4 ms·
well, I wouldn't be OK with the Chinese owning an interest in Palantir that gave them insider access, fair enough, but the story is super light on details, incl
by RockyMcNuts 10y ago
well, I wouldn't be OK with the Chinese owning an interest in Palantir that gave them insider access, fair enough, but the story is super light on details, including Abramowitz's role, why they fell out, why Jamie Dimon was going to get involved (must have felt they were out of line and there was an important issue involving important people).
If the China angle is an issue, then should it be an issue when Palantir gives immigration agents access to CIA files, ergo is involved in arbitrarily denying visas, ergo de facto building the 'Muslim registry'?
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/17/palantir-enables-immigration-agents-to-access-information-from-the-cia/ https://theintercept.com/2017/03/17/palantir-enables-immigra...
http://www.voanews.com/a/african-trade-conference-canceled-after-visas-denied-african-delegates/3770907.html http://www.voanews.com/a/african-trade-conference-canceled-a...
- jacquesm 10y agoYes, Palantir is complicit in all kinds of bad stuff. That doesn't mean you should treat their ownership lightly.
- hendzen 10y agoJamie Dimon was going to get involved because the buyer of the shares was Highbridge Capital, a hedge fund owned by JPM.
- RockyMcNuts 10y agoHighbridge isn't normally going to get Jamie Dimon involved in routine business disputes for relatively modest amounts of money. He's got to run around Davos, wrestle whales and whatnot. You get Jamie Dimon involved when you want to put someone or everyone associated with the deal in JP Morgan's global double secret probation penalty box. Seems like there is a missing piece of the puzzle.