Slashdot Mirror


Leaked Emails Show Google Expected Military Drone AI Work To Grow Exponentially (theintercept.com)

In March, Google secretly signed an agreement with the Pentagon to provide cutting edge AI technology for drone warfare, causing about a dozen Google employees to resign in protest and thousands to sign a petition calling for an end to the contract. Google has since tried to quash the dissent, claiming that the contract was "only" for $9 million, according to the New York Times. Internal company emails obtained by The Intercept tell a different story: The September emails show that Google's business development arm expected the military drone artificial intelligence revenue to ramp up from an initial $15 million to an eventual $250 million per year. In fact, one month after news of the contract broke, the Pentagon allocated an additional $100 million to Project Maven [the endeavor designed to help drone operators recognize images captured on the battlefield]. The internal Google email chain also notes that several big tech players competed to win the Project Maven contract. Other tech firms such as Amazon were in the running, one Google executive involved in negotiations wrote. (Amazon did not respond to a request for comment.) Rather than serving solely as a minor experiment for the military, Google executives on the thread stated that Project Maven was "directly related" to a major cloud computing contract worth billions of dollars that other Silicon Valley firms are competing to win. The emails further note that Amazon Web Services, the cloud computing arm of Amazon, "has some work loads" related to Project Maven.

84 comments

  1. But Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be ethical and not evil.

    1. Re:But Don't Worry by gnick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is all military work unethical? There's a lot of it and it employs a bunch of people.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    2. Re:But Don't Worry by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you define "the military objectives of my side are good, and those of their side are evil", then you can justify almost anything that helps you win.

      Clearly, using algorithms to pre-sort images, while useful in its own right, is just the start. The obvious followup is having drones designed such that if they're jammed, they can still attempt to carry out their mission as best as they can on their own (thus reducing or eliminating the military effectiveness of jamming as an anti-drone weapon; Russia has gotten very good at such electronic warfare).

      --
      Jesus: "Son of a ..." OnStar: "I have a son of a ***** on 5th and Clemson." -- "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    3. Re:But Don't Worry by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you ever worked for the DoD as a contractor? I have and this nonsense about Google only doing work for the DoD that is “ethical” is laughable. The military-industrial conplex is about the least ethical group of people you can find.

    4. Re:But Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you ever worked for the DoD as a contractor? I have and this nonsense about Google only doing work for the DoD that is “ethical” is laughable. The military-industrial conplex is about the least ethical group of people you can find.

      Ummm, less ethical than Google?

      I find that hard to believe. At least the DoD is honest about what they do: kill the enemies of the US.

      Google's entire business model is based on lying to their product while they strip-mine their privacy.

    5. Re:But Don't Worry by gnick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you ever worked for the DoD as a contractor?

      Ex-DoE contractor, centered around weapons. I did some analysis of explosive material for reliability concerns, did a lot of work on defeating improvised nukes, and did some work on a large-bore aircraft gun. I feel better about the work I do now, but I don't feel like my DoE work was unethical. The explosive in question could one day be used to detonate a nuke and kill a bunch of people; the aircraft gun could claim victims. I bear non-zero responsibility for those deaths. Making the call on whether a killing is ethical or not is out of my hands, but I accepted that. If you want to damn me, you also have to damn the people pulling the trigger, the people ordering those people around, and the tax-payers that aren't doing everything in their power to stop it.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:But Don't Worry by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ummm, less ethical than Google?

      Yes, but that isn’t some endorsement to say that Google is a beacon of ethics. Far from it.

      I find that hard to believe. At least the DoD is honest about what they do: kill the enemies of the US.

      Honesty is not the same as being ethical. If a person is honest that they beat up young children to steal their candy does that make them ethical?

      Google's entire business model is based on lying to their product while they strip-mine their privacy.

      Because the DoD has never lied or done things that have invaded the privacy of US citizens? LOL. Methinks you need to brush up on PRISM, NSLs, etc.

    7. Re:But Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >If a person is honest that they beat up young children to steal their candy does that make them ethical?

      Obviously it does when compared to the bully who lies about his beating kids for their candy.

      Put another way, is the criminal who confesses his crime to the police more ethical than the criminal (same crime) who doesn't? I'd say yes.

    8. Re:But Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If you want to damn me, you also have to damn the people pulling the trigger, the people ordering those people around, and the tax-payers that aren't doing everything in their power to stop it.

