but that will not change reality. They
also have the biggest pocket book, so Google, Amazon, Microsoft will always do
business with them. If you disagree - leave Silicon Valley or those companies
and join an NGO - I am sure they need technical help these days and cannot
afford the talent.

~~~
floe
> Google, Amazon, Microsoft will always do business with them

Really? Always? What about the Project Maven cancellation?

------
berbec
While I admire pacifists, the sad reality of the world is sometimes you have
to stand and fight. Is making tech for war in the interest of ending the
conflict, and dying, as quickly as possible "for the greater good"?

~~~
colordrops
Stand up and fight for what? Most people are completely blind to the realities
and driving forces behind various conflicts. The Wall Street Journal and New
York Times et al are usually not telling an accurate or comprehensive story.

~~~
kbenson
And yet, we have fairly good evidence from the relatively recent past that
sometimes you do need to stand up and fight, and it may be for the safety of
yourself, your faimily or even for the safety of people across the world.

WWII was a thing, the Nazi party came to power and started pushing their
agenda, and the holocaust actually happened. And the farther back in history
you go, the more it becomes apparent that it's not really all that much of a
statistical outlier except in scale.

That we don't need to continuously make sure we're strong enough to defend
ourselves is a fiction that people in countries with strong governments that
enforce the rule of law like to tell themselves. That's only possible because
the government is there to be the ultimate arbiter, and as libertarians will
quickly point out, that's only possible because they have, and ruthlessly
enforce, their monopoly on violence (to our collective benefit, IMO).

No such thing exists for nations between themselves, except for pacts like the
U.N. or NATO, and that's not a solution, it's just kicking the problem up the
chain so we can act like it's not our problem.

~~~
blub
If the US is worried about China and Russia it could:

* stop making China rich. All the stuff they're building is built with US money.

* vote for a president that isn't more friendly towars the US's traditional adversary Russia than towards European allies.

Military hardware is useless if the politicians continue to make strategic
blunders.

~~~
kbenson
Economic and military strength are related, and one can lead to the other, but
it generally seems to be delayed when going from economic strength to military
strength (because it's a matter of actually investing in developing new
technology or buying it).

Do you think not helping China as much economically (read as: hurt us both
economically to suppress them somewhat) would prevent their research of
military technology, including both hardware and software/network
capabilities?

I disagree with how the current administration is dealing with Russia and
China, as I disagree with a great many (most!) the things they do, but I don't
think that really affects the calculus of the equation on whether we should
continue to invest in our own military technology.

I do not _want_ it to be this way, it's just how I perceive it to be, and as
much as people have taken exception with my statements, I'm not seeing a lot
of arguments that explain how it's wrong or can be escaped.

> Military hardware is useless if the politicians continue to make strategic
> blunders.

It's also useless if it doesn't exist. Available but unused when needed is a
step up from not available when needed. The ultimate outcome might be the
same, but one is a precursor to "available and used when needed" and the other
isn't.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
> Do you think not helping China as much economically (read as: hurt os both
> economically to suppress them somewhat) would prevent their research of
> military technology, including both hardware and software/network
> capabilities?

Obviously yes. It's absolutely evident that the large majority of the economy
of China is based on export towards rich countries. Without US investments
China would be extremely poor.

Yet, the US decided to embargo communist Cuba (and Vietnam) and invest heavily
in "communist" China. The latter being very capitalistic.

~~~
kbenson
> Obviously yes. It's absolutely evident that the large majority of the
> economy of China is based on export towards rich countries. Without US
> investments China would be extremely poor.

You say obviously, yet fail to link why making China poorer would
significantly affect military investment and which type. How much money does
it take to throw people at software? And people are something China has a LOT
of.

Depending on how you measure it, China's economy is between the 1st and 3rd
largest in the world (I think first largest is a stretch, but there's
apparently some metrics which rank it that way based on purchasing power).

The United states is not the only country that China exports to. It's a large
chunk, and it would hurt, but as we're seeing, China is not willing to let the
United States dictate everything in the relationship. Why would they let the
United States use economics to tell them they can't research what they would
describe as technologies used to protect themselves when they aren't willing
to do so for lesser reasons, as evidenced by the current tariffs?

At most, we'll cause them to hide their activity. Why would they stop in light
of the aggressive stance by other countries to dictate their future? North
Korea certainly doesn't seem to like it, and China is in a position of _much_
more power.

