3 ms·

I think the issue is whether the improvements in both deep analysis and real-time situational awareness constitute an infringement on personal liberty. My unde

I think the issue is whether the improvements in both deep analysis and real-time situational awareness constitute an infringement on personal liberty. My understanding of the Palantir law enforcement use case is that, for example, a gang unit police cruiser going down the street in a bad neighborhood can pick up data from its license plate readers, and be automatically alerted if any passing vehicles are associated with certain parameters. The plain-vanilla tech solution for law enforcement would be something along the lines of: throw a notification if any of the passing vehicles is registered to someone with outstanding warrants. Palantir takes it a step further and throws a notification if, say, the vehicle is registered to a known associate of a gang member who is wanted for questioning. This network understanding has to be built on the backend, both by integrating existing data sources and by doing work directly on the Palantir system. Eventually the cops might start following the vehicle, and pull the driver over for a nominal traffic infraction. At that point, the officer is going to use their Palantir app within their department-issued mobile phone to assist in the discussion with the driver -- for example, if the driver coughs up any names, the officer can type them in to see what comes up in the system. I'd think that Palantir's defense of this would be something along the lines of, "everyone in this story previously had the right to see every bit of information the system provided, we just made it more efficient". The counterargument would be something along the lines of, the state having such detailed understanding of its citizens' personal lives is ipso facto tyranny.

jessriedel 9y ago
The ability of the government to temporarily detain and question essentially anyone at any time through traffic stops for minor violations seems like a bigger problem. It seems weird to try and restrain abuse of that power by keeping the police under-informed rather than just eliminating that power directly.
- vorpalhex 9y ago
  There are defenses against this, but they're not reasonably in grasp for most people. If I start having a police officer interrogate me about something outside of a traffic stop: 1. I know enough to stop answering questions 2. I have a lawyer I can call and ask to get involved Both 1 and 2 are, however, not choices for the vast majority of people.
  - matthewaveryusa 9y ago
    Your two points are really good. Before you're under arrest, you may want to try #1, but what may ensue is failure to obey orders, or resistance to arrest, or disorderly conduct. Don't ask me why or how, it just kind of happens and before you know it you're under arrest. Now that you're under arrest, your 5 minute traffic stop transformed itself into an ordeal. For some people it's worth it, for others they just want to avoid the hassle, and you can't blame them for not asserting their rights. Cameras in your vehicle and handing your attorney's business card with your driver's license are good deterrents that I highly recommend. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
    - vorpalhex 9y ago
      Your point here is correct. A very common tactic is for police to make a wrong claim - which is legal - such as "If you don't cooperate with me, I'm going to arrest you and charge you with X". The police are absolutely allowed to lie to you, including about the law. Likewise, they will use your reluctance to cause a fracas against you to extract easy answers. They may even, as you say above, move to detain you and bring you in. Again, actually having a lawyer here is what's important, and again, usually not something most people can afford.
- wfo 9y ago
  Why do you assume this is informing police? Imagine police see your license plate and the Palantir app shows up and says "crime risk score: 83" and then the police manufacture a reason to pull you over. Are the police more informed, or are they just working for Palantir now? Limiting police power is a tough political goal. Right now police can literally shoot you dozens of times with their personal assault rifle that has "fuck you" engraved on it while you are lying on the ground with your hands on your head begging for your life, then get caught planting a gun on your body and face zero repercussions. And in discussions about this a huge number of people support the cops - "you never know, he could have been armed, we can't ever suggest a cop behaved badly because that would make other cops less willing to kill at a moment's notice" are real arguments people put forward. If you want to stop them from being able to pull people over for no reason so easily that sounds great but that is a HUGE undertaking.

jessriedel 9y ago

The ability of the government to temporarily detain and question essentially anyone at any time through traffic stops for minor violations seems like a bigger problem. It seems weird to try and restrain abuse of that power by keeping the police under-informed rather than just eliminating that power directly.

vorpalhex 9y ago
There are defenses against this, but they're not reasonably in grasp for most people. If I start having a police officer interrogate me about something outside of a traffic stop: 1. I know enough to stop answering questions 2. I have a lawyer I can call and ask to get involved Both 1 and 2 are, however, not choices for the vast majority of people.
- matthewaveryusa 9y ago
  Your two points are really good. Before you're under arrest, you may want to try #1, but what may ensue is failure to obey orders, or resistance to arrest, or disorderly conduct. Don't ask me why or how, it just kind of happens and before you know it you're under arrest. Now that you're under arrest, your 5 minute traffic stop transformed itself into an ordeal. For some people it's worth it, for others they just want to avoid the hassle, and you can't blame them for not asserting their rights. Cameras in your vehicle and handing your attorney's business card with your driver's license are good deterrents that I highly recommend. Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
  - vorpalhex 9y ago
    Your point here is correct. A very common tactic is for police to make a wrong claim - which is legal - such as "If you don't cooperate with me, I'm going to arrest you and charge you with X". The police are absolutely allowed to lie to you, including about the law. Likewise, they will use your reluctance to cause a fracas against you to extract easy answers. They may even, as you say above, move to detain you and bring you in. Again, actually having a lawyer here is what's important, and again, usually not something most people can afford.
wfo 9y ago
Why do you assume this is informing police? Imagine police see your license plate and the Palantir app shows up and says "crime risk score: 83" and then the police manufacture a reason to pull you over. Are the police more informed, or are they just working for Palantir now? Limiting police power is a tough political goal. Right now police can literally shoot you dozens of times with their personal assault rifle that has "fuck you" engraved on it while you are lying on the ground with your hands on your head begging for your life, then get caught planting a gun on your body and face zero repercussions. And in discussions about this a huge number of people support the cops - "you never know, he could have been armed, we can't ever suggest a cop behaved badly because that would make other cops less willing to kill at a moment's notice" are real arguments people put forward. If you want to stop them from being able to pull people over for no reason so easily that sounds great but that is a HUGE undertaking.