Microsoft CEO defends US military contract that some employees say crosses a line

[Neat]

Satya Nadella has defended Microsoft's $479 million contract to supply augmented reality systems to the US military that has been criticized by some of his colleagues.

The CEO said Monday that while he would continue to engage with employees and consider Microsoft's role as a corporate citizen, the company would not "withhold technology" from democratic governments.

"We made a principled decision that we're not going to withhold technology from institutions that we have elected in democracies to protect the freedoms we enjoy," he told CNN Business at Mobile World Congress.

Click to shrink...

The US government said in procurement documents that it wants to integrate night vision, communication, targeting and threat recognition capabilities in its new headsets.

"Soldier lethality will be vastly improved through cognitive training and advanced sensors, enabling squads to be first to detect, decide, and engage," the documents state.

Click to shrink...

Microsoft employees have recently circulated a letter addressed to Nadella and Brad Smith, the company's president and chief legal officer, arguing that the company should not supply its HoloLens technology to the US military.

"While the company has previously licensed tech to the US military, it has never crossed the line into weapons development. With this contract, it does," the letter says, according to a copy posted to Twitter.

Organizers told CNN Business last week that more than 100 Microsoft employees have signed the letter.

Click to shrink...

More at the link: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/25/tech/augmented-reality-microsoft-us-military/

Microsoft was awarded the U.S. military contract back in November, and can end up providing more than 100,000 HoloLens headsets when it's all said and done. The Israeli army currently already takes advantage of HoloLens sets, claiming that they're beneficial for commanders and medics. Nadella, meanwhile, frames the controversial decision around the idea of corporate responsibility, saying that it's not about an arbitrary decision by any one company or any number of people within it, but rather "being a responsible corporate citizen in a democracy".

 

[Deleted member 4482]

as always, money wins out over morality

 

[Teiresias]

Providing for the common defense of one's country is not immoral.

 

[Felt]

Isn't the military supposed to fund its own weapons development R&D with employees that have joined for that purpose?

My point is Microsoft developers didn't sign up to build weapons.

 

[MisterAnderson]

Providing for the common defense of one's country is not immoral.

Click to shrink...

While I agree with you, in this case, it's "defense" at best when it comes to the US military.

 

[Fart Master]

Isn't the military supposed to fund its own weapons development R&D with employees that have joined for that purpose?

My point is Microsoft developers didn't sign up to build weapons.

Click to shrink...

Microsoft software has been used for incredibly long amount of time in the military so that's a pretty dumb assumption to make if you're a developer.

 

[Teiresias]

Isn't the military supposed to fund its own weapons development R&D with employees that have joined for that purpose?

My point is Microsoft developers didn't sign up to build weapons.

Click to shrink...

All areas of the government procure equipment from outside vendors and fund research from outside companies.

 

[No_Style]

Isn't the military supposed to fund its own weapons development R&D with employees that have joined for that purpose?

My point is Microsoft developers didn't sign up to build weapons.

Click to shrink...

Are they building weapons? Or are they building tools that can be adapted and converted to weapons? Because, if we're going down the path of the latter, let me tell you about Windows, Office, and other software that organizations use. Remember the Xbox 360 controller that was used to by the Navy for their periscopes?

 

[Deleted member 32374]

"Corporate Citizen"

Fucking joke lol.

Stop lying.

I'm not even saying that what they're doing it wrong, just they're in it for the money and nothing else matters. Don't act like anything but money matters, its insulting to our intelligence.

 

[RadzPrower]

I mean, I'd need to see any of the devices ultimately delivered to the US to ultimately know, but based on the HoloLens system we've seen thus far, it's far from a weapon...short of bludgeoning someone with it, but that's true of any physical object...

It's a tool that may perhaps be used in a battlefield context and it's still free to be morally objected in that manner, but to conflate it to a weapon is simply reaching for a stronger word that grabs attention rather than simply saying "we don't want you making stuff for the military to use in combat". Israel already mentioned that their benefit is good for commanders and medics...two types of personnel who are not necessarily in the thick of combat anyhow.

 

[Deleted member 15428]

First PRISM, now this

 

[BigWinnie1]

I'm going to be completely honest and say I don't really care. Military has and will always buy new technology to see how it can be used for military capabilities. I'm not sure what people thought the military got alot of its tech from? Not all of its In-house. Alot of it is stuff it saw pitched to it from outside companies.

 

[Rei no Otaku]

Couldn't this also save a lot of lives by helping identify allies and injured people in the field? I don't see it as mainly a weapon.

 

[Jarmel]

$$$

 

[MisterAnderson]

I mean, I'd need to see any of the devices ultimately delivered to the US to ultimately know, but based on the HoloLens system we've seen thus far, it's far from a weapon...short of bludgeoning someone with it, but that's true of any physical object...