      Not that I particularly care about any moral qualms you've had about your defense work, but you really should work on that rationalization. It's the similar to the rationalizations you hear from criminals who try to justify their criminal behavior by "spreading the blame" for their own choices to the perceived problems of society at large. If you're called before your maker when you die to be held accountable for the choices you made in your life, playing the "but whattabout" game isn't going to help you.

    9. Re:But Don't Worry by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you're called before your maker when you die

      I would tell him he is a cunt and go to hell anyway, that's where all the decent musicians went. The last thing I want to do is listen to fucken gospel music for the rest of eternity. I would rather roast in hell listening to some decent music. I would also suggest you widen your horizons and go read some Greek mythology, but that won't help if you haven't read the bible from cover to cover. You have done that, haven't you? I can count on one hand the amount of people (sadly preachers too) that have actually bothered to do that. I did, when I was a believer, and then I ran out of shit to read in the library and picked up a book of mythology. The bible is a hodgepodge of different religions and beliefs, way predating christianity. Any "maker" who allows the shit to happen in the world that does happen can go fuck himself with a flag pole. Also try reading Memnoch the Devil, an interesting look at God and the Devil.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    10. Re:But Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a mature adult you could either take the remark about "being called before your maker" literally if you're a religious person, or you could take it figuratively as a metaphor for answering to your own conscience. If you're immature idiot, you write what you wrote.

    11. Re:But Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      military by definition is a group of people taking a salary to murder people. (murder as in: kill against their will)

      *ANYTHING* military related that is not directly the act of defending the border is ALWAYS unethical.

      last i checked the US is not as risk of being invaded.

    12. Re:But Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I find that hard to believe. At least the DoD is honest about what they do: kill the enemies of the US.

      And it's own civilian citizens
      And civilian citizens of countries that have not harmed the US in any way
      And military members of countries who have not harmed the US in any way

      you are highly naive in your perception of relative ethics

    13. Re:But Don't Worry by gnick · · Score: 1

      If you're called before your maker when you die to be held accountable for the choices you made in your life, playing the "but whattabout" game isn't going to help you.

      I'm literally more concerned about the location of my towel than I am about answering to my maker. And I'm pretty certain that I know where my towel is.

      Not really trying to shift blame. Trying to do an honest accounting of how many deaths I'm responsible for. If the aircraft gun kills one person, it's easy to blame the pilot. Or to blame the guy that ordered the pilot to fire. The blame attributed to one of the guys who helped design one of the maintenance components would be pretty minimal, but I acknowledge non-zero. The specific explosive I helped with may not even be used in the nukes that'll wipe out DPRK, but IMO the crime's in the intent.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    14. Re:But Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Trying to do an honest accounting of how many deaths I'm responsible for.

      Rest easy, with your numbers you're not even in the league as Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, etc. Hell, you're not even the same ballpark as any of our recent American presidents. Maybe you have the numbers of a combination of very successful mass shooters, or the Egyptian government? What number do come up with?

    15. Re:But Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What number do come up with?

      Less than one. Even if nukes go hot. But more than zero.

    16. Re: But Don't Worry by houghi · · Score: 1

      If the crimanal tells it only to reduce time in prisonn or because he is showing off, then no.
      Actions seldom tell if somthing is ethical. Intentions do. You also need to keep many other things into account. And that is why legal systems exist.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    17. Re:But Don't Worry by gnick · · Score: 2

      murder as in: kill against their will

      murder:

      the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

      You could make an argument that there's some universal law against killing, so it's all murder. Or you could argue that not even stoning adulterers is murder, since it follows the law. Either way, it doesn't mean what you said it means.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    18. Re:But Don't Worry by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      It spends unethical volumes of tax payer dollars without anything in return. That's about as unethical as it gets.

      Or perhaps you are suggesting we have a responsibility to let invaders waltz into our country so they can be greeted with wine and caviar.

    19. Re:But Don't Worry by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      If you define "the military objectives of my side are good, and those of their side are evil", then you can justify almost anything that helps you win.

      I don't even remotely believe that. I believe that the US has had positive military objectives (Kosovo) and very negative ones (Vietnam). And beyond the objectives, sometimes the means were better and sometimes worse, especially in places like Vietnam.

      But one thing I very strongly believe is that the choices about those military objectives and means needs to be made by the civil government of our society, with the advice but not control of the military, and through a real political process. Without a doubt that political process makes epic mistakes (Vietnam), but I fear even more the idea that individuals or corporations making those decisions without access to the full scope of intelligence the government has and without a democratic mandate to make those choices.

