Slashdot Mirror


Google Engineers Refused To Build Security Tool To Win Military Contracts (bloomberg.com)

Mark Bergen reports via Bloomberg: Earlier this year, a group of influential software engineers in Google's cloud division surprised their superiors by refusing to work on a cutting-edge security feature. Known as "air gap," the technology would have helped Google win sensitive military contracts. The coders weren't persuaded their employer should be using its technological might to help the government wage war, according to four current and former employees. After hearing the engineers' objections, Urs Holzle, Google's top technical executive, said the air gap feature would be postponed, one of the people said. Another person familiar with the situation said the group was able to reduce the scope of the feature.

The act of rebellion ricocheted around the company, fueling a growing resistance among employees with a dim view of Google's yen for multi-million-dollar government contracts. The engineers became known as the "Group of Nine" and were lionized by like-minded staff. The current and former employees say the engineers' work boycott was a catalyst for larger protests that convulsed the company's Mountain View, California, campus and ultimately forced executives to let a lucrative Pentagon contract called Project Maven expire without renewal.

243 comments

  1. Well that makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is in line with their "Do No Evil...except in oppressive nations" motto.

    1. Re:Well that makes sense... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      China to Google: Give us access to your stuff or gtfo.

      Google: Ram it home! Lemme lube that up for you first, sir!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Well that makes sense... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      That is in line with their "Do No Evil...except in oppressive nations" motto.

      American military meddling has a mixed record of reducing oppression.

    3. Re:Well that makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If said oppression is in America's own self-interest, then its okay.

    4. Re:Well that makes sense... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I don't think Google is above junk science when it suits their purpose.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re: Well that makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Says the Apple user who isn't even aware that the text he's writing doesn't show up right for most computers. Your job is to code? You don't know what you are doing.

    6. Re: Well that makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does junk science contribute to the enslavement of humanity?

    7. Re: Well that makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good dog! You get a treat!

    8. Re: Well that makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Badly

    9. Re: Well that makes sense... by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      if it were not for the military...google would not have a job and...im not military...bad dobie google.

    10. Re: Well that makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You love the state huh?

      This country was founded on the idea of civil disobedience.

      Why do you hate America ?

    11. Re: Well that makes sense... by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Fire them. Of course they are replaceable.

      That's far from clear. Certainly there are people who are replaceable in any corporation. But that doesn't mean that these engineers are replaceable. The biggest tech companies in the valley exist because they hire the best and the brightest. If a company mistreats the best and the brightest, those engineers will have no problem applying their talents elsewhere -- probably for a competitor. This "gang of 9" obviously felt that they were able to refuse to work on military projects and get away with it. They're probably far more valuable to Google than the military contract, and they know it.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    12. Re: Well that makes sense... by javaman235 · · Score: 1

      This kind of thing is good. Being able to say when your conscience, for whatever reason, won't allow you to do good work on something allows the difference to exist between conscientious objectors (minimal harm to military) and saboteurs (lots of harm).

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    13. Re:Well that makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's different when we do it. We're the good guys'.

      Number ONE! Number ONE!

  2. Patriotism is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a day when faithful employees would gleefully bilk the government for every penny to deliver substandard performance instead of simply refusing.

    1. Re:Patriotism is dead by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This also seems to have canceled Google's plans to spy on the government from the inside.

  3. Better Off Anyway... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    They're better off anyway removing everyone's privacy to slice and dice audience segments for Madison Ave.

    Oh look, tin foil is 20% at Home Depot Online with coupon code ACNUTTER2018.

    1. Re: Better Off Anyway... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coupon not accepted. They are on to us!

  4. Good! by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good! This is what people with morals are supposed to do. Now, if only we could have the same thing happen in our military, too, the world would be in a lot better shape.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, they have no problem monetizing every detail of people's private lives, but helping the government that gives them the right to speak out, protest and defends freedom would be evil. These people are clueless ideologues.

    2. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Is it morals? More likely the employees are just foreign. And let's not kid ourselves, the employees from China are sending all the good info back home to their military.

    3. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If i were the boss they'd be fired and kicked to the curb.

    4. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good!

      I agree. One more step to dismantle Google from within. The more contracts they miss out on and the more offended employees sabotage operations the better.

    5. Re:Good! by El+Cubano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now, if only we could have the same thing happen in our military, too, the world would be in a lot better shape.

      I am going make a wild guess here: you completely lack perspective.

      First, when people in the military do that sort of thing you describe (disobey lawful orders from superiors) there are typically disciplinary repercussions. Thankfully, the vast majority of people in the military obey their orders and the vast majority of those giving orders do so with great care and diligence for the law and regulations.

      Of course, if you allow your opinion of the military to be dictated by the portrayals of Hollywood and what makes the news, you are likely to have an opinion like the one you seem to possess. That is, that most of the people in the military are scumbags with no regard for the law. Incidentally, if you allow Hollywood and news media to dictate your opinions of police, then you would consider all of them to be corrupt, and medical personnel are all incompetent, teachers are all drug dealers or child molesters, businesspeople are all greedy thieves, etc.

      I urge you to grow up and get to know some military personnel, law enforcement personnel, medical professionals, etc. While most large organizations or populations tend to be microcosms of society at large, the populations of military, police, medical, educators, etc., tend to be held to much higher standards than society in general, whether it be by laws, professional organizations, their own internal processes, or society itself.

      So, if you give the military the benefit of the doubt for a moment and you look at the issue to which those Google engineers objected, you will see that they basically acted like petulant children. Their refusal to work had to do with a capability that might have helped Google get more military contracts. That means that there was nothing to which they could point and say "we object to Google as a company or ourselves as individuals being asked to do this because it is immoral." Their objection was, "we do not like military contracts, we do not want Google to seek more military contracts, and therefore we refuse to do this work because it will make us more competitive for military contracts." Many businesses would fire employees who actively work to harm the company in such a way. In fact, being the Google is a publicly traded company, I am surprised that they did not do just that, because the executives are responsible to the shareholders for the financial performance of the company.

      Now, if Google was specifically asked by the military to something that was morally questionable (which they have not), or if Google was on its own decide to do something morally questionable to win military contracts (which they have not), then the situation would be different.

    6. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you and applaud this younger generations standing by their morals, can't be an easy choice, follow blindly the government's bootstomping orders or risk 'problems' in their lives. We need to keep a moral compass in this fast changing technology environment.

      I see the issue for government is that, "If we don't develop these tools, some other unfriendly nation to us will." Color me 'torn' on this dilemma. We really need to stop all this in-fighting and come together for what we are. It's not just nations with arbitrary lines on a map. We are one human race species, and if we don't realize this and come together as one global 'unit', we ultimately will tear ourselves apart. The human race may not be able to 'reset' from the next/last war the next time around.

    7. Re: Good! by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      I'm a little confused what do you think the military does?

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    8. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      When I worked on a military bases, I never worried about locking my car or leaving valuables unattended. There are bad apples I'm sure, but generally the quality of politeness and respect for others is extremely high within the defense establishment.

    9. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just for some alternate prospective, I was in the navy for eight years and and now I'm a medial Profesional (clinical pharmacy). I cannot give I our military the benefit of the doubt nor can I support any of current military actions currently taking place.

      We need to stick to being a defensive force and cut down on the offensive.

    10. Re:Good! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      but helping the government that gives them the right to speak out

      Government doesn't give you any rights, you stupid sonofabitch.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I've never dealt with military contract work, I would think all employees involved would have been vetted via background checks for what otherwise would be classified work? No?

    12. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replying to self to post this 2014 TED talk, "Why does the universe exist?" | Jim Holt (1,860,109 views) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M

    13. Re: Good! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Is it morals? More likely the employees are just foreign. And let's not kid ourselves, the employees from China are sending all the good info back home to their military.

      If the President of the United States can work for the benefit of a foreign government, why shouldn't a Google worker?

      https://www.vox.com/policy-and...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare they help protect this country! Good for them!

    15. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said you could talk, bitch?

