> > We believe that Google should not be in the business of war. Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled, and that Google draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.
So the issue is specifically warfare technology, not DoD/military bureaucracy in general.
The bureaucracy exists solely to get warfighters downrange and on-target. I mean, what do you think they do all day, and why?
There are a few zealots that actually think like this, but most people realize that each stage in that chain is pretty lossy. There's a good portion of your wages that are not taxed, and there's a good portion of your taxes that are not directed to the DoD. Similarly, there's a good portion of the DoD bureaucracy that does not exist to get warfighters downrange and on-target - think of all the folks involved in procurement projects that are basically employment projects for defense contractors, or DARPA and the basic research it does, or the combat engineers building bridges in warzones, or the folks responsible for administering the VA and military pensions. You can be morally opposed to writing software that helps target drones while still believing that former vets should have access to health care.
No, actually there aren't. Whether or not they are successful or efficient is irrelevant. The money funding both the super efficient successful targeting system and the failed warfighter support system are fungible and come from the same "color" or pot of money.
It's not zealotry, it's understanding the purpose and mission of the organization.
Also the VA isn't part of the DoD. It's a Cabinet level agency.
Frankly it's getting annoying listening to people in tech talk about Defense matters as though they are authoritative.
The "bureaucracy" of the Pentagon directly supports warfighting across the entire spectrum. Efficiencies in government credit card processing for an Army SSGT going on temporary duty to train on employing the MRAP, enable effective execution of wartime tasks. This is a well understood and ingrained sentiment.
Speaking from a contractual perspective what does a customer care about the service provider's employee motivations? How would the customer reach into the confidential internals of the service provider's office to qualify or answer that question?
> We believe that Google should not be in the business of war. Therefore we ask that Project Maven be cancelled, and that Google draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology.
What is interesting is that the letter says this: This plan will irreparably damage Google’s brand and its ability to compete for talent. The letter is completely addressing the concern for reputational harm, but the company did not do so prior to the establishment of the relationship as a matter of its due diligence considerations. If this is cause for the DOD to pass on Google's bid for a larger project the harm is absolutely manifest. This is analogous to the Streisand Effect where the harm was neither well known nor established but achieves both due to the complaint - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Also, the DOD is the US military and those terms can be safely and definitively interchanged. I can affirm this as a military officer. https://www.defense.gov/About/DoD-101/
This theory is completely at odds with what actually happened. The reality is that workers at Google wield enormous power when they act together, and get to make the company drop a customer.