7 ms·

This will really hurt their enterprise cloud business. Google has shown to have a bunch of employees who will leak confidential discussions to the press and try

This will really hurt their enterprise cloud business. Google has shown to have a bunch of employees who will leak confidential discussions to the press and try to PR damage their employer. If you are a large company looking for a home, that is exactly the kind of environment you want to avoid. In addition, many of the large US companies have a military component. Examples are GE, Boeing, United Technologies. How many of those companies want something like what happened with Maven to happen to them. Finally, the success of this project will further embolden Google employees to use these same tactics of leaking and hurting Google's image in the future. Given how things progress, the next protest is likely to be about something that is even more gray area than Maven.

imbokodo 8y ago
You're correct that a corporation's biggest enemies are the workers who do all the work and create all the wealth of that corporation. You're also correct that this is a victory for those workers and a defeat for the corporation.
- C50VGicCxmHC 8y ago
  In "moral crusades" like this, it is often a very vocal minority that dominates the discussion. I seriously doubt that it was a majority of Google employees who objected to this.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Democracy is not a proxy for morality. Not to mention that historically, moral progress tends to happen because of the unreasonableness of small groups of people. Demanding that people sit on their hands until they get 51% support for their cause, is asking that nothing ever get done. Whomever started this project certainly did not poll the employee base, and establish 51% support of it.
  - pixelcloud 8y ago
    That is a great opinion and I can do that too!! I seriously doubt the majority of Google Employees would support defense contracting.
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    >it is often a very vocal minority that dominates the discussion do you suppose the decision to support a military project was made by a large majority before? Committed minorities almost always steer decision-making within business ventures. By framing this as a 'moral crusade' you're suggesting that there is an asymmetry here while there is not, participating in projects that can be used for purposes of war is no amoral default position. The stronger minority simply won. Or framing it in another way, suppose Google would hold an employee vote tomorrow, do you think this would change the outcome?
simion314 8y ago
I think this was different then regular military projects because of drones, drones have a terrible reputation.
- droopyEyelids 8y ago
  And it's not just the reputation of drones, it's taking another step towards autonomous killing machines. Robots probably wouldn't be as bad, but the other autonomous killing machines we have are pathogens, and all countries have pretty much decided it's counterproductive to develop pathogens for warfare at this point
  - smsm42 8y ago
    Not all countries. Iraq has a bioweapons program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biological_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biological_weapons_progr... at least in 80's, and probably into 90's, and there's no indication they ever decided it to be "counterproductive", even though they abandoned it out of fear for repercussions for BWC violation. USSR had bioweapons program which it never declared "counterproductive", and even though Russian as USSR successor did, it is not really confirmed the program was effectively dismantled. There are pretty credible suspicions that Iran has an advanced stage bioweapons program, and same is suspected for North Korea. In fact, check out this list by PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bioterror/glob_nf.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bioterror/glob_nf.html - may be a bit out of date, but enough to realize "all countries have pretty much decided" is unfortunately an exaggeration.
  - C50VGicCxmHC 8y ago
    We already have something very close to automated killing machines: anti-aircraft missiles. Couples with radar systems they can identify hostile and go and destroy them pretty much without human guidance
    - sitkack 8y ago
      The chilling aspect of drone assassinations in terms of automation is that people and subsequently devalued collateral damage is detected, ranked and classified with statistical techniques, as if regression to the mean will bring back that wedding party that just got turned into a pile of limbs with a hellfire missile. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-attacks/two-children-killed-in-yemen-drone-strike-residents-idUSKBN16E1QK https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-attacks/tw... Better in this context means more bombs on foreheads.
dmead 8y ago
I fail to see the problem here. Do you understand why people would want a motto like "Don't be evil"?
- smsm42 8y ago
  They don't have it anymore. Now it's "do the right thing". What is "the right thing" of course is up to the management to decide.
  - chrisbennet 8y ago
    ”still: “And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!” Last line of google company motto. They moved it but “don’t be evil” is still in the motto.
    - smsm42 8y ago
      That's not motto, that's code of conduct.
  - jacksmith21006 8y ago
    Not true. Here is the agreement which was updated in April 2018. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html Google wanted to emphasize so they put it on the last line that you read with the document. The alt right was who made up the story that Google removed it and then picked up by conservative media and then all media was misreporting it. Typical Google they do not defend themselves and just let it go.
    - smsm42 8y ago
      > Google wanted to emphasize so they put it on the last line That's an odd way to emphasize something. I don't remember any time that I wanted to emphasize something so I put it in the last line of the document.
      - 8y ago
bitL 8y ago
Who cares about Google? What Alphabet does, matters. A new subsidiary with strict confidentiality? They can play with optimizing company structure depending on the area of business as they like.
- bbatsell 8y ago
  The contract in question was, in fact, with a totally separate company ("ECS Federal") with confidentiality agreements. The Google execs, in contemporaneous emails, knew from the beginning that it would be opposed and did their utmost to conceal it while acknowledging it would probably leak and suggesting they try to spin it in advance. https://theintercept.com/2018/05/31/google-leaked-emails-drone-ai-pentagon-lucrative/ https://theintercept.com/2018/05/31/google-leaked-emails-dro...
- ihsw2 8y ago
  That doesn't help when Googlers intend on sabotaging Google when Alphabet goes against progressive supremacist Googler ethos. You cannot separate them through secrecy or through force. The fate of Google is the fate of Alphabet.
roenxi 8y ago
This must be quite terrifying for Google the corporation, which is now sandwiched between its own employees and its own government. The story that has been spun this year has been that Google tacitly accepts politics in the workplace. They might come to regret that.
- r00fus 8y ago
  The corporation has no feelings. Please don't anthropomorphize. Did you mean the people who run the organization like Pichai or Alphabets leadership (Page)? Why would it terrify them?
tpolzer 8y ago
In a surprising move, the stock price disagrees with you.
sitkack 8y ago
> If you are a large company looking for a home, that is exactly the kind of environment you want to avoid. You are green either created the account to shield your normal one, or you don't post here. This is actually excellent news for companies with nothing to hide. And for companies with something resembling a moral compass. Your comment is extrapolation hyperbole and paints a dichotomy that either the corp is control or the employees are in control when in actuality, it is a vast collection of individuals and groups.
rumcajz 8y ago
On the other hand, you could think of it as a moral-compass-as-a-service thing. If you are running on Google cloud, it would be a strong signal that you don't do questionable work for military. That may seem as something that's not worth too much, but on the other hand there's a lot of popular opposition to this kind of thing and companies are starting to notice. Consider this: https://www.dontbankonthebomb.com/new-deutsche-bank-policy-expands-exclusion-nuclear-weapons-producers/ https://www.dontbankonthebomb.com/new-deutsche-bank-policy-e...
lawrenceyan 8y ago
You hurt the credibility and strength of your statements by hiding behind a throwaway account. Doing so also brings into question if you have any ulterior motives.

