Microsoft employees protest against Hololens military contract

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

Why are people protesting about the bridge that's going to be build here right now and not 20 Years ago?
Its talked about 20 Years but nobody cared.

Contracts were about to be signed - suddenly everybody cared.

 

Same here probably.
Everybody might have heard about that at Microsoft but nobody really cared. Until the press release then the usual outrage types said something about that...

 

Though some might actually be pacifist....

Well that is true I suppose... I see it all the time.  Plans are discussed for ages, then suddenly once it's already finalized and no longer up for discussion, that's when people speak up that they have a problem with it.

[Donut417]

9 hours ago, ki8aras said:

u mean like what happened with nuclear energy?

Actually the idea of the bomb came first before they decided it was a good source of energy. It was the building of infrastructure to make the atom bomb that led to nuclear reactors. As they needed reactors to help produce weapons grade fuel. An interesting story is that they almost blew up Chicago during the Manhattan project, due to the fact they almost lost control of the reactor. Also, the Nazi's were attempting to build the weapon as well. This is what pushed the US to do so, out of fear of what would happen if Hitler had it. 

 

I mean I understand where these employees are coming from. But the fact is the US is one of the most war like nations in the world. We will always be in a state of war with someone. Many of these companies know that military contracts are a good way to make money, because we spend the most on defense out of like the next 12 nations combined. These people do have a choice however, quit. Tell the company you can no longer work for them due to moral reasons. If enough employees do this, they may change their mind. 

[suicidalfranco]

you say easily kill people

i say increase chances of survival for troops

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

From my random talks with friends, I recall:

 

- Vacuum tubes were produced for radar detection and code-breaking, powering primitive computers. That led to computers that we use today. It is also what gave rise to Silicon Valley, contrary to popular belief.

- Silicon quality used to be terrible until there was a military incentive to improve them, mainly for missile guidance systems. Now CPUs can be mass produced better than ever.

- ARPANET was a failsafe network in case of nuclear war. We now enjoy it as the Internet.

- HUD on pilot helmets were a thing long before Hololens, which is a primitive form of augmented reality.

 

These massive technologies we enjoy were initially funded through government contracts with military incentive. This boosts a company's R&D capability, producing IP that it can later use for commercial purposes. Only then can those companies can sell those technologies to civilians like us, after declassification.

 

As to the employees' issue with Microsoft agreeing to a military contract, I think would be detrimental to us getting to enjoy VR/AR in the future.

 

 

[TopHatProductions115]

Is this even news? Didn't Google end up in a similar situation a few months ago?

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Kherm said:

This contract has as many as 100,000 HoloLens Devices involved. Microsoft would never pull out of this agreement. 

 

Also, less than 1% of Microsoft's workforce has signed this letter

way less than 1%, MS employee 131,000 people while only 50 signed.

7 minutes ago, TopHatProductions115 said:

Is this even news? Didn't Google end up in a similar situation a few months ago?

same sort of news, but people treat the severity differently depending on their understanding of the world and their ignorance about the inner workings of any one company.

[CarlBar]

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

When you develop a technology for a company you should be fully aware that everything you do is the companies property and can be used how they see fit. That the reality of working in the research and development industry for a certain company. If you want to have a say in how a technology is used then develop it yourself with your own money. I'm sorry but these people are super naive seeing as Microsoft has had a good relationship with the us military for a long time. They were kidding themselves if they thought that this type if technology wouldn't get into the hand of the military. 

 

Once again your entire first point is relevant. it's not about who owns it but about what your told the project is for when you start on it vs what it gets used for. You can't refuse to work on somthing for a specific reason if that somthing dosen;t exist when you started working on it.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, FPSwithaWacomTablet said:

These massive technologies we enjoy were initially funded through government contracts with military incentive.

You can also add to that GPS and accurate time keeping.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

You can also add to that GPS and accurate time keeping.

Microwave oven tech.

Super glue.

M&Ms.

[leadeater]

55 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

M&Ms.

Ok, this I need to know more about.

[imreloadin]

8 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Or in other words: When you make a technology that makes your armed forces better, you are also helping to save the lives of the members of your armed forces. Withholding technology will not prevent war, or any deaths due to war. Of course, that only applies to non WMDs. WMDs are a very different ball field.

This exactly, I wonder if they'll feel bad when enemies get a hold of technology like this and it causes deaths to our service members? Just because they're not the ones developing it doesn't mean nobody else is going to. All they're doing is making it so other militaries get there first...It's like nuclear weapons, sure they are horrifying weapons. But did anyone stop and think what the end result would have been if Hitler had developed them first because our scientists went "Eww I don't want my research to be used to kill people!"

