Microsoft employees call on company to kill $480 million U.S. Army contract

A group of Microsoft employees today called on the company to cancel a $480 million contract it recently inked with the U.S. Army. In an open letter addressed to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and President Brad Smith, the employees stated that they "refuse to create technology for warfare and oppression" (via Recode)

The contract in question could see the Army purchase upwards of 100,000 HoloLens headsets for combat and training purposes. When the contract was announced last November, it was described as a program to "increase lethality by enhancing the ability to detect, decide, and engage before the enemy" using HoloLens tech. It's precisely this intention that the employees have objected to.

"The application of HoloLens within the [Integrated Visual Augmentation System] is designed to help people kill," the letter states. "It will be deployed on the battlefield, and works by turning warfare into a simulated "video game," further distancing soldiers from the grim stakes of war and the reality of bloodshed."

To address their concerns, the employees call on Microsoft to cancel the contract, cease developing "any and all weapons technologies," draft a public-facing policy on the commitment, and appoint an independent ethics review board to assess the company's compliance with such a policy.

The letter also calls attention to what the employees see as a larger problem within Microsoft; namely, employees aren't "properly informed of the use of their work," the letter says. This, the employees argue, makes it difficult for employees to be informed enough to make the decision to move to another project – an option Microsoft President Brad Smith has indicated is open to employees who may have ethical objections to how their work is being used.

See more

It's unclear how many Microsoft employees have signed onto the letter so far, but Recode reports that the group numbered around 50 as of 5 p.m. ET on February 22.

This is the latest in a string of movements by employees in the tech industry against projects their employers are working on. For Microsoft, the letter is reminiscent of the backlash Microsoft faced from employees last June over its work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during amidst the controversy surrounding U.S.-Mexico border crisis. Those outcries didn't impact Microsoft's work with ICE, but elsewhere in the tech industry, Google employees were successful in pushing the company to abandon an AI contract with the Pentagon and end work on a censored search product for China.

The letter also comes ahead of Microsoft's February 24 Mobile World Congress 2019 event, where it's expected to take the wraps off of HoloLens 2.

Dan Thorp-Lancaster is the former Editor-in-Chief of Windows Central. He began working with Windows Central, Android Central, and iMore as a news writer in 2014 and is obsessed with tech of all sorts. You can follow Dan on Twitter @DthorpL and Instagram @heyitsdtl

  • Sounds like 50 people should think about working elsewhere.
  • or tell them that they have to go into battle, and let them decide if they want the HoloLens or not. ???
  • Or also tell them that they have to go into battle with sticks and stones, and the enemy has a machine gun! Still is tech, isn't it?
  • I agree. I get where they are coming from but at the end of the day any advantage a country can get over another with tech is a plus imo. But each to there own.
  • it's a bit rich complaining about military use of tech. since it's the military that pretty much has driven us to where we are today, starting with code breaking in the 2nd World War and onwards. I'm pretty sure even Babbage's work was largely to help the British Navy.
  • How about this -
    (TL;DW; the whole tech thing in Silicon Valley was initially funded by the military trying to radiolocate military objects in the USSR)
  • And people can move past roots, especially if the roots are problematic. We have all come from primitive societies - would you say criticizing things primitive societies did (if someone were to do those today) would be "a bit rich" as you put it?
  • So you've convinced the rest of the world to not engage us in armed combat, right? Want to make sure before we put down our weapons.
  • Us vs them. Nowhere did I mention the US in that comment. This isn't about putting "our" weapons down. This is about not increasing lethality by deploying more and more or better and better weapons that are uncalled for.
  • "Increasing lethality" is a pathetic euphemism for giving our fellow citizens -- who risk all to keep you soft, happy, and nescient -- the best opportunity to come home victorious and whole. Unbelievable.
  • Yet somehow I don't think China and Russia will listen to you. You honestly want to risk your freedom to live peacefully on a hope those countries have put down tech research also? Yeah I didn't think so.
