Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Workers' Letter Demands Company Drop $479 Million HoloLens Military Contract (theverge.com)
A group of Microsoft workers have addressed top executives in a letter demanding the company drop a controversial contract with the U.S. army. The Verge reports: The workers object to the company taking a $479 million contract last year to supply tech for the military's Integrated Visual Augmentation System, or IVAS. Under the project, Microsoft, the maker of the HoloLens augmented reality headset, could eventually provide more than 100,000 headsets designed for combat and training in the military. The Army has described the project as a way to "increase lethality by enhancing the ability to detect, decide and engage before the enemy." "We are alarmed that Microsoft is working to provide weapons technology to the US Military, helping one country's government 'increase lethality' using tools we built," the workers write in the letter, addressed to CEO Satya Nadella and president Brad Smith. "We did not sign up to develop weapons, and we demand a say in how our work is used."
The letter, which organizers say included dozens of employee signatures at publication time, argues Microsoft has "crossed the line into weapons development" with the contract. "Intent to harm is not an acceptable use of our technology," it reads. The workers are demanding the company cancel the contract, stop developing any weapons technology, create a public policy committing to not build weapons technology, and appoint an external ethics review board to enforce the policy. While the letter notes the company has an AI ethics review process called Aether, the workers say it is "not robust enough to prevent weapons development, as the IVAS contract demonstrates." "As employees and shareholders we do not want to become war profiteers," the letter sent today concludes. "To that end, we believe that Microsoft must stop in its activities to empower the U.S. Army's ability to cause harm and violence."
The letter, which organizers say included dozens of employee signatures at publication time, argues Microsoft has "crossed the line into weapons development" with the contract. "Intent to harm is not an acceptable use of our technology," it reads. The workers are demanding the company cancel the contract, stop developing any weapons technology, create a public policy committing to not build weapons technology, and appoint an external ethics review board to enforce the policy. While the letter notes the company has an AI ethics review process called Aether, the workers say it is "not robust enough to prevent weapons development, as the IVAS contract demonstrates." "As employees and shareholders we do not want to become war profiteers," the letter sent today concludes. "To that end, we believe that Microsoft must stop in its activities to empower the U.S. Army's ability to cause harm and violence."
Really? They employ how many thousands but only dozens signed it? They should fire every employee on that signed it.
It's hypocritical to take a half stance. Certainly many computers used in every US war are running Microsoft basic products like OSs and data bases. It's evident software is becoming a weapon. What do they suggest? leave the development to Russia and China? Humanity is far from leaving in peace, in the meantime you better keep up.
This kind of thing is getting a little ridiculous.
The pencils that sit on the desk at some military office somewhere are also involved with the end result. Should people object to making pencils that are bought by the military?
If these people have a problem with what the military does (and I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't), perhaps they should get involved with politics instead. That's the right way to solve the problem, rather than hiding behind a letter and thinking that absolves them of something.
What do you mean becoming? Windows has been used in command & control and weapons applications for almost two decades.. I'd be happy if Microsoft stepped aside and let UNIX/linux become the primary platforms in DoD. At least something that made sense would be in use... well besides systemd.
It could happen, but it's not a good idea. It just gets Microsoft into a pissing match with righteous SJWs. They really should not be fired, just ignored. Employees don't set policy. If they are bothered by this, they can quit. Microsoft management should know that anything they say will be used against them, so just don't say anything beyond "Thank you for your input."
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Profit. It's the only reason that for-profit companies exist. They make money, or they die. If a company passes up an opportunity to make money, another company will step in. That's capitalism, baby! It's got tons of advantages, but cutthroat cold-heartedness is a downside to the system, and there isn't really any way around it. The Microsoft employees signing this petition have somehow deluded themselves into thinking that they work for a non-profit. They don't, and they don't get much of a say in company policy. Their only real option is to vote with their feet. That's how our system works. A few of my friends refused jobs because they didn't want to design/research/construct weapons. They found something else that suited them better. That's how you express your displeasure with an employer. Everything else is noise.
