Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Government

Google Workers Arrested After Nine-Hour Protest In Cloud Chief's Office (cnbc.com) 308

CNBC reports that nine Google workers were arrested on trespassing charges Tuesday night in protest of the company's $1.2 billion contract providing cloud computing services to the Israeli government. The sit-in happened at Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian's office in Sunnyvale and the 10th floor commons of Google's New York office. From the report: The arrests, which were livestreamed on Twitch by participants, follow rallies outside Google offices in New York, Sunnyvale and Seattle, which attracted hundreds of attendees, according to workers involved. [...] Protesters in Sunnyvale sat in Kurian's office for more than nine hours until their arrests, writing demands on Kurian's whiteboard and wearing shirts that read "Googler against genocide." In New York, protesters sat in a three-floor common space. Five workers from Sunnyvale and four from New York were arrested.

"On a personal level, I am opposed to Google taking any military contracts -- no matter which government they're with or what exactly the contract is about," Cheyne Anderson, a Google Cloud software engineer based in Washington, told CNBC. "And I hold that opinion because Google is an international company and no matter which military it's with, there are always going to be people on the receiving end... represented in Google's employee base and also our user base." Anderson had flown to Sunnyvale for the protest in Kurian's office and was one of the workers arrested Tuesday.
"Google Cloud supports numerous governments around the world in countries where we operate, including the Israeli government, with our generally available cloud computing services," a Google spokesperson told CNBC, adding, "This work is not directed at highly sensitive, classified, or military workloads relevant to weapons or intelligence services."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Workers Arrested After Nine-Hour Protest In Cloud Chief's Office

Comments Filter:
  • by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Wednesday April 17, 2024 @07:29PM (#64403056)

    Only possible to hold that kind of attitude from behind a heavily armed military holding the savages at bay.

    Open question whether these people are a net plus or a net minus.

    • Everyone has the right to be stupid.

      Our society goes pretty far in allowing protestors to make themselves heard -too far, in my opinion (but I am a selfish jerk...)

      They may face consequences such as unemployment, fines, and jail time -but not until long after the fact. Most of the time, we let protestors off with a slap on the wrist for the harm they cause because we support the right to speak out even when it harms others. Only the most egregious cases face actual consequences.

      This is the price we pay for a free society -we let others do stupid things that they think are right (or wrong-but for the right reasons?)

      • China disallows protests. Americans point at China and call it a moral travesty.

        America allows protests. Americans object to protestors.

        Americans are such a dumb, confused bunch.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

          Legal protests are fine. If you want to stand on the sidewalk and complain about some injustice, have at it. However, if you're going to block traffic, destroy property, or trespass on private property, sorry, that's no bueno.

          • Legal protests are fine. If you want to stand on the sidewalk and complain about some injustice, have at it. However, if you're going to block traffic, destroy property, or trespass on private property, sorry, that's no bueno.

            So in your opinion those involved in the Boston teaparty, an act of patriotic protest deeply admired by Americans today, should have been strung up by the British and publicly flogged or something?

            • Legal protests are fine. If you want to stand on the sidewalk and complain about some injustice, have at it. However, if you're going to block traffic, destroy property, or trespass on private property, sorry, that's no bueno.

              So in your opinion those involved in the Boston teaparty, an act of patriotic protest deeply admired by Americans today, should have been strung up by the British and publicly flogged or something?

              It was _not_ patriotic, since they were a colony of the Brits and not a country themselves. If they were caught, they would have been strung up and publicly flogged or something. They knew the risks, and worked very hard to avoid being identified. And it led to a war. So, while many of us appreciate the outcome...

        • Glad you see it that way. Mind if I come around and stand on your front lawn to propagate my political views? They may or may not coincide with yours.

          The point is, I have to stage a protest on my own dime. On my ground, or on public ground.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          China disallows protests.

          Why do people say shit like this when a simple google search will prove them wrong?

          Here's a Wikipedia article about some recent protests in China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          Literally the first hit on Google.

          I'm no fan of the CCP's methods, but can we please at least stop outright lying about China and have a grown up conversation about it? Just once maybe?

      • by butt0nm4n ( 1736412 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @01:51AM (#64403708)

        Stupid? Why are they stupid? They appear to be trying to stand by a good principle, to not do any harm. What principles do you live by?

        There is no reason Google has to sell to the military other than greed.

        All the rights and freedoms you enjoy are because at some point someone stood up and protested. You might show them some gratitude.

        • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @02:54AM (#64403784)

          Stupid? Why are they stupid? They appear to be trying to stand by a good principle, to not do any harm. What principles do you live by?

          Personally I stand by the principles of not working or supporting companies which do things I disagree with. They are stupid because they are part of the problem while also being against it.

          Internal protest against a company you voluntarily support is stupid. You said it yourself. There's no reason to do this other than greed. The stupidity is supporting the greed by working for the greedy company.

    • When it was first offered a job at a defense contractor, I had some ethical qualms. I got over them. But, I can understand the mindset.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

      Only possible to hold that kind of attitude from behind a heavily armed military holding the savages at bay.

      Furthermore, while residing in a country that had dropped two atomic bombs on Japan as an act of retaliation. Even The Great Seal of the United States depicts a bald eagle clutching a bunch of arrows, implying that we will absolutely fuck your shit up if you mess with us (and sometimes just because we want your oil).

      We're just very lucky that our eastern and western borders are oceanic coastlines, our neighbor to the north is an ally and our neighbor to the south is mostly benign. If we were in Israel's s

      • "lucky that our eastern and western borders are oceanic coastlines"

        That isn't luck. It was design. We had to fight the Spanish for it and force the French into a raw deal. We fought the Comanche. When that didn't work, we developed new firearms to fight the Comanches. Then we fought the Comanches some more. We sent hordes of unknowing people West to die.

        When America was formed, it was basically just the Atlantic piedmont area.

        Think about it this way. With the Carpathians, the North Sea and the Mediterranean

    • Israel has already lost this exchange. The goal of any terrorist attack is to provoke an overreaction which weakens the target and which strengthens the cohesion of the opposition while recruiting new soldiers for that opposition. Netanyahu's attempt to seize the land while there's a democrat in the White House did all that and so much more. And once he was knee deep in it it became very clear that his attacks were extremely unpopular with his own citizens and that as soon as they stop they're going to thro
    • This is a commonly heard argument from right wing nut jobs. There is zero evidence to support it. When was the last time the US military saved its citizens from authoritarians? Of all the international conflicts the US has been involved in, how many were with foreign powers threatening the freedom of expression of US civilians in the US?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The "barbarians at the gates" narrative is designed to mislead. Israel is illegally occupying large parts of Palestine, so says the UN. They have turned Gaza in particular into an open air prison.

      And as for the IDF "holding them at bay", they are actually quite bad at defence. Look at October 7th, they not only failed to stop it, they ended up killing many of their own people and suffering fairly heavy casualties.

  • by dasunt ( 249686 ) on Wednesday April 17, 2024 @08:56PM (#64403182)

    I'm going to offer you a choice - you get to kill one terrorist, but at the same time, you will also kill a young child.

    Would you take that deal?

    Okay, perhaps instead of a young child, how an older child? Or even an innocent adult?

    Again, same deal, for one terrorist, you also kill one innocent.

    Would you gladly take the deal? Or would you reject it? Perhaps somewhere in-between - you may accept that the life of the innocent is a regrettable but necessary sacrifice to take the life of a terrorist.

    Or perhaps you reject this idea as absurd - questioning the premise as contrived.

    After all, it sounds contrived. But as a general rule, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in most wars is greater than one civilian for every combatant killed. A one-to-one ratio is more favorable than most wars.

    So regardless of what your choice would be, it is wise to feel to uncomfortable.

    • by Jzanu ( 668651 ) on Wednesday April 17, 2024 @09:09PM (#64403202)
      I appreciate your application of ethics. One note however - the correct methods include evaluating the future deaths risked by each course. If you do not kill the terrorist at the cost of x others, will it allow the terrorist to kill x or more? This calculus is very easy regarding terrorist leaders and signs their death warrants. To be fair, if you kill the terrorist and x, you must also consider whether that increased the total deaths unnecessarily since their surrender would be a valid alternative. If they will continue to fight if left alive, they must be killed as quickly as possible given the x constraint and expected future deaths.
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday April 18, 2024 @04:46AM (#64403980) Homepage Journal

        Killing civilians along side terrorists often just creates more terrorists. Especially if you also destroy all the homes and infrastructure, and force the civilians into refugee camps and then bomb those too.

        I'm sure many more will be joining Hamas now. Having seen everything they ever had destroyed, no future, and a desire for revenge for the murder of their families, many more will take the gun offered to them and point it at the nearest Israeli.

        Which is arguably the point. It's much easier to get away with genocide if you can get the victims to fight back and then label them terrorists.

    • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday April 17, 2024 @09:24PM (#64403226) Journal
      Well, I'm uncomfortable killing, period. Even if they are terrorists, we should look for another way before jumping in to killing them. In the case of Hamas there may (or may not) be another way, but war is always and everywhere a sad thing.
      • Terrorism is a name assigned to those whom you disagree with in order to build support for a fight against them. The thing about terrorists is they have actual support from others. So before you give people the choice or killing a terrorist you need to ask them in their opinion if they are a terrorist or not.

        Hamas was an instigator in this war. But in terms of "terror" inflicted on a civilisation, who is the actual terrorist? The guys who killed several hundred, or the guys who killed 10s of thousands. Both

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        There is a way to end the violence tomorrow. Israel withdraws from all occupied lands, taking settlers with it, leaving the infrastructure undamaged.

        With homes to go to and a future to reach for, few will want to take up arms anymore. Especially if Israel also starts a Truth and Reconciliation movement, with war crimes prosecutions. A proper two state solution and lasting commitment to peace, with Zionism ended for good.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Legally speaking, in war civilian casualties must be minimized. Civilians cannot be targeted directly. When a military target is attacked and it is known that civilians are likely to be killed as well (e.g. Israel has command bunkers under urban areas), the person ordering the attack must judge that the military benefit outweighs the civilian cost.

      That's why it can be difficult to prosecute those kinds of war crimes - you have to prove that the commander who ordered the strike didn't believe that the milita

    • Here's a more interesting choice: This is a magical box here. It has a button. If you push that button, a person dies. A person you have never met and you would never meet in your entire life. But I guarantee you, as soon as you push that button, this person dies.

      You'd be amazed how many people say they push it.

      What's probably less amazing is how many regret pushing that button when I come and pick up the box, telling them it will go to someone they never met and will never meet in their entire life.

    • That's not how it works. The choice is killing one terrorist with the x% chance of killing a young child. That's how all military operations work. The question is, at what point is x small enough that you are willing to go forward? For most organizations, that x is not 0.
  • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Wednesday April 17, 2024 @09:27PM (#64403236)

    If I'm running a business and an employee tries to occupy my office for a protest, they're going to be immediately terminated and escorted out by security.

    Who in their right mind thinks this is a good idea? If you think the company is evil, you quit and take action as a free person. These protesters acted like idiot adult children.

    • That's a risk I'm sure most of them were aware of and willing to accept.

      If it's just a few employees it won't hurt Google too much to get rid of them, but if there are enough of them and they are vital enough employees.....

      I know I've been allowed to get away with certain things that others would not have simply because I was a valued employee.

      Example: I refused to sign a new "drug and alcohol policy" that one employer sprung on all of us. My boss did too. I'm pretty sure everyone else in that office sig

  • Gee, it's not like the regular stuff Google does is unethical or anything. All the Google employees seem gung-ho about invading our privacy, enshittifying the Internet, running a virtual monopoly on the Play Store, etc, etc....

    Maybe they're not in a great position to preach ethics.

    • "Maybe they're not in a great position to preach ethics."

      Or maybe it's just that working for a company that's helping perpetrate a genocide is a bridge too far.

  • ... Google found a way to get workers to return to the office.

  • What took 9 hours? I would have shot them.

  • I respect the objections that a committed pacifist (or opponent of standing armies) might have to their company taking on military contracts -- even if I disagree. But, anyone else is just being a selfish fucker. They are saying: yes, I agree that we need to maintain a military so someone needs to sell them goods and services but I want it to be someone else so I don't have to feel guilty.

    Doing the right thing is often hard. Sometimes it means doing things that make you feel uncomfortable or icky because

  • When your workplace gets it own employees arrested, then it becomes a workplace where you don't want to work any more. If you choose to stay for the money, be honest with yourself, you are an accomplice.

  • But remember, if Google pushes out an "update" that bricks ten million phones, or removes content from ten million cellphones that ten million consumers paid for, without compensation .... there will be NO ARRESTS made. None. None whatsoever. Better still, nobody at Google ever has to worry about law enforcement showing up.

    Ditto if Apple receives your stolen iPhone and fails to return it.

    YOU will be charged with receiving stolen property.

    They will be charged with nothing whatsoever. Even if they never g

  • "Don't be evil" was yesterday. The current Google motto is "everything for a buck". The way to deal with this is to walk away. Well, if you have real skills that is. Otherwise you may want to rethink that "protest" thing.

"jackpot: you may have an unneccessary change record" -- message from "diff"

Working...