  • Not to mention the drones I'm sure more than half of them own or allow in their household. Besides that, they should also consider how it could potentially decrease civilian casualties, as well. Instead of complaining about it, they should stay on and help develop HoloLense and other future products that have proper fail-safes.
  • Voicing that there is a problem is the first step. There's this "anti-complaining" sentiment that's just gone way too far. Without complaining, nothing would happen. This voices their feelings and invites discourse. Now those employees will hear from the world including the comment you just posted. This could help them consider those viewpoints.
  • You make a valid point. But, iPads, Android tablets PCs, and many other pieces of technology have been used to train soldiers, run simulations and develop offensive and defensive plans to confront the enemy. My point in saying, and I probably should have been clearer about it, is that technology of all sorts will be used in wartime, if practical. Contract or not, technology will be used. Besides the point, HoloLense isn't just for war. If the company switched its focus specifically on creating warmachines and technology, I could understand the argument. If the military could just go to a store front and buy them and they became aware of it, would they have an issue with developing this device?
  • What problem? Giving our military the best tools possible only helps them and us.
  • That is very fair. They want the military contract canceled, but don't realize doing that could very well end their careers. If they felt that strongly, and thought that tradeoff was fair, they would walk out of those jobs. Instead, they'll write a letter and collect their paychecks.
  • They do realize that could end their careers. The first step you try is to convince your employer to do what's right and if they don't and you determine you don't want to put your paycheck above it, then you quit. Most people won't simply because they can't afford to. Nothing wrong with voicing your feelings though. They should ideally do more than just that.
  • If you think that unemployment is inconvenient, try losing a war.
  • You people should realize there's more than just profits that people are about. These workers likely worked on HoloLens and helped create it. It's an ethical dilemma for a worker. While they want to create tech, they do so for good use and not war. War is not good or justified even if it's the US doing it but a lot of Americans don't believe that because they think the US can do no wrong. You must support the troops or else the magic sky cloth won't freedom.
  • I wonder what OS is used by military around the world...
  • Mostly Windows except for Korea (North and South) , China and some other countries where they mostly use Linux. Except for North Korea the other countries use Linux because they are cheap or didn't want the many changes that happened with Windows 7 after XP ended support. North Korea use Linux because they know Windows has a backdoor to the NSA and the CIA and they are not totally stupid, I don't know about China though
  • There is no back door. Take the tinfoil hat off. The Govt relies on undisclosed zero day exploits. This is how they did Stuxnet amongst other things. Read the Snowden stuff for more info.
  • While true, as said at the beginning, they need to find another job. A company is ONLY profits. If you don't agree, work elsewhere.
  • See, they only want to look at the negative. They're talking as if HoloLens was designed as a device only for killing. They want to focus only on the negative. They don't want to consider that it allows a more effective engagement that saves lives. You have the technology to keep your soldiers alive, just as much as the worries of killing people with its advantages. It can probably help them identify non-lethal targets and avoid taking fights they aren't sure about. To sit here and say there is no justification to war is just unfair. British tyranny is where we were before the Revolutionary War. A fractured nation supporting slavery is where we were before the Civil War. You can only say "war isn't justified" so long as you can get the whole of humanity to agree. Imagine if we took that stance in the early-1900s, and we sat back while **** Germany ran roughshod on Europe and the world because "it's not nice to go to war."
  • It is more than saving the lives of our soldiers. It is also about saving the lives of the enemy. How so? As lethality rises on the battlefield, casualties fall. Why? Lethality is the probability that a deployed weapon (think of aiming and shooting your rifle) will hit its intended target. Smart munitions allowed us to use the least amount of explosive to destroy a target. During the no-fly zone post-Desert Storm period, we filled some of our HARM (high-speed anti-radiation missiles) munitions with concrete. All we really wanted to do was bust up the radar antennae. We decided since Iraq would locate the antennas in civilian areas, it was best to just punch a hole in the antenna instead of blowing up the city block.
