Microsoft workers protest $480m HoloLens military deal: 'We did not sign up to develop weapons'

Grinchy

Grinchy

Banned
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/22/microsoft-workers-protest-480m-hololens-military-deal.html

Under the terms of the deal, the headsets, which place holographic images into the wearer's field of vision, would be adapted to "increase lethality" by "enhancing the ability to detect, decide and engage before the enemy," according to a government description of the project.

"We are a global coalition of Microsoft workers, and we refuse to create technology for warfare and oppression," the employees state in the letter, which was published on an internal message board and circulated via email to employees at the company Friday. More than 50 Microsoft employees signed their names to the letter.
Click to expand...

More at the link.

Are these employees overreacting? The way it would be used for soldiers sounds like a pretty perfect use for the technology.
 
Good for them. I doubt this will change Microsoft's course, but they deserve some respect for sticking by their principles instead of cashing that M$ paycheck making technology they believe is immoral.
 
I guess I can understand why a person wouldn't want to invest in weaponry; to each their own.
But if avoiding potential weapons is your primary goal, working in technology is a bad call.
 
I imagine the military's medical staff could use the hololens to improve surgical training and other things. Ultimately it doesn't matter what technology you develop, it can and will be used both ways.
In fact most modern tech that we enjoy today is largely thanks to the military providing a lot of the early funding to develop the prototypes that would later be turned into what we use today.
 
What a bunch of whiners. Clean house and keep going. Less loss of life on the battlefield for our soldiers the better. I'm sure they would have no problem with an open source product which could be used by anyone as they see fit.
 
Isn't that technology that could protect the lives of your own country's soldiers? Odd to protest
 
Way better than building an AI and drones to control the masses. That shit in Call of Duty Advanced Warfare with drones flying all around Kevin Spacey. That's some scary shit.
 
Until the end of the article, I was pretty conflicted.

Granted, I love the idea of giving your voice and opinion to something when it is warranted, or if there is space to do so (asa Microsoft spokesman had indicated was the case); in this instance though, the article made it clear that engineers and professionals tasked with providing the technological applications to the development of this tech had an idea of what it was going to, something far different than military adaptations...

But, with all due respect, I can't imagine that Microsoft is going to back out on the deal, as the government pays good money to these corporations for such partnerships. also, given the political situations in the East, it would set an interesting precedent for these companies to disagree, as I think the military is even more motivated to stand out militarily with increasing tensions across the board. I think the best thing someone can do in this situation is quit their job -- stops the company from profiting off of your work (if you have this big of an issue with it), whilst giving them the chance of signing someone on who is willing to contribute. A win-win.

Anyways, only about 50 out of 135,000 (worldwide) participated in this counter measure... I don't even think it's worth anyone's time.
 
Last edited:
Technically, they signed up to create a new device that uses augmented reality, they created the device not the purpose.

The military wants to use that for military purposes and that's to be expected, if the military purchased the hardware fair and square then what they do with it should honestly be up to them.
 
Cunth said:
Isn't that technology that could protect the lives of your own country's soldiers? Odd to protest
Click to expand...

Google is a huge company. These employees might not be from the US, so really the technology could be being used against their countries soldiers for all we know.
 
It only displays information, it's not a weapon. It may "increase lethality" by making things more convenient/efficient for the soldiers, but so do walkie-talkies, military boots, or regular glasses, ...
As an aside, I wonder how wide the field of view will be on new models for the military to consider using it in combat.
 
You know what are bigger crimes against humanity than making military accessories? Windows ME, Windows Vista, Games for Windows Live, Windows Store, and the list goes on and on. Where were protests against that?
 
Yet they are happy to work on a weapon orders of magnitude more powerful than anything related to hololens or any specific military gear. Information Technology-a tool which governments all over the world have weaponized as much as possible and continue to do so.
 
Last edited:
we refuse to create technology for warfare and oppression
Click to expand...

newsflash: you already do.

most of the country's "top minds" are funneled into military technology. all the same colleges that pump out SJW thinkpiece writers and experts in the "humanities" also produce the minds that develop the next generation of weaponry or surveillance (or wall street algorithms which fund the same). you could almost say the moral righteousness of one justifies the other.

my friend recently graduated with an engineering degree and her best option for entry-level work was Lockheed Martin. she has a conscience so instead she has gone into teaching, at the detriment of her paycheck.
 
Last edited:
A look into the future: I'm sorry to inform you that your husband died while deployed. We actually were going to implement technology that could have saved his life. A few bleeding heart liberals stood against oppression.
 
But it is the opposite really. For decades technology was developed for military use first and only afterwards it reached the consumer market
 
petran79 said:
But it is the opposite really. For decades technology was developed for military use first and only afterwards it reached the consumer market
Click to expand...
Is it really so unusual? It's not uncommon for the rich and powerful to take someone else's ideas and make it their own.
 
Workers at Microsoft that dont find this a problem probably are quiet, given what happen to conservatives in those tech companies.
 
These people are such fucking hypocrites. How many computers does the army have that run windows? Be god damn consistant and quit if you have issues with it. The company will always be supplying the military so get over it.
 
Is it really that difficult to understand that people might have trouble with the fact that they are now weapon developers? Seems like a pretty reasonable position to take, all things considered.