A time when you can stand on your ethical anti-combat high horse. But please consider there was a time when this was not possible, and then thank your grandparents.
I do see how this contract is different, but Microsoft's self-serving business practises have held back the progress of human civilization by two decades. I don't feel anything connected with Microsoft - certainly not their employees - have any credibility on matters relating to ethics.
Why, there are dozens of signatures on that letter of protest. Management simply can't ignore that!
No, wait, they totally CAN ignore that, and will surely do so. Because dozens, out of ~135,000.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I'm kind of surprised these demands do not result in the immediate termination of employment. Or is WA not a state where that can happen?.
MS has a generous employee stock purchase program so likely these employees are (minor) shareholders and perfectly within their rights to "demand" this kind of thing. Executive leadership is equally free to completely ignore them unless they can get a sizeable block of shareholders on their side.
Where in the World Is the U.S. Military? (July/August 2015)
Quote: "... the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad..."
Most highly intelligent people will be anti war.
I believe that most highly intelligent people understand that conflict is an inescapable human trait, and no amount of feel-good rhetoric is going to change the fact that there are people in power out there who simply don't give a damn about human life if it stands in the way of their goals, or if taking it will further those goals. If you've got a means of dealing with such people that doesn't involve force, you've got a Nobel Peace Prize waiting for you. "We can use sanctions!" Sure, but how do you go about enforcing those? I mean, it's worked so well for North Korea, right?
It's admirable to be against war and killing, and it'd be great not to need that, but as long as there are those that will kill with impunity, there will be a need to play on their level.
Quoth George Orwell: "Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."
Like Albert Einstein? He was really, really smart and he personally petitioned POTUS FDRoosevelt to build the Atomic Bomb in order to match Nazi research and development of their own Atomic Bomb. The USA did develop the Atomic Bomb and very intelligent people did the work. What an inaccurate statement.
They didn't sign up to work on gov't projects for the military? Fine, leave - they'll find someone else to do your job. This is a half-billion dollar project, with private market implications and potential, these dozen engineers are replaceable. They replaced Ray Ozzie, they can replace a dozen random engineers fairly quickly.
"Don't let the door hit 'ya where the good lord split 'ya!"
Ken
No. Most intelligent people would be opposed to wars of aggression... Anyone who's opposed to all war is an idiot. They are few and far between, but there are honorable and justifiable wars. Wars of independence come to mind as an honorable reason, sometimes... France, USA, etc... Those monarchies weren't gonna just hand over power.. They had to be forced to let go.. Sometimes you don't have to go the route of the gun, but sometimes you do.. Few things are ever totally black & white.. There are shades and degrees.
There is anti war, then there is just plain stupid. At what point do you draw the line? MS software is used extensively throughout the militaries of the world for planning and excuting missions, why aren't they protesting that? Their software is used extensively by the politicians that authorise those wars, why aren't they protesting that? should every pen/pencil/car maker/food supplier all ban any government or military contracts? and if you aren't banning them all then it is completely fucking hypocritical just to ban one particular item you sell.
âoeViolence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedomsâ â Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Almost nobody (except fascist dictators wishing to increase their power) is pro-war. The reason otherwise peaceful nations have and maintain a military is pretty simple. Economically, often it's cheaper to simply take resources away from someone else than it is to grow/collect/build them yourself. e.g. The Viking lifestyle of pillaging and raiding. It completely screws over the person you're taking stuff away from, but if you care only about yourself then it is the economically more cost-effective to take stuff away from others.
The goal of everyone not wanting to be screwed over this way then, is to make it more expensive for someone to take your resources away by force, than it would be for them to grow/collect/build the resources themselves. This means maintaining a military which can inflict sufficient damage upon an attacker so that even if they win, the stuff they manage to pillage from you is worth less than the damage they'll sustain from your counterattack. Nobody actually plans to use those military weapons - the threat alone is enough to cause the desired behavior.