    16. Re:Good! by Brett+Buck · · Score: 0

      These people are sociopaths or fools. Everything they, and everyone reading this, has, loves, cares about in this world is courtesy of the competence of the US Military.

    17. Re:Good! by jythie · · Score: 1, Troll

      Morals maybe, but crappy ones. These are people with secure, lucrative jobs deciding to sacrifice others for their self image. Every time you turn down major contracts like that, people lose their jobs. Sometimes lots of people. So this was spoiled brats going 'I don't care if other people get fired, I am too valuable so I will not work on this!'

    18. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is starting to realize what negotiating with terrorists is like. The first time you surrender to their demands only emboldens them to demand again. Google will be enjoying their fruits of their poor judgment for a long time to come. Although I am no fan of Microsoft, I do hope they have the sense to tell their "300 employees" to hit the ranks of the unemployed if they don't want to do their job.

    19. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it does protect them.

    20. Re:Good! by PPH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Their objection was, "we do not like military contracts, we do not want Google to seek more military contracts, and therefore we refuse to do this work because it will make us more competitive for military contracts." Many businesses would fire employees who actively work to harm the company in such a way.

      Not so much.

      If it became known that careers depend on doing something that one considers to be morally wrong, some group of employees would take the job. Because they have kids to feed, or just don't want a termination on their resume. So now you have a morale problem. People doing things that they don't really like. And they might actually sabotage the program. Or leak details to the enemy.

      Companies that do this kind of sensitive work as part of their business will vet their staff ahead of time and encourage those who might have qualms about the application of their work to move into a non classified program. Google is a big place and I'm sure something can be found for conscientious objectors to do.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    21. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a little confused what do you think the military does?

      Kill people

    22. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I worked in defense for a while. I was honored to help the American military.

      I got out of defense because the company was also selling the devices I worked on to dictators and oppressive regimes. The US government allows - nay encourages - this kind of thing.

    23. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nyet.

    24. Re:Good! by Prien715 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Notice how the government doesn't give you these rights -- you have them regardless of whether the government recognizes them. I thought there used to be libertarians on /. who knew about such things? Also, we've haven't been defending freedom for a long time. Iraq/Afghanistan/Qatar (and Vietnam before) aren't places we can "defend" since they don't belong to us. It's simply "war".

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    25. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "involved" you mean directly working on a classified program, then yes -- they need BIs ("background investigations") to obtain a clearance.

    26. Re:Good! by sjames · · Score: 0

      And then you'd be whining to anyone who would listen about how you can't seem to find good employees.

    27. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "alternate" "prospective" "medial" "Profesional"
      If your pharmaceutical prescriptions are as poorly spelled as your casual writing, I suspect you've killed more people than the entire Marine Corps.

    28. Re:Good! by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If a company wants employees with a "Moral Compass" that includes working for the military, they should avoid advertising a company motto that points in another direction. A motto of "Do no evil" might attract workers who don't want to work for the military, and repel workers who WANT to work for the military. Who knew that corporate propaganda might actually affect the company itself.

    29. Re:Good! by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Soldiers take it personally when their co-workers steal from them, something about trusting your buddy to have your back. There are stories about thieves not coming back from military exercises.

    30. Re: Good! by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Patrol borders for illegal migrants and drug smugglers, search and rescue, helping out at disasters, and guarding the borders are common tasks. The US Army also spends a lot of time keeping other countries borders open to American trade.

    31. Re:Good! by dryeo · · Score: 0

      Are you going for a funny mod? Or do you just love brutal dictators, which the US military seems to spend all its time supporting.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    32. Re:Good! by cm5oom · · Score: 1

      That's only true as long as this government is in power. Theoretically those rights are innate but in reality we only have them because the government chooses not to take them away.
      Hypothetically if the nazi had invaded and conquered the us we wouldn't have those rights anymore. If we tried to claim that the government can't take them away from us the nazi would have laughed in our face then shot us in the head.

    33. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing that people understand this, but only for the amendments they like. Try saying the same thing about the second and count the microseconds until someone goes, "nuh-uh!"

    34. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you feel your rights are better protected under anarchy? If not, then yes, government does (or at least should) protect them.

    35. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Those snowflake Germans that refused to become Nazis were spoiled brats too!

    36. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Thank god Poperatzo is here to edjumakate us all on how the world is.

      Because socialist idiots know that stuff good!

      We love you Poperatzo!

      And your little dog Toto, too!

    37. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those were not good employees.

    38. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously a true anachist? So you must like might-is-right dictatorships.

      And... you are also an idiot.

    39. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Merkel is a brutal dictator?!
      I knew she was hiding something behind that grandma mask. Never trust anyone born in East Germany...

    40. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except when a person is causing the suffering of a people. What do you say? What do you do?

    41. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertoon bullshit. To understand ... translate RIGHT as POWER ... can citizens demonstrate action w.r.t. certain behaviors without restriction? That's POWER & that depends ... A bad Constitution and gun-barrel-heavy Gub'mnt restrict expression of POWER ... that is the ability to perform such-and-so tasks does not exist. OTOH a sound Constitution and weakly armed Gub'mnt ( no court Semites ) assures a broad subject-range of citizen POWER. Individuals can do lots of things and noone can stop us.

    42. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and drop random nations into civil war for no proper reason.

    43. Re:Good! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Rights are worthless if you are unable to exercise them. Rights are only as strong as their enforcement. If someone violates your rights, who will enforce penalties against them? Who will set up incentives to prevent others from doing so? In most civilised countries, we delegate responsibility for this to an organisation that we call a government. It doesn't give you the rights, but it does try to stop anyone else from taking them away. The government is accountable to the people and the paragraph that you quote attempts, in the USA, to prevent the government from attempting to take away certain rights.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    44. Re:Good! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      the vast majority of people in the military obey their orders and the vast majority of those giving orders do so with great care and diligence for the law and regulations.

      You're confusing legality and morality.

      Of course, if you allow your opinion of the military to be dictated by the portrayals of Hollywood and what makes the news, you are likely to have an opinion like the one you seem to possess. That is, that most of the people in the military are scumbags with no regard for the law.

      I get that idea from things like having an ex-army ranger tell me about his failure to prevent a child rape by a fellow soldier in Viet Nam. Failure as in he didn't bother. Complicity all around. Or the gross underreporting of rape in the military. A woman joining the military can expect to be sexually assaulted at least once during her career, on average.

      Now, if Google was specifically asked by the military to something that was morally questionable (which they have not),

      Supporting any standing military in any way is morally questionable, because standing militaries are harmful to freedom.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    45. Re: Good! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Patrol borders for illegal migrants and drug smugglers,

      That's just war. It's war on people in general, and brown people specifically.

      search and rescue, helping out at disasters,

      And I say unto thee, that's a lot of bullshit, in that a) it's the tiniest piece of what they do by calories expended, and b) they don't actually finish the job unless they are pursuing a military goal. That's why Puerto Rico is still fucked.

      and guarding the borders

      Bullshit so fine, you had to repeat it.

      The US Army also spends a lot of time keeping other countries borders open to American trade.

      Also known as "kills a lot of people for money"

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re: Good! by DogDude · · Score: 1

      The US military, today, primarily exists to kill people in other countries and to make money for the defense contractors. What do you think it does?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    47. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You must pay for my health care!"

    48. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem in the military is that you take an oath to follow the "legal and authorized orders of your superior." Not doing so is called mutiny, punishable by execution. Legal and authorized determined by, you guessed it, aforementioned superiors.

    49. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean the same gov't that by gunpoint can throw you in a concrete fortress designed to keep you in, where they can stick masks, helmets and all kinds of shit on (or in) you if you 'get out of line'? Gee, how thoughtful of them.....

    50. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might be a bad business decision, depending on how much these employees contribute to other projects and how replaceable they are. If firing them delays other projects massively while still not being able to implement the air gap (because you are looking for a replacement) you cut off your nose to spite the face...