  • "War isn't justified" was a blanket statement. It can be, to fight against atrocities like you mentioned. What the US is doing foreign relations wise and has been doing... That is not.
  • "Ethical dilemma"? What is unethical about giving those who defend our lives and liberties the best tools possible? Anyone who complains about helping our military ought to spend some time under shari'a or Communism. Talk about a "dilemma."
  • I bet they are not even westerns by origin. Most likely people who moved to the USA or were born to non-western parents, most likely from muslim countries. I am not trying to be racist here but I really hate it when someone who is not American (by origin, not citizenship) thinks he is entitled to say what contracts tech giants may or may not do with US army.
  • You mean they should be allowed to work and create value in your country, pay taxes to support your country, but should have no say in what your country does with it ?
    You do realize many of these "foreigners" are creating more wealth in your country than the "real Americans" do ?
    And before you voice your worldview that the foreigners are not creating new things, but merely code-workers for real innovative Americans, Alex Kipman is Brazilian... you might want to look him up, I heard he has been somewhat important in HoloLens development... Also, you mention if they're born in the country but from foreign parents, they're still not real Americans... how far back does this rule go? Are you ready to limit the right to vote to native-Americans only ? I mean, the few actually real Americans that the ones you call "real Americans" didn't exterminate when they moved to the USA.
  • You are being racist though, and xenophobic.
  • notice they don't even have to try? they simply are.
  • No, he is saying that as first-generation immigrants they have not fully assimilated to American culture. They may not really appreciate all the cultural nuances of our history that forged the Professional American Military. I worked with a German citizen, who immigrated to the US in the 1950s after completed his graduate engineering studies in Germany. He became a US citizen, worked at NASA. He really did not know the American Military or the men and women that serve in the military. He tried to tell me that he thought an Army General would order his troops to invade Washington DC and take over. He was serious. I told him he was nuts and that he really did not know how military officers are trained. George Washington established West Point because he knew the importance of a professional army. Most first generation immigrants knowledge of the military is based on their knowledge of the military in their country. Most countries do not have the level of professionalism in their military. From this is born an ignorance of things like rules of engagement, the Military uniform code of justice and the role of civilian leadership of the military. American civilians know far more about the individual actions of our military personnel (good and bad) than most other countries would know about their military professionals. The American military wants to destroy the enemy as quickly and ruthlessly as possible without hurting civilians. The Chinese and Russians could care less. Thus, any technology that increases the lethality of US forces is good at minimizing the amount of destruction caused by our actions on the battlefield and increase the likelihood the opposing force will quickly capitulate. In this specific case, we are talking about infantry trying to secure a dense urban landscape that is under the control of an entrenched force using civilians as shields. I would rather our soldiers have the weapons to target effectively the terrorists and not just shell/bomb/machine gun indiscriminately an urban landscape. Do you really think the authors of this letter consider the totality of Warfare and the efforts of the US to avoid war? I think most first generation immigrants do not.
  • So you think ignorance should be a reason to prevent tax paying citizens from having a say in things? Half of American born citizens wouldn't qualify by that standard. Oh, but I see, only specific kinds of ignorance apply. Also, you're simply wrong when you say Americans know about their military. Most have not a single clue. Immigrants who have become naturalized citizens often do so over a period of *decades* and know more about America than American born people who take things for granted. Immigrants also have to pass a test before becoming citizens.
  • You cried when Hillary lost, right?
  • US tried not to kill civilians? For a country to be so young they have killed millions of people and took down cities by sheer force and have cause the most horrible destruction in history. Ask Japan about it.
  • You mean like they used the previous technological advancement, the atomic bomb, to win a war "as ruthlessly as possible without hurting civilians" ? The USA dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, followed a few days later by Nagasaki, killing more than 129 000 people, 92% of which were civilians.
    The stated goal of the attack was “terrorizing the population into submission”.
