6 ms·

Because they should analyze why workers objected to the other project and understand the motivations rather than assume a blanket mistrust

gowld 8y ago
And when the Pentagon analysis concludes that Google doesn't stay committed to military projects, what would they do?
- pgodzin 8y ago
  Then they shouldn't use Google for military projects, which Google has already said they won't pursue (AI for weapons). But DoD =/= military, and if you are equating them here then you ignored what I wrote and are making a blanket statement rather than analyzing the specific case.
  - slavik81 8y ago
    I'm confused. The article states that "JEDI is broader and bigger, seeking a vendor to provide cloud services for all branches of the military" but you seem to be saying it's not for the military.
    - pgodzin 8y ago
      Sorry for being imprecise, when I refer to military I mean specifically warfare. As the Google letter notes: > > We believe that Google should not be in the business of war. Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled, and that Google draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology. So the issue is specifically warfare technology, not DoD/military bureaucracy in general.
      - gaius 8y ago
        not DoD/military bureaucracy in general. The bureaucracy exists solely to get warfighters downrange and on-target. I mean, what do you think they do all day, and why?
        pgodzin 8y ago
        I would say collaborating on a Google Doc about strategy is pretty far removed from powering the drone technology used to kill people even if that's what the doc is about.
        nostrademons 8y ago
        Sure, if you follow all the links of causality, economic activity always produces federal taxes, which exist solely to fund the bureaucracy, which exists solely to get warfighters downrange and on-target. Therefore, nobody should ever spend or make money, lest you be supporting an immoral regime dedicated to killing people. There are a few zealots that actually think like this, but most people realize that each stage in that chain is pretty lossy. There's a good portion of your wages that are not taxed, and there's a good portion of your taxes that are not directed to the DoD. Similarly, there's a good portion of the DoD bureaucracy that does not exist to get warfighters downrange and on-target - think of all the folks involved in procurement projects that are basically employment projects for defense contractors, or DARPA and the basic research it does, or the combat engineers building bridges in warzones, or the folks responsible for administering the VA and military pensions. You can be morally opposed to writing software that helps target drones while still believing that former vets should have access to health care.
        AndrewKemendo 8y ago
        there's a good portion of the DoD bureaucracy that does not exist to get warfighters downrange and on-target No, actually there aren't. Whether or not they are successful or efficient is irrelevant. The money funding both the super efficient successful targeting system and the failed warfighter support system are fungible and come from the same "color" or pot of money. It's not zealotry, it's understanding the purpose and mission of the organization. Also the VA isn't part of the DoD. It's a Cabinet level agency. Frankly it's getting annoying listening to people in tech talk about Defense matters as though they are authoritative. [1]http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisitions/color-of-money http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisitions/color-of-money
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    DoD is quite literally = to Military in the US. Not sure what you mean here. The "bureaucracy" of the Pentagon directly supports warfighting across the entire spectrum. Efficiencies in government credit card processing for an Army SSGT going on temporary duty to train on employing the MRAP, enable effective execution of wartime tasks. This is a well understood and ingrained sentiment.
austincheney 8y ago
The disruption to business is sufficient for blanket mistrust. This is referred to as reputational harm. The ethical and legal considerations are fully investigated by both parties before the contract is inked. In business parlance this is called due diligence. Speaking from a contractual perspective what does a customer care about the service provider's employee motivations? How would the customer reach into the confidential internals of the service provider's office to qualify or answer that question?
- pgodzin 8y ago
  The motivations are public: https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter.pdf https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter.... > We believe that Google should not be in the business of war. Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled, and that Google draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    In that one instance the motivation is known, but it is a horrible and dangerous blanket business requirement that cannot be enforced. There is no way that ends well for a business relationship. It is up to the employer to discern and address the motivations of its employees. When this responsibility falls on the customer the business ceases to have customers. It doesn't make sense for a customer to pay for a service and be charged with the management of their service provider's managerial concerns, because if that were the case the service provider would become an internal business unit. What is interesting is that the letter says this: This plan will irreparably damage Google’s brand and its ability to compete for talent. The letter is completely addressing the concern for reputational harm, but the company did not do so prior to the establishment of the relationship as a matter of its due diligence considerations. If this is cause for the DOD to pass on Google's bid for a larger project the harm is absolutely manifest. This is analogous to the Streisand Effect where the harm was neither well known nor established but achieves both due to the complaint - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Also, the DOD is the US military and those terms can be safely and definitively interchanged. I can affirm this as a military officer. https://www.defense.gov/About/DoD-101/ https://www.defense.gov/About/DoD-101/

gowld 8y ago

And when the Pentagon analysis concludes that Google doesn't stay committed to military projects, what would they do?