    51. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anarchy wouldn't work on a large scale. If the US gov't did collapse, there would be a mega shit storm full of violence, looting, murder etc... But as it starts to settle down, people will band together on tribes, and almost immediatly, those tribes will each have a leader - yes the beginning of government! - . Soon they will claim their own territory, and as the tribe grows, they will need more and more people to help manage things as one man can't do it alone - More government! - . And they need to have enforcers - Police! - and people to defend against rival tribes or even the lone wolf terrorist - Yes, Military! -

      Even large street gangs and hard core felon inmates have their own form of government.

    52. Re:Good! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Theoretically those rights are innate but in reality we only have them because the government chooses not to take them away.

      And chooses, at least to an extent, to prevent others taking them away.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    53. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am trying to figure out who wrote the malware that has infected my windows partition. Can someone here help how to get rid of it? It might have something to do with isbew64.exe in my temp directory and epoch registry entry. Unfortunately, mcafee doesnâ(TM)t find it. Itâ(TM)s something nasty. It might also might have something to do with the video driver, just certain things I have noticed with the video flickering incessantly when windows starts. Fan starts idling very high at the start, cpu not at a high temp. Wondering if there are basic tools out there to debug things at a fundamental level. Idiotic spooky replies not needed.

    54. Re:Good! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      But but but ... they were put there by the creator (whoever she is) and they're inalienable (I think this means they don't apply to Mexicans).

      The magic document says so!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    55. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, turn the computer off. Use another computer to create a Linux boot CD.
      Use that CD to salvage your data to USB and format all drives. Don't try and restore a system that's been infected.

    56. Re:Good! by Nov8tr · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of explanations and excuses on both sides of this debate being given. But whether you agree or not, the military is the only line between those who would harm you and your ability to even disagree. Be a Russian citizen and "disagree" with the govenment. Or their military. You will end up in a camp in some frozen forgotten land. Or dead. It has long been known and still is, that the USA has long been the only country many times who stood up for and defended country's who were under attack from some other country who thought it was their right to take their country. Without all the rhetoric or fancy exlanations there is one simple word for those who refuse to defend the country they live in. The country who defends them so that they even have the right to run their mouth. Who would refuse to defend it or their fellow citizens. You do not have to be military to do your part. Sometimes your part is as simple as "writing code". Oh and that one word for those who actively work against helping or even work against your own govenement. That word has never changed. Traitor

      --
      I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
    57. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didnâ(TM)t ask for instruction on how to infect his PC with open source. â

    58. Re:Good! by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      I wonder how many of these "engineers" were diversity hires who couldn't build a Duplo kit but could put together a 200 page document - with one page per gender identification.

      Perhaps they need more people like James Damore.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    59. Re:Good! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No. We have the rights so long as we choose to not let them take them away.

    60. Re:Good! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Looking at the comments here, the incessant bootlicking and worship of authority is insane. What happened to Slashdot? Did all the libertarians finally come out as trumptards?

    61. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like someone who's never stepped foot in a country where government people can ruin your lives and put you in prison for any reason they wish. Go look at the mass graveyards created by the mass murders of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China and others to get a better understanding of why supporting national defense in free countries is essential to maintaining freedom.

    62. Re:Good! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "I worked in defense for a while. I was honored to help the American military.
      I got out of defense because the company was also selling the devices I worked on to dictators and oppressive regimes. The US government allows - nay encourages - this kind of thing."

      The US government is the world's largest arms dealer. You can't work on US military projects without supporting endless global war (Google insists that I meant to write "global warming" there, what lames have they got working on the Android keyboard these days?)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    63. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your fiefdoms with you on the way out Taskmaster!

    64. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Military need to be supported and is necessary for basic survival. What need to be differentiated are the different actions and branches of what is being accomplished and not.

    65. Re:Good! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Military need to be supported and is necessary for basic survival.

      We spent shitloads of money on our military, and the world is more dangerous than when we started what with nuclear proliferation and all that. Maybe that's the wrong place to put your effort.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    66. Re:Good! by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Ah No.

      However the correct document to go to is not the Constitution of the United States but rather its actual preamble: The Declaration of Independence

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..

      Unalienable, means they cannot be taken away. It continues later:

      Governments are instituted among men , deriving their just powers form the consent of the governed...when ever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter o to abolish it...

      It is incumbent on the people to both remain vigilant and remained armed so as to allow them to do this. Which is why if the Nazi's had had invaded they might have had a much harder time conquering than your average unarmed nation. A fact that scares Progressives who basically have the same motives. Hence the great outcry for banning weapons.

    67. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If those stories are true, the murderers are infinitely worse than the thieves

    68. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously a true anachist?

      In a word, no he is not. "udachny" - aka roman_mir - is in reality a fascist who uses slashdot to try to recruit people to his religious movement by regurgitating his favorite catch phrases from his preferred religious texts.
       
       

      So you must like might-is-right dictatorships.

      Bingo. He has aspired for some time to install a dictator-for-life scheme in the US led by his favorite living deity.
       
       

      And... you are also an idiot.

      Agreed.

  5. air gap? by JP205 · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or does "air gap" sound like the kind thing best implemented in hardware?

    1. Re:air gap? by psnyder · · Score: 2
    2. Re:air gap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An air gap is best implement with air. Other devices that are used to protect military systems are 'data diodes' and 'red-black filters'.

      I think the googlers objected because they could not see a way to slurp the data through the air gap to monetize it. Military information security is something that they simply cannot fathom.

    3. Re:air gap? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      Is it just me or does "air gap" sound like the kind thing best implemented in hardware?

      Yes, but in practice, it tends to get implemented between the ears of management.

    4. Re:air gap? by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Great question, air gaps protection concept, what are they.
      it's really rather simple but very difficult to do.

      it involves securing the environment in which you operate the equipment vers all types of wave transmissions

      let us just do a basic exercise. your office space with a view.
      A) electro, need something like a Faraday cage
      B) the glass - bounce a laser off the glass and I have a some of your conversations and draw the curtains so you can't peek in.
      C) sound- what goes via the ducts.

      change all that to a computer holding case, back in the old days, you knew via the sound of the mainframe where or what job it was doing. now you need total silence. ...

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
  6. I will do it, cut me a contract by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    I have no issues doing any job (well most! there are some I would turn down).

    1. Re:I will do it, cut me a contract by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Would you do every job Mike Rowe has done?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:I will do it, cut me a contract by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      lol have already been there, done that. I kid my clients now and tell them I get double if I sweat ;)

    3. Re:I will do it, cut me a contract by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      My first job was dish boy, 1.93 per hour.

    4. Re:I will do it, cut me a contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't have any problems either.

      My dream job would be working in an concentration camp and cleansing society of undesirables.

      Of course, I'd use my position to settle a few old scores too.

      Maybe someday. One can only hope!

    5. Re:I will do it, cut me a contract by jythie · · Score: 2

      I had a related thought. Right now we are waiting on a contract, it is delayed because we do not have much leverage. Most of our people are having to work for nothing or are in a holding pattern looking for other work. Turning down work, or getting to keep your job after getting your company to turn down work, is a mind blowing luxury. It is throwing away what many fight to get.

    6. Re:I will do it, cut me a contract by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You've inseminated cows (and actively collected the necessary semen)? Castrated sheep with your teeth? Repaired brickwork in active sewers? Cleaned out the deep dark hole various processing plants shove their refuse in, from the inside out?

    7. Re:I will do it, cut me a contract by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      I grew up on a farm 10 miles from a town with 800 pop. Insemination, Castration there is a stainless steel hooked knife for that ;) sewers no, dark places no but barn gutters with a shovel ;)

    8. Re:I will do it, cut me a contract by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Did you take the fluffer job in Fallout 2?

    9. Re: I will do it, cut me a contract by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      You were lucky.

    10. Re: I will do it, cut me a contract by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      Yes I was

    11. Re: I will do it, cut me a contract by Dantoo · · Score: 1

      Lucky? Aye....had to get up at 3 in morning, half an hour before went to bed, had to suck out semen with bare mouth and inseminate cows with same mouth, not swallow a drop, crawl down into sewer....it were sewer to us but it were just a hole full of shit where we slept , then clean and repair it before breakfast which were just semen not spat out, then aye, off to factory where we'd batter hens to death with bare hands and then crawl home naked when dad would stab us to death with broken bottles and dance on our graves.