Fail to maintain that level of military capability, and you relegate yourself to repeatedly and endlessly being screwed over by others. Your only protection then becomes the pity of others who happen to have sufficient military power to intimidate or force your attacker into stopping.
The pacifist notion that the military is full of bullies and guys with a macho complex who want to beat up and kill others, is rather disconnected from reality. The vast majority of people serving in the military believe their country has a good thing going, and wish to help defend and maintain it. If you don't believe in protecting what we have, then that is your right. But realize that you can enjoy your livelihood and pacifist lifestyle solely because of those willing to fight in your stead. Pacifism is not self-perpetuating; it can only perpetuate when someone else is willing to fight to defend it.
Of course having a military available means it can be mis-used. And a society needs to implement measures to prevent the military from being mis-used that way. But advocating the complete elimination of the military is socio-economic suicide. Nations without a military or a friendly ally with a military tend not to last too long. They get invaded and taken over, and their pacifist government is replaced by their conqueror.
They clowns are arguing against better training? Better training means fewer casualties and higher survival rates for friendly troops.
The better weapons you have (bigger, more accurate stick), the less you tend to have to use it. Also the less collateral damage. You can be sheep, or you can be the sheepdog.
Just another day in Paradise
Look systemd is a psyop meant to drive other countries crazy
Good point, anyone who ever changes their opinion on anything is a hypocrite and should be condemned. Never learn or evolve your ethics, figure them out when you are a kid and stick to them no matter what.
Oh, and whatever you do don't think anything is less than black and white. There is literally no difference between typing up orders in Word and using a Hololens in the field to direct drone strikes.
Good point about China and Russia too. The ICBMs and the hypersonic cruise missiles won't deter them, but Hololens is sure to make them think twice. And that's definitely what it will be used for.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Great point. Unless you have at least 100,000 followers on Twitter your opinion is basically worthless. Never mind that you are one of the key engineers on that project, they will effortlessly replace you if you quit. Remember that next time you think about asking for a raise.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There is literally no difference between typing up orders in Word and using a Hololens in the field to direct drone strikes.
There's a big difference: the guy writing up orders in word has the potential to do a lot more damage than the guy directing the drone strike.
Well, if you read slashdot enough. You will realize there is a large left leaning anti-American group here who are very loud. And you replied to one asking why he hates America.
You want to find Russian meddling? Here's where you look - the KGB was skilled at exploiting "useful idiots" in the West throughout the cold war.
This has all the hallmarks of the strident, well-intentioned but stupid protests against the Pershing 2 in the 1980s.
-Styopa
One can obviously be against the planet's biggest unnecessary war production machine without being against all possible wars. I'm all for wars of defense, and even wars to defend friendly NATO countries which have been invaded. Decades of isolation and a firm anti-war commitment even after close allies were invaded did not lead to the USA being conquered when the Japanese attacked in 1941... or even losing an inch of valuable land for a day. Even if the USA completely disarmed (which it shouldn't), invading it would be suicide for any nation. So spare me any utterly ridiculous claims that the USA had to bomb Iraq because it was scared of Hussein, or the like.
Sanctions are usually simply a means to produce war, or soften the enemy for invasion. Sometimes that's bad, other times it may be acceptable to make an aggressive power tip their hand -- like how American oil sanctions forced Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.
This space intentionally left blank
If it wasn't for the military's need to communicate securely. Slashdot would not exist! You would not have been able to voice your adolescent opinion.
Very fine comment. And Thank you for you service! The Men and Women like you are why we are a free nation today. And also why these people can express their feelings about this project. I would like to see them try this in Russia, China, Iran, well. I'm sure you get the point. Hopefully they do eventually.
"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that 'violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." - Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Isaac Asimov was a great writer. His Foundation series remains, and will remain, one of the great classics of SciFi. But on this manner he is completely wrong. Violence is not the last refuge of the incompetent. Violence is the first choice of the incompetent. It is usually the only choice or the last choice of the desperate.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.