It's a fine sentiment. Tor is another good example of innovation ran by the (US) Navy. Which is to be expected, as navies traditionally were big into crypto.

The military has long history of both doing their own research (logistics & management, and cryptography being good examples), running research institutes with civilian employees (as it seems to be in this case), and contracting out R&D to run-of-the-mill civilian institutions (half of the SV on a good day).

It's worth remembering that the military in typical country is set up with certain similarities to free market economy: it negotiates budget with the "customer" (government), it has several major branches that fiercely compete with each other (typically air force, army, navy; US also rolls with marines as a separate branch), and there are vertical & lateral transfers of employees at times. Lastly, there's always the competing militaris abroad ;-)

Heck, one of common view of the Cold War is that of NATO bankrupting the Soviet block via military arms race.

Agreed, though with one minor clarification:

> Tor is another good example of innovation ran by the (US) Navy.

The US Government funded Tor development; Tor was certainly not 'run' by the Navy or any other government department.

> It's worth remembering that the military in typical country is set up with certain similarities to free market economy

So are other governmental organisations in lot's of cases. Is the military special here?

> Tor is another good example of innovation ran by the (US) Navy.

But is it ethical to use military-developed innovations?

Yes, it is ethical to put military research to the best use we can. Whether logistical systems, trauma medicine, personal weapons, or encryption, all those improve our efficiency, our safety, our leisure, and our privacy.

Wars aside, the military is a place where practical problems are encountered daily, and the solutions battle-tested at scale. It's reasonably safety-minded and cost-aware (spicy anecdotes aside).

Moreover, it's helps a lot when the research isn't walled off by stringent IP regulations.

Yes. You're yourself posting this comment via a medium that was funded by DARPA.

The US Government did not develop Tor, they 'only' funded it. I understand that funding something often effectively imbues a project with whatever mojo the funding org has associated with it. That's certainly not the case here though. Tor's ideals and direction was established and set before said funding, and have remained steadfast since.

To the bigger point:

> But is it ethical to use military-developed innovations?

That's complicated in the real world. Many good, moral things have been created or encouraged by immoral organizations, and vice versa. The US Government has sponsored the development of many different good, useful technologies over the years.

The reverse is true as well, though perhaps to a lesser extent.

That is pretty hilarious to post on the internet, a DARPA developed innovation..

Why does it matter who 'developed' it? The idea always existed in the space of possible ideas. The military-backed researchers just found it first.

You're going to deprive yourself of using it just because of who found it? That makes it pretty easy to deprive you of tools, if someone else using them will stop you from doing so.

Is it ethical to be the beneficiary of the military keeping supply chains safe and keeping supply chains open worldwide?

In this world your existence is "unethical", in regards to a question like that, unless you want to live on a mountain peak above the messiness of ordinary human moral calculation and compromise.

Anyone connected to GPS is guilty of such.

The end of WW2 saw the Americans and Soviets rushing to take over Germany so we could acquire as much Nazi tech and scientists as possible. Our ICBMs technology was based upon this Nazi technology, and now SpaceX and NASA tech is based upon that as well. While the origins of it are based upon a destructive goal, they have enabled the Mars rovers, Moon landing, Hubble telescope, etc. Technology should be evaluated on its own merits and not its origins.

See also: ARPANET, forerunner of the internet.

> The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was an early packet-switching network and the first network to implement the TCP/IP protocol suite. Both technologies became the technical foundation of the Internet. The ARPANET was initially founded by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the United States Department of Defense. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET

"Where Wizards Stay Up Late" by Katie Hafner is an entertaining chronicle of its creation.

The entire tech industry is founded upon basic research. If Silicon Valley thinks they built it all themselves they are completely delusional.

Silicon Valley is a place.

The song "New York state of mind" must drive you nuts.

"Silicon Valley" is also a metonym for the tech industry in that place.

It's synecdoche. "Silicon Valley" -> "West Coast Tech Industry"

A ton of great innovation comes from Universities and the National Labs. I would argue most innovation comes out of basic research funded by the government. Interestingly, in a lot of ways this research is subsidized R&D for American corporations and startups. Much of what gets funded in basic research is set by lobbyists. It makes sense, not many companies can sink millions or in some cases billions of dollars into R&D that may never have commercial applications. There was a really good book review about this in a Physics Today issue a few years back (I cant currently find it).

Not even counting government research, roads and bridges and other infrastructure make innovation possible. Where would Uber, Amazon (deliveries) be without good roads and bridges.

It was hysterical to see Scott Brown and Mitt Romney attempt to use this as a gotcha...it backfired hard.

Are you sure? Every party republican I know seems convinced that everything they've ever done is theirs and theirs alone, and has nothing to do with the 200+ years of work that the United States has put into education and infrastructure

Considering both Romney and Brown lost in 2012, I'd say it failed. Trump, for all of his many failures and faults, pivoted away from this logic in 2016.

They were not elected, but it was not for that reason.

Sometimes I think if the majority of HN had their way we'd be living in a feudal system again, except with right to rule given to Silicon Valley start-up royalty instead of divine-right nobility.

yeah fine batteries but what about autonomous vehicles?

surely that breakthrough is the genius of Elon Musk and Silicon Valley free market entrepreneurship not military funded....

oh.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge

Governments stifle innovation?

Wasn’t it the government who gave us the internet and the computer too? Early self-driving cars too.

The US government is one of the biggest investors in innovation

Similarly, military research can yield innovations that, while initially designed for military use, turn out to have important and transformative non-military applications.

GPS is a pretty good example of that. While it was developed by the US military, civilians world-wide use it every day. I'd call it a transformative technology. Turn by turn directions, self driving cars, drones (not military), cameras, phones, etc.

Many researchers are more interested in the non-military options. But you get better funding when you pitch it for the military.

Given the dead humans caused by the military, the extreme costs of funding, I think you would need a massive invention to offset the costs.

The trillions of dollars spent, could be argued, is better spent in the private sector on innovation.

For those who want to accurately represent what those who disagree with you actually believe, please use parent comment as an example of how not to do it.