5 ms·

The pragmatic justification for Palantir's involvement seems straightforward to me: 1. The problems that Polaris are working on are exactly what Palantir softw

The pragmatic justification for Palantir's involvement seems straightforward to me: 1. The problems that Polaris are working on are exactly what Palantir software is made for. 2. Most other instances of this problem do not generate unequivocally good publicity. To be absolutely clear, when I say "instances," I'm not referring to instances where Palantir is used. I'm referring to instances of the problem-type that Palantir solves. Other examples of this problem and why they wouldn't generate unequivocally good publicity: counter-insurgency ("we shouldn't be involved in the middle east"), counterterrorism ("at the expense of civil liberties"), counterfraud ("rich people get away with fines after stealing millions anyways"), etc. Palantir works with Polaris and NCMEC because they actually care (IMO), Polaris/NCMEC needs align precisely with Palantir capabilities, and they're a rare opportunity to be somewhat public about the company, if not the software.

cinquemb 11y ago
>2. Most other instances of this problem do not generate unequivocally good publicity. `stopthelies comments brings the "unequivocally good" into question (maybe not to the general public, but certainly here in this thread), which makes this bit seem a bit handwavy if I state the circumstance like this: Even though we help enable organizations, whose methods are based on questionable ways of classifying what is going on to continue in order to attract funds/status/etc which can skew how resources are allocated and how certain populations would be negatively affected, this is still unquestionably a good thing to do. I wonder how many times "victims" are "helped" when "every country offers counselor services where they'll print them a new temporary visa and even a ticket back home"[0] and makes sure they're on the flight? We'll probably never know until everything isn't jumbled into "human trafficking" tag. >Palantir works with Polaris and NCMEC because they actually care (IMO), Polaris/NCMEC needs align precisely with Palantir capabilities, and they're a rare opportunity to be somewhat public about the company, if not the software. If I pass this through an altruism filter, the 2nd and 3rd remain. I can say sure to 2 because anyone with ability to generate such plots and access to the data could do that, but I think 3 is the most interesting. Can you elaborate on the benefits of this? The last bit makes me think someone could plausibly construct this as some kind of recruiting gambit for the company and not the unequivocally good cause (which of course would be a valid benefit, but only as far as others choice to perceive such as unequivocally good [i.e. act as a negative signal of sorts, kind of like whiteboard interviews for experienced devs]). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10740546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10740546
- ethanbond 11y ago
  Fair, but not really in a way beyond "I don't believe it because I don't want to." You can of course choose not to see goodness if you don't want to. I also don't think a comment on HN qualifies as bad publicity, and I haven't seen a substantive argument that presents the relationship that way. I'm not quite sure what evidence there is for this assertion that miscategorization is happening. The categories seem to be pretty straightforward. Unless you're accusing them of blatantly lying, I don't see the criticism here. Examples directly from Polaris' "Facts" page: "The International Labour Organization estimates that there are 20.9 million victims of human trafficking globally... 68% of them are trapped in forced labor." Maybe it should be more explicit that this means 14.2 million people are "slaves," but this is a matter of definition that Polaris and its peers have no control over. Other comments also go into why "slavery" isn't even an applicable term. Further, this is not some charity-wide conspiracy of definition manipulation. In fact, on Polaris's "Labor Trafficking" page, you only ever see the 14.2 million figure: people forced into labor. I assume the most readily manipulated figure would be the last one on the page: "31% of undocumented Spanish-speaking migrant workers interviewed in San Diego County had experienced labor trafficking." If it is the case that NGO's are seizing situations like these to call every illegal immigrant who utilizes a coyote to cross the border a "victim of trafficking," then certainly it would surface in this figure. View the study, though, and it looks like there is exactly zero effort put towards manipulating or even exploiting technical definitions. Section 2 of the paper: "Challenges in Trafficking Research." First problem: "Definitional problems." It then outlines which definitions compete for dominance, why, and then plainly states which one it uses. For the record, it can be found here (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf, Sec 103 Paragraphs 8 and 9) and seems to make sense. If these people are miscategorizing things, I simply can't see how. If they are lying, then I'd like to see evidence that that's the case. More evidence than an anonymous person claiming to be writing a thesis on the topic would be nice. Again, people can construct whatever idea or explanation they'd like. If you really want to believe something is incapable of good then you can easily make even the most benign acts look insidious. The question is whether or not you can substantively provide evidence for what is otherwise paranoia.
  - 11y ago