      That's not that individuals don't have a right to demand to be reassigned and/or resign in (public) protest from an activity they find morally unacceptable. And to the extent that some tech employees personally believe they cannot contribute to a project with military goals, more power to them. But the over-arching decision about AI and war belongs to the political branches, not to silicon valley.

    20. Re:But Don't Worry by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      It's (basically) the same question that got asked in the Nuremberg Trials: just how much responsibility does any given individual have? Where does it start, where does it end?

      I think I remember a semi-recent trial about a book-keeper who worked in a concentration camp. He certainly didn't kill anybody personally. But he worked there. He calculated how much gold could be yielded from the teeth of the inmates and all the other gritty stuff. Somebody had to do it after all, right?

      At the Nuremberg Trials almost everybody denied even the slightest direct responsibility - they just followed orders.
      (Speer was the exception, he acknowledged a cloudy "general responsibility" and was the only one (apart from Hess) who didn't end up at the gallows.)

      Governments were always good at compartmentalizing the kind of jobs you did, so you only do one small part and maybe not even see the big picture (40k-ish people worked on the Manhattan project - but very few were aware of what they were really doing, at least until Trinity went off).

      In Germany, in 1933-1945, the Holocaust was also very compartmentalized. All the death-camps were far away, in East-Poland etc. The people pushing Jews into livestock wagons weren't told what would happen to the people inside - and most were smart enough not to ask. At the camps, most dirty jobs like actually opening the valves for the were often by inmates. So, not a lot of Germans (apart from those "overachievers" that shot inmates for fun) had actually physically killed a jew.

      So, I ask again: at what point does responsibility end?

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    21. Re:But Don't Worry by sheph · · Score: 1

      That's just what I was thinking. If the IRS can target conservatives with the blessing of the opposing administration what about anything else. How long before we start having efforts to wipe out all opposition domestically? Certain religious groups? People with mental illness? The US government does not exactly have a long history of benevolence.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    22. Re:But Don't Worry by sheph · · Score: 1

      If I make a hammer how much responsibility do I bear if someone uses it to kill someone? I'd say about as much as if I make cars and someone kills someone with that. Or guns for that matter while we're on the subject. Making tools does not make you responsible for how those tools are used. Even nukes which are designed primarily to kill are also used to ensure peace through their disuse. Bad things would happen if we didn't have them making the fact that we have them a positive. If I were that I guy I would lose 0 sleep at night worrying about it. He says non-zero, but I would say it is zero. He has no control over how the things he has created are used. That's up to the people who hold them now.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    23. Re:But Don't Worry by sheph · · Score: 1

      I would strongly disagree with that sentiment. We have a right to defend our interests, and that's not always just our borders. When you have training camps where jihadists are being trained to kill American citizens it is in our best interests to put a stop to that. When you have brutal dictators who are using chemical weapons on their political opponents in violation of the Geneva conventions it's in the interests of the world at large to put a stop to that as well. There are degrees. By your logic it would be unethical to go into Nazi Germany and stop what Hitler was doing.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    24. Re:But Don't Worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a useful book from someone who wasn't bought off, either by others or who persuaded their own self to silence.

      Ellsberg, Daniel The doomsday machine : confessions of a nuclear war planner

      Well worth reading.

      Thank me later.

    25. Re: But Don't Worry by Arunex · · Score: 1

      how do you defend the border when your high tech weapons are sticks and stones while the enemy comes at you with nukes and tanks? there goes your opinion

    26. Re:But Don't Worry by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      or you could take it figuratively as a metaphor for answering to your own conscience

      That's retarded - so somehow after my body stops ticking over I am going to have an internal dialogue in which I get to argue with myself? If anything is immature it's your response. Did my comment annoy the good little christian? Go thump a bible.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  2. That explains this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393

    1. Re:That explains this by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but the real clue was when it was replaced with "Killing is my business, and business is good."

  3. Partnership by ranton · · Score: 1

    They should just be doing this work under a "partnership" with a heavily funded startup.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  4. But..but... muh ethics!! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

    But trust Google because they’re going to be “ethical.” Why do people still believe a single word Google says? They’re a two-faced corporation just like the rest of them.

    1. Re:But..but... muh ethics!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They’re a two-faced corporation just like the rest of them.

      Redundant, saying two-faced corporation is like saying round circle.

    2. Re:But..but... muh ethics!! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      And yet reading posts to this story shows that some people still think Google is some magical different type of corporation.

    3. Re:But..but... muh ethics!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a direct corollary, why would anyone believe a single fucking word that Google Assholes with /. accounts, like Shawn Willden, aka Shillden, say??

  5. sf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get the US.

