47 ms·
The relationship must be very strained already if they are publicly blaming each other. Customers always blame their vendors. On the Palantir side, their accoun
by 1MachineElf 5y ago
The relationship must be very strained already if they are publicly blaming each other. Customers always blame their vendors. On the Palantir side, their account/product managers should be asking whether or not their ACL config is sufficiently intuitive. If this mistake was easy for a customer to make, if it's a mistake that couldn't have been avoided without consultancy, then Palantir should treat it like a defect.
- mcguire 5y agoUltimately, that's why the customer is paying the vendor.
- verall 5y agoIt's because the FBI doesn't have any leverage to threaten palantir for passing the blame. "Government agency is incompetent" is a very potent narrative that blocks the usual expectation that cloud products should be difficult to use insecurely. Complaining publicly has no downsides for palantir here.
- yasp 5y agoPalantir can host its products on-prem, and for the FBI very well might have. But where it was hosted wouldn't have any relevance here.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y agoTheir leverage is contract. Palantir's position as vendor of choice is kinda limited right now. They don't seem to service regular corps in US. The complaint can have a real ramifications ( loss of future contracts and so on ). That said, at certain point enough is enough I suppose.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago> "Government agency is incompetent" is a very potent narrative that blocks the usual expectation that cloud products should be difficult to use insecurely. Whether the government purchased a defective product that was insecure or misused a good product, the government should be held to account for the failure, same as with any company.
- theknocker 5y agoThe FBI is incompetent. The FBI is so incompetent that it sufficiently explains the phenomena, and the burden of proof is on the FBI to prove their explanation instead.