4 ms·

I'd rather we not help our own government "more effectively" spy on American citizens, thanks.

by pmiller2 7y ago

taywrobel 7y ago
Oof, you’re going to have a hard time using pretty much any technology then. Especially if the EARN IT act passes.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Well, in the context of this post, that is irrelevant at best, or whataboutism at worst. I notice you don't offer a defense of Palantir here. Why is that?
taywrobel 7y ago
> Well, in the context of this post, that is irrelevant at best, or whataboutism at worst. I notice you don't offer a defense of Palantir here. Why is that? HN won't let me reply to that, so I'll do it here. I didn't feel the need to offer a "defense" of Palantir there since I already outlined it above and don't feel like there's value in repeating myself. But you asked, here you go - The government is going to use the data regardless, so long as they have it. The only effective recourse is to make them collecting or storing the data illegal, but good luck with that, seeing as even when it is illegal they do it anyways (see: Snowden). Do you think is Palantir weren't there they'd just say "Ah well, I guess that's that" and be done with it? Nope; they'd go to Lockheed, Raytheon, IBM, or another long-time contractor to build a replacement almost immediately. The technology is genuinely nothing special. It federates searches across disparate database, and stitches results together. But for me, having worked at Palantir, I know what mechanisms are provided to attempt to mitigate abuse. So as long as that data does exist and is going to be used, I'd prefer to have it be as well controlled and audited as possible. And sure, you can argue that the government may forego auditing, or be entirely corrupt, but that doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to not use tools that at least provide that capability.
- vertex-four 7y ago
  And we would think the same about Lockheed, Raytheon or IBM. Just because there'll always be someone without morals doesn't mean we just shrug and say anything goes.
  - taywrobel 7y ago
    I’m not saying we should shrug and say anything goes. I’m saying all these companies share one commonality - the are building things for the US government. If you want to see change that is more than just superficial, that’s where you need to make it.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      That's just it: I don't want to see that kind of change. Edit: Changed "we don't" to "I don't". I don't want to claim to speak for anyone else but myself.
      - taywrobel 7y ago
        You don't want to see what kind of change? I'm talking about neutering the surveillance state. That's not something that demonizing individual companies is ever going to do. You need to push for that change at the government level. Unless you're pro-surveillance, but your previous comments made it seem like the opposite.
        pmiller2 7y ago
        I misread, then. I assumed by "change" you meant what Palantir was doing.
    - int_19h 7y ago
      Sometimes it's easier to make the change by going after people whose actions implement the policy, rather than those who establish it.
    - 7y ago

I'd rather we not help our own government "more effectively" spy on American citizens, thanks.

taywrobel 7y ago

Oof, you’re going to have a hard time using pretty much any technology then. Especially if the EARN IT act passes.

pmiller2 7y ago
Well, in the context of this post, that is irrelevant at best, or whataboutism at worst. I notice you don't offer a defense of Palantir here. Why is that?

taywrobel 7y ago

> Well, in the context of this post, that is irrelevant at best, or whataboutism at worst. I notice you don't offer a defense of Palantir here. Why is that? HN won't let me reply to that, so I'll do it here. I didn't feel the need to offer a "defense" of Palantir there since I already outlined it above and don't feel like there's value in repeating myself. But you asked, here you go - The government is going to use the data regardless, so long as they have it. The only effective recourse is to make them collecting or storing the data illegal, but good luck with that, seeing as even when it is illegal they do it anyways (see: Snowden). Do you think is Palantir weren't there they'd just say "Ah well, I guess that's that" and be done with it? Nope; they'd go to Lockheed, Raytheon, IBM, or another long-time contractor to build a replacement almost immediately. The technology is genuinely nothing special. It federates searches across disparate database, and stitches results together. But for me, having worked at Palantir, I know what mechanisms are provided to attempt to mitigate abuse. So as long as that data does exist and is going to be used, I'd prefer to have it be as well controlled and audited as possible. And sure, you can argue that the government may forego auditing, or be entirely corrupt, but that doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to not use tools that at least provide that capability.

vertex-four 7y ago
And we would think the same about Lockheed, Raytheon or IBM. Just because there'll always be someone without morals doesn't mean we just shrug and say anything goes.
- taywrobel 7y ago
  I’m not saying we should shrug and say anything goes. I’m saying all these companies share one commonality - the are building things for the US government. If you want to see change that is more than just superficial, that’s where you need to make it.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    That's just it: I don't want to see that kind of change. Edit: Changed "we don't" to "I don't". I don't want to claim to speak for anyone else but myself.
    - taywrobel 7y ago
      You don't want to see what kind of change? I'm talking about neutering the surveillance state. That's not something that demonizing individual companies is ever going to do. You need to push for that change at the government level. Unless you're pro-surveillance, but your previous comments made it seem like the opposite.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        I misread, then. I assumed by "change" you meant what Palantir was doing.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    Sometimes it's easier to make the change by going after people whose actions implement the policy, rather than those who establish it.
  - 7y ago