    In the final six months of the war, the US threw the full weight of its air power into campaigns to burn whole Japanese cities to the ground and terrorize, incapacitate and kill their largely defenseless residents in an effort to force surrender. Don't believe foreigners don't like your military out of ignorance, quite the contrary, believing they want to limit civilians casualties shows ignorance or blind faith on your part. Hold your institutions accountable for their actions if you want international credibility.
  • Personally, I don't really care about "international credibility". I simply want a military that is capable of utterly and completely defeating any enemy, anywhere, any time.
  • This is 1000% correct
  • wow the buzzwords!
  • That is such an ignorant statement. Racism and nationalism are two different things. And a phobia is an irrational fear. Quit being stupid about throwing words like that around.
  • If you have to preface your statement with "I am not trying to be racist here" then you are being racist and should probably just keep your mouth shut. As the saying goes... "It is better to be quiet and thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
  • When Hillary lost, did you cry?
  • You guys are not American "by origin" either, so don't even go there with that. Native Americans are.
  • now you're just being rarted
  • You do realize that most "Americans" are not really Americans by origin, right ********? Edit: numb nuts is flagged here? What the heck Mobile Nations 😂😂😂
  • went from writing articles about how to curse using WP7's keyboard to being a safe space
  • Sorry, but actually we are. Born and raised in America. If you want to play a silly lineage game, then EVERYBODY started over in the middle east. Moving on.
  • Sounds like you would like people to work for US, but strip them from their rights based on origin. Hitler 2?
  • An American citizen is an American though, that's literally what citizenship means.
  • This is dumb. Technology is imminent. It's better to have it before they do,, and they will have it sooner or later. SMDH
  • I couldn't agree with you more. What are those snot-nosed little snowflakes going to do if an enemy decides attack us? Respond by wagging their fingers and use foul language? I have news for those twits. "Their" software has been part of the military machine from the beginning in one way or another.
  • It really is sad that people working at an American company are opposed to helping the U.S. military.
  • This is not very sad. It will be very sad if the company cancels the contract.
  • It's not that they are opposed to helping the U.S. Military - it's that they are opposed to developing technology to help kill people. Go back to the article and re-read the letter the Microsoft employees wrote. You are twisting this into your own perspective.
  • Warfare is always evolving all over the planet and with better technology there's no stopping that. I dont think stopping 1 company makes any kind of impact. No HoloLens? they will find another way. so I dont understand really.
  • Just get rid of the snowflakes and replace them with people who are actually productive and don't sit around whining all day.
  • Whatever my opinion on this, I wouldn't be happy at a small group of people thinking they speak for every employee. If I felt my employer was doing something I didn't agree with, I'd leave, I certainly wouldn't expect them to turn down a lucrative contract. If you're a vegan, have solar panels, cycle everywhere, only buy organic food and clothes, have nothing to do with buying products made in the Far East, in sweatshops with low pay, limited or no workers rights and child labour, perhaps then you hold enough of the moral high ground to complain. Otherwise don't force your opinion onto others or think you represent me. I'll do my best to live by a good moral code, but I can't possibly claim to be squeaky clean on this front and therefore in no position to tell others how they should behave.
  • You see, it becomes an issue if you work on cutting edge technology like this yourself and then people are using your work to do things that are unethical in your eye. Because you're just an employee, you don't own anything of the final product later. You don't own decisions. To many, this seems normal and okay just because that's how things are. But it's not always.
    I highly doubt that this letter will do anything but it's a commendable act of letting your opinion be known to your employer (even if they don't care) which could put you at risk. Standing up for your ethics instead of "selling out" is a good thing.
  • I would expect that someone who works at Microsoft has common sense. Countries across the globe are developing tech gadgets for military purposes. Opposing Microsoft to do contract with US army won't contribute to peace even for a bit. Canceling contract would only put US army in a worse position than their rivals (Russia, China).