      Tell young kids that today ......and they won't believe yer.

    12. Re:I will do it, cut me a contract by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Turning down work, or getting to keep your job after getting your company to turn down work, is a mind blowing luxury. It is throwing away what many fight to get.

      Living, or getting to keep living when the US government wants you dead, is a mind blowing luxury. And taking military contracts deprives people of that luxury. The military's job is to kill people. Everything else they do is pursuant to that goal.

      There is no reason to have an "army corps of engineers" carrying out public works. It should be a department of public works, not part of the department of defense.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:I will do it, cut me a contract by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot.

      The military's job is to protect the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign and domestic. Sometimes that means killing people, but that is always a collateral effect, never a goal. Well almost never. It is so rare that the few times it does happen, i.e. bin Laden, it becomes a big deal.

      Most military members never kill anyone in the course of their duties, so pretending that killing is the main purpose of the military shows a general lack of intelligence and an acceptance of the worst kind of liberal propaganda, the kind that demeans police officers and border agents. And the kind that typically lives in the protective bubble maintained by the efforts of all of those people.

  7. How I read it: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google employees refuse to work on improved data protection and privacy features.

    1. Re:How I read it: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And supporting multiple government basic services in the future, as the government have apparent difficulties of implementing such services already today. In addition, Google could productize this "air gap" feature and so be able to service governments around the world, separately incorporated under the Principality of Sealand.

  8. Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Helping the dictatorial Chinese government find, imprison, torture and execute political prisoners: A-OK

    Helping your own country's military to keep its citizens safe: unacceptable

    Clearly Google engineers have their priority straight. If you're going to help the military, it has to be a Communist one.

    1. Re:Ethics by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Better not to help either.

      Basically all of the advances in "keeping the children safe" since 9/11 have been intrusive. More cameras. Automated license plate/car tag tracking. More lists. More paper/ID checks. More biometrics.

      It's intrusion and violation of privacy under the guise of safety. Want to actually keep the US safe? Stop supporting countries that sponsor terrorists. Stop meddling in things that aren't the US's business.

    2. Re:Ethics by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      There's a reason you failed to cite.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:Ethics by newslash.formatblows · · Score: 2

      And I assume you have evidence that there was some overlap in membership of those two groups of Google engineers? Or did you forget that a corporation isn't really a single person?

    4. Re:Ethics by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      I'm also guessing this suddenly became important around November of 2016.

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

      Helping the dictatorial Chinese government find, imprison, torture and execute political prisoners: A-OK

      [citation needed]

    6. Re:Ethics by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Helping out Communist China can be done at the management level, helping out the American government often requires building stuff. You're blamin the wrong men.

    7. Re:Ethics by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Google pulled out of the Chinese market over that kind of thing. All Google services are blocked by the Great Firewall.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the Google engineers refused to work on the military project because the military was allowing gay soldiers to join? Would everyone still defend the engineers for having 'morals'?

    9. Re:Ethics by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Google pulled out of the Chinese market over that kind of thing. All Google services are blocked by the Great Firewall.

      Google was forced out of the Chinese market over that kind of thing. They stuck it out for years prior to that, making all kinds of bullshit excuses about how it's better to serve the Chinese people slightly than not at all. Except they were serving the Chinese government more.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Ethics by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      There's a reason you failed to cite.

      When you say something like that, you need to put what that reason is. Otherwise, it's just smoke.

      Surprised they didn't just fire them.

  9. Google needs by oldgraybeard · · Score: 0, Troll

    fewer snowflakes

    1. Re:Google needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you mean more psychopaths like yourself.

    2. Re:Google needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go win yourself a contract then.

      Chances are, your analytical and algorithmic skills aren't on par with these engineers, else the pentagon would be knocking on your door. Generic 'software engineering' is putting Legos together using other people's libraries. I'd love to see all you 'conservative IT mechanics' try to build your entire mathematical libraries from scratch.

    3. Re:Google needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chances are, your analytical and algorithmic skills aren't on par with these engineers, else the pentagon would be knocking on your door. Generic 'software engineering' is putting Legos together using other people's libraries. I'd love to see all you 'conservative IT mechanics' try to build your entire mathematical libraries from scratch.

      Please don't encourage him. I used to work for one of the defense contractors. We'd build the math libraries from scratch every project. The world needs less math libraries. What the flux.

      (But it was pretty epic when the "software engineers" would claim that matrix math is hard, and they need the actual engineers/SMEs to give them the algorithms for basic 3x3 rotations.)

      #PeopleThatRewriteMathLibraries

    4. Re:Google needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linear algebra was part of the CS curricula for a reason, these arse hats think that just because they learned the "package.mysubpackage" syntax that they're all that, and a bag of chips.

      There's a reason you don't see many major tech developments to serve his category, and that gab.whatever social network is laughably full of holes, they may as well have hired "programmers" from a back-ally with the "Nigerian prince".

    5. Re:Google needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fewer snowflakes

      Via jumbo jet flying into Google headquarters. That'll knock some sense into the snowflakes that survive.

  10. A feature so cutting edge it's 50 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Air gap." Give me a break.

    1. Re:A feature so cutting edge it's 50 years old by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      They just refused to work without an internet connection.

    2. Re:A feature so cutting edge it's 50 years old by kalieaire · · Score: 1

      refused to work w/o their cybergoth playlist on spotify.

    3. Re:A feature so cutting edge it's 50 years old by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Pretty much.

  11. Wage? by markdavis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >"The coders weren't persuaded their employer should be using its technological might to help the government wage war,"

    "Wage war"?

    1) We are not talking about a weapon.
    2) We aren't even talking about something that attacks or even spies on other countries or citizens, it is a computer security concept. Is better security "bad"?
    3) Why would the technology be used to "wage war"? Perhaps it might be to avoid war or lose important information. Is that "bad"?
    4) Or even if it could help to win a war [that protects Google, too], if it came to that, is that "bad"?
    5) If it enabled more secure "cloud" use by the military and saved tons of money, which means either less taxes or money better spent elsewhere, is that "bad"?
    6) Wouldn't some other company develop it instead?
    7) Couldn't it have non-military uses to improve security?

    It is one thing to stand on morals and principles. But what exactly is gained by anyone in this case?

    1. Re:Wage? by cathector · · Score: 2

      Given the very scanty details provided in the article, you seem to be leaping to conclusions.
      It's unlikely that people at our level of remove from the details can accurately form an evaluation of the sort you're presenting.

      Your line of reasoning is similar to lay-people second-guessing scientific experts on complex scientific topics.

      Also, suppose you're totally on-target in all your points.
      So what ? It's not your call whether these folks choose to do this work. It's theirs.

    2. Re:Wage? by jythie · · Score: 1

      What is to be gained? Personal brand, new opportunities at other companies or notoriety within their own, and the only people who got hurt were the ones that would have to be laid off, and they must be losers anyway. Yeah,.. not impressed by this 'moral stand'.

    3. Re:Wage? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Given the very scanty details provided in the article, you seem to be leaping to conclusions."

      Well, it is true that the article doesn't reveal much except that it is an IT security method for cloud computing. And something called "air gap" in a security context generally doesn't lend itself to be a weapon or attack method in any way that I can imagine.

    4. Re:Wage? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      >"The coders weren't persuaded their employer should be using its technological might to help the government wage war,"

      "Wage war"?
      1) We are not talking about a weapon.

      That is wholly irrelevant. Anything done under the auspices of the military will be used to help wage war, period, full stop. Supply chains are part of warfare. Informational security is part of warfare. If you hand something to the military, they will use it to kill people, because that's what they do.

      The authors and proponents of the second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America knew that standing militaries are harmful to freedom, and sought to make them unnecessary in America; but by failing to outright outlaw them, they failed completely. Our very first president formed a standing military. Of course, he was a strong authoritarian; the natives called him "Town Killer" for his murderin' ways.

