5 ms·

I think these were the same crowd drawing up plans to sell the government on how to crush wikileaks amid other miscellaneous dirty tricks. (http://articles.busi

by gbhn 15y ago

I think these were the same crowd drawing up plans to sell the government on how to crush wikileaks amid other miscellaneous dirty tricks. (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-11/tech/30050719_1_wikileaks-analytics-privacy http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-11/tech/30050719...)

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
gojomo 15y ago
To be fair, Palantir says their name was associated with that HBGary proposal in error, severed all ties with HBGary, and denied offering any software that could be used for the tactics in the HBGary presentation. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/02/11/palantir-apologizes-for-wikileaks-attack-proposal-cuts-ties-with-hbgary/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/02/11/palanti... Anyone is of course free to believe them or not, but our threads shouldn't be forwarding the vague allegations without also including the more specific denials.
- loopdoend 15y ago
  That's funny, how did HBGary get Palantir's site license for Kapow Katalyst if they had nothing to do with them? http://leaks.anonamegame.com/aaron_hbgary_com/13188.html http://leaks.anonamegame.com/aaron_hbgary_com/13188.html How did they get a pt-themis-bcc@palantir.com forwarding address? You call them vague allegations, but they look like facts to me. "In error" meaning "oops we got caught", or, facetiously "oh dear did I push the plan and scheme and conspire button again?"
  - gojomo 15y ago
    Palantir did not say they had "nothing to do with" HB Gary. Palantir said they should not have been portrayed as a part of the controversial Wikileaks-related offensive-actions proposal – because Palantir did not, and would not, approve of such tactics. Palantir also said, after that proposal, that they were breaking all contacts with HB Gary – which admits there were other ties. The fact that HB Gary licensed some Palantir software or even had other project-related aliases with Palantir is wholly consistent with Palantir's explanation. Perhaps any association whatsoever with HB Gary was a mistake. If so, doesn't Palantir get any credit for (belatedly) "sever[ing] any and all contacts with HB Gary"? Also, as a government contractor, you don't necessarily have full control over every other contractor on related projects.
    - loopdoend 15y ago
      The Wikileaks-offensive project was known as Team Themis. Perhaps you didn't realize that. The email address pt-themis-bcc@palantir.com, along with the sharing of third party software, is enough to prove that they were a part of this action, whether they "approved" of it or not. Saying after you got caught that you didn't approve of the actions and using a young engineer as a scapegoat doesn't get you any credit in my books. (As if there were only one person working on this project, then why the bcc forwarder?) The whole episode has been broken down and explained in great detail by third-parties other than the Palantir PR department, and my rebuttal is by no means an attempt at a full explanation. I am just pointing out they did indeed provide software that could be used for the tactics shown in the presentation, so there was no error.
      - gojomo 15y ago
        You should provide links to where this is "explained in great detail", rather than more vague assertions. If out of all the compromised HB Gary emails, one about sharing a license to third-party "application integration" software is the most incriminating one you can reference, that suggests a pretty flimsy case. HB Gary's entire corpus of email was compromised! Shouldn't there be at least one email from a Palantir employee showing enthusiasm about the offensive tactics, or review/approval of the deck, or something? (And how exactly would the milquetoast not-created-by-Palantir Kapow Katalyst 'application integration platform' be "used for the tactics shown in the presentation", tactics like 'disinformation', 'fake documents', and 'cyber attacks'?) Palantir's explanation remains unrefuted: that an employee gave the mistaken impression of participation in a specific effort that the company itself did not and would not support, as a matter of both policy and software capabilities. Update: Looking for a good 'explained in great detail' overview, this write-up seems credible and balanced: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/the-ridiculous-plan-to-attack-wikileaks.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/the-ridiculo... It suggests HB Gary was financially desperate to propose something big; Palantir was enticed by the size of the potential deal, but Palantir's payment demands were problematic for HB Gary. The Palantir employee(s) chasing the sale clearly knew and repeated HB Gary's dirty tactics bullet points, but it's not clear Palantir higher-ups saw the proposal as anything other than a potential large sale of their standard passive analysis stuff. I know 'misrepresentation by overzealous employee' is a convenient excuse deserving some suspicion. But I also know that such vaguely-rogue sales-motivated oversteps happen all the time, even in much smaller organizations than Palantir.
jchonphoenix 15y ago
How could Palantir software even accomplish what was claimed in the above links? I don't see how data visualization software can be used to crush wikileaks in the manner that the article says.
- rhizome 15y ago
  Anything's possible in the world of government contracting.
  - jchonphoenix 15y ago
    From the above article "We do not provide – nor do we have any plans to develop – offensive cyber capabilities. Palantir Technologies does not build software that is designed to allow private sector entities to obtain non-public information, engage in so-called “cyber attacks” or take other offensive measures." This is a true statement.
    - natch 15y ago
      A true statement that looks carefully crafted to have huge loopholes. Loophole 1: apparently they're OK with building software that is designed to allow public sector entities (bad governments) to obtain non-public information. Loophole 2: I guess they're OK with building software that is designed to allow private sector entities to obtain public information [and... the part left unsaid: distill it to create insights not readily noticeable by others with access to the same public information, thus giving these private sector entities overwhelming advantages in things like figuring out how to manipulate politicians]. That stuff, from reading the quote, I am left believing they are OK with. Which means the statement just comes off as PR-speak, and disingenuous.
      - joshma 15y ago
        Loophole 2 is called a product - what's wrong with being able to analyze public information? It's true that Palantir's software can enable wrong doing, but at that point you might as well blame computer manufacturers for building machines to run the software. This isn't a legal document, it's a press statement. Go look for conspiracies elsewhere.
lawnchair_larry 15y ago
Tinfoil hats like to say that facebook is probably tied to the CIA, but Palantir is the one that actually is. "Palantir was founded in 2004 by Peter Thiel, Dr. Alex Karp, Joe Lonsdale, Stephen Cohen, and Nathan Gettings. Early investments came in the form of $2 million from the CIA's venture arm In-Q-Tel and $30 million from Thiel and his firm, The Founders Fund. Dr. Alex Karp is Palantir's CEO. Palantir’s name comes from the "seeing stones" in the Lord of the Rings. Palantir was built through iterative collaboration between computer scientists and analysts from various intelligence agencies over the course of nearly three years, through pilots facilitated by In-Q-Tel."
- seiji 15y ago
  At least they don't try to hide it. Be sure to watch their recent startup school talk/video/awakardness.
presidentender 15y ago
Palantir also develops some very big-deal intelligence communications stuff for all branches of the military, except the Army: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/89048-us-army-spent-2-7-billion-on-a-battlefield-computer-that-doesnt-work http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/89048-us-army-spent-2-7-b...

by gbhn 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

gojomo 15y ago

To be fair, Palantir says their name was associated with that HBGary proposal in error, severed all ties with HBGary, and denied offering any software that could be used for the tactics in the HBGary presentation. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/02/11/palantir-apologizes-for-wikileaks-attack-proposal-cuts-ties-with-hbgary/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/02/11/palanti... Anyone is of course free to believe them or not, but our threads shouldn't be forwarding the vague allegations without also including the more specific denials.

loopdoend 15y ago
That's funny, how did HBGary get Palantir's site license for Kapow Katalyst if they had nothing to do with them? http://leaks.anonamegame