  • I wonder if they all posted there feelings/complaints to Microsoft on an i-phone made in china?
  • Innovation prevents casualties. See Oppenheimer.
  • What you said goes against what the military has stated themselves. If you re-read the article, it says the military wants to use this to increase lethality. Which is the opposite of saving lives.
  • If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck. Perhaps it's time Microsoft included a paintball or airsoft shoot house into the new campus to provide needed context for their employees as to the needs of their customers. >.>b
  • I think the issue is it's each individual choice as to whether or not they go to work for a manufacturer of weapons. Those people working on the HoloLens didn't know they'd end up working on a military weapon. If those 50 people are all important engineers on the HoloLens team, MS may have a serious problem on their hands if they don't acquiesce. I get it, protecting our guys is noble, killing, not so much. A hard spot to be in.
  • That might be the case, but they must be rather naive to think it wouldn't be used for military purposes, what on earth do they think the military use for writing letters, producing spreadsheets etc., practically everything computer based is going to be used by the military somehow or other, with augmented reality only a fool wouldn't see the military potential, or do they think playing games flying helicopters or shooting people, doesn't show any parallels with how the military might be able to use it. If it's not direct, it's most likely indirectly contributing to the military, i.e. if you wrote code used by the IRS, that provides the money that funds the military.
  • Mike, funding the military is one thing, but directly enabling greater rates of lethality is another. HoloLens does the latter.
  • And that's a good thing. These crybabies need to find another place to work.
  • Technology has reduced the casulty to civilians. The increased rates of lethality is done to the war participants. What's wrong with that? Isn't that what war is about? Weapon system is designed to kill but is also to be a deterrent. If a war does not break out, it won't have lethality no matter how lethal a system is. If a war does break out, you want to win and increased lethality is what helps you to win. If you don't want lethality, play video games. The biggest invitation to war is to have a weak military. You have not read enough history books.
  • To be precise, they're likely reducing fatalities in their own ranks rather than increasing lethality. The enemy would be killed regardless; it would simply come at a greater cost to the home team.
  • Technically, lethality is the probability a deployed weapon will destroy the target. If you can kill the enemy before he even has a chance to shoot back, the enemy will quickly stop fighting. Thus many lives on both sides are saved.
  • If they didn't suspect a military use for an AR headset, they're approaching the autistic camp; it's been obvious from the very beginning of the project...
  • HoloLens is not a military weapon. Rather it could be used in the field of military, medical sector, pharmaceutical field, manufacturing or even interior decoration sector. It depends where you want to use it.
  • Microsoft doesn’t force employees to work on a project they don’t want to. They are welcome to find a new place to work if they disagree with the direction their employer is going.
  • Employees were likely not aware while working on this tech that their work would be used for war. You see, those employees are the ones who really created this technology but they've (by the terms of employment) handed over complete rights of their work to Microsoft that enabled them to create that technology. They're justifiably frustrated about their lack of control at this point when in an ethically difficult situation.
  • Do you have any evidence that these are the employees who worked on hololens? If they are, they would have mentioned in the letter and moved to other positions. If you are abhorrent about wars, don't work in tech because everything in tech will be used in the context of a war. Actually, just stay home.
  • As much as I disagree with that guy's point of view here, I think it's a safe assumption that they worked on hololens. There are quite a few Microsoft products in use by the military/DoD including windows, and even Xbox controllers. They didn't ***** then.
  • If I am the 2nd in line competitor to Hololens for the army contract, the cost to identify and hire a big mouth to lobby for revolt is cheap. If I am the enemy to US, depriving the military a strategic technology with a cost to targeting individuals through social media to revolt is cheap. The timing to publish the letter prior to announcement of Hololens 2 smells corporate conspiracy
  • I too think that 🤔
  • Dear Mr. Gates, as a long time civilian user of Microsft products, having worked in the tech industry since 1991 and a Veteran as well, I think I have a solution that could make a point, if enacted, since it appears your engineers will probably win in this chilly, snowflake filled time of Anti-US biased courts and politicians. Simply move the engineers who think they are so smart they should be running the show to the windows tech support and to windows update teams at a cut in pay then, move the current windows tech support & update team to VR engineer positions at same pay as the protesting VR engineers were making and... if they can meet deadlines with minimal delay to schedule and contract specs the VR contract, they get a bonus.