[straight_stewie]

1 minute ago, imreloadin said:

But did anyone stop and think what the end result would have been if Hitler had developed them first because our scientists went "Eww I don't want my research to be used to kill people!" 

I did say that I believe that WMDs are a totally different game.

And nuclear weapons are a special case in WMDs. Ultimately, fission and fusion were going to be discovered anyways due to the normal proceedings in the field of physics. In fact, artificial fusion had happened purposefully as early as 1932, and artificial fission had happened purposefully as early as 1938. Both were part of experiments to improve upon our understanding of the atom.

And look what happened after nuclear bombs were made: Every country must be in one of three categories: Have nuclear weapons, aligned with a country that has nuclear weapons, not advanced enough to care. Simply enforcing that no one can have them won't work as a defense method, because you can't ever know with certainty whether someone doesn't have something (although you can know for certain if they do have it).

Biological weapons, on the other hand, largely don't have a purpose in research, other than the prevention of their use as a chemical weapon or their use as chemical weapons.

Also, Julius Oppenheimer, head of the Los Alamos labratory during the Manhattan project, had these things to say about the outcome of the Manhattan Project:

• "I am become death, destroyer of worlds"
• "If atomic bombs are to be added as new weapons to the arsenals of a warring world, or to the arsenals of nations preparing for war, then the time will come when mankind will curse the names of Los Alamos and of Hiroshima."
• "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true."

[williamcll]

I mean they can always quit if they don't like it. 

[imreloadin]

34 minutes ago, williamcll said:

I mean they can always quit if they don't like it. 

Woah there, they're not THAT against it...

[Master Disaster]

Imagine being so far removed from reality that you don't realise this thing you're creating that has the potential to change warfare forever will eventually end up changing warfare forever.

 

I'm certainly not defending the contract or even agreeing with its principles however these engineers must has realised this would happen. Has there ever been a case where the military could have used technology to help them advance against the enemy but chose not too?

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

You can also add to that GPS and accurate time keeping.

and microwave ovens, Sonar, 2way radio, everything nuclear from power to medicine, internet, duct tape and night vision.

 

 

[Eaglerino]

lots of strangely anti-American people working for these American companies

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, Eaglerino said:

lots of strangely anti-American people working for these American companies

 

Just people who are too removed from any sort detrimental issues or life problems that they have mistaken themselves as being some sort of influential force that can change humanity.

 

 

[DildorTheDecent]

"We didn't sign up to develop weapons"

 

But you aren't developing weapons, you're supplying them with the Hololens. Get rekt.

 

[Sauron]

22 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

The unfortunate reality is that someone WILL provide this kind of technology to the military.  That being said, I'd be pretty pissed if I were in the developers' place too.

Just because "someone else will do it" doesn't mean refusing is meaningless or not the right thing to do. Furthermore, hololens is complex enough that not many companies would have the funds and talent to make it.

[Drak3]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

Ok, this I need to know more about.

US government issues chocolate to soldiers.

Chocolate melts in hot places.

US governmwnt wants a chocolate product that doesn't melt in these places.

[abazigal]

22 hours ago, MyName13 said:

Imagine being in a position to say no to your employer, work in one of the largest companies with very good working conditions and still receive a large salary....

This sets a very bad precedent for the company, IMO, as it shows that they are not really in control of their employees. I am surprised the first few were not already shown the door. 

 

In what bizarro world does the employee get to dictate what the company ought to focus on, rather than the other way around? 

[MyName13]

1 hour ago, abazigal said:

In what bizarro world does the employee get to dictate what the company ought to focus on, rather than the other way around? 

Silicon valley?

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, abazigal said:

In what bizarro world does the employee get to dictate what the company ought to focus on, rather than the other way around? 

Any company worth its salt does take in the opinion of prominent employees under consideration, instead of being bullheaded.

[abazigal]

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Any company worth its salt does take in the opinion of prominent employees under consideration, instead of being bullheaded.

Taking their opinions into consideration doesn’t mean bending over backwards to accommodate them. 

 

This feels to me like a very bad precedent. The US enjoys the peace that they do precisely because they have a strong army who is able to ward off would-be threats, the very reason why these critics are able to wax lyrical in the comfort of their own homes and offices. 

 

If you want to be able to enjoy the peace and stability that you currently do, the only way is for your country to be strong enough to stand up to any foe no matter how strong. Suggesting that your company not do business with the military out of some misguided notion that you are helping to save lives is shortsighted and selfish. 

 

They want to prove a point? They are free to resign and walk out the door.