Microsoft Commits to Providing the U.S. Military Access to All of Its Technology

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,060
Microsoft Corporation President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith has committed to providing the U.S. military access to all of its technology. He acknowledges that some employees are apprehensive, but "We want Silicon Valley to know just how ethical and honorable a tradition the military has," he said. Other tech workers say that it isn't the moral dilemma that keeps them from wanting to work with the military. "'It's much more an economics issue,' said Rachel Olney, founder and chief executive of geographic location data start-up Geosite. "Dealing with the U.S. government is extremely time consuming" and often doesn't provide the same kind of profits as commercial work, she said."

Microsoft is "going to provide the U.S. military with access to the best technology ... all the technology we create. Full stop," Brad Smith said Saturday during a panel at the Reagan National Defense Forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley. Smith expressed openness to hearing his workers' opinions, saying that Microsoft would "engage to address the ethical issues that new technology is creating."
 
...
"'It's much more an economics issue,' said Rachel Olney, founder and chief executive of geographic location data start-up Geosite. "Dealing with the U.S. government is extremely time consuming" and often doesn't provide the same kind of profits as commercial work, she said."
...

That's an extremely ignorant, stupid, and short sighted argument.
 
That's an extremely ignorant, stupid, and short sighted argument.

DUHUHUUHUHUDE:

BytuapVCMAI1aXM.jpg


WHAT DON'TCHA GET?!
 
So, does access to all of MS tech mean access to develop more backdoors? There's nothing I love more than managing client servers with zero day vulnerabilities.
 
It sounds like someone finally got sick of the 'Activate Windows' nag screen and sent microsoft a check
 
While I know militaries struggle with ethical dilemmas often, are we seriously going to overlook the ethical dilemma of supporting institutions who's business is killing humans?

Peace needs to come one day, and We're the safest we've ever been. What day will we stop needing militaries? Wouldn't you want that day to come?

It won't come until we make it happen. So let's do that instead.
 
While I know militaries struggle with ethical dilemmas often, are we seriously going to overlook the ethical dilemma of supporting institutions who's business is killing humans?

Peace needs to come one day, and We're the safest we've ever been. What day will we stop needing militaries? Wouldn't you want that day to come?

It won't come until we make it happen. So let's do that instead.

That's pretty......cute. I am sure all the evil in the world would appreciate good guys giving up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mord
like this
Evil is a personal concept. Not killing each other I think is something I think we can all get behind. Or do you disagree?

Evil is not a personal concept. It is real.

Your idea of pacifism works great until someone kills you and your wife and then rapes your corpse. Some people will not agree to be nice.
 
Evil isn't a concept? By default people will just kill and rape each other?

Prove it, statistically. Because honestly, that doesn't happen when humans are able to safely get all their needs met.



Evil is not a personal concept. It is real.

Your idea of pacifism works great until someone kills you and your wife and then rapes your corpse. Some people will not agree to be nice.
 
That's pretty......cute. I am sure all the evil in the world would appreciate good guys giving up.
This is about the US military though, not about the good guys.

"Microsoft is "going to provide the U.S. military with access to the best technology ... all the technology we create."
So, not the best actually.
 
Evil isn't a concept? By default people will just kill and rape each other?

Prove it, statistically. Because honestly, that doesn't happen when humans are able to safely get all their needs met.

And there are some humans whose psychological needs literally are feelings of superiority and oppressing others. Unless you can somehow program that out of human genes, there will always be a need for a force to maintain law and order.
 
PROVE IT STATISTICALLY. Put up or shut up.

And there are some humans whose psychological needs literally are feelings of superiority and oppressing others. Unless you can somehow program that out of human genes, there will always be a need for a force to maintain law and order.
 
PROVE IT STATISTICALLY. Put up or shut up.

Statistics has nothing to do with it. The moment you have one person that behaves negatively towards the community, you need people to stop that behavior.

The Earth does not have enough resources to sustain a typical American middle class life for over 7 billion people. And a middle class American life is what I would call the minimum for "all needs met," because it is not just food and shelter. I would argue an upper middle class lifestyle would be what is needed to keep people satisfied, although that can degrade to just food and shelter if a Matrix type virtual reality world becomes possible.

Once again, your options are 1. Edit out the violence gene, or 2. Significantly reduce the human population. None of which are currently viable solutions. Therefore the need for a strong army still stands. Also, just look at current Russian and Chinese aggression, and try and tell me we are the safest that we have ever been.
 