    If anyone doesn't like the offer they can leave.
    If they stay, maybe windows software will be better supported by the engineers who are so smart and the VR contract for the military can proceed at the level of current Windows efficiency or they can give micrpsoft what they've obviously been holding back and thus, the VR engineers can't complain over the continued contract since it may never be fulfilled by the former windows tech support and update teams!
    Either way, don't cancel the contract.
  • Anti war does not mean anti-US but okay.
  • If you are anti-war and only doing it in US, then you are anit-US. If you are anti-war, then you should travel to China and Russia also and spread the anti-war message. Better yet, stop them from using VR/AR technology to improve their weapon system, and see what happens to you.
  • @bbqrooster: You gotta be kidding me...
  • LOL. If you are an American, you are concerned with your country and its foreign relations. You can condemn war and you have no obligation to go to other countries to do so. The internet is an open space.
    1. This is a flawed argument. It's like saying "don't like racism in the US? too bad! go to Africa and solve their problems of racism or you're a hypocrite." If you think that, there's no point discussing.
    2. Some of the biggest American heroes have been called anti-US in the past. Being patriotic does NOT mean always agreeing with the direction your country is going. That's called fascism. Being patriotic means loving it and wanting to change it for the better.
    The amount of "The US is always doing the right thing" people on this thread... Too much lol. You guys have totally bought into propaganda and it shows. The Chinese and Russians think the same of their governments, by the way.
  • Gates hasn't been in charge for a decade.
  • Freedom is not free, military personnel need support and Microsoft needs to fire these employees. Let me refrase that so it doesn't hurt 😬 "allow these employees to leave for other employment."
  • Instead of technoloy for good, not war... How about technology for good AND save life for military personels and civilians caught in wars. Hololens is not just a one sided view of promoting killings in wars, but also helps to minimize or avoid casualties in wars. Wars are inevitable... Sometimes a superior technological advantages could deter wars... If US military not using it, what deters US enemies from using hololens to support more effective military planning and executions to cause more damages to US within and foreign? Hololens save life... and it is for Good!
  • Soooo a publicity stunt before tomorrow's unveiling of HL2?
  • So they would rather have US soldiers being killed? Wars will be fought… with or without the HL.
  • drugs will be used with our without drug dealers
  • Ukraine didn't have advanced technology and now they lost half of 1/3 of their territory. Georgia (country) didn't have advanced technology and now lost part of their territory. This is current world. There were a lot of military contract - desktop, servers, office and cloud purchases - all of them, technically, partially contribute to "oppression". So Microsoft workers who signed have already contributed. What this specific project changes? Why police is different? Do not see consistency in this message... Reasoning is not clear
  • an interesting discussion.
  • Refuse to do your job? Fired.
  • Next, employees in the Xbox division will protest that they're making games which engage the enemy in advance. My gawd...
  • That just seems ridiculous. If they had any military experience they would realize that PowerPoint and Excel have been enabling Warfare for far longer than Hololens. Are they going to ask Microsoft to stop selling Office?
  • Don't forget windows and Xbox controllers. Maybe Microsoft should start making toys like Mattel.... Wait...
  • I don't begrudge anyone the right to take a principled stand. I think it's a little disingenuous to single out HoloLens on the eve of their announcement at MWC since the Pentagon contract news is several months old... And as other posters have noted, so many other tools Microsoft supplies can be used to support a war effort... Just as easily as they can be used to support science, the arts, humanitarian aid, etc. I think I'm most annoyed at the press/media for not framing this a little more clearly. How many workers signed this? Do they work on HoloLens? Are any of them in a leadership position or have a significant tenure at the company? These "tech worker revolt" stories are almost always presented without any context.
