Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the moral-compass dept.

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.

30 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.'"
  3. 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 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.
    2. 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. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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/
  8. Insubordination by Quzak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They should have been fired.

    --
    Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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".

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

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

    FTFY.

  13. 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.
  14. Re:air gap? by psnyder · · Score: 2

    It's more likely something like this: New Air-Gap Jumper Covertly Transmits Data in Hard-Drive Sounds

  15. 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.
  16. 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.

    --
    Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
  17. 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.

  18. 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.