It's a tool that may perhaps be used in a battlefield context and it's still free to be morally objected in that manner, but to conflate it to a weapon is simply reaching for a stronger word that grabs attention rather than simply saying "we don't want you making stuff for the military to use in combat". Israel already mentioned that their benefit is good for commanders and medics...two types of personnel who are not necessarily in the thick of combat anyhow.

Click to shrink...

I mean, a tool that helps make weapons better I would argue could be considered a weapon. A commanding officer or something standing in a hololense representation of the battlefield directing a live combat situation sounds like it could be pretty useful. Or augmented reality type of goggle interface that tracks movement for the wearer or something and highlights targets. Not sure what they are intending to use it for, though. I sort of agree with you, but yeah...it's still kind of fucked up for Microsoft employees who never intended on having the military touch their work.

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

I'm going to be completely honest and say I don't really care. Military has and will always buy new technology to see how it can be used for military capabilities. I'm not sure what people thought the military got alot of its tech from? Not all of its In-house. Alot of it is stuff it saw pitched to it from outside companies.

Click to shrink...

Do you understand why some people would care and indicate it wasn't why they started working for Microsoft?

 

[RadzPrower]

Couldn't this also save a lot of lives by helping identify allies and injured people in the field? I don't see it as mainly a weapon.

Click to shrink...

Simple image recognition would make that a risky proposition, but add in some sort of ID transmitter that the HoloLens could pick up on and it could make a good "friendly fire" safety feature.

it's still kind of fucked up for Microsoft employees who never intended on having the military touch their work.

Click to shrink...

That's incredibly shortsighted by anyone who makes anything in tech. The military is always going to use what people make and they've been making software and hardware that the military uses for a long time now. Windows, Office, even XBox (and PS for Sony) hardware and accessories.

...basically, that ship sailed years ago.

 

[PixelatedDonut]

M$ at it again

 

[butzopower]

Microsoft software has been used for incredibly long amount of time in the military so that's a pretty dumb assumption to make if you're a developer.

Click to shrink...

Nah, that's sales. Building general purpose software doesn't mean you can't suddenly be against military specific software.

 

[Heshinsi]

"We made a principled decision that we're not going to withhold technology from institutions that we have elected in democracies to protect the freedoms we enjoy,"

Fuck off. That institution kills brown people left and right, and supplies the weaponary, training, and logistics for other dipshits to kill more brown people. How exactly does this institution helping the Saudis bomb Yemen back to the Stone Age protect American freedoms?

 

[Kaako]

Of course Nadella defended this shit. It's just business to the higher ups.

 

[BigWinnie1]

Do you understand why some people would care and indicate it wasn't why they started working for Microsoft?

Click to shrink...

They can Leave than. And Maybe get off the internet because its been made off the backs of military grade technology. I just find them incredibly Naive

 

[PositivePolitique]

Couldn't this also save a lot of lives by helping identify allies and injured people in the field? I don't see it as mainly a weapon.

Click to shrink...

They're providing for the US military, waging pointless wars across the planet to fund the military industrial complex.

Even if the US military had a record of liberating countries from awful dictators, etc., it would still be questionable but more understandable.

 

[SpinierBlakeD]

Providing for the common defense of one's country is not immoral.

Click to shrink...

I agree. Every technological innovation going all the way back to the bow and arrow has been a result of military R&D. It's really no surprise they're continuing to invest in cutting edge technology.

 

[OrdinaryPrime]

They can Leave than. And Maybe get off the internet because its been made off the backs of military grade technology. I just find them incredibly Naive

Click to shrink...

They can certainly leave. Just like Colin Kaepernick right? All I was asking is can you at least empathize with them and your response is that they should leave if they don't like it. That ain't it chief.

Also while DARPA is part of the Department of Defense, I don't think it's an apt comparison. DARPA is part of the government and military branch, Microsoft is a publicly traded company. The expectations of someone joining a company like Microsoft and DARPA and the moral issues with each are not the same.

 

[Thorn]

Providing for the common defense of one's country is not immoral.

Click to shrink...

Lmao bombing weddings in Pakistan is common defense?

 

[SpinningBirdKick]

Typical corporate response.

Revenue above everything else.

As expected.

 

[AtticusFincher]

Every time I've seen Hololens they've pushed it as a tool to help make tasks easier for all kinds of fields of work. It's naive to think the military wouldn't be on that list.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Microsoft software has been used for incredibly long amount of time in the military so that's a pretty dumb assumption to make if you're a developer.

Click to shrink...

Are you talking about Windows 7 because that's a dumb comparison.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

While I agree with you, in this case, it's "defense" at best when it comes to the US military.

Click to shrink...

This is my thought as well.

 

[HommePomme]

I feel like there's a difference between the military buying a bunch of Hololens devices and adapting them for use and Microsoft actively helping them develop military functionality. If I worked there the latter is what I'd object to and that seems reasonable.

 

[spam musubi]

I feel like there's a difference between the military buying a bunch of Hololens devices and adapting them for use and Microsoft actively helping them develop military functionality. If I worked there the latter is what I'd object to and that seems reasonable.