      6) Wouldn't some other company develop it instead?

      Probably. But they might not be as competent.

      7) Couldn't it have non-military uses to improve security?

      Sure. But that's not what the military does. If they improve security, it's to improve their ability to bomb brown people.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Wage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really are a racist piece of shit.

    6. Re: Wage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like all absolutes, ya, let's get rid of ALL gov. I get that the military is waaay larger Fh than it needs to be, but y'all have power, roads, currency, safe air fare, relatively safe cities.. And on and on because of governments.

      Think of that as you go about just one day...

  12. Simple. by TigerPlish · · Score: 0, Troll

    1. Spin off a company just for defense / military.

    2. Hire non-creampuff non-snowflake types.

    3. Profit!

    I applaud the worker's decision to not work on this, but also they must recognize that by pissing off their company, they can be fired.

    As much as I hate google, I also applaud their desire to work on such things. The best things in tech have all been fueled by ... war. All. Of. Them.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:Simple. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Maybe the world would be just fine without a lot of the tech originally designed for military purposes. Even not having an Internet as we know it wouldn't kill us.

    2. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I remember with terror when the Luftwaffe started dropping electric TigerPlish...I mean dildos...on an unsuspecting UK during the Battle of Britain. Oh the humanity!

    3. Re:Simple. by jythie · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Make no mistake, these people were NOT creampuffs or snowflakes. I would describe this move as downright machiavellian. They overpowered their own company, forced it to give up lucrative contract, managed to do it in such a way that they were outside the blast radius of consequences like all the people who would have to be fired because of this. Yeah.. not 'snowflakes'... cold calculating career oriented assholes.

    4. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The best things in tech have all been fueled by ... porn. All. Of. Them.

      FTFY.

    5. Re:Simple. by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      The best things in tech have all been fueled by ... porn. All. Of. Them.

      Oh, for mod points.... well played, sir!

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    6. Re:Simple. by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Or that Google management is spineless in this regard, which I wouldn't find surprising. I suspect the direct bosses don't care or are afraid to do anything because it will piss off the bay area crowd that Google tries to fit in with. These developers will be shunted off into the corner or quietly replaced when no one is looking. The shareholders and the board don't give a shit about what anyone else thinks as long as they're making more money and no one likes dirty laundry being aired in the press.

    7. Re:Simple. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Satelite weather reports save lives every single year. Radar makes flying much safer. Scuba diving allows search and rescue of wrecked ships and inspecting critical infrastructure like dams. Computers are required to make portable medical scanners and test equipment. Building things out of steel allows taller buildings and longer bridges. We can get along just fine with a tech level approximating Ancient Greece, but only a very small handfull of people would prefer that.

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

      Or, maybe, just entitled babies with narrow world views. I live and work with these people and they are very unpleasant to spend time with - very cult like.

    9. Re:Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you fire your smartest workers. They'll leave and have no problem getting hired. Go hire some 'conservative' techies who don't have the algorithmic muscle to do more than a basic ray trace.

    10. Re:Simple. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      my good the horror: a company has to make itself attractive to the people it wants working there.

      You don't own someone because you give them a paycheck.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:Simple. by DogDude · · Score: 1

      The best things in tech have all been fueled by ... war. All. Of. Them.

      I can't imagine what kind of incredible technology we'd have if our government didn't waste such a tremendous amount of money on war. These "best things" are just the unintentional, sad leftovers.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  13. Fair enough by CustomBuild · · Score: 1

    Iâ(TM)m confident the winner of the contract appreciates their non effort.

  14. Let your consious be your guide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I agree that any business has a right to reject on moral or ethical reasons. Even a cake baker should have that right isn't that right Google? I guess the Supreme's agreed on that one. I am sure the Military can contract out this to some other tech company just as a gay couple could find a baker to bake them a cake. Its all about respecting others and not forcing businesses to do what they do not feel they support.

    1. Re:Let your consious be your guide? by Ron+Goodman · · Score: 1

      The problem is when the cake baker's ethics runs afoul of existing anti-discrimination law.

    2. Re:Let your consious be your guide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The problem is when existing anti-discrimination law runs afoul of personal liberty and religious freedom.

  15. Meanwhile, anyone promoting conservative causes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...gets fired.

  16. Does gov't contracting make business sense? by mileshigh · · Score: 1

    As a business move, is government contracting really a good business for Google? They just got done (wisely) paring down distracting side ventures.How does this advance their core business?

    Yes, government contracting can be profitable, but not the kind of profitable that Google's used to. Plus, government work comes with lots of cumbersome strings attached.

  17. Google would rather make the China Great Firewall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many of these people are foreign nationals. I suspect they hate the United States and view its citizens with contempt. I bet they are more than happy to help the Chinese Communist Party suppress free speech.

  18. Google encourages rebellion, mob rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First is was the removal of estimated calories burned in the Google maps directions, should you choose to walk instead of drive - that's apparently "fat shaming". Then they fired James Damore for expressing controversial opinions (right or wrong, where is the "diversity" and "open discussion" Google preaches they want? I guess it doesn't include ideological diversity). Then things like this. How long before Google maps won't show you restaurants that serve meat, or cheese?

    1. Re:Google encourages rebellion, mob rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First is was the removal of estimated calories burned in the Google maps directions, should you choose to walk instead of drive - that's apparently "fat shaming". Then they fired James Damore for expressing controversial opinions (right or wrong, where is the "diversity" and "open discussion" Google preaches they want? I guess it doesn't include ideological diversity). Then things like this. How long before Google maps won't show you restaurants that serve meat, or cheese?

      Google used to be the best at what they did. That's why they got so big so fast. They have been working hard over the past few years to make their services suck hiding politically unfashionable sites and videos. The way is open for someone else to jump to the front now.

  19. Good point. Maybe outsource contracting to IBM by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Federal contracting IS an industry unto itself, and not one of Google's core competencies. Cool new tech is something Google does.

    *IF* they were to be involved in a federal contract, they might want to let IBM handle the federal process - IBM has a whole department or two that just does federal contracts. Then subcontract the tech to Google.

    1. Re:Good point. Maybe outsource contracting to IBM by Sejus · · Score: 2

      Yes, IBM built their department while selling punch-cards to the Nazi's so they could count Jews and conduct the holocaust.

  20. They didn't sign up for a military contract by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    there's tons of money in defense contracting (most of it for the owners, but I digress). They didn't sign on for that. This isn't a 'slippery slope' argument. It logically stands to reason that one successful contract leads to another. This is google engineers taking a stand now before the company they work for becomes the next Raytheon making missiles we sell to the Saudis that wind up hitting Doctors Without Boarders sites in Yemen. If you're going to take such a stand the time to do it is early on before Google has so much money coming in that they can afford to fire you and all your friends.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They didn't sign up for a military contract by El+Cubano · · Score: 2

      This isn't a 'slippery slope' argument.

      OK

      It logically stands to reason that one successful contract leads to another. This is google engineers taking a stand now before the company they work for becomes the next Raytheon making missiles we sell to the Saudis that wind up hitting Doctors Without Boarders sites in Yemen.

      I hope you understand that prefacing the sentence with "It logically stands to reason" does not make the argument here any less of a slippery slope argument.

      Here is the first part of the Wikipedia article:

      A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a consequentialist logical device[1] in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[2] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences.

      Your argument is literally a perfect textbook example of a slippery slope argument.

    2. Re: They didn't sign up for a military contract by malkavian · · Score: 1

      If only I had points to mod you funny. You say that it wasnâ(TM)t a slippery slope argument straight before stating a slippery slope fallacy. The point to stand up is when you see something happening that is unethical.
      So many people are standing up for so many things that are in no way unethical (or in many cases factually wrong) that nobody has any idea whatâ(TM)s going on.. When something worth standing against actually happens, nobody will notice in the noise.