    Outside of silicon valley, as a generalization? *No one cares*.

    Do you hear people complaining about other US corps involved with the US military? What about US tech firms like IBM, Oracle, Sun(history here), Microsoft, and EVERYONE ELSE!

    Yet, Google gets involved -- Google which I hate I might had, but to be fair.. they get involved and BLAH BLAH BLAH.

    There's no story here. At all. If this is a story, then setup some website that shows all companies in the US, and all their funding, and start bitching at the top!

    1. Re:sf by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you hear people complaining about other US corps involved with the US military?

      Yes, I have. Ever heard of this thing called the “military-industrial complex?” People have been complaining about it for going on 60 years.

    2. Re:sf by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      To understand the mind set passed down understand the end of ww2.
      Operation Paperclip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... later the Defense Scientists Immigration Program.
      A lot of US science has its original well outside the USA over generations.
      The story is generations know how to sell the US gov on needing their skills.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:sf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-read my entire post, and see the context.

      The point is -- you complain EVERY SINGLE TIME a company works for the military, or you don't single out just one.

      When was the last time you saw Microsoft? Or Oracle? Or RIM/Blackberry (QNX)? Or any other tech firm lambasted so directly?

      Google is just as 'big corp' as any of them, with all sorts of other incredibly questionable practises. So my point stands.

      Why Google? Where were all the /. stories about QNX being used in Drones? Or Microsoft OS?

    4. Re:sf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Why Google? Where were all the /. stories about QNX being used in Drones? Or Microsoft OS?

      Did Microsoft's or QNX's employees publicly protest about their respective companies' DoD contracts and did the press publish articles about the story? No. That's why it's not being discussed on /.

    5. Re:sf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People do complain about more than just Google.

      When was the last time you saw Microsoft?Or Oracle? Or RIM/Blackberry (QNX)? Or any other tech firm lambasted so directly?

      Did you forget about the PRISM reveal a few years back? Your precious Google is not some oppressed martyr. Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, AOL, Skype and other companies were sharply criticized for their involvement.

    6. Re:sf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      were sharply criticized for their involvement.

      ...And?

      Nothing else? Just bitch on the web for a couple of news cycles and that's it?

      Weak sauce bro.

    7. Re:sf by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      And how is what is happening here any different? Is Google being fined, executives being improsoned or anything of that sort? Oh wait, no all that is happening is a couple of news stories criticizing their dishonesty.

      Weak trollig is weak. .

    8. Re: sf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....There's no story here....

      There is no story for anyone who saw through the curtain as to what google really was.

      For the rest, google claimed to be different and these people believed them. The story is the realization that google is the same as any other company that does defense work. Oh, with the possible exception of how much information they have about most each and every person, and the potential for that information to be used improperly because google is like all the rest.

    9. Re:sf by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      I don't get the US.

      Outside of silicon valley, as a generalization? *No one cares*.

      Do you hear people complaining about other US corps involved with the US military? What about US tech firms like IBM, Oracle, Sun(history here), Microsoft, and EVERYONE ELSE!

      Yet, Google gets involved -- Google which I hate I might had, but to be fair.. they get involved and BLAH BLAH BLAH.

      There's no story here. At all. If this is a story, then setup some website that shows all companies in the US, and all their funding, and start bitching at the top!

      It's a fair point. But I think it's because people expect Google to be better than that. They started out trying to not be "evil", which shows an understanding that power can corrupt and that corporations can often act sociopathically. They seem to be going against that now. I expect Raytheon to be in the death business; I would like it if Google did better.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    10. Re:sf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the employees who are bitching. Those other companies are still hiring engineers based on the quality of their engineering skills, which means they have a diverse set of people of which only a handful may object to working on projects like this.

      Google stopped doing that some time ago and now hire based on skin color and what's between your legs. Only other activists are going to want to work around those people, so they have a monoculture now, which means when they dissent, it's united and significant.

    11. Re:sf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raytheon is in the keep your kids from getting killed by the enemy business. You can support them or not, but it's their tech that will be relied on when someone tries to save your kids. Up to us how good that tech is. Apparently you don't give a shit and would rather an enemy be in a superior position.

    12. Re:sf by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Raytheon is in the keep your kids from getting killed by the enemy business. You can support them or not, but it's their tech that will be relied on when someone tries to save your kids. Up to us how good that tech is. Apparently you don't give a shit and would rather an enemy be in a superior position.

      Would you say the same to a Pakistani mother? I'm guessing not. Funny how good things and bad things can change position, depending on one's point of view.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  6. Someone think by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Informative

    of the contractors.

