Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Government Microsoft The Almighty Buck The Military United States

Microsoft Workers' Letter Demands Company Drop $479 Million HoloLens Military Contract (theverge.com) 275

A group of Microsoft workers have addressed top executives in a letter demanding the company drop a controversial contract with the U.S. army. The Verge reports: The workers object to the company taking a $479 million contract last year to supply tech for the military's Integrated Visual Augmentation System, or IVAS. Under the project, Microsoft, the maker of the HoloLens augmented reality headset, could eventually provide more than 100,000 headsets designed for combat and training in the military. The Army has described the project as a way to "increase lethality by enhancing the ability to detect, decide and engage before the enemy." "We are alarmed that Microsoft is working to provide weapons technology to the US Military, helping one country's government 'increase lethality' using tools we built," the workers write in the letter, addressed to CEO Satya Nadella and president Brad Smith. "We did not sign up to develop weapons, and we demand a say in how our work is used."

The letter, which organizers say included dozens of employee signatures at publication time, argues Microsoft has "crossed the line into weapons development" with the contract. "Intent to harm is not an acceptable use of our technology," it reads. The workers are demanding the company cancel the contract, stop developing any weapons technology, create a public policy committing to not build weapons technology, and appoint an external ethics review board to enforce the policy. While the letter notes the company has an AI ethics review process called Aether, the workers say it is "not robust enough to prevent weapons development, as the IVAS contract demonstrates." "As employees and shareholders we do not want to become war profiteers," the letter sent today concludes. "To that end, we believe that Microsoft must stop in its activities to empower the U.S. Army's ability to cause harm and violence."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Workers' Letter Demands Company Drop $479 Million HoloLens Military Contract

Comments Filter:
  • Dozens? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2019 @08:15PM (#58167320)

    Really? They employ how many thousands but only dozens signed it? They should fire every employee on that signed it.

  • by Pirulo ( 621010 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @08:16PM (#58167324)
    It's hypocritical to take a half stance. Certainly many computers used in every US war are running Microsoft basic products like OSs and data bases. It's evident software is becoming a weapon. What do they suggest? leave the development to Russia and China? Humanity is far from leaving in peace, in the meantime you better keep up.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by steelwraith ( 141362 )

      What do you mean becoming? Windows has been used in command & control and weapons applications for almost two decades.. I'd be happy if Microsoft stepped aside and let UNIX/linux become the primary platforms in DoD. At least something that made sense would be in use... well besides systemd.

      • Look systemd is a psyop meant to drive other countries crazy

      • I'd be happy if Microsoft stepped aside and let UNIX/linux become the primary platforms in DoD

        Not that Microsoft has anything to do with it, but this is actually the case. I'm actually sitting in a warship as I write this on a port visit in New York. Most of the new combat management systems we've had installed use Linux rather than Windows. Older ones, like Link 11 management consoles, and a few civillian nav radar ARPA consoles are Windows based. But most new stuff that's coming out is Linux. It make

    • by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @08:40PM (#58167426)

      Why, there are dozens of signatures on that letter of protest. Management simply can't ignore that!

      No, wait, they totally CAN ignore that, and will surely do so. Because dozens, out of ~135,000.

      • It depends a bit on who those people are. The Hololens team is pretty small in comparison to the total size of Microsoft. If those people are all part of the Hololens project then having them all leave could be a problem. If they're distributed across the entire company then having them all leave would be statistical noise in the normal staff turnover for a company the size of Microsoft.
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Great point. Unless you have at least 100,000 followers on Twitter your opinion is basically worthless. Never mind that you are one of the key engineers on that project, they will effortlessly replace you if you quit. Remember that next time you think about asking for a raise.

      • by elrous0 ( 869638 )

        Well, they could always respond by thanking those employees for their input and wishing them well in their new employment search.

