Hacker News Reader

Comment by finnthehuman | Hacker News Reader

I am amused that _this_ of all things was what it took to get googlers to stop and take a look at what they're doing.

I work somewhere that has talent bouncing to/from a military contractor and a common attitude I see is way more comfortable with the military doing "what it takes" within the rules of engagement to protect the nation than what our own golden boys in the valley are doing for dollars.

View on HN

"It's difficult for someone to understand something when his/her salary depends on not understanding it." This goes for the military contractors as well as the SV tech community.

"Rules of engagement" are less noble than they sound. They are not internationally reviewed and approved, they are unilaterally imposed by one party.

An infamous example being the "do not approach within 50 metres of this vehicle" for convoy escorts in Iraq. Under no international law can the use of lethal force be condoned in that circumstance yet it was 'legal' under the RoE.

And I'm not saying that as some lefty pacifist, having been in uniform myself.

>They are not internationally reviewed and approved

Devil's advocate: what makes ROE any better if they're approved by China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, for example? Western European-descendent values and cultural norms are a global minority. You might not like the ROE favored by Indonesia in East Timor, or by the Saudis in Yemen, or by Sudan in Darfur.

At least that rule can be followed. In Fallujah, the US prevented military aged from leaving and then decided all males left in the city were combatants.

You missed the next bit where those that remained had white phosphorus fired at them. “We could not get effects on them with HE [high explosive]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”

https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/...

I'm a googler and don't really see anything particularly objectionable about selling ads against a user's personal info. That's how the service is funded, and realistically almost nobody's gonna pay a monthly sub just to search the internet or get driving directions. I certainly wouldn't. So, ads it is.

Now, giving that personal info to third parties, that'd be a different story, but that's not what Google does.

I think it's more than that. For the most part, you get paid to do what your employer asks you to do. There is no such right anywhere such that when you go to work, you work as an agent of yourself. No, you are an agent of the company paid to do what you are asked to do. Sometimes what _you_ want to do and what the _company_ wants to do is in alignment --but that's the exception. Most of the time there is misalignment. One would imagine most FB and GOOGs aren't driven innately to spy on their users --but there they are, essentially conspiring along with the companies.

In other words, you're there to grind your boss's axe, not your own axe.

its just "normal" to not live according to your own virtues. but there is a choice.

Once you're in the army you have very little choice. You follow orders or go to the martial court otherwise. As a civillian you have the luxury of choice.

Military members have a choice if it's an unlawful order. They may still be courtmartialed, and sometimes even found guilty. But in the case of unlawful orders it is their duty to disobey.

That said, for lawful orders (even ones you find questionable, immoral, or unethical), you have no real choice.

Well, one way of looking at is: Google may or may not make shitty products that steal your info, but they don't kill people.

The military kills people.

Also Google has been doing the same thing for ages. You don't get a job at google and then think "Wow they track data, I'm gonna leave on day one" If you found their tracking objectionable you never would have taken the job to begin with.

> Well, one way of looking at is: Google may or may not make shitty products that steal your info, but they don't kill people.

> The military kills people.

And, ironically, if the US military is ineffective at killing people, more people might be killed or other catastrophic human rights compromises might need to be made. Focusing too much on "the military kills people" is missing the forest for the trees.

Improving AI and imagery is what enables smart weapons to be safer for innocents.

Compare, countries like Russia that don't care. They are happy to carpet bomb vast areas with disregard with civilian casualties.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com