> Yet, the US decided to embargo communist Cuba (and Vietnam) and invest
> heavily in "communist" China. The latter being very capitalistic.

Well, yeah. Because doing otherwise hurts us economically, and economics
drives a huge amount of decision making. And barring a concerted world effort
to to China to stop investing in any military tech, while the rest of the
world would undoubtedly continue, I doubt China would be willing to stop. It's
not all that different than if some nations came to the United States and told
us to stop researching and building up our military. We'd tell them it's none
of their business and they have no say in what we do. Why would we expect
China to act any differently?

------
seba_dos1
Stallman: You have to protect freedom.

Nadella: We've got it.

------
ralph84
> Some 250 staff are said to have signed the letter

So 0.2% of 134,944. That takes vocal minority to a whole new level.

------
okonomiyaki3000
It sounds like they're doing this with very good intentions and so they will
surely pave the way to... somewhere... a better world maybe? I don't know,
that doesn't quite sound right...

------
dplgk
Are we also upset about how many military computers run Windows?

------
devmunchies
Freedoms such as killing millions a year with opiates? It’s all about letting
the big global companies continue to operate in those countries, right?

------
m-p-3
All I can foresee is the erosion of freedoms..

------
bunnycorn
Meanwhile, I've seen today a video of a new product from a Russian
manufacturer (Kalashnikov), of Kamikaze drones.

I applaud Nadella.

------
elken
I'm just surprised people think that the Hololens is a useful piece of
technology.

~~~
siruncledrew
Imagine getting a Windows update pop up while in the middle of a firefight in
the desert.

~~~
masonic
And having it clog your supply lines, unrequested and unwanted, at the expense
of needed materiel.

------
RickJWagner
The contested sale of 100,000 HoloLens sets....

I think Quark has a hand in this, somehow.

------
m23khan
could this be tied to India and Pakistan conflict? Maybe Nadella senses $$$
for Microsoft given his connections with India.

------
DyslexicAtheist
Github is now a defense contractor

------
eganist
tl;dr: Microsoft will sell to any USA-approved entity because their number one
goal is to maximize shareholder value as a USA-based corporation.

Unless they're a public benefit corporation, an FFRDC, or one of any variety
of non-profits, this is their only goal. (probably missed a few, but you get
the point)

\---

Obvious point aside, here's a challenge: if this bothers you as an
entrepreneur, start your next idea off as a public benefit corporation or
equivalent, or roll your existing firm into one. Tread new ground. Need
inspiration? [https://www.navapbc.com](https://www.navapbc.com)

Further reading: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-
benefit_corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-benefit_corporation)

~~~
skybrian
In practice, there are a lot of ways to arguably maximize shareholder value,
so this gives management a lot of leeway to do what they want. For-profit
company cultures can differ drastically.

The real driver is stock options and other ways that employees (including the
CEO) get rewarded for making the stock go up. This does not necessarily mean
that it's the company's only goal any more than getting paid necessarily makes
you a soulless worker drone who will do anything for money. But it does tend
to encourage people to celebrate profits.

------
Calashle0202
So how come SpaceX employees don't revolt over the use of their rockets for
military payloads?

Elon Musk is literally out there launching a satellite surveillance network to
help the military spy on the entire planet, meanwhile Microsoft employees are
getting hung up on a headset that will maybe improve their aim, or maybe lead
to fewer deaths in the field.

Besides that, was there ever a time where Microsoft wasn't selling their
services to the U.S. military? It's hard to resist a contract from the world's
largest employer.

~~~
taejo
> So how come SpaceX employees don't revolt over the use of their rockets for
> military payloads?

Vonce ze rockets are up, who cares vhere zey come down? Zat's not my
department, says Wernher von^W^W SpaceX employee #4512.

------
rajacombinator
Why is anyone surprised by this? For Microsoft employees to suddenly worry
about the morality of their employer is somewhat laughable.

~~~
eesmith
Who is surprised?

To the contrary, it seems that you are the one who is surprised about the idea
employees should and can put pressure on management.

You write "suddenly worry about the morality of their employer", but
presumably most of the Microsoft employees _didn 't_ sign up to work for a
company which directly worked on weapons development, because:

> The employees behind the open letter say that even with these contracts,
> Microsoft itself was never engaged in weapons development; it was selling
> general-purpose software that others then used and adapted. The IVAS
> contract is perceived to be different, with Microsoft, rather than third
> parties, working to increase battlefield effectiveness and lethality.

Perhaps that's the surprise? Should all employees expect that their employer
can become a weapons developer, and not give any pushback should that happen?