    • It's reasonable to demand that Microsoft stop making products for the military, but you're right, that covers a lot of ground. It's also reasonable for Microsoft to replace those employees, because they're in business to make money, and if it's not Microsoft then it will just be someone else. If need be they'll make USABSD, or use Linux, etc etc.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Saturday February 23, 2019 @05:58AM (#58168628) Homepage Journal

      Good point, anyone who ever changes their opinion on anything is a hypocrite and should be condemned. Never learn or evolve your ethics, figure them out when you are a kid and stick to them no matter what.

      Oh, and whatever you do don't think anything is less than black and white. There is literally no difference between typing up orders in Word and using a Hololens in the field to direct drone strikes.

      Good point about China and Russia too. The ICBMs and the hypersonic cruise missiles won't deter them, but Hololens is sure to make them think twice. And that's definitely what it will be used for.

      • There is literally no difference between typing up orders in Word and using a Hololens in the field to direct drone strikes.

        There's a big difference: the guy writing up orders in word has the potential to do a lot more damage than the guy directing the drone strike.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by elrous0 ( 869638 )

        Good point, anyone who ever changes their opinion on anything is a hypocrite and should be condemned. Never learn or evolve your ethics, figure them out when you are a kid and stick to them no matter what.

        Wait, aren't you from the same SJW movement that thinks that a person should be judged for the rest of their life for something they wrote in their high school yearbook?

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Do they even have armed personal in the data bases? Or is it just like file cabinets and such?

  • Won't someone think of the Minecraft players?

  • Pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by enigma32 ( 128601 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @08:19PM (#58167338)

    This kind of thing is getting a little ridiculous.
    The pencils that sit on the desk at some military office somewhere are also involved with the end result. Should people object to making pencils that are bought by the military?

    If these people have a problem with what the military does (and I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't), perhaps they should get involved with politics instead. That's the right way to solve the problem, rather than hiding behind a letter and thinking that absolves them of something.

    • Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @08:21PM (#58167350)
      Why not do both?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yeh the US military hasnt got enuff weapons and hasnt helped arm and support enuff of the worlds dictators.

      Perhaps instead of building more weapons the US should stop creating enemies of humanity like the Saudi gov and similar regimes who actively support fundamentalism and its cancer upon the societies they rule.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Weapons aren't optional. If we had none, then evil people would roll through our cities and murder us all!

      Further, weapons deter violence. Nations don't launch assaults against nations they know will kick their ass.

      Weapons are not inherently evil. That is entirely a matter of how they are used. If you want a say in that, get involved in politics.

      Personally, I hope that the U.S. Military gets top-notch tech. I don't care whether or not it comes from Microsoft, I just want to make sure that we don't lose

      • Weapons are not inherently evil. That is entirely a matter of how they are used. If you want a say in that, get involved in politics.

        I think this is the key point. The military (in countries that are not military dictatorships) does not define policy. They follow orders that originate with the government. If you don't want to supply a country's military, then that means that you don't trust how the government of that country will employ its military. That's an entirely reasonable stance to take, but if you want to be consistent then you should also avoid supplying any branch of that country's government and any corporations that have

    • If there's anything I've learned from basic training scenes in war movies, it's that you learn how to kill people with anything you have available, particularly a pencil. They should only allow the military to buy crayons.

  • Yeah, good luck Microsoft employees. Microsoft never claimed you were going there to change the world or "do good". Google invited its own problems by claiming to do such, and caused itself to hire people who would eventually debate politics at work, object to customers, and believe that business has morals above and beyond those imposed by regulations.

    Microsoft employees know what they signed up for. A boring corporation that sells its product to whomever will pay. And mediocre applications that
    • Microsoft employees didn't know they were signing up for a "defense" contractor. If they'd been informed of that, they may not have taken the job. They've every right to object or quit now that they've found out.