imbokodo 8y ago

You're correct that a corporation's biggest enemies are the workers who do all the work and create all the wealth of that corporation. You're also correct that this is a victory for those workers and a defeat for the corporation.

C50VGicCxmHC 8y ago
In "moral crusades" like this, it is often a very vocal minority that dominates the discussion. I seriously doubt that it was a majority of Google employees who objected to this.
- vkou 8y ago
  Democracy is not a proxy for morality. Not to mention that historically, moral progress tends to happen because of the unreasonableness of small groups of people. Demanding that people sit on their hands until they get 51% support for their cause, is asking that nothing ever get done. Whomever started this project certainly did not poll the employee base, and establish 51% support of it.
- pixelcloud 8y ago
  That is a great opinion and I can do that too!! I seriously doubt the majority of Google Employees would support defense contracting.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  >it is often a very vocal minority that dominates the discussion do you suppose the decision to support a military project was made by a large majority before? Committed minorities almost always steer decision-making within business ventures. By framing this as a 'moral crusade' you're suggesting that there is an asymmetry here while there is not, participating in projects that can be used for purposes of war is no amoral default position. The stronger minority simply won. Or framing it in another way, suppose Google would hold an employee vote tomorrow, do you think this would change the outcome?

simion314 8y ago

I think this was different then regular military projects because of drones, drones have a terrible reputation.