I mean, if I went into a company to produce, let's say, VR applications - I love VR. I think VR can improve the lives of all sorts of people through medical, educational, and entertainment purposes. Somebody used the technology I created to save lives, and I'd be like, fuck yeah, I helped do that! And if somebody used it to train soldiers, I'd considered it a predictable application of the stuff I made - a trade off I would willingly make because I think it would be worth everything else we get from it.

If my job went from making technology for everybody to exclusively working on military technology, well, then I'd be a bit pissed off. It isn't like the military tends to share the technology they develop. They aren't going to give away a military advantage to their enemies - not until they've got something even better, years or even decades later. How many people would die due to my contributions before the rest of humanity was allowed to benefit from them? If I'm just creating tools for war, I can no longer convince myself of the righteousness of my work, and to be honest, I'd quit.
 
Last edited:
Super Mario said:
A look into the future: I'm sorry to inform you that your husband died while deployed. We actually were going to implement technology that could have saved his life. A few bleeding heart liberals stood against oppression.
Click to expand...
I feel like this is a really disingenuous argument, going straight for an emotional tug, and I think that's unfair. You really think a pathetically transparent guilt trip is the way to go here?

If someone is a pacifist, they aren't doing a little equation in their head where they go, "My guy is alive because I helped kill their guys". They are going to be against warfare as a whole and I think that is a completely valid position to have. I don't think people should be forced to work on things they are fundamentally against. At the very least, I'd be worried about their loyalty to the project, producing substandard work to slow the project down, or sell the technology to competitors to even the field. But a more likely situation is that you'd have another Oppenheimer.
 
I was working in Japan for a few years in a research facility. It was financed by the Japanese government and I am Swiss, but still we had people from different militaries (also the US military) visiting us and checking out our systems and research in AI and applications. It is not out of the ordinary that the military uses civilian research. Often they even finance it and for example autonomous driving is often financed by the military as well. This does not mean you are developing weapons. If the military adapts something, usually it gets you the possibility to test it and later can use a different and also cheaper version for the civilian market.
 
I mean, this is pretty much the ultimate use case for AR technology, and military development can speed track all AR. If Microsoft is not doing it, somebody else will. Given that, and the size of the contract, I can't see them backing out of it.

What might cause them to back out, however, are provisions many funds have not to invest into companies producing weapons / military technology. If this is classed as such, many funds would need to unload their Microsoft positions, which would bring the share price tumbling down. That's going to be *a lot more* than half a billion. So if that becomes a risk they will drop the contract like a bad Tinder date.

Microsoft would be smart to spin off the military applications of this technology to a separate company, that would solve the issues.
 
Sqorin Hammerfarf said:
I feel like this is a really disingenuous argument, going straight for an emotional tug, and I think that's unfair. You really think a pathetically transparent guilt trip is the way to go here?

If someone is a pacifist, they aren't doing a little equation in their head where they go, "My guy is alive because I helped kill their guys". They are going to be against warfare as a whole and I think that is a completely valid position to have. I don't think people should be forced to work on things they are fundamentally against. At the very least, I'd be worried about their loyalty to the project, producing substandard work to slow the project down, or sell the technology to competitors to even the field. But a more likely situation is that you'd have another Oppenheimer.
Click to expand...
Than they should quit.

I wonder how many of the people who feel this way are natural born citizens vs H1B visa's.
 
If Microsoft didn't do it then surely Google or Apple would have at some point.

Anything in technology usually gets weaponsied at one point, sadly.
 
Sqorin Hammerfarf said:
Is it really that difficult to understand that people might have trouble with the fact that they are now weapon developers? Seems like a pretty reasonable position to take, all things considered.
Click to expand...
I think the freedom and apple pie goes to some folks' heads. It's the same general set of arguments that have been circulating since forever in the back-and-forth between 'military good' and 'military bad' camps.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I get their concerns. MS isn't a Lockheed and I could imagine joining their AR division they may have thought of more humanitarian applications like medicine.

I have no issue with this. Why are people saying that MS should fire them? What in the world?
 
Last edited:
Seems that this protest is more about Microsoft crossing the line into developing weapons (which it hasn't done before according to the article), and less about the actual technology in question.

Will be interesting to see how it pans out. I think there is a decent chance of it going both ways (i.e. Microsoft execs cave to the pressure and redirect their strategies, or they continue in weapons development). It probably depends how much public support the protesters manage to get.
 
Sqorin Hammerfarf said:
What does this have to do with anything?
Click to expand...
Someone who is on a visa may feel less attachment to helping a foreign military. They may not give a shit if America has "the best" in weaponry. Seems pretty obvious to me that how one feels about a country and their level of patriotism might be a factor.
 
oagboghi2 said:
Someone who is on a visa may feel less attachment to helping a foreign military. They may not give a shit if America has "the best" in weaponry. Seems pretty obvious to me that how one feels about a country and their level of patriotism might be a factor.
Click to expand...
So you don't think Americans would have as much trouble creating weapons for the military? Because patriotism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WEAPONS | Official Trailer
25
386
Nocty replied
  • Poll
We're not going to make it, are we?
2 3 4 5
203
10K
Donald mac Ronald replied
UK and US refuse to sign international AI declaration
2
59
3K
Madserb2023 replied
Juan Soto signs the biggest deal in sports history. 15 years $765 million to the NY Mets
24
1K
Ballthyrm replied
What time did you wake up today?
2
64
2K
The Lunch Legend replied
Top Bottom