    • The employees should take solace in the fact that this is not a legitimate R&D program. It is pure government pork. On the surface, it appears that the DoD is paying Microsoft for something the desperately want. In reality, Microsoft's lobbyists, are funding campaigns to have politicians direct the DoD to give them an award.
      Anyone with experience in this industry knows it. Past military R&D contracts for AR technology were most likely always less than $10M, unless we are maybe talking about AR helme

  • Good on them! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Most highly intelligent people will be anti war.
    And now we get to read all the comments from the sociopaths who can't comprehend how anyone could be anti war.

    • Re:Good on them! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2019 @09:01PM (#58167500)

      Most highly intelligent people will be anti war.

      I believe that most highly intelligent people understand that conflict is an inescapable human trait, and no amount of feel-good rhetoric is going to change the fact that there are people in power out there who simply don't give a damn about human life if it stands in the way of their goals, or if taking it will further those goals. If you've got a means of dealing with such people that doesn't involve force, you've got a Nobel Peace Prize waiting for you. "We can use sanctions!" Sure, but how do you go about enforcing those? I mean, it's worked so well for North Korea, right?

      It's admirable to be against war and killing, and it'd be great not to need that, but as long as there are those that will kill with impunity, there will be a need to play on their level.

      • One can obviously be against the planet's biggest unnecessary war production machine without being against all possible wars. I'm all for wars of defense, and even wars to defend friendly NATO countries which have been invaded. Decades of isolation and a firm anti-war commitment even after close allies were invaded did not lead to the USA being conquered when the Japanese attacked in 1941... or even losing an inch of valuable land for a day. Even if the USA completely disarmed (which it shouldn't), invading

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Majority of UK's "highly intelligent people" were very much "appease Hitler", ridiculing those who stood on position of making the country stronger to deter Germany. It's always the same cadre placing themselves above commoners, believing they know how the aggressive tyrants feel, confident they can always negotiate their safety.

      Nope. You have to have a biggest stick to scare evil people away before they even think to act.

    • Re:Good on them! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by I75BJC ( 4590021 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @09:26PM (#58167584)
      Like Albert Einstein? He was really, really smart and he personally petitioned POTUS FDRoosevelt to build the Atomic Bomb in order to match Nazi research and development of their own Atomic Bomb. The USA did develop the Atomic Bomb and very intelligent people did the work. What an inaccurate statement.
    • > Most highly intelligent people will be anti war.

      Yes, normal people don't want to be fighting.
      And virtually all mammals know what ends a fight. You seem to be missing that particular insight.

      Hint - singing a song does not stop an attack.
       

      • by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @10:08PM (#58167744) Homepage
        âoeViolence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedomsâ â Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Brett Buck ( 811747 )

      Virtually everyone is "anti-war". That doesn't mean you have to be a pacifist, in fact, the more lethal and effective your weapons, the easier it is to avoid it. As evidenced by the fact that almost no one here has ever had to fight in a war, get drafted, or killed, and why there have been no major world conflicts since 1945.

      The US military exists to *prevent you from getting killed*, "provide you with the freedom to succeed in life*, and is generally responsible for your extremely safe, weal

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • There is anti war, then there is just plain stupid. At what point do you draw the line? MS software is used extensively throughout the militaries of the world for planning and excuting missions, why aren't they protesting that? Their software is used extensively by the politicians that authorise those wars, why aren't they protesting that? should every pen/pencil/car maker/food supplier all ban any government or military contracts? and if you aren't banning them all then it is completely fucking hypocritica
    • Re:Good on them! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @10:26PM (#58167802)
      Almost nobody (except fascist dictators wishing to increase their power) is pro-war. The reason otherwise peaceful nations have and maintain a military is pretty simple. Economically, often it's cheaper to simply take resources away from someone else than it is to grow/collect/build them yourself. e.g. The Viking lifestyle of pillaging and raiding. It completely screws over the person you're taking stuff away from, but if you care only about yourself then it is the economically more cost-effective to take stuff away from others.