      If google decides no more military contracts, as long as shareholders are fine with loss of earnings, fine.. But thereâ(TM)s a lot that the military does thatâ(TM)s highly ethical. Refusing that because you donâ(TM)t like military is a bit sad really.
      The money will instead go to some other company thatâ(TM)s not so ethical, so when the time to stand up to something enethical comes, youâ(TM)re ineffective, as the less principled are already in the game, highly funded via all those ethical contracts and fully tooled up.
      Something Iâ(TM)ve always believed is that itâ(TM)s much easier to change or direct a system when youâ(TM)re on the inside.

    3. Re: They didn't sign up for a military contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this was an ethical decision on the engineers' part. The US definitely does NOT need to spend any more money on military. There are a massive number of other priorities that the US needs to put first, and spending anything close to what it spends now on military is unethical.

      Perhaps now is the time for military contractors to be first in swords to plowshares to make sure that the infrastructure of the country can be brought back up to date, schools can be properly funded, and government can be right-sized.

      There needs to be far less actions done with force in the world at this time, and currently, the United States is at the forefront of the forceful actions. None of them are being properly explained to the public or allowed to be up for discussion, congress hasn't declared war in any of the recent conflicts, and a long series of countries have been destroyed with the after effects disrupting lives all over the world.

      You need to stop.

    4. Re: They didn't sign up for a military contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government contracts have a cap on growth. In all likelyhood, Google just sees it as an extra revenue stream.

      Leave the Military contracts to the the Raytheons and Lockheed where they literally outsource to universities their "hard math" problems because their engineers aren't on google caliber.

    5. Re: They didn't sign up for a military contract by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You say that it wasnÃ(TM)t a slippery slope argument straight before stating a slippery slope fallacy.

      It's not a fallacy if there is an actual slippery slope there, and there is.

      The point to stand up is when you see something happening that is unethical.

      Yeah, they did. And they stood up. And that had an effect. They're doing precisely what you think they should be doing, so why are you even posting?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:They didn't sign up for a military contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's tons of money in defense contracting (most of it for the owners, but I digress). They didn't sign on for that. This isn't a 'slippery slope' argument. It logically stands to reason that one successful contract leads to another. This is google engineers taking a stand now before the company they work for becomes the next Raytheon making missiles we sell to the Saudis that wind up hitting Doctors Without Boarders sites in Yemen. If you're going to take such a stand the time to do it is early on before Google has so much money coming in that they can afford to fire you and all your friends.

      Or maybe their work could prevent a missile strike, or improve the accuracy to avoid collateral damage.

      The military is already heavily using many open source projects. Do you quit working on Kafka if they use it as a fat pipe for drone surveillance data?

  21. The workers got hired at Google by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    they're at the top of the game. They couldn't care less if they got fired. They probably spend 4 hours a week clearing through emails from headhunters. There aren't a lot of workers in this country that have any leverage (hence the reason wages keep going down) but there are a few.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:The workers got hired at Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're at the top of the game. They couldn't care less if they got fired. They probably spend 4 hours a week clearing through emails from headhunters. There aren't a lot of workers in this country that have any leverage (hence the reason wages keep going down) but there are a few.

      It will be a black mark on their name for the next employer when they find out that they may refuse to work on whatever legitimate work they're assigned. They may be top guns at Google now, but they won't be considered at Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Rockwell, Ball Aerospace, Booz Allen or any other companies that bring in that nice military contractor money. Maybe they can work for the next social media startup in Silly Valley.

    2. Re:The workers got hired at Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may shock you but there are plenty of engineers who refuse to work for the likes of Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Rockwell, Ball Aerospace, Booz Allen or any other companies that bring in that nice military contractor money.
      I'm one of them.

    3. Re: The workers got hired at Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks a lot snowflake. It keeps me more mobile and keeps my pay high.

    4. Re: The workers got hired at Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that as if it were a bad thing

  22. Insubordination by Quzak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They should have been fired.

    --
    Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
    1. Re:Insubordination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And then Google loses its competitive edge. The problem that people who aren't that smart do not see is that more intelligent people have more of a voice. Simply by being more intelligent, they have options. You might be fired for making a moral decision, and perhaps you know you can never do that and therefore operate by the rules you do.

    2. Re:Insubordination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck hiring mathematicians and physicists at the top of their algorithmic game. Sure you can find "lego programmers" who utilize libraries to build everything in their portfolio. But Air-Gap is completely new tech.

      Find someone else to build your gun (or in this case, remote spying tool(. This isn't like a ford assembly line that those fired can be easily replaced.

    3. Re:Insubordination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, the old saying that knowledge is power is just that for exactly this reason. Extremely smart people are not easily replaced and they understand they hold more or equal power to those in high management. They aslo know their intelligence grants them the ability to go where ever they want, and dont fear retaliation or intimidation in this regard.

      The average employ cannot do this and thats why they tend to abide by a different set of rules, rarely contradict or challenge their superiors, and overall have less options, choice, and freedom.

      Therefore, for the intelligent employees such as these, the reality is that even getting fired is still almost always a guaranteed promotion or pay raise in their next job (as long as they didnt do something stupid like stealing trade secrets or something illegal).

    4. Re:Insubordination by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      It says something that they weren't.

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

      OK, your freedom is oppression and slavery. Thanks for clearing that out!

  23. in head response "WHAT THE FUCK?" by kalieaire · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I just can't wrap my head around it.  They're just refusing to develop a non internet connected app.

    Either that or they don't want to go through the TS-SCI Lifestyle Poly because it'll reveal that they've murdered people, openly supported sex trafficking, CP, and net neutrality.

  24. Air gap... technology? by blindseer · · Score: 2

    Creating an air gap is not a "technology". It's a process of separating a computer system from the Internet. Or, rather, not connecting it to the Internet in the first place. I'm guessing most people reading this know that, but the idiots that wrote the article make it sound like Google is refusing to invest a bunch of money and resources into creating some kind of complicated software that doesn't exist yet.

    Here's what I think is going on, Google has a business model based on hoovering up personal data in order to sell more advertising. Without the ability to sell adverts on the platform they'd be unable to take advantage of the subsidy to the services they provide to sell at a price below the competition. Instead of simply stating that it would be unprofitable for them to create an air gap system they claim that they are taking some moral high ground.

    Congratulations Google, you have been successful in creating clickbait that suckered me in. While I'm sure that got you some more advert money the people that know what an "air gap" actually is aren't going to be fooled. You just advertised that you are not willing to take computer security seriously, and you are willing to give up profitable government contracts to your competitors.

    In addition to your desire to hire based on skin color over technical merit I'm guessing that you are on a path to oblivion. One might say that they are paving a path with good intentions.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  25. Finally Do No Evil.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the US military (actually foreign policy) is pretty evil; as a nation US has killed the most people in wars the last 2-3 decades.

    1. Re:Finally Do No Evil.. by Q-Hack! · · Score: 2

      Since the US military (actually foreign policy) is pretty evil; as a nation US has killed the most people in wars the last 2-3 decades.

      citation needed. I think you will find, once you actually dive into the numbers, that the actual deaths cause by the US military to be quite low. Most of the deaths around the world are due to either civil war or insurgent killings ex. Boko Haram or ISIS where they kill their own countrymen. The US military is very selective when it comes to dropping ordinance. They do drop quite a bit, but the actual number of deaths are quite low in comparison. But don't let me stop you from claiming evil on the side that is actually putting a stop to the evil around the world.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    2. Re:Finally Do No Evil.. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The US military killed hundreds of thousands in the American invasion of Panema, and more when they invaded Iraq. That doesn't make them Evil though, they are a tool of a Civilian Government and have no say in what they do (just like a gun isn't evil). And no, soldiers can't just refuse Evil orders, the military destroys "Loose Cannons".

    3. Re:Finally Do No Evil.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the fighting in Panama (I don't know where Panema is), the US lost 23 soldiers. The US killed 300 or so Panamanians.
      Neither of those is "hundreds of thousands". You are only off by three orders of magnitude - this makes you less honest than Trump's crowd estimates. Congratulations!

    4. Re:Finally Do No Evil.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a retard, as no one puts the number of deaths at over 1000, save one idiot who just randomly picked a number. What the fuck does an Attorney General know about the death toll in a military operation? Like you, you both know jack shit.

