2 ms·

Much of what they are doing stretches and very likely breaks constitutionality. The fact that they can track you without any probable cause for any amount of ti

Much of what they are doing stretches and very likely breaks constitutionality. The fact that they can track you without any probable cause for any amount of time and then store that information means that essentially they no longer have to get warrants, meaning there is no oversight, on anyone they want as long as they claim it's related to a case. That's absolutely wrong. No one wants gang members running around shooting people up. We are very clearly not a nation of laws as laws apply differently depending on the very things you claim not to care about. Sentences are harsher, applications of justice are different depending on what race, nationality, or religion they are or even how much justice they can afford. This isn't an affront against the police, I'm good friends with officers, but at the end of the day as citizens it's our responsibility to hold our police accountable and establish the limits imposed upon them. Our founding fathers lived under a police state that was unaccountable to the people and we are drifting closer to that line. Our character as a nation is not defined by what we do when it's easy, but how we act when the decision are hard.

P_I_Staker 7y ago
> very likely breaks constitutionality... they can track you without any probable cause... they no longer have to get warrants. Does anything in Palantir's database require a warrant? Law enforcement can absolutely follow your car without a warrant, check if you've come up on a license plate reader, call another department and see if they have your phone number, list of associates, ect. Point being, police don't need a warrant to investigate you. I don't know if they even need reasonable suspicion or probable cause. You might be able to claim harassment if they interfere with your life. Otherwise, constitutional protections apply to restricting your freedom (eg. detaining/arresting you), ceasing/searching your property, and monitoring your private life (eg wiretaps, bugs, ect). It seems like what Palantir's doing is making it easier for departments to share information that would normally require lots of digging. I'm not defending the practice at all. I despise this kind of mass surveillance, and am particularly concerned that it's being done in secret. My opinion is that we don't have enough, or practically any, privacy protections in the USA; at least on public property. Might sound like a contradiction, but we spend much of our lives in public, and shouldn't have to hide in our homes to prevent mass surveillance. I don't think the constitution goes far enough to protect us anymore. The founding fathers could not even imagine the world we live in today. Even George Orwell couldn't conceive of the capabilities we have today when he wrote 1984. Yet we've done close to nothing to rein in these capabilities, and all the movement is in the wrong direction.

P_I_Staker 7y ago

> very likely breaks constitutionality... they can track you without any probable cause... they no longer have to get warrants. Does anything in Palantir's database require a warrant? Law enforcement can absolutely follow your car without a warrant, check if you've come up on a license plate reader, call another department and see if they have your phone number, list of associates, ect. Point being, police don't need a warrant to investigate you. I don't know if they even need reasonable suspicion or probable cause. You might be able to claim harassment if they interfere with your life. Otherwise, constitutional protections apply to restricting your freedom (eg. detaining/arresting you), ceasing/searching your property, and monitoring your private life (eg wiretaps, bugs, ect). It seems like what Palantir's doing is making it easier for departments to share information that would normally require lots of digging. I'm not defending the practice at all. I despise this kind of mass surveillance, and am particularly concerned that it's being done in secret. My opinion is that we don't have enough, or practically any, privacy protections in the USA; at least on public property. Might sound like a contradiction, but we spend much of our lives in public, and shouldn't have to hide in our homes to prevent mass surveillance. I don't think the constitution goes far enough to protect us anymore. The founding fathers could not even imagine the world we live in today. Even George Orwell couldn't conceive of the capabilities we have today when he wrote 1984. Yet we've done close to nothing to rein in these capabilities, and all the movement is in the wrong direction.