pgodzin 8y ago
Then they shouldn't use Google for military projects, which Google has already said they won't pursue (AI for weapons). But DoD =/= military, and if you are equating them here then you ignored what I wrote and are making a blanket statement rather than analyzing the specific case.
- slavik81 8y ago
  I'm confused. The article states that "JEDI is broader and bigger, seeking a vendor to provide cloud services for all branches of the military" but you seem to be saying it's not for the military.
  - pgodzin 8y ago
    Sorry for being imprecise, when I refer to military I mean specifically warfare. As the Google letter notes: > > We believe that Google should not be in the business of war. Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled, and that Google draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology. So the issue is specifically warfare technology, not DoD/military bureaucracy in general.
    - gaius 8y ago
      not DoD/military bureaucracy in general. The bureaucracy exists solely to get warfighters downrange and on-target. I mean, what do you think they do all day, and why?
      - pgodzin 8y ago
        I would say collaborating on a Google Doc about strategy is pretty far removed from powering the drone technology used to kill people even if that's what the doc is about.
      - nostrademons 8y ago
        Sure, if you follow all the links of causality, economic activity always produces federal taxes, which exist solely to fund the bureaucracy, which exists solely to get warfighters downrange and on-target. Therefore, nobody should ever spend or make money, lest you be supporting an immoral regime dedicated to killing people. There are a few zealots that actually think like this, but most people realize that each stage in that chain is pretty lossy. There's a good portion of your wages that are not taxed, and there's a good portion of your taxes that are not directed to the DoD. Similarly, there's a good portion of the DoD bureaucracy that does not exist to get warfighters downrange and on-target - think of all the folks involved in procurement projects that are basically employment projects for defense contractors, or DARPA and the basic research it does, or the combat engineers building bridges in warzones, or the folks responsible for administering the VA and military pensions. You can be morally opposed to writing software that helps target drones while still believing that former vets should have access to health care.
        AndrewKemendo 8y ago
        there's a good portion of the DoD bureaucracy that does not exist to get warfighters downrange and on-target No, actually there aren't. Whether or not they are successful or efficient is irrelevant. The money funding both the super efficient successful targeting system and the failed warfighter support system are fungible and come from the same "color" or pot of money. It's not zealotry, it's understanding the purpose and mission of the organization. Also the VA isn't part of the DoD. It's a Cabinet level agency. Frankly it's getting annoying listening to people in tech talk about Defense matters as though they are authoritative. [1]http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisitions/color-of-money http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisitions/color-of-money
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  DoD is quite literally = to Military in the US. Not sure what you mean here. The "bureaucracy" of the Pentagon directly supports warfighting across the entire spectrum. Efficiencies in government credit card processing for an Army SSGT going on temporary duty to train on employing the MRAP, enable effective execution of wartime tasks. This is a well understood and ingrained sentiment.

austincheney 8y ago

The disruption to business is sufficient for blanket mistrust. This is referred to as reputational harm. The ethical and legal considerations are fully investigated by both parties before the contract is inked. In business parlance this is called due diligence. Speaking from a contractual perspective what does a customer care about the service provider's employee motivations? How would the customer reach into the confidential internals of the service provider's office to qualify or answer that question?

pgodzin 8y ago
The motivations are public: https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter.pdf https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter.... > We believe that Google should not be in the business of war. Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled, and that Google draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.
- austincheney 8y ago
  In that one instance the motivation is known, but it is a horrible and dangerous blanket business requirement that cannot be enforced. There is no way that ends well for a business relationship. It is up to the employer to discern and address the motivations of its employees. When this responsibility falls on the customer the business ceases to have customers. It doesn't make sense for a customer to pay for a service and be charged with the management of their service provider's managerial concerns, because if that were the case the service provider would become an internal business unit. What is interesting is that the letter says this: This plan will irreparably damage Google’s brand and its ability to compete for talent. The letter is completely addressing the concern for reputational harm, but the company did not do so prior to the establishment of the relationship as a matter of its due diligence considerations. If this is cause for the DOD to pass on Google's bid for a larger project the harm is absolutely manifest. This is analogous to the Streisand Effect where the harm was neither well known nor established but achieves both due to the complaint - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Also, the DOD is the US military and those terms can be safely and definitively interchanged. I can affirm this as a military officer. https://www.defense.gov/About/DoD-101/ https://www.defense.gov/About/DoD-101/