4 ms·

> 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

> 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
        I misread, then. I assumed by "change" you meant what Palantir was doing.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    Sometimes it's easier to make the change by going after people whose actions implement the policy, rather than those who establish it.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    Sure. That doesn't mean that what Palantir are doing isn't wrong - selling tools to an entity which is going to use them for harm is wrong, even if they might result in slightly less harm than selling them some other tool. If someone comes into a gun shop and tells you they want to shoot up a classroom, selling them a pistol instead of a machine gun doesn't make you immune from judgement.
    - taywrobel 6y ago
      What makes Palantir different than any other software vendor that sells to the government? Want to know how a lot of that data is generated? Microsoft excel. Arguably without excel there would be less data to act abusively with. If only Microsoft just refused to sell excel to the government. People are happy to accept that excel is general enough that it isn’t made for that one purpose, but refuse to apply the same reasoning to Palantir; that may seem like whataboutism, but they genuinely are comparable tools if you take away the marketing and fear mongering. As for your analogy, it’s more like you own shop that makes metalworking tools, and someone buys some. You don’t know what they are going to do with it, and (here’s where it gets opinionated) you shouldn’t need to care. You sold a tool to someone. Can the tool be used to make a gun? Sure. But it can also be used for anything else involving metal work. At some point we need to accept that the responsibility for how a tool of used needs to be placed on the person using it.
      - vertex-four 6y ago
        Palantir develops tools to be better at tasks that are pitched to them in some degree of detail through the RFP process and similar processes. Palantir as a company would not exist if it were not for the less savoury of those tasks. We do not hear, "Government X purchases a couple thousand Excel licenses to keep a database on people it'd like to kill", and I imagine that Microsoft does not sell Excel to Government X in response to an RFP for tooling to keep track of people it'd like to kill. (Of course, it'd probably stick its metaphorical fingers in its ears if it did hear about Excel being used for that purpose.)
pmiller2 6y ago
> 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). So, basically "screw rule of law, people are gonna do it anyway, so let's make money off it!"

vertex-four 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y ago
      I misread, then. I assumed by "change" you meant what Palantir was doing.
- int_19h 6y ago
  Sometimes it's easier to make the change by going after people whose actions implement the policy, rather than those who establish it.
- vertex-four 6y ago
  Sure. That doesn't mean that what Palantir are doing isn't wrong - selling tools to an entity which is going to use them for harm is wrong, even if they might result in slightly less harm than selling them some other tool. If someone comes into a gun shop and tells you they want to shoot up a classroom, selling them a pistol instead of a machine gun doesn't make you immune from judgement.
  - taywrobel 6y ago
    What makes Palantir different than any other software vendor that sells to the government? Want to know how a lot of that data is generated? Microsoft excel. Arguably without excel there would be less data to act abusively with. If only Microsoft just refused to sell excel to the government. People are happy to accept that excel is general enough that it isn’t made for that one purpose, but refuse to apply the same reasoning to Palantir; that may seem like whataboutism, but they genuinely are comparable tools if you take away the marketing and fear mongering. As for your analogy, it’s more like you own shop that makes metalworking tools, and someone buys some. You don’t know what they are going to do with it, and (here’s where it gets opinionated) you shouldn’t need to care. You sold a tool to someone. Can the tool be used to make a gun? Sure. But it can also be used for anything else involving metal work. At some point we need to accept that the responsibility for how a tool of used needs to be placed on the person using it.
    - vertex-four 6y ago
      Palantir develops tools to be better at tasks that are pitched to them in some degree of detail through the RFP process and similar processes. Palantir as a company would not exist if it were not for the less savoury of those tasks. We do not hear, "Government X purchases a couple thousand Excel licenses to keep a database on people it'd like to kill", and I imagine that Microsoft does not sell Excel to Government X in response to an RFP for tooling to keep track of people it'd like to kill. (Of course, it'd probably stick its metaphorical fingers in its ears if it did hear about Excel being used for that purpose.)

pmiller2 6y ago

> 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). So, basically "screw rule of law, people are gonna do it anyway, so let's make money off it!"