      "According to official Pentagon figures, 516 Panamanians were killed during the invasion; however, an internal U.S. Army memo estimated the number at 1,000.[34]

      The UN estimated 500 deaths[35] whereas Americas Watch found that around 300 civilians died. President Guillermo Endara said that "less than 600 Panamanians" died during the entire invasion. Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark estimated 3,000 civilian deaths."

      You should shut the frack up because you're stupid and your posts confirm it.

    5. Re:Finally Do No Evil.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US military killed hundreds of thousands in the American invasion of Panema, ...

      1) It is Panama, not Panema

      2) Casualties and losses: Panama 234-314 killed, US 23 Killed

      And no, soldiers can't just refuse Evil orders ...

      Ever heard about the Nuremberg trials?

    6. Re:Finally Do No Evil.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US military killed hundreds of thousands in the American invasion of Panema, and more when they invaded Iraq. That doesn't make them Evil though, they are a tool of a Civilian Government and have no say in what they do (just like a gun isn't evil). And no, soldiers can't just refuse Evil orders, the military destroys "Loose Cannons".

      They can always refuse. They might be court-martialed for it, but they can still refuse. If they obey, they are choosing to do so, and are responsible for their actions.

  26. Can you force someone to work for you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that was called slavery.

  27. Unfortunately Supreme Court didn't rule by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    > Even a cake baker should have that right isn't that right Google? I guess the Supreme's agreed on that one.

    Unfortunately the Supreme Court didn't rule on that issue.

    In Masterpiece Bakery, the case was decided based on the Colorado commission's stated hatred of religion as being the basis for their ruling.

    The baker told the couple he would gladly sell them cookies, brownies, etc - anything that's not custom made with messages or decorations celebrating gay marriage. He would not, he said, use his artistic talents to create a message celebrating something that was illegal at time, and he believed was anti-Biblical.

    The Colorado Commission had consistently sided with Baker's and others who refused to create messages, on cakes and elsewhere, that were critical of illegal gay marriage. Bakers and others can refuse to make things with a message they find objectionable, the commission said, based on their free speech rights. Commissioners stated, on the record, in the hearing, that they were ruling against this Baker because moral standards based on *religion* are "despicable". In a later hearing, the commissioner, again on record, compared the refusal to celebrate gay marriage to the Holocaust, and suggested that the Holocaust was caused by religion. That unfairness, that blatant, stated discrimination against religious-based morals by the state, is what the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional.

    So a one-sentence summary of the Masterpiece decision is:
    When the government is violating the first amendment freedom of religion, they shouldn't say out loud "I'm doing this because I hate religious people".

    1. Re:Unfortunately Supreme Court didn't rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is what happens when you close all the mental institutions and hospitals. The crazies end up on "Civil Rights Commissions", MSNBC and CNN. Some of these nutjobs could use a full lobotomy.

    2. Re:Unfortunately Supreme Court didn't rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since when religion is a person? wtf...

  28. Fucking hypocrites by lucasnate1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When James damore rebels against Google because of his right wing beliefs, you all applaud him. When someone rebels in a way that doesn't align with the right, you cry.

    1. Re:Fucking hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't read his memo at all did you now?

    2. Re:Fucking hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can call out the hypocrisy, but it won't matter because they are aware of it and doesn't care.
      To them language is just a tool to to use for their enjoyment, honesty is a weakness they can use to get an advantage over their opponents.

      The words of Sartre sums it up fairly well. While it was originally about anti-Semites the observation itself isn't actually limited to them.
      Rather it is true for everyone that lacks morals.

      Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play.

      They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

      - Jean-Paul Sartre, 1944

      You can not argue with a people who doesn't believe in words.

      Sartre wasn't the only philosopher trying to understand what went wrong with the Nazis and how to deal with it.

      Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

      - Karl Popper, 1945

      You cannot reason with those who doesn't listen.
      Tolerating intolerance is what let Nazis come to power, don't let intolerance take over again.

    3. Re:Fucking hypocrites by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You didn't read his memo at all did you now?

      I read his memo, and I read the articles written by the people whose research he attempted to cite, but failed (as explained by the authors.) So I know he was not only off his nut, but trying to sell a sexist conclusion based on his nuttery.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Fucking hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh oh, the scat fetishists are back. PoopJuggler should be along any minute.

    5. Re:Fucking hypocrites by ebvwfbw · · Score: 0

      It wasn't nuttery and you know it. He is right on. His research and opinion on the matter was excellent, which is why they asked him to do it in the first place.
      Other people didn't like it because they're whacko leftists that can't stand the truth. Sounds like maybe you're one of them.
      Get out more, live some. Realize there are differences between the sexes and races. That's a good thing.

    6. Re:Fucking hypocrites by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      James Damore didn't "rebel" against Google. Google claims to have a culture of open discussion. Damore wrote a calm, measured article he wanted to be openly discussed. Google claims to want to increase female employment. Damore suggested new possible ways to increase female employment.

    7. Re:Fucking hypocrites by EmptyHead · · Score: 1

      Can you refute a single point that he raised? All I see you doing is name calling because you don't "feel" the way he does.

    8. Re: Fucking hypocrites by liefer · · Score: 1

      Is this a joke? It's definitely not insightful. You're literally saying all rebelling is equal. Rebelling against the price of coffee in the cafeteria is not the same as rebelling against torture, and pointing that out does not make you a hypocrite - it makes you an intelligent human being capable of holding nuanced views

    9. Re:Fucking hypocrites by lucasnate1 · · Score: 1

      You always ask us to bother reading everything he wrote, to bother proof everything. Why don't you people do it for a change? Reminds me of religious people who insist that "you should just read enough bible and then you'll see we're right".

      Sorry, but you guys are just not worth the effort. I think it's dumb to make such a fuss of what James Damore wrote, I don't think he is the pure evil that SJWs make him out to be. However, I also don't think he's worth reading.

  29. "Air Gap" is a marketing term by gweihir · · Score: 1

    And it means exactly nothing. The best implementation I ever saw was a pair of boxes with a physical "air gap" in the middle and a wireless connection going over it. To be not completely useless, it had a conventional firewall in there as well, but the term "air gap" is meaningless these days. It used to mean "physically isolated", but those days are over.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  30. Re:Meanwhile, anyone promoting conservative causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are snowflakes against military contracts???

  31. Should have Googled Air Gap first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Loony left strikes again?? Seriously, what the fuck. Air Gap has nothing to do with Millitary. _ANY_ highly secure system could (and probably should), use some form of it. Yes that includes Millitary but also Banks, and Enterprises.

    It simply means isolation from physical contact, thus air gapped. Think of scenes from War Games or Sneakers where big iron systems are locked behind enclosed rooms. That is air gap.

    There is a rather silly idea what you can air gap a network attached system, I'll give them that. It largely comes from security vendors like McAfee who sell 2FA "solutions". There are a lot of concepts behind it but the basic idea is your requied to authenticate with 2FA before any access is given, internal or external. You're also not allowed to connect directly to productions systems.

    I really get the feeling agents within Google (say from China and India), are intentionally trying to undermine even their corporate security by captializing on _any_ kind of dissent. Google has some serious problems internally if they're not aware of it.

  32. Same situation at my very first job - posting anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It was an American owned company operating in Canada. Canadian law and US law said we couldn't use a persons address to discriminate on them. The law should have said where a person lived but it said "Address". The US company was converting addresses into longitude and latitude and then using that to make decisions. I thought this was morally wrong and brought it up with my bosses. My bosses had already known this was coming and had no intention of following it. What they did do was create two ratings. One was that didn't use a persons location and was used to determine what a person was offered. The other rating was a likelihood of fraud score and did use the address however this score was used strictly in a binary way. Ratings over certain number were assumed to be fraudulent and the applicant was just dropped.

    Looking at the quality of our competitors products I can say we had far more competent engineers and I think the ethics of senior management was a big reason for this.

