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.

Comments

Good!

[DogDude]

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.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good!

[El Cubano]

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.

Re:Good!

[Prien715]

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".

Re: Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Ethics

[b0s0z0ku]

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.

Wage?

[markdavis]

>"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?

They didn't sign up for a military contract

[rsilvergun]

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.

Insubordination

[Quzak]

They should have been fired.

Re:Simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

FTFY.

Re:Well that makes sense...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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

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

Fucking hypocrites

[lucasnate1]

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.

No rights, restrictions on laws

[Roger W Moore]

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.