      The goal of everyone not wanting to be screwed over this way then, is to make it more expensive for someone to take your resources away by force, than it would be for them to grow/collect/build the resources themselves. This means maintaining a military which can inflict sufficient damage upon an attacker so that even if they win, the stuff they manage to pillage from you is worth less than the damage they'll sustain from your counterattack. Nobody actually plans to use those military weapons - the threat alone is enough to cause the desired behavior.

      Fail to maintain that level of military capability, and you relegate yourself to repeatedly and endlessly being screwed over by others. Your only protection then becomes the pity of others who happen to have sufficient military power to intimidate or force your attacker into stopping.

      The pacifist notion that the military is full of bullies and guys with a macho complex who want to beat up and kill others, is rather disconnected from reality. The vast majority of people serving in the military believe their country has a good thing going, and wish to help defend and maintain it. If you don't believe in protecting what we have, then that is your right. But realize that you can enjoy your livelihood and pacifist lifestyle solely because of those willing to fight in your stead. Pacifism is not self-perpetuating; it can only perpetuate when someone else is willing to fight to defend it.

      Of course having a military available means it can be mis-used. And a society needs to implement measures to prevent the military from being mis-used that way. But advocating the complete elimination of the military is socio-economic suicide. Nations without a military or a friendly ally with a military tend not to last too long. They get invaded and taken over, and their pacifist government is replaced by their conqueror.
  • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @08:33PM (#58167400)
    Profit. It's the only reason that for-profit companies exist. They make money, or they die. If a company passes up an opportunity to make money, another company will step in. That's capitalism, baby! It's got tons of advantages, but cutthroat cold-heartedness is a downside to the system, and there isn't really any way around it. The Microsoft employees signing this petition have somehow deluded themselves into thinking that they work for a non-profit. They don't, and they don't get much of a say in company policy. Their only real option is to vote with their feet. That's how our system works. A few of my friends refused jobs because they didn't want to design/research/construct weapons. They found something else that suited them better. That's how you express your displeasure with an employer. Everything else is noise.
    • Profit. It's the only reason that for-profit companies exist. They make money, or they die. If a company passes up an opportunity to make money, another company will step in.

      Several have tried, including some pretty well capitalised ones. No one has made one remotely as good as the Hololens.

      That's capitalism, baby!

      Except it's not. There's an undersupply of labour. The kind of person who can build a hololens vision system will have a PhD in a rather niche area of computer vision then probably 10 years post P

      • Yes, immediate timeliness can be a factor. If you need it *now* and only one company can deliver it *now* then, yes, market forces can be overridden. So, you're right. If MS is currently the only vendor then perhaps the employees can make headway in setting policy. But, only if key employees back up the letter with a willingness to walk.

        And only temporarily. >99% of the time the drive for profit eventually overrides everything. Given a few more years, another company could fill the need. Computer v
        • Computer vision is advanced, but not all that advanced anymore. It's gone beyond the stage of "a few nobel-level people understand it".

          Not really: the majority of the computer vision field and research money has moved on into deep learning. While in principle more people could understand it now, the time when there were a number of different university vision labs world wide churning out people who could do this has passed.

          It's pretty complex, to the point where it needs a good number of years of training a

  • by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @08:35PM (#58167410) Homepage
    A time when you can stand on your ethical anti-combat high horse. But please consider there was a time when this was not possible, and then thank your grandparents.
    • Since this is a US website talking about US company and the US military:

      Back then, 70 years ago, the US was defending against attacks, even defending other countries.
      Nowadays it is always the US which starts the attacks, committing war crimes and massacres. No more "defense".

      So as the ones you defended against back then, you are the same murderous criminal thugs now.

      Even that one time 70 years ago was a fluke, a one time thing basically. The US is built on genocides of indians, continued with war and
    • that time is long, long gone. And that's before you take into account Globalism's effect. The rich and powerful have stopped allowing wars except for the occasional one to steal resources (oil mostly). For example, Pakistan has been glibly ignoring terrorists attacking India for decades and still no war there. Why? Bad for business.