  33. It's air gapping not rocket science by guruevi · · Score: 1

    If Sergey wanted to get the project all they had to do is walk over and unplug the wire to the hardware running the project. It's not that hard and doesn't require an engineer.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  34. It's a great feel good type story by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    but, when dealing with human beings, you should know that just about everyone has a price at which they can be bought.
    ( With enough Carrots, you don't need a stick )

    Feeble human traits like nobility, doing-the-right-thing, ethics, morals, etc. are no match for the promises of Wealth.
    ( You may come to regret such a decision in later years, but we rarely think that far ahead )

    They put enough money in front of these people and I guarantee you this becomes a totally different story.
    One that doesn't have the "feel-good-they're-doing-the-right-thing" happy ending. ( Unless you're Google or the Military )

    At some point, if they throw enough money your way, even the purest and nigh-incorruptible will fall from grace.

    There is no cure for it.

    It's what we are.

    1. Re:It's a great feel good type story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of shit. Some people actually have principles and values. You obviously wouldn't understand.

    2. Re:It's a great feel good type story by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      Any employee who's already been at Google for more than a few years should be a millionaire by now. Fact is they weren't offered enough to get them to work on it.

  35. Fire the lot of em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Software engineers are a dime a dozen and if you dont think so then just hit your local job board. Lots of jobs and lots of engineers to fill them. There are a ton of engineers that would love to have their rediculous pay

  36. No rights, restrictions on laws by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Notice how the government doesn't give you these rights -- you have them regardless of whether the government recognizes them.

    No, actually you don't have any rights at all. All you have is a restriction on the US government passing several laws. This is a very important distinction because if you actually had a "right" to free speech private companies would also have to respect that right. As it is they can fire you and/or make your life hell if they happen to disagree with you...as Google has done in the past.

    1. Re: No rights, restrictions on laws by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      People use the word right in two sense'since
      1 a legal right . Which exist primary as a object of a law. Which of course ceases to be if the law is changed.

      2. A natural right granted God as is spoken of in the declaration of independence.

      Of course naturally there is also freedom of association, which is nearly as important and people forget that just because you have freedom of speech that does not mean you are free from repercussions

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    2. Re: No rights, restrictions on laws by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      We still have freedom of association ?
      That one died 50 years ago. Now we have special rights for speshul people.

    3. Re: No rights, restrictions on laws by kenh · · Score: 1

      Check out the boy scout case, the BSA was able to exclude anyone it wanted because of their 'freedom to associate' as I recall. Gov't couldn't force them to accept gay members, gay adult scout leaders, or female members. Ultimately they chose to, but we're never forced to.

      --
      Ken
    4. Re: No rights, restrictions on laws by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      a legal right . Which exist primary as a object of a law.

      Yes, but US law is similar to UK law in that you basically have the right to do anything unless there is a law saying that you cannot. In this system laws do not grant rights, they take them away. The result is that the only thing giving you a right is an absence of laws taking it away. This is a far weaker statement than other countries, like Canada, whose charter of rights and freedoms guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, association etc. as a matter of law and so binds everyone, including private institutions, companies etc. to not infringe those rights.

      That does not mean that you have freedom from consequences but it does mean that e.g. being fired by your employer had better be related to practical considerations and not ideological differences. For example, a health worker can (and should!) be fired for publicly supporting the anti-vax movement but not for advocating for or against a national health service.

  37. Bad decision by engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that'll bite them when china / russia / hands the US their arse when Googles project may have prevented .

    Engineers should *NEVER* get involved politically. If I were Google I'd be looking at those guys career progressions within the company very carefully, any supporters with influence and diverting them to a dead-end job role where they can't do any damage if they turned rogue asap

    1. Re:Bad decision by engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Engineers should *NEVER* get involved politically.

      Ahh alas therein lies the problem with too many engineers. Too many simply ask can we do this, too few ask the question, should we do this. Ethics and morals...

      Personally, I have religious objections to doing work for the military(Society of Friends if you must know). I would seriously object and walk out of said job rather than do that work. Nobody forces me to work against my will, I am not a slave. I applaud anyone who puts their morals ahead of money. The world needs more people like this, not less.

  38. You don't think maybe that Goog is just.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..trying to save face now that its tech has fallen hopelessly behind and they are already bending over for China in the attempt to suck out a few more bucks>

  39. Well then by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    When people lack meaning in their lives, they have to find it somewhere, I suppose.

    Too bad the posturing is meaningless.

  40. wait a minute by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    "Air gap" is a cutting edge feature? We had an air gap between our little WordPerfect network (in a military office) and the world in 1996 ...

    Whatever this is, I guess it isn't an actual air gap.

  41. End result? by kenh · · Score: 1

    Are we pretending their brave decision to not do the job their employer wanted prevented the project from going forward? Are we assuming the gov't didn't just the the project outline and RFP to another vendor and pay them handsomely for the work Google refused?

    I suspect there's comparison to be made with florists and came bakers, but I haven't had my morning caffeine yet, so I'll defer to others about companies that find their clients 'objectionable' and refuse to work for them.

    --
    Ken
  42. Market will speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm betting the sales guys who were looking to clear some serious $ in the fed space are now actively looking for new jobs. They're not getting pushed out. They're leaving.

    I'm sure the Microsoft and oracle reps will be happy to compete for the $.

    Moves like this aren't necessarily wrong or right. If the corporation values engineers opinions about what's right and wrong, the market will speak. I personally think Google is lost. If these engineers get to decide what Google works on, what's next? Not doing work for states who voted for Trump? How about orgs who don't have the right ratio of women to men as execs? The slope now, is already slippery for Google. It's just waiting for the next thing to object about.

    Google, the ad words monopoly company, can afford to dabble in stuff , and patronize engineering deciding what the corporation should work on. But the market will happily fill the void for them.

  43. Hire me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ive got no scruples i'll do it.

  44. More like.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good dog, have a treat (violently yanks leash, nearly choking dog and breaking it's neck)..NOW GET BACK TO WORK, YOU STUPID MUTT!

  45. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The military is a blight on the US. Sooner it gets a 90% budget cut the better

  46. Google's Oxford Union debate - still a loser by geowash01 · · Score: 1

    In February 1933, the Oxford Union debated the pacifistic motion, "that this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country." The proposition was approved 275 votes to 153. Pacifism won, not just at Oxford, but throughout Britain. Appeasement became a policy of the British government in part because of the belief that the people would not fight. Appeasement encouraged Nazi aggrandizement. War followed anyway, despite the high-minded gestures of a bunch of undergraduates. I know, amazing, right? And many of them got to fight anyway.

    1. Re:Google's Oxford Union debate - still a loser by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Amazing how history repeats itself over and over again. I've seen the stupidity of what's happening right now twice in my life so far. 1960s, a bit in the 1990s and again today.

    2. Re:Google's Oxford Union debate - still a loser by geowash01 · · Score: 1

      It repeats because the basic element--the human element--hasn't changed since we left Eden or climbed out of the trees, depending on your preference.

  47. So if my employees refused to work..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time i checked if your employees said they aren't going to work on a project, you find ones that will. I bet you if they were offered a commission on the sale.... they would have stfu and started working for that lambo. looks like more money for Amazon AWS services lol.

     

  48. Speak for yourself by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Speak for yourself. There are some people who don't have a price. I'm sorry that you do, and can't even imagine that some people don't.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  49. Just remember who you are working for. by Contract+Gypsy · · Score: 0

    Nope, its not the military, they only use it when they are allowed. You are building something for the politicians, they decide when and where they are to be used, they also decide who they sell them to. Remember that ancient sale of F111s the US sent to Iran? Yep, a year later, they were our enemy again!

    --
    Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
  50. Then fire them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Employees who refuse to work simply need to find a new job or or be fired.

  51. How long before only vegan restaurants on google? by misnohmer · · Score: 1

    At some point there will be the "Animal loving nine" who have moral objections to advertising or providing directions to any restaurants serving meat or cheese. Google will be forced to remove all but strictest vegan restaurants from their maps and advertising platforms. I wonder how much will employees with their belief objections have to hurt the company bottom line before the company just fires anyone who doesn't agree.