~~~
kmlx
> presumably most of the Microsoft employees didn't sign up to work for a
> company which directly worked on weapons development

can’t people pack up and leave? i mean, there’s probably a queue of other
people who will happily work for MS.

~~~
eesmith
Can't Microsoft _not_ do weapons development? I mean, there's probably a bunch
of other profitable projects they can work on.

But to the larger point, employees have many ways to provide pushback when
management is doing something they don't like. They can complain to their
boss, complain to HR, take it up at shareholder meetings, and much, much more.

While there is the view that the only possibilities are to follow orders or
quit, that isn't very effective management practice for programming.

In the intermediate, it means people are no longer enthusiastic about their
work, leading to worse quality. People in most fields, not just software
development, do more than their job specifically requires. "Rule-to-work" is
one way to push back, by doing only what one's job requires.

In extremes, it leads to strikes, as you see see with teachers in the last few
years.

Or even sabotage.

These all might reduce shareholder value.

~~~
kmlx
> Can't Microsoft not do weapons development?

do you think this question is being asked in the Syrian arms factories? just
seems extremely naive to me.

it's in the same vein as "can't we all just stop causing global warming?" no,
of course not.

> But to the larger point, employees have many ways to provide pushback when
> management is doing something they don't like. They can complain to their
> boss, complain to HR, take it up at shareholder meetings, and much, much
> more.

Best form of protest is to quit. the worst possible effect for any company is
to lose an employee. not for the employee to protest or whatnot, but to
actually lose him to a competitor.

~~~
eesmith
I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevancy to Syrian arms factories. Is your
logic that all companies should be engaged in weapons development because
there are Syrian arms factories?

Nor do I see how my comment is any more naive than your earlier one. (Indeed,
my comment was meant to highlight why I didn't find your earlier comment
persuasive.)

I think that not only is your analogy to global warming incorrect, but it's
hard to make any good argument by analogy. Please instead make a counter-
argument on the topic itself.

You write "Best form of protest is to quit".

The history of labor actions show that isn't always true.

Strikes - in effect, a threat of collective quitting rather than the slow
effect of individual, uncoordinated quitting - can be more effective. (Though
of course not always.)

I even pointed to the recent teacher strikes as a counter-example, so it's not
like you needed to guess what I was referring to.

As another example, do you think that the best way for me to object to racist
practices as my place of employment is to simply quit? US civil rights law
says that not only do I have the right to object, and publicize my objection,
but that my actions are protected, such that it is illegal for the company to
retaliate.

Consider Google recent decision to end its relationship with the DoD's Project
Maven. A dozen staff resigned, while thousands signed a petition in protest.

Do you think Google would have ended its relationship if only a dozen people
resigned and no one else spoke up against it while being employed? How many
people do you think would have needed to resign in order for Google to change
its mind?

~~~
kmlx
the whole "stop weapons development" seems a bit naive to me because these
weapons will be developed no matter what. i'd just prefer for Microsoft to do
it, rather than another much less scrutinised/less exposed outfit. i would
like to bring everything out in the open rather than hiding it in some corner
of the economy.

regarding quitting, I would assume that for any huge corp it's a mixture of
staff resigning + publicity + the general "root for the underdogs". but for
any other smaller and/or less public corp, I would again assume that staff
resigning would count a lot more than any petition no one will see/care about.

~~~
eesmith
To be more precise, this isn't "stop weapons development" as a general
statement but "stop the newly stated weapons development program at
Microsoft".

It seems like your argument is that since there are 'Syrian arms factories'
then every company in the US should be involved in weapons development
(presumably so long as it is profitable?).

And therefore it seems like you think that every employee should expect that
their company may switch to weapons systems development, and so therefore no
one should object should that happen?

Your statement "[X] will be developed no matter what" has been the
justification for a huge amount of unethical practices. Just last month I saw
[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/space-
ch...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/space-childbirth-
babies/579064/) about a company trying to justify organizing a birth in orbit
by 2024 :

> Gerrit-Jan Zwenne, one of SpaceLife Origin’s advisers and Edelbroek’s
> cousin, is convinced that if this company doesn’t do it, another will. ...
> “I think at some point this will happen anyway, so we better do it in a very
> open and transparent manner,” Zwenne says. “If it’s somebody working on his
> own, in isolation, not in contact with the rest of the world, you may
> discover that something happens and you can’t reverse it.”

Yet that project is, by modern medical standards, completely unethical. I'm
sure it would not be hard to find many other unethical examples.

Remember too that your argument would also justify using chemical weapons
again in WWII, and justify a nuclear first strike, and justify all sorts of
other barbaric military practices. We should torture our enemies first,
because we know they would torture our troops if they could, and it's better
that American Freedom does it first. /s

I therefore cannot accept that as a valid argument, and instead see it as
being very naive.

You write: "i would like to bring everything out in the open"

Well, that's not going to happen, so what's your backup plan? That is, name
one open military weapons project.

Regarding "regarding quitting", since Google and Microsoft _are_ huge
corporations, your reply acknowledges that it can be effective for employees
to protest without (or before) actually quitting, in order to change policy.
Which is what you are seeing here.

Why then are you saying that it isn't effective?

It does not appear that you know much about the history and effect of labor
actions, so I do not believe anyone should trust your assertion that the "Best
form of protest is to quit".

