Don't Be Evil: Google Drops Pentagon's A.I Contract, Create Censored Search Engine For China

SmilinDesperado said:
<31>
Would you like to live in Russia?
What exactly would be the point of that?
Google doesn't belong to the government. It's a private company.
Why the hell would you support the government's attempt at strong arming companies into doing their bidding?
If a company doesn't want to get involved with military affairs that is completely up to them.

And again, it is GOOGLE. If America wanted to shun them they could take their very lucrative business and move it elsewhere.
It would be absolutely retarded to cut ties in such a way.
Google would be just fine without America
Click to expand...

So you want the govermenf to be forced to award contracts to them.

There are plenty of contractor's that would love to have the contracts just waiting out there. So the government would be just fine. And the US would be fine without Google as there is always someone to jump in and make the money.
 
Bloodworth said:
Because they have family members in the areas this military stuff will be used and are conflicted.

Too many people living in the u.s. today that are convicted about putting America first.

Probably the most dangerous part of immigration.
Click to expand...




An interesting thought. But it's an internal conflict I can understand if true. Still, they can go work somewhere else if they do not want to perform the work they're being asked to do. If not, grin and bear it.
 
SmilinDesperado said:
<31>
Would you like to live in Russia?
What exactly would be the point of that?
Google doesn't belong to the government. It's a private company.
Why the hell would you support the government's attempt at strong arming companies into doing their bidding?
If a company doesn't want to get involved with military affairs that is completely up to them.

And again, it is GOOGLE. If America wanted to shun them they could take their very lucrative business and move it elsewhere.
It would be absolutely retarded to cut ties in such a way.
Google would be just fine without America
Click to expand...




I haven't read the entire thread but..


Do we know what the contracts look like between the two tho?


I know in manufacturing government contracting is very sensitive and Google breaking a contract -after they agreed to the terms- may be a security risk depending on what sensitive information was passed on to them in order to complete said contract.


Has it been established itt that this isn't an issue? If it is an issue, I think this changes the discussion a little bit. I mean, it's a military contract so that isn't some light weight shit.
 
oldshadow said:
So you want the govermenf to be forced to award contracts to them.

There are plenty of contractor's that would love to have the contracts just waiting out there. So the government would be just fine. And the US would be fine without Google as there is always someone to jump in and make the money.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about forcing the government to award contracts?
What I said is is that the government shouldn't be trying to punish companies for not wanting to get involved with government affairs. The government stopping business fullstop with a technology company because that company didn't want to get involved with military projects sends a very clear message to that company, and any other company that you either do what we say, or we'll find a way to punish you.

The government is free to take their business to other companies that are willing to do the work, and those companies are free to accept contracts that they wish to do. But the government shouldnt' try to push private companies to do their bidding, or blacklist them.

lol and AGAIN, this is GOOGLE. This isn't some small mom and shop store here. They are one of the leaders in technology. The US does not want to burn bridges with them. Of course America will survive without them, but it would be retarded to shun a huge company like that and risk them giving a new technology breakthrough to another nation.
 
Last edited:
AGGAMEMNON66 said:
I haven't read the entire thread but..


Do we know what the contracts look like between the two tho?


I know in manufacturing government contracting is very sensitive and Google breaking a contract -after they agreed to the terms- may be a security risk depending on what sensitive information was passed on to them in order to complete said contract.


Has it been established itt that this isn't an issue? If it is an issue, I think this changes the discussion a little bit. I mean, it's a military contract so that isn't some light weight shit.
Click to expand...


I think that's a bit of a separate issue.
I was addressing the morality of the government trying to push private companies into doing their bidding by pressuring them, or blacklisting them.

Legally, I'm sure there would be some sort of clause in a contract that would allow a party to leave the agreement, but perhaps having to pay a penalty. And there is certainly some sort of nondisclosure agreement, so the company wouldn't be able to share the information without serious legal consequences.

But in general, I do agree that a company shouldn't welch out on a deal made unless there the other party withheld information, or did something improper with the project/technology they received.
 
AGGAMEMNON66 said:
An interesting thought. But it's an internal conflict I can understand if true. Still, they can go work somewhere else if they do not want to perform the work they're being asked to do. If not, grin and bear it.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works in a politically correct world.

Happens in many different sectors
 
SmilinDesperado said:
I think that's a bit of a separate issue.
I was addressing the morality of the government trying to push private companies into doing their bidding by pressuring them, or blacklisting them.

