Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft CEO Defends Pentagon Contract Following Employee Outcry (theverge.com)
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is defending the company's $479 million contract with the Pentagon to supply augmented reality headsets to the U.S. military. "We made a principled decision that we're not going to withhold technology from institutions that we have elected in democracies to protect the freedoms we enjoy," he told CNN Business at Mobile World Congress. "We were very transparent about that decision and we'll continue to have that dialogue [with employees]," he added during the exclusive interview. From the report: Microsoft was awarded the contract to supply "Integrated Visual Augmentation System" prototypes to the U.S. military in November. The company could eventually deliver over 100,000 headsets under the contract. Microsoft's HoloLens augmented reality technology allows users to see the world around them, but with virtual graphics overlaid. The Israeli military, which has taken delivery of some HoloLens headsets, says the technology can be used to help commanders visualize the battlefield and field medics to consult doctors. According to procurement documents, the U.S. military is seeking a single platform that provides its forces with "increased lethality, mobility and situational awareness" in combat. Microsoft employees have recently circulated a letter addressed to Nadella and Brad Smith, the company's president and chief legal officer, arguing that the company should not supply its HoloLens technology to the U.S. military. "It's not about taking arbitrary action by a single company, it's not about 50 people or 100 people or even 100,000 people in a company," he said. "It's really about being a responsible corporate citizen in a democracy."
How about a source that doesn't abuse YouTube's copyright system to cover their incompetence? Here's one: https://www.engadget.com/2019/...
For context: https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
(I guess I don't know that Engadget hasn't ever misbehaved, but Vox and The Verge are pretty regularly obnoxious.)
If it wasn't for the armed forces investing lots of money in this stuff in the last 3/4 of a century most of you kiddies wouldn't have a job today except maybe factory work
Intel started making memory chips for Minuteman missiles
the internet and everything around it was originally a DoD program to build a network that could survive a nuclear war
CPU development was originally financed by the military
The ENIAC was built to calculate artillery fire tables
NASA was a civilian program to build ballistic missiles that just happened to buy lots of then new mainframes
DARPA funded the original AI and machine learning research as part of the war in Afghanistan.
the US military was one of Microsoft's first customers and even used Windows and SQL server on ships in the 90's.
The Army was buying tens of thousands of Exchange and office licenses in the 90's.
Did Microsoft just refer to the Department of Defense as an "institution we elected"?
Because I'm pretty sure that's not quite how it works.
"We made a principled decision that we're not going to withhold technology from institutions that we have elected in democracies to protect the freedoms we enjoy,"
What about institutions that got elected through gerrymandering in oligarchies to protect profits for oil barons at the expense of human lives, especially in the middle east but also all over the planet? Asking for 7.53 billion friends.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
the best tech workers seem to be the ones making cool stuff like F-22's and new aircraft carriers and drones. Not writing python scripts that are in perpetual beta
The alternative is giving this contract to one of your more traditional defense contractors, who is probably going to charge a lot more and deliver a significantly worse product. Oh, it'll also be late and grossly over budget, if it happens at all. And when all is said and done, they might procure Microsoft hardware anyways... as some component of their system that the news doesn't report on.
Few people want war but ignoring reality by pretending there is no International threat is wilful ignorance deserving of punishment. These are our lives and the lives of our allies around the world that depend heavily upon advanced military technologies.
The only thing holding back Russia and China is U.S. military power and this is waning -- and this isn't working so well, as of late.. Russia now holds tanks with longer shooting and driving range, more speed, and greatly superior armor.. Russia holds exceptional surface to air defense capabilities. China seems to think it holds military comparability and is pushing the limits with its claim on control of the entire South China sea and the 1/3rd of the worlds commerce that flows through it..
North Korea continues and has recently expanding its production of nuclear ICBMs, under the cover of peace talks..
War -- even world war -- is closer than it has ever been since the end of the last one. The era of peace we've enjoyed for so long is likely to soon end. Keeping it depends on advancing capabilities rapidly... Not doing so is murder far greater than anything you've mentioned.
This seems to be "Microsoft invents HoloLens" and then miliitary sees the (OBVIOUS) military applications and puts in an order for 100,000.
This does not seem to be Microsoft being pro-military. Rather, the military buying 100,000 SKU off the shelf, not unlike if they ordered 100,000 Office 365 licenses.