droopyEyelids 8y ago
And it's not just the reputation of drones, it's taking another step towards autonomous killing machines. Robots probably wouldn't be as bad, but the other autonomous killing machines we have are pathogens, and all countries have pretty much decided it's counterproductive to develop pathogens for warfare at this point
- smsm42 8y ago
  Not all countries. Iraq has a bioweapons program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biological_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biological_weapons_progr... at least in 80's, and probably into 90's, and there's no indication they ever decided it to be "counterproductive", even though they abandoned it out of fear for repercussions for BWC violation. USSR had bioweapons program which it never declared "counterproductive", and even though Russian as USSR successor did, it is not really confirmed the program was effectively dismantled. There are pretty credible suspicions that Iran has an advanced stage bioweapons program, and same is suspected for North Korea. In fact, check out this list by PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bioterror/glob_nf.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bioterror/glob_nf.html - may be a bit out of date, but enough to realize "all countries have pretty much decided" is unfortunately an exaggeration.
- C50VGicCxmHC 8y ago
  We already have something very close to automated killing machines: anti-aircraft missiles. Couples with radar systems they can identify hostile and go and destroy them pretty much without human guidance
  - sitkack 8y ago
    The chilling aspect of drone assassinations in terms of automation is that people and subsequently devalued collateral damage is detected, ranked and classified with statistical techniques, as if regression to the mean will bring back that wedding party that just got turned into a pile of limbs with a hellfire missile. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-attacks/two-children-killed-in-yemen-drone-strike-residents-idUSKBN16E1QK https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-attacks/tw... Better in this context means more bombs on foreheads.

dmead 8y ago

I fail to see the problem here. Do you understand why people would want a motto like "Don't be evil"?

smsm42 8y ago
They don't have it anymore. Now it's "do the right thing". What is "the right thing" of course is up to the management to decide.
- chrisbennet 8y ago
  ”still: “And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!” Last line of google company motto. They moved it but “don’t be evil” is still in the motto.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    That's not motto, that's code of conduct.
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  Not true. Here is the agreement which was updated in April 2018. https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html Google wanted to emphasize so they put it on the last line that you read with the document. The alt right was who made up the story that Google removed it and then picked up by conservative media and then all media was misreporting it. Typical Google they do not defend themselves and just let it go.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > Google wanted to emphasize so they put it on the last line That's an odd way to emphasize something. I don't remember any time that I wanted to emphasize something so I put it in the last line of the document.
    - 8y ago

bitL 8y ago

Who cares about Google? What Alphabet does, matters. A new subsidiary with strict confidentiality? They can play with optimizing company structure depending on the area of business as they like.

bbatsell 8y ago
The contract in question was, in fact, with a totally separate company ("ECS Federal") with confidentiality agreements. The Google execs, in contemporaneous emails, knew from the beginning that it would be opposed and did their utmost to conceal it while acknowledging it would probably leak and suggesting they try to spin it in advance. https://theintercept.com/2018/05/31/google-leaked-emails-drone-ai-pentagon-lucrative/ https://theintercept.com/2018/05/31/google-leaked-emails-dro...
ihsw2 8y ago
That doesn't help when Googlers intend on sabotaging Google when Alphabet goes against progressive supremacist Googler ethos. You cannot separate them through secrecy or through force. The fate of Google is the fate of Alphabet.

roenxi 8y ago

This must be quite terrifying for Google the corporation, which is now sandwiched between its own employees and its own government. The story that has been spun this year has been that Google tacitly accepts politics in the workplace. They might come to regret that.

r00fus 8y ago
The corporation has no feelings. Please don't anthropomorphize. Did you mean the people who run the organization like Pichai or Alphabets leadership (Page)? Why would it terrify them?

tpolzer 8y ago

In a surprising move, the stock price disagrees with you.

sitkack 8y ago

> If you are a large company looking for a home, that is exactly the kind of environment you want to avoid. You are green either created the account to shield your normal one, or you don't post here. This is actually excellent news for companies with nothing to hide. And for companies with something resembling a moral compass. Your comment is extrapolation hyperbole and paints a dichotomy that either the corp is control or the employees are in control when in actuality, it is a vast collection of individuals and groups.

rumcajz 8y ago

On the other hand, you could think of it as a moral-compass-as-a-service thing. If you are running on Google cloud, it would be a strong signal that you don't do questionable work for military. That may seem as something that's not worth too much, but on the other hand there's a lot of popular opposition to this kind of thing and companies are starting to notice. Consider this: https://www.dontbankonthebomb.com/new-deutsche-bank-policy-expands-exclusion-nuclear-weapons-producers/ https://www.dontbankonthebomb.com/new-deutsche-bank-policy-e...

lawrenceyan 8y ago

You hurt the credibility and strength of your statements by hiding behind a throwaway account. Doing so also brings into question if you have any ulterior motives.