World Peace is meant for contestants in a beauty contest.
In another 100 years mankind might evolve, until then I prefer to say “Nice Doggie” as I reach for the biggest rock I can find.
 
And there are some humans whose psychological needs literally are feelings of superiority and oppressing others. Unless you can somehow program that out of human genes, there will always be a need for a force to maintain law and order.

I agree with you. We will always have psychopaths and sociopaths in our midst.

Since that is true, does it really make sense to create institutions with a legal monopoly on the initiation of violence? If you were a psychopath and wanted to do harm, wouldn't you gravitate towards institutions that gave you a pass for doing so?

In other words, the same force that is supposed to preserve law and order is often used for the exact opposite, by the very people it should be locking up.
 
PROVE IT STATISTICALLY. Put up or shut up.
Read any history book....like any of them....pick ANY period/society in history....litterally any one.......there has NEVER been a time/place where mankind managed to not "do" evil.
i mean really? are you that unaware of the human condition.....this is a given...a constant.
 
Evil is not a personal concept. It is real.

Your idea of pacifism works great until someone kills you and your wife and then rapes your corpse. Some people will not agree to be nice.
I think the rape wouldn't be a huge issue at that point. But, your point remains.
 
While I know militaries struggle with ethical dilemmas often, are we seriously going to overlook the ethical dilemma of supporting institutions who's business is killing humans?

Peace needs to come one day, and We're the safest we've ever been. What day will we stop needing militaries? Wouldn't you want that day to come?

It won't come until we make it happen. So let's do that instead.
Never going to happen. Man is corrupt. Just need to take a history class to see that. As soon as you so militaries because peace has been realized someone will step in and conquer.
 
It's interesting to see how warped some people's worldviews are these days.
 
Iran, China, and Russia military experts are silently chuckling....
 
When someone goes and kills someone in a major city, do we send the military in? No.

Do we _ALWAYS_ go and shoot that person? No.

Is the default action to use the strongest possible force in all domestic scenarios? No.

Then why the fuck are you acting like peace in modern society has anything to do with a strong military? It doesn't. Peace is here, it's hard fought, and soon the time will come where we can stop killing each other (in almost all cases).

Statistics has nothing to do with it. The moment you have one person that behaves negatively towards the community, you need people to stop that behavior.

The Earth does not have enough resources to sustain a typical American middle class life for over 7 billion people. And a middle class American life is what I would call the minimum for "all needs met," because it is not just food and shelter. I would argue an upper middle class lifestyle would be what is needed to keep people satisfied, although that can degrade to just food and shelter if a Matrix type virtual reality world becomes possible.

Once again, your options are 1. Edit out the violence gene, or 2. Significantly reduce the human population. None of which are currently viable solutions. Therefore the need for a strong army still stands. Also, just look at current Russian and Chinese aggression, and try and tell me we are the safest that we have ever been.
 
I study history profusely, and we are the safest we've ever been in the entirety of humanity. The top 10 killers of humans in North America is not even close to war.

Never going to happen. Man is corrupt. Just need to take a history class to see that. As soon as you so militaries because peace has been realized someone will step in and conquer.
 
I agree with you. We will always have psychopaths and sociopaths in our midst.

Since that is true, does it really make sense to create institutions with a legal monopoly on the initiation of violence? If you were a psychopath and wanted to do harm, wouldn't you gravitate towards institutions that gave you a pass for doing so?

In other words, the same force that is supposed to preserve law and order is often used for the exact opposite, by the very people it should be locking up.

That is generally why the army doesn't look for wannabe killers, and screen for it. That is why army training is primarily rooted in enforcing discipline.

Someone has to comb through and remove child pornography and put it in the database. You don't recruit people that want to see child porn. Same concept applies. Of course, there will be people that can fake it and slip through, but they're a small minority and generally don't get to positions of power and influence.

When someone goes and kills someone in a major city, do we send the military in? No.

Do we _ALWAYS_ go and shoot that person? No.

Is the default action to use the strongest possible force in all domestic scenarios? No.

Then why the fuck are you acting like peace in modern society has anything to do with a strong military? It doesn't. Peace is here, it's hard fought, and soon the time will come where we can stop killing each other (in almost all cases).

Please, tell me your grand master plan for implementing the modern society in all of the world. Because having a strong military is about protecting ourselves from foreign countries, and are not used in the US unless martial law is enforced for whatever reason. This thread is about the army, and limiting it to a domestic only viewpoint is illogical.
 
And my reply to the military would be sure, so long as your use of the tech is publicly disclosed to the citizens of the country you serve.
 
Back
Top