But I could be wrong. Still. How many food suppliers supply the US Military? Or "Skillcraft", the company that makes US Military pens?
the Military was just the excuse used to get the wealthy to let themselves be taxed so we could pay for it to be developed.
I've got a crazy idea: how about we have modern civilization without a Military Industrial Complex by just taxing the rich whether they like it or not?
Also, are you suggesting the Army was responsible for the horror that is Microsoft Exchange and Office? Best argument for ending war I've ever heard in my life...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Now, mind you I used to work for the defense industry, so I may be a bit biased...
I think war technology is a good thing. I would much prefer to simply not go to war, but that sentiment hasn't really held sway at any point in the last few thousand years or so. Somebody always wants to abuse somebody else, and when that ambition reaches the scale of having entire demographics in conflict, you get a war.
Like all large-scale endeavors, a war is messy. People often have their own goals for joining an organization. In a large corporation, their goals might be as sinister as "get paid to sleep", but in a war, they might find a convenient way to hide a murderous rampage under the guise of patriotic service. Of course, this is something everyone (else) would like to avoid, but it's hard to spot the difference between a psychopathic killer and a well-trained soldier.
In the rest of society, this is where a justice system comes into play. Knowing that evidence will be collected and that a crime is likely to be punished deters further crime. Attempts to hide a crime often just produce more evidence against the perpetrators. No, it's not a perfect system, and the justice system itself can be abused, but it's still a net benefit in a peaceful society.
In war, the rigid justice system is often placed second to completing a mission, and any allegations of wrongdoing will be accompanied by very sparse surviving evidence. Within a few days of a crime, witnesses are reassigned, memories are repressed, and new missions take priority over a bureaucratic boondoggle.
Technology doesn't have those limits. Events can be captured, and recordings can be archived. Decisions can be made far from the field of battle, in the safety of a conference room and with the pooled knowledge and awareness of the whole team, supported by streaming intelligence from remote surveillance. Those decisions and the resulting actions can be analyzed, dissected, replayed, and repeated endlessly as a training exercise, until every soldier behaves exactly as the commanders (right up the chain to the top) have authorized.
No, it's not going to be easy. Yes, there will be misbehavior and abuse. There will still be the rampaging marauders who use the military as a ride to a third-world country so they can indulge their own anarchist fantasy. Even if everyone acts appropriately, there will be edge cases that lead to mistakes in everyone's judgement. Nothing will be a perfect solution, but we can work to make it better.
We can put always-on cameras on each soldier. We can use AI to suggest different interpretations of intelligence reports. We can use high-precision guided weaponry to avoid collateral damage. We can use computerized information systems to present an accurate understanding of evidence, and most importantly, we can support a military culture where soldiers know they will be accountable for their actions, and can trust that they will be guided appropriately.
A military is a machine, and for as long as there have been soldiers, they have just been parts in that machine. With modern technology, we can improve the machine, to make it the most reliable, most accurate, and least error-prone.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Does your farm use GPS for crop management or any other application?
Ken
50 people doesn't constitute an "outcry" at a company of 100,000+. 50 people barely constitutes and outcry at a company of 1000. If you don't want to work on a project that's going to be used by the military, don't work on a project that's going to be used by the military*.
* Alternatively, fill your bosses house with a giant tinfoil pan of popcorn.
During the manhattan project, many were troubled by the massive weaponry they were developing, but they persisted because they knew that the enemies of civilization were working on the same thing, and they knew the only thing worse than developing the atom bomb first would be to not develop the atom at all and let their enemies have the weapon.
It is arrogance to assume that a particular engineer/scientist can stop a technology from being developed. Refusal to develop it only means we won't have it when our enemies develop it.
Ken
How about the computer that runs your tractor? The integrated circuits that control the hydraulics? The touch screen that configures much of the tractor? The synthetic lubricants in the engine? The joystick that controls the accessories? How about duck tape, weather radar, synthetic rubber tires, etc.
Many of these technologies started in the military and then became general use items, thanks to military research and development.
--
In responding, a Microsoft spokesperson said, "Come on guys, who would run a battleship on Windows? Seriously? That thing would blue-screen at the first sign of a threat. It's obvious we are trying to cause peace here."
Richard Stallman couldn't be reached for comment, but was heard laughing in the back.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."