    Every drone in use is another work shift. AI coders enjoying gainful employment.

    Think of the positive peace side of cloud computing AI code that enjoys guiding drones.
    A drone painted by a local artist that maps a famers fields.
    In agriculture, archaeology, city planning, normal police work, geology.

    An AI can work on so much more than just images of a well disciplined enemy in a free fire zone.
    Think of the later spin off and peace dividend of having an AI thats so very advanced after all that free practice.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Someone think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What you're referring to is dual-use technology that is typically hit with embargos and forbidden/restricted export.

      But make no mistake, the primary goal is military, it just happens to also be useful in a civilian context to help pay for it.

    2. Re:Someone think by khandom08 · · Score: 1

      Think of HK-Drones. I for one can't wait!

    3. Re:Someone think by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The civilian context is so much more easy to present if Uncle Sam did all the hard work.
      The don't ask don't tell origin story of so many trusted US brands.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Someone think by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Every drone in use is another work shift. AI coders enjoying gainful employment.

      That's only slightly true now, and it will become less true as the drones become more capable. Then one size fits all and you don't need customization. Also, this requirement for human operators is temporary. Sooner or later they're going to make it legal to operate drones in some contexts completely autonomously. For example, right now you need a licensed drone pilot to do a commercial survey of a wind turbine. (Until they introduced commercial drone pilot licensing, that person had to be an actual pilot.) And you also need a spotter if someone is operating it remotely. But the drone is capable of doing the entire job by itself, so the drone pilot is a glorified spotter who is there to hit the kill switch if something goes wrong, and sooner or later they will remove them from the equation entirely.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Someone think by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      To extend your comment......

      Think of the children. Peaceful robots doing daycare. In fields of flowers on sunny days. Blue skies. Won't you think of the children?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  7. That's what you get: leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google encourages a culture of outrage and activism in its ranks. Good luck not having every little thing that some random employee might object to sent directly to the press.

    1. Re:That's what you get: leaks by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0

      Awww poor snowflake. Do you need a safe space to cry in?

    2. Re:That's what you get: leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, I'm fine just pointing and laughing as they spill military secrets all over the place.

    3. Re:That's what you get: leaks by khandom08 · · Score: 1

      Do you need a safe space to cry in?

      You sure you have enough room in your mom's basement?

    4. Re:That's what you get: leaks by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      What specific military secrets have been spilled?

    5. Re:That's what you get: leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about her basement, but his mom's cunt* is very roomy if somewhat smelly.

      *"cunt" being used here in the Sally Fields positive meaning of the word.

  8. That explains it by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

    No wonder they dropped their "Don't Be Evil" slogan. Just in time to transition into an arm of the military industrial complex.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  9. How the CIA made Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

    INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’

    The origins of this ingenious strategy trace back to a secret Pentagon-sponsored group, that for the last two decades has functioned as a bridge between the US government and elites across the business, industry, finance, corporate, and media sectors. The group has allowed some of the most powerful special interests in corporate America to systematically circumvent democratic accountability and the rule of law to influence government policies, as well as public opinion in the US and around the world. The results have been catastrophic: NSA mass surveillance, a permanent state of global war, and a new initiative to transform the US military into Skynet.

    1. Re:How the CIA made Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for this. I love me a good conspiracy theory.

  10. Exponential or eventual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An exponential growth function doesn't have a maximum. But I like the idea of "moving DOD aggressively to the cloud".

  11. Re: Google should fire the snowflakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd be happy with a nation that keeps their mility in their own border unless asked or attacked.

    We, the US, should close each and every foreign base.

  12. Ingore ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next, Googles policy of conduct will include "Do anything to make money".

  13. everything military eventually made civilian use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so how long until domestic police departments are given military drones like all the other war hardware they are allowed to acquire and therefore find an excuse to use?

    (I don't mean surveillance drones, I mean armed drones)

    and if ballots can be hacked, imagine what happens when russia, china, north korea or iran figures out a way to hack drones to go off mission

    they don't have to have guns or bombs, remember there are sound weapons now for crowd control and while gas and mace are illegal for military use, they are allowed for domestic use for some insane reason

  14. Only nine million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The line Google is pushing about only making 9 million shows how laughably indefensible their position is. If their best excuse is "It's just a little evil, look at how little we made!" then they know there is no defence for their actions. It's like a bank robber saying what they did is okay because they only made off with a thousand dollars in their heist.