      At this point the only thing keeping wars going is the Military Industrial Complex. Folks standing up to stop feeding that beast is a good thing.
    • The workers' request is perfectly reasonable though; particularly if working for a defense contractor is not what you signed up for in the first place. And it doesn't even need to be an anti-combat, or any other ethical, stance. Have you every worked for a defense, or other government, contractor? I did, in my first job out of college. And that's a mistake I plan to never, EVER, make again. And it's nothing at all to do with ethics; though with the current occupant of the White House, that is a certain

  • by Livius ( 318358 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @08:38PM (#58167420)

    I do see how this contract is different, but Microsoft's self-serving business practises have held back the progress of human civilization by two decades. I don't feel anything connected with Microsoft - certainly not their employees - have any credibility on matters relating to ethics.

  • Where in the World Is the U.S. Military? [politico.com] (July/August 2015)

    Quote: "... the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad..."
    • by Anonymous Coward

      And zero world wars since those bases opened.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Pacifism is a luxury afforded to those whose enemies live far from them

  • by ToTheStars ( 4807725 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @09:21PM (#58167564)
    Quoth George Orwell: "Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      There is a difference between, say, using chemical weapons and using conventional weapons. Someone willing to work on a conventional bomb design may be unwilling to work on one designed to deliver a chemical warhead.

      Given what we have seen of how drones are being used and abused, I can see why they are reluctant to develop this technology for the military.

  • by kenh ( 9056 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @09:31PM (#58167602) Homepage Journal

    They didn't sign up to work on gov't projects for the military? Fine, leave - they'll find someone else to do your job. This is a half-billion dollar project, with private market implications and potential, these dozen engineers are replaceable. They replaced Ray Ozzie, they can replace a dozen random engineers fairly quickly.

    "Don't let the door hit 'ya where the good lord split 'ya!"

    • r/lord/$diety

      Remember who were dealing with here.

    • This.

      demanding the company drop a controversial contract

      Sounds like you made your preference known to management -- "hey, stop that". I'm sure they will take that into consideration, somewhat.

      Since it seems they've pretty much decided already, you'll mostly have to execute (ha!) the implicit ELSE clause in your note. Or grumble beneath your breath and continue on.

      If a company is doing something so horrendous to you, you should quit helping them -- seriously. I doubt they'd have me -- I'm old and out of touch (MS-DOS 1.1 supports CP/M calls), but I'd

  • One thing the military is involved in a lot of places around the world is humanitarian relief, since they can bring in basically a small city with modern medical supplies, doctors, food and water purification plants on demand to any coast.

    So don't forget you are demanding not to help THAT either. Seems fairly short-sighted and ill considered to me.

  • They clowns are arguing against better training? Better training means fewer casualties and higher survival rates for friendly troops.
  • by dcw3 ( 649211 ) on Friday February 22, 2019 @11:03PM (#58167906) Journal

    The better weapons you have (bigger, more accurate stick), the less you tend to have to use it. Also the less collateral damage. You can be sheep, or you can be the sheepdog.

  • When a US company, brand does not want to work with the US mil, let them.
    But know the US mil still needs the same products and services.
    0. Do it within the mil. That might not happen due to politics and having to always buy in services/products.
    1. Create a CIA front company and let it be free to "compete" in the open marketplace.
    Wy the CIA, so any sudden international interest can be detected globally.
    2. Give that created new company mil work.
    3. Let it grow and become a normal company.

    4. Fi
  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Saturday February 23, 2019 @08:25AM (#58168880) Journal

    You want to find Russian meddling? Here's where you look - the KGB was skilled at exploiting "useful idiots" in the West throughout the cold war.
    This has all the hallmarks of the strident, well-intentioned but stupid protests against the Pershing 2 in the 1980s.

  • It looks like you're trying to fight a war.
    Do you want to
    - win hearts and minds
    - drone strike
    - lock and load!
    - nuke 'em 'till they glow

  • No, they don't want people to get use to the idea of, "--out of ammo-- [shoot outside the LOS to reload!]"

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...