5 ms·

> a funny ownership dance Oh well ok then, they don't do any data collection or mining, they just sell the tools to empower three-letter agencies to do it more

• bhupy 6y ago
  Genuinely curious: at what point is it "okay" to create data analysis tools that might be used by 3-letter agencies? I imagine that before Palantir came around, the analysts at these agencies did what most other analysts anywhere do and used Excel to create sophisticated pivot tables when working on {insert defense operation}. Where does it stop being okay? To the extent that it even matters, Palantir appears to at least own up to the fact that they are used by governments.
  • sudosysgen 6y ago
    It stops being okay when the analysis tools are built specially for the 3 letter agencies instead of for another socially useful purpose.
    • bhupy 6y ago
      Per this S-1 filing, Palantir appears to be used by the private sector as well. > socially useful purpose Who decides what's "socially useful"?
      • mrgordon 6y ago
        Their early investors were the CIA. I know the point you’re trying to make but Palantir isn’t really in the gray when they have been basically a branch of the spy agencies since the beginning
        • bhupy 6y ago
          Sure, but their current operations appear to be more diversified than that -> https://www.palantir.com/solutions/ https://www.palantir.com/solutions/. Even per their S-1, their market sizing shows "Commercial" to be a substantial proportion of their aspirations: > Commercial. Our estimate of the TAM in the commercial sector is $56 billion. > Government. We estimate the TAM in the government sector, including government agencies in the United States, its allies, and in other countries abroad whose values align with liberal democracies, is $63 billion.
          • mrgordon 6y ago
            Well sure they point to a theoretical market that’s big but it isn’t where their revenue comes from now > The company’s top three customers — which aren’t disclosed — together represented 28% of the company’s revenue for 2019. Its top twenty customers represented 67% of total revenues, with each one of those customers averaging $24.8 million in revenue. They admit they count every single government sub-agency as a different customer (their example is NIH and the CDC would count separately despite the same parent organization) so the top 25 is basically just governments. There is incredible revenue concentration there.
            • bhupy 6y ago
              Where in this filing does it say that their top 25 customers are governments? And where in this filing are the current revenue numbers classified as government vs non-government? Also, it’s important to consider their TAM projections because 1) those are the only numbers we have in this S-1 that specifically delineates government vs non-government, and 2) their aspirational valuation is predicated on this TAM. It’s who they think they will grow up to become.
              • mrgordon 6y ago
                Well yeah I agree it’s aspirational but just because they want to do security work for Apple doesn’t mean their current customer base isn’t governments. Their largest project is Palantir Gotham which is exclusively for government agencies (federal, state, ICE, and by Project Maven after the tech companies abandoned it due to ethics concerns!) You’re talking primarily about Palantir Metropolis which is used by hedge funds. Not exactly some beneficial use of technology to counterweight working with ICE to separate children from their families. They don’t list their top customers because they are top secret government agencies but if you look at their customers then it’s clear that the ones paying them the most are secretive government agencies and it’s been that way since day 1
        • regs 6y ago
          Could you cite some actual sources here?
          • mrgordon 6y ago
            Saying their early investor was the CIA isn’t exactly controversial. It’s cited in almost every article about the company. When something is that widely known, it’s usually not cited. But since you asked, here is an old article about it: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/09/15/cia-backed-palantir-adds-50m-to-its-war-chest.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/09/15/cia-back... Title: CIA-backed Palantir adds $50M to its war chest “Palantir's backers include the CIA's In-Q-Tel venture fund and Thiel's Founders Fund. Its customers include government intelligence agencies such as the National Security Agency.” Google In-Q-Tel and Palantir and you’ll find 100 other articles about it.
      • FridgeSeal 6y ago
        If its sole purpose is assisting you violate somebodies rights or privacy, it's probably not "socially useful".
        • bhupy 6y ago
          The "sole" purpose (again, their website shows a ton of other use cases) appears to be to assist elected governments in violating somebody's rights/privacy. From where I sit, elected governments decide what's "socially useful". For better or for worse, the American electorate approves of the CIA/FBI -> https://news.gallup.com/poll/224804/republicans-push-government-agency-ratings-not-fbi.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/224804/republicans-push-governm.... This is even more the case for defense, which is just about the only American institution that has had a reliably consistent approval rating -> https://truthout.org/articles/why-does-the-us-military-have-sky-high-approval-ratings-during-endless-wars/ https://truthout.org/articles/why-does-the-us-military-have-... Alex Karp's CEO letter makes a similar point: "The engineering elite of Silicon Valley may know more than most about building software. But they do not know more about how society should be organized or what justice requires."
      • sudosysgen 6y ago
        Sure, but they still consult with the CIA and other 3 letter agencies to tailor their tools for them. It doesn't matter what else they do, they are already tainted. No one and everyone decides what is socially useful. But it's fairly uncontroversial that invasion of privacy is not socially useful.
        • bhupy 6y ago
          Elected governments decide what is socially useful. And for better or for worse, the polity has decided that the government ought to engage in the invasion of privacy of foreign adversaries. The majority of Americans appear to approve of the CIA/FBI -> https://news.gallup.com/poll/224804/republicans-push-government-agency-ratings-not-fbi.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/224804/republicans-push-governm... “Socially useful” is well and good, right up until you disagree with the masses what constitutes “socially useful”. Silicon Valley engineers have input into that decision, but don’t get the final say.
          • sudosysgen 6y ago
            Elected governments lose that ability when they hide what they are doing from their voters. Then they just become ordinary hierarchs. Also, the NSA and CIA are act unconstitutionally and then hide the fact they are doing so from the voters. A fairer way to see if there is actually public support would be to allow a group of 100 people into the CIA/NSA archives and allow them full access to the entirety of the uncensored information, without anyone to justify what they have done beyond what has been recorded. Otherwise, polling people on what unaccountable agencies do illegally in secret is (figuratively) like asking a North Korean if Kim Jong Un is doing a good job. They just don't have the information to judge.
            • bhupy 6y ago
              > when they hide what they are doing from their voters This is literally the premise of clandestine agencies, and it’s not a new concept. They’ve been around for 50 years now. This isn’t some bait-and-switch, voters have always known what a clandestine agency is. I understand that there exists some voters who don’t believe that clandestine agencies should exists. Unfortunately, such voters are in the minority. And unfortunately the majority of Americans find clandestine agencies (and in general, a strong defense) to be “socially useful”.