cinquemb 11y ago

>2. Most other instances of this problem do not generate unequivocally good publicity. `stopthelies comments brings the "unequivocally good" into question (maybe not to the general public, but certainly here in this thread), which makes this bit seem a bit handwavy if I state the circumstance like this: Even though we help enable organizations, whose methods are based on questionable ways of classifying what is going on to continue in order to attract funds/status/etc which can skew how resources are allocated and how certain populations would be negatively affected, this is still unquestionably a good thing to do. I wonder how many times "victims" are "helped" when "every country offers counselor services where they'll print them a new temporary visa and even a ticket back home"[0] and makes sure they're on the flight? We'll probably never know until everything isn't jumbled into "human trafficking" tag. >Palantir works with Polaris and NCMEC because they actually care (IMO), Polaris/NCMEC needs align precisely with Palantir capabilities, and they're a rare opportunity to be somewhat public about the company, if not the software. If I pass this through an altruism filter, the 2nd and 3rd remain. I can say sure to 2 because anyone with ability to generate such plots and access to the data could do that, but I think 3 is the most interesting. Can you elaborate on the benefits of this? The last bit makes me think someone could plausibly construct this as some kind of recruiting gambit for the company and not the unequivocally good cause (which of course would be a valid benefit, but only as far as others choice to perceive such as unequivocally good [i.e. act as a negative signal of sorts, kind of like whiteboard interviews for experienced devs]). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10740546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10740546

ethanbond 11y ago
Fair, but not really in a way beyond "I don't believe it because I don't want to." You can of course choose not to see goodness if you don't want to. I also don't think a comment on HN qualifies as bad publicity, and I haven't seen a substantive argument that presents the relationship that way. I'm not quite sure what evidence there is for this assertion that miscategorization is happening. The categories seem to be pretty straightforward. Unless you're accusing them of blatantly lying, I don't see the criticism here. Examples directly from Polaris' "Facts" page: "The International Labour Organization estimates that there are 20.9 million victims of human trafficking globally... 68% of them are trapped in forced labor." Maybe it should be more explicit that this means 14.2 million people are "slaves," but this is a matter of definition that Polaris and its peers have no control over. Other comments also go into why "slavery" isn't even an applicable term. Further, this is not some charity-wide conspiracy of definition manipulation. In fact, on Polaris's "Labor Trafficking" page, you only ever see the 14.2 million figure: people forced into labor. I assume the most readily manipulated figure would be the last one on the page: "31% of undocumented Spanish-speaking migrant workers interviewed in San Diego County had experienced labor trafficking." If it is the case that NGO's are seizing situations like these to call every illegal immigrant who utilizes a coyote to cross the border a "victim of trafficking," then certainly it would surface in this figure. View the study, though, and it looks like there is exactly zero effort put towards manipulating or even exploiting technical definitions. Section 2 of the paper: "Challenges in Trafficking Research." First problem: "Definitional problems." It then outlines which definitions compete for dominance, why, and then plainly states which one it uses. For the record, it can be found here (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10492.pdf, Sec 103 Paragraphs 8 and 9) and seems to make sense. If these people are miscategorizing things, I simply can't see how. If they are lying, then I'd like to see evidence that that's the case. More evidence than an anonymous person claiming to be writing a thesis on the topic would be nice. Again, people can construct whatever idea or explanation they'd like. If you really want to believe something is incapable of good then you can easily make even the most benign acts look insidious. The question is whether or not you can substantively provide evidence for what is otherwise paranoia.
- 11y ago