  • Funny, I was going to say the same things about MS Office. More memos and other documents, plans, etc are done in Office that become foreign policy, send Soldier's to war, draft battle plans... We should probably stop licensing that product to us as well. It makes all those tasks much faster and more efficient and quicker to implement with every update. And the Xbox team should protest the Army using Xbox controllers for their robots too.
  • after reading these comments, I find myself ashamed at the number of people who just don't get it, especially those who selectively forget the horrors of living under the alleged peace of nuclear weapons. seriously, never invoke Oppenheimer without addressing the fact that we've nearly exterminated ourselves a few times because of that work. peace-mongering individuals, often times countering technology, are the only reason many of your parents were alive long enough to give birth to you. the United States doesn't need magic goggles to efficiently kill. it was doing that well before modern technology existed. perhaps it should go back to it and give the people involved in running such things the benefit of experiencing the impact of their decisions. the old farts remember. the old farts generally aren't all that blaise about war, and take a dim view of the attitudes on display here. and, yes, if you feel the need to use the phrase "I'm not trying to be racist", your racism is effortless. thank you for pointing it out.
  • You're not exactly making sense here. Effectively identying someone in combat is far different that effecient killing. It's also far more discriminatory than nuclear weapons. Anything that can allow a soldier to better gain situational awareness to eliminate a combatant while reducing the risk of harming friendlies or non-combatants is a win in my book.
  • I hope they quit using the internet. Because its roots are in military. Some people are so disconnected from the reality they live in.
  • Ah, the "roots" argument. By that logic, anyone who is against colonization should quit living in the USA...
  • Way to drag down video games with them as if they're also unethical and promote violence. -.-
  • "Oppression"? WTF? Everyone one of those morons should be canned.
  • You guys are hilarious. Call for violence and then claim you're better than others who call for violence.
  • What's violent about firing someone?
  • Do they know pretty much the entire military uses Windows... melt snowflakes...
  • Someone said something I don't like, they must be snowflakes. Honestly, the people having negative reactions to this seem to be much more caught up and offended.
  • Maybe they should go and check out a wonded warriors hospital and then they can tell them to their face they don't want to assist in creating technology that may save/prevent injuries on the battlefield. My guess you never served a day in your life. Yet love reaping the benifits of a free nation off the backs of a powerful military. Maybe if they don't want to help... They can resign their positions and find new jobs? Actions speak louder than meaningless words and an empty letter.
  • Every large group, unfortunately, has a vocal minority. Microsoft leadership addressed this months ago and is moving forward with supporting our government.
  • Vocal minorities aren't always a bad thing.
  • But they get all the attention
  • Perhaps, we should stop using computers/operating systems, Cloud storage and Office professional because "ALL" those tech tools enhance/enable the US military to be the most efficient capable force for freedom on the Planet. Better dust of those slide rules chalk boards and punchcards in a hurry!!!
  • Freedom? Since when is anyone free when we are still slaves to money? I would never consider myself free considering all I have to pay for.
  • You think these Microsoft employees would rather the US falls further behind countries that are even more morally corrupt?
  • I hope they realize the military can use it more than just kill people. Medical, logistics, etc. There is more to the military than just guns
  • Exactly. It will very likely be broadly used and could be going for use in occupational or other therapy methods to heal wounded Soldiers or help with PTSD. Thinking it is a very specific use to only facilitate killing is ignorant. Thoughtful analysis and discussion should be had and if it's that traumatic to the individuals signing the letter and if it is too against their beliefs then move to a different area of the company or move on. There is nothing wrong with how they feel about the use of a product they help develop. But just making some broad call to stop all deals with the military is too wide sweeping and just ill thought out without considering the secondary, tertiary, and beyond effects of all the greater beneficial use cases.
  • It is obvious