As soon as you stop spying on us, stop compromising corporate networks, and stop lying to our government about doing these things, then we can discuss whose side you are on. As long as you're still doing all that, you're not on our side.
That also doesn't mean we're on your opponent's side either.
This isn't a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Yes, the other guy is worse, but that isn't an excuse for your undermining the values that are supposed to make this country worth supporting.
Do you want to know how to change my mind? Here is how. Invite Snowden home. Give him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Discontinue all of the domestic spying programs that he identified AND their successors. Do that, then we'll talk.
Everyone is for human rights until they see brigands and warlords torturing, raping, and pillaging across the countryside.
The world is cruel. Therefore we should value nothing, and cherish nothing.
If you don't agree with this line of thinking, stop talking and be silent.
How would moving there make the US the good guys? Doesn't that just raise the concentration of people here that condone doing the wrong thing?
I also find the sentiments "support our damn military" and "if you don't think we're the good guys, then move out" to be hostile twists on statements nobody made, and more likely to cultivate opposition to your assertions than to make anybody think twice about them.
Totally agree about China though.
"This is not about doing something that’s unethical, illegal or immoral. This is about ensuring that we collectively can defend the values for which we stand. I have a hard time with companies that are working very hard to engage in the market inside China then don’t want to work with the U.S. military."
Point is it’s theatrical to be upset at them given much worse goes on in other countries that media hardly cover.
Famous last words. Well, good for you. Worst enemy usually comes from within, though.
The DoD needed a better way to navigate, so they invented GPS. They needed more robust communications, so they funded the internet. They needed to predict the weather to plan operations, so they funded weather radar and satellites. Even the US interstate system was supported in large part because the military wanted to have fast easy cross country logistics.
Liberty and Justice for all, in that order.
Freedom for everyone, and a war against the existence of repressive regimes and states in all aspects.
(Liberty is a bit complicated, given harm to / from others and sorting that out...)
Simetimes nations have to go through that crucible themselves and figure out what works for them, provided they aren’t being belligerent against peaceful neighbors.
Yes, I know their bizarre theory that collecting all of my digital data and indexing it for later lookup isn't a search until someone actually pulls my records. And their even more bizarre theory that their analysts should be trusted to always do the right thing despite a complete lack of effective oversight. (Because collecting data on how many times their analysts are pulling records on US citizens would itself be a "search", so they can't do that.)
I don't know under what theory they think it is OK to give all of their data on me away to 4 other countries who aren't restricted from searching it all that they want. But the fact that they do certainly means that they aren't protecting me from unreasonable searches. Even if you just limit searches to their own bullshit definition.
But before or during Saddam Husseins' supposed secret weapons of mass destruction, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, "Extraordinary Rendtion" at "Black Site"s, Snowden, etc, etc, etc.
"This is not about doing something that’s unethical, illegal or immoral. ... We are the good guys."
While the CIA/military might be fighting for the good guys (though what does that even mean), I don't think they can claim to be the good guys. And shame on the leadership for turning the courage and sacrifice of individuals to such methods.
Had an immediate flashback to the absolutely baffled Erich Mielke.
“I love – I love all – all people/humans – Well I love – I still stand up for it"
"I love all – all Humanity! I really do! I set myself before you!"
The reality some people build inside their head is disturbing.
The crucial point in time when you ask yourself if you might be a baddie.
Historically, the modern nation state arose during the 19th century from a confluence of factors. Taking advantage of new industrial methods of production required larger, more specialized workforces; this implied greater population and larger political units. Longer supply chains also required territorial integrity, so that the nation could ensure that its means of production remained intact without physical attacks from foreign powers. These bigger nations required more social control via propaganda and extensive legal & security systems, but the emerging technologies of mass communications & mass media enabled this. The armored war machines built by these industrial supply chains dominated everything else on the battlefield, so non-industrialized empires and kingdoms fell to industrialized nation-states.
Now supply chains are global and span trans-national boundaries; attempts to enforce national boundaries on these destroy industrial capacity rather than protect it. The Internet provides free information flow across national boundaries. Drones and robots give the military advantage back to small groups of technologically advanced individuals. AI and huge personnel databases allow you to instantly tell friend from foe regardless of geography, eliminating one of the key advantages of territorial integrity (which would likely be reestablished on a smaller scale afterwards). Cryptocurrencies undermine the government's power to tax and track finances, with the latter ability granted instead to anyone with a lot of computer power and knowledge.
Governments aren't sabre-rattling because we're on the verge of Cold War 2.0, they're sabre-rattling because they're insecure. Not just a government or the government - all governments. The next war will likely look more like Syria than the Cold War, with a confused jumble of non-national organizations all jockeying for power, and the social organization that comes after that will likely be a form of corporate feudalism a la Snow Crash. Google's on its own side in that organizational structure, because all the existing sides will be defunct.
And that's why these sorts of technologies are dangerous, they increase the amount of power that governments can exercise by potentially multiples and make them think that they can assert dominance everywhere which makes them more cocky and more prone to war. And that's why workers refusing to further this agenda are right and on the moral high ground.
Exclusive: The Pentagon’s Massive Accounting Fraud Exposed:
How US military spending keeps rising even as the Pentagon flunks its audit
The way I see it, you'd better count cyber and political attacks.
There are plenty of people whose personal ethics allow them to work on weapons systems. To the rest of us, let's stick together and find other ways to contribute to our societies.
So which is it? The best technology or the technology Microsoft creates? You can't have it both ways.
Someone forgot to deploy their WEAPONS GRADE SPELL CHECKER
I sincerely hope that one day war will be a thing of the past. In the meantime, I'm pretty comfortable with the Pax Americana. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana I know we're not perfect, but I hope and believe we're better than the other contenders for top dog, and that the world will slide into a golden age without too much more violence and death. (Is that too much to ask?)
Within the milieu of sovereign nations with conflicting interests, it seems to me to be borderline treasonous to e.g. work on Project Dragonfly but not JEDI or Project Maven.
I believe that technology is forcing us to a post-historical milieu where nations have given way to a global state powered by ubiquitous surveillance. I don't know whether this will turn out to look like Star Trek or North Korea, but I don't see how a technological society puts the genie back in the bottle. (Wrote a blog post about it, wanna see it? Here it is: https://firequery.blogspot.com/2013/10/total-surveillance-is...)
In this scenario, the state would have so many "soft" options to control behaviour that outright killing people would be a manifestation of the neuroses of the managers rather than a rational response. (Cf. CCP organ harvesting Falun Gong, and putting Muslims in concentration camps. These are NOT the decisions of rational minds.) At that stage, war is obsolete. "The people" literally can't rebel, and there are no outsiders, so any war that occurs would be due to some psychological irruption or something, more akin to a riot. (Unless we get some sort of staged war scenario.)
I'm saying that there will come a time in the future when sending robot bombs to blow up the people who want to blow you up will be recognized as an inferior strategy from the POV of operational goals. But we're not there yet. In the meantime, yes, help the military of the value-system you think is correct as much as you can, because the other bastard is still gunning for you.
If you don't like war, work on technology that harmonizes value systems. This is an interesting meta-logical problem that has lots of interesting solutions (and people will even pay you well for it.)