Legally, I'm sure there would be some sort of clause in a contract that would allow a party to leave the agreement, but perhaps having to pay a penalty. And there is certainly some sort of nondisclosure agreement, so the company wouldn't be able to share the information without serious legal consequences.

But in general, I do agree that a company shouldn't welch out on a deal made unless there the other party withheld information, or did something improper with the project/technology they received.
Click to expand...




It's not just a legal issue when dealing with the military/government tho -it can become a potential national security issue depending on what type of info they released to said company to complete the contract after the work was agreed upon.


If this is actually part of the beef, the government has a legit concern. This comes up in the manufacturing world quite a bit too.


But again, I'm not sure if this is what the issue is. I'm just spit balling here.
 
SmilinDesperado said:
Uhh...yeah, everyone understands how the technology works.

The US sending drones into countries to kill people in countries we aren't at war with is not something one would think they signed up for when getting a job with Google.
There are obviously positive benefits of the technology for the military, that isn't being argued. But you're operating under the idea that everyone is on board with the US's usage of drones, and when, where, and on whom they use them on.
Click to expand...
You're making a really bold assumption that people understand the technology, and I don't think that assumption is valid at all.

It's not like the Google employees are doing any of the kinetic operations, so them being on board with US policy is totally immaterial. Their technology is being used by the military, so how is that a Google employee's issue? That would be like an AM General employee thinking that they have a special say about American foreign policy because they make the Humvee. Once they make the technology, they don't really get a say in how it's applied. That's up to the customer.
 
oldshadow said:
You're right and the government can remove hard to deal with companies from the bidding pool. It's a free country.
Click to expand...

That isn't true.

The government can't penalize a private corporation for not wanting to work on project.
 
The DOD uses the fuck out of google maps - and other google resources, on a regular basis. Thus, they're already in the "business of war", many missions are already aided by google maps. Suppose moralities stop when kinetic strikes are the obvious end state of the the device.
 
Rational Poster said:
I think it's fair that employees of a tech company with a slogan "Don't be evil" don't want to be involved in military technology in any way.
Click to expand...

I think any company that has to say they arent evil as its motto are full of shit. Like this conman bitcoin guy on CNBC the other day. Kept saying he wasn't a scammer. IF you have to keep telling people your aren't a conman, you are probably a conman. This is Orwellian shit. Just slapping you aren't evil on your brand means nothing.

As somebody said, one who loves does not need a philosophy of love.
 
AGGAMEMNON66 said:
It's not just a legal issue when dealing with the military/government tho -it can become a potential national security issue depending on what type of info they released to said company to complete the contract after the work was agreed upon.


If this is actually part of the beef, the government has a legit concern. This comes up in the manufacturing world quite a bit too.


But again, I'm not sure if this is what the issue is. I'm just spit balling here.
Click to expand...
As i said, that's what the nondisclosure agreement would be for.
Divulging sensitive information would lead to legal action ..legal action could mean anything from fines to imprisonment for treason

And I am not arguing about the government's concern. That wasn't my point. I'm not saying they do, or don't have reason to be concerned.
I was specifically addressing the people that think the government blacklisting and applying political pressure on private companies that disagree with them is a good thing
 
Last edited:
sub_thug said:
You're making a really bold assumption that people understand the technology, and I don't think that assumption is valid at all.

It's not like the Google employees are doing any of the kinetic operations, so them being on board with US policy is totally immaterial. Their technology is being used by the military, so how is that a Google employee's issue? That would be like an AM General employee thinking that they have a special say about American foreign policy because they make the Humvee. Once they make the technology, they don't really get a say in how it's applied. That's up to the customer.
Click to expand...
People don't understand the basics ? They don't need to be experts in how the technology works. It's common sense that if Google does a project for the military, that whatever they do, it's going to make it more effective. That's all you need to understand.

It's not immaterial.
A Humvee is a military vehicle. It was created for the military. It's a vehicle. It is not the same as the technology we're talking about here.
Drone strikes are already a controversial subject. Facial recognition technology can be used for a wide range of things not related to war and illegal war/battles/assassination. If something you created for one purpose is being used for what you believe is evil, then yea, you have a right to speak out.
Can a company sell shit and say they don't give a fuck how it's used? Yeah.
But a company can also say that they won't sell or work with people who use their products in a manner it wasn't intended for
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,036
Messages
55,462,879
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top