"Somebody will do something you deem immoral whether you participate or note" is not a strong argument for why you should actually participate. It's clear that

"Somebody will do something you deem immoral whether you participate or note" is not a strong argument for why you should actually participate. It's clear that the authors of the US Constitution believed that it should be difficult for the government to perform certain enforcement actions. The last 200+ years of jurisprudence and legislation back this up. The police need a warrant in order to search a home. The prosecution needs a court order to compel testimony. I don't have a problem with saying "the LAPD is going to enforce traffic laws whether or not Palantir assists them". But my response would be "yes, and we should think very carefully about how easy we make it for 'enforce traffic law' to look like 'mass surveillance'". Legislation and jurisprudence move a lot slower than we'd like and I think it's good that individuals and companies think about how they choose to participate in these systems and if they're over-enabling government enforcement and surveillance while we wait for politicians and judges to play catch-up.