~~~
kmlx
> And therefore it seems like you think that every employee should expect that
> their company may switch to weapons systems development, and so therefore no
> one should object should that happen?

This assertion is so preposterous I'm not going to reply to it. You have
personal issues with weapons systems development. I get it. But why should
anyone stay with a company that isn't to their liking? Is it a sense of
nostalgia as to "how things were before"? Is it peer pressure? Companies
changes, products change, people come and go. It's the course of life.

>You write: "i would like to bring everything out in the open" Well, that's
not going to happen, so what's your backup plan?

It's already out in the open. No backup plan needed. That's what happens when
the likes of MS or Amazon are involved. Again, I'd rather keep it that way.
You want to send it back to Raytheon so that we don't hear about it again. No,
thank you.

> Regarding "regarding quitting", since Google and Microsoft are huge
> corporations, your reply acknowledges that it can be effective for employees
> to protest without (or before) actually quitting, in order to change policy.
> Which is what you are seeing here. Why then are you saying that it isn't
> effective?

One can quit and then tell the world about what's going on. That would make
the prevailing narrative very convincing. Or one could continue to collect
their paycheck while at the same time protest. Making their narrative
extremely skewed, even hypocritical.

~~~
eesmith
You've never answered my question, and the only clues you've given lead to
that 'preposterous' interpretation.

"You have personal issues with weapons systems development"

To quote you, "Preposterous." Where have I ever said or even implied that?

"But why should anyone stay with a company that isn't to their liking?"

Of course they shouldn't. But the entire point of my comments is the flip side
- why shouldn't an employee try to change the direction of a company?

There's plenty of history to show that that's possible.

Your last paragraph is simply that there are only two options: work without
public complaint or quit. Over and over again, labor history shows that other
options exist and are effective.

I would argue even more effective. On the one hand we have the Oakland
teachers' strike, where the teachers got what they wanted -
[http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/this-is-why-
oakland-t...](http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/this-is-why-oakland-
teachers-are-on-strike.html) .

On the other hand, we have Oklahoma, where over 1/3 of the teachers have left
over six years, due to lack of funding, lack of respect, and excess workload -
[http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/02/ok-voting-
with-60...](http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/02/ok-voting-
with-60000-feet.html) . But in that case the teachers individually walked out.

The narrative of the collectively striking teachers of Oakland has been much
more convincing than the narrative of the individually leaving teachers of
Oklahoma in making policy change.

"It's already out in the open."

Umm. Okay, so please define "open", since it appears to be "whatever Microsoft
does which Raytheon wouldn't have done."

Microsoft doesn't have a long, traditional history of being "open" either, as
the AARD code, the so-called 'Halloween documents', and others show.

But suppose they are now "open". What is the basis of that openness? Is it
part of the corporate charter, or employee contract? If they decide to not be
open, or are found to not be open, what should the employees do?

It sounds like your only response is "quit", which leaves them in the same
place they are now.

------
senectus1
Its an interesting conundrum. I dont have an answer for it.

Democracies are (supposed to be) representative of the masses. A few angry
employee's in a tech company are not.

Democratically speaking they dont have a right to demand a company doesn't
make software/hardware used in war. Shareholders on the other hand are a
perfectly acceptable place to object.

------
crb002
Naughty naughty. Selling to DOD is one thing. Becoming an international arms
dealer makes me willing to divest Microsoft and everything Microsoft hosted.
Ahem _Github_ _Linkedin_ ...