    People sometimes question why companies like IBM worked for the Nazis when they knew what they were doing is wrong. There are now thousands of people working at Google we can ask directly to find out how they went from just being a search giant to working to kill people.

  15. The military is just going with the best. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you expect them to do. Go to apple and have siri run their missiles.

  16. Google: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google: Please, take a day off or two if you need respite from the trauma of a man being mean to you. We care about social justice and equality.

    Also Google: If you attempt to get in the way of our making a quarter of a billion dollars from the Department of Defense teaching drones how to precision strike people without trial, get fucked.

  17. Indirection to remove blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I am just a snitch who uses my amazing intelligence to point out otherwise unknown things to the thugs that will then go kill that thing".

    The thugs who kill that thing are the real bad people.... not the smart people who help knowing what their "help" is doing.....

    La La La La I am not to blame.... La La La La While I create weapons of war La La La La that end up killing people.

    (Also the government has never before subcontracted small pieces of a weapon across multiple contractors, each thinking their puzzle piece isn't part of a weapon.)

    I.e. You may not even realize the government IS having you build weapons!

    1. Re:Indirection to remove blame by sheph · · Score: 1

      ...and at the end of the day who cares? Weapons of war don't do anything without politicians who decide when and where they get used. It's like blaming guns and the NRA for school shootings instead of the individual who pulled the trigger.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
  18. Why the surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They had basically taken up residency in the White House under Obama. I think they were expecting a whole lot more than just this, the mushroom-headed little shits. Deluded by their sociopathy, I think they really believe they should have a hand in virtually *everything*. I thank my lucky stars whenever they get the boot, they are not an ethical (or particularly bright, skilled, or innovative) company. Most Valley empires are the Evil Empire, and though we may need technology, we don't want or need their nonsense or sad excuses for leadership.

  19. Hypocrites by bmxer4130 · · Score: 0

    It's hilarious that this is the same company that promotes a very tolerant, liberal, pacifist culture at in their workplace. It's pretty clear here - and this applies to other tech companies, that they have one god: money. Money rules all. Who gives a shit about people dying and violence as long as you're making money, right?! Something needs to change.

  20. Among Other Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [the endeavor designed to help drone operators recognize images captured on the battlefield

    Among many other things. Maven is about bringing all things AI into operational use at accelerated pace, harnessing the creativity and innovation of the industry and individuals in a way rarely experienced in as bureaucratic organization as the US military. Words are nice, actions are to be seen. Results? Maybe ATF doesn't have to hunt down so many US military issues in the future. Or something like that.

  21. OLD "Don't be evil." NEW "Do the right thing." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google has detailed records on nearly half the human beings on the planet: activities, interests, ideologies, contacts, schedules, and location coordinates. They have been using this info to target persons with advertisements. Now they are working on targeting persons with drones. Is anyone else concerned?

    The hairs on the back of my neck stood up the day Google suspiciously changed their motto from "Don't be evil." to "Do the right thing."... Kind of like, "Hey we are working on some really evil shit, so let's come up with a different motto that doesn't inadvertently draw attention to this fact"

  22. Be evil to make more money by kbg · · Score: 2

    I knew long ago when their motto was "Don't be evil" that it was only a question of time until it changed to "Be evil to make more money" because all capitalist companies evolve into doing evil things because evil things are more profitable.

  23. Google losing control of their company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of *course* Google signed a contract "in secret". All commercial contracts default to being signed secretly. It's called an NDA.

    Google employees violated their employment agreement by leaking confidential agreement info. Those employees - sniffs like their lunatic fringe SREs - are not paid to decide what is a good, or not good contract. Let's say we agree "US military = bad." Does that mean US civilian agency = bad, too? Which ones ? IRS = bad, but Dept of interior = good ?

    What about companies? Gambling = bad ? ExxonMobil = bad ? Disney = good ? Sony = good ?

    The bottom line is, that it's the bottom line that matters. If it's not illegal, Google employees should stick to making Google good at something that contributes to profits other than ad words, and otherwise STFU.

  24. I will sell my target recognition system to DOD by SysEngineer · · Score: 1

    I have create a target recognition system using opencv and caffe. I working now on getting it to run on a RasPi by simplifying the neural net. I used blue uniforms for this first test target category..

  25. Re: Google should fire the snowflakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll change your mind when you grow up.

  26. WWIII must be just around the corner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's interesting because you always see these massive contracts BEFORE atrocities begin.
    Clearly they are preparing for a war which indicates premeditation, and the purpose which is profit.
    I wonder what will be the pretext this time?