Click to shrink...

This. There's a reason why defense contractors and DARPA exist. Civilians and people working in "normal" companies shouldn't have to be forced to work on technology that will kill people. And no, the shitty libertarian answer of "well if you don't like it just quit" isn't good enough.

 

[CrankyJay]

This. There's a reason why defense contractors and DARPA exist. Civilians and people working in "normal" companies shouldn't have to be forced to work on technology that will kill people. And no, the shitty libertarian answer of "well if you don't like it just quit" isn't good enough.

Click to shrink...

Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to work there. It is good enough, and it hardly is owned by the Libertarians.

 

[Fart Master]

Nah, that's sales. Building general purpose software doesn't mean you can't suddenly be against military specific software.

Click to shrink...

I mean that's just semantics, fact is that if your company does business with the military you shouldn't be surprised when you have to work for them.

Are you talking about Windows 7 because that's a dumb comparison.

Click to shrink...

I'm taking about all the software they make.

 

[spam musubi]

Microsoft software has been used for incredibly long amount of time in the military so that's a pretty dumb assumption to make if you're a developer.

Click to shrink...

It's even dumber to conflate general purpose software that is being used by the military with software specifically developed to enhance killing capabilities.

 

[Vic Damone Jr.]

as always, money wins out over morality

Click to shrink...

This and at the same time if you wanna stop these companies and the government hurt their pockets. That's the quickest way to get their attention.

 

[CrankyJay]

This and at the same time if you wanna stop these companies and the government hurt their pockets. That's the quickest way to get their attention.

Click to shrink...

They'll more than make up for those lost XBox profits with other government contracts, which you as a taxpayer will be footing the bill for, anyway.

 

[Vic Damone Jr.]

They'll more than make up for those lost XBox profits with other government contracts, which you as a taxpayer will be footing the bill for, anyway.

Click to shrink...

Well sure but I'm talking boycotts on a large scale that have a chance of not happening.

 

[Brown Intruder]

Who honestly gives a shit?

 

[BigWinnie1]

They can certainly leave. Just like Colin Kaepernick right? All I was asking is can you at least empathize with them and your response is that they should leave if they don't like it. That ain't it chief.

Also while DARPA is part of the Department of Defense, I don't think it's an apt comparison. DARPA is part of the government and military branch, Microsoft is a publicly traded company. The expectations of someone joining a company like Microsoft and DARPA and the moral issues with each are not the same.

Click to shrink...

Really trying to conflate Collins protest to these people? As if it is remotely the same thing. The military can buy what it wants yo repurpose for its own needs within reason and I dont see how these guys have a leg to stand on.

 

[CrankyJay]

Well sure but I'm talking boycotts on a large scale that have a chance of not happening.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's the problem, there's never enough people to buy in to these boycotts it seems.

 

[Khanimus]

Who honestly gives a shit?

Click to shrink...

People who take issue with the military industrial complex?

 

[Necromanti]

Who honestly gives a shit?

Click to shrink...

Some people working at Microsoft, apparently.

The military can buy what it wants yo repurpose for its own needs within reason and I dont see how these guys have a leg to stand on.

Click to shrink...

That seems different from the current situation, though.

 

[Dan]

Really trying to conflate Collins protest to these people? As if it is remotely the same thing. The military can buy what it wants yo repurpose for its own needs within reason and I dont see how these guys have a leg to stand on.

Click to shrink...

It's not even much so that. Microsoft owns the intellectual property of whatever they employ those developers for. MS can do with it whatever they want to, within law. The employees can be disappointed that their efforts are being used in a way they deem to be questionable, but given the amount of money that is involved, their protest is an effort in futility.

Their biggest statement of protest would be to quit the company, thus ceasing to work on those projects. I will give them credit if they have enough conviction to do that.

 

[Charcoal]

I wonder how many of you are aware that the entire US government uses the Microsoft Office Suite.

 

[One Eyed Willy]

Good for Satya

 

[Brown Intruder]

People who take issue with the military industrial complex?

Click to shrink...

Some people working at Microsoft, apparently.
That seems different from the current situation, though.

Click to shrink...

I wonder if they will quit their jobs and their paychecks? Obviously, if you feel that strongly, then there's no way of continuing

 

[Renna Hazel]

I'm ok with our businesses supporting the military. It's always been that way.

 

[junomars]

I wonder if they will quit their jobs and their paychecks? Obviously, if you feel that strongly, then there's no way of continuing

Click to shrink...

Yeah I don't see a mass exodus anytime soon and even if they did, there are thousands who would take their place.

Also the US government has probably been Microsoft's biggest single customer for years now. A huge portion of that is DoD.

 

[Bonafide]

I wonder how many of you are aware that the entire US government uses the Microsoft Office Suite.

Click to shrink...

microsoft office isn't enabling these folks putting bombs on target or directly impact military training, please stop being obtuse and at least understand their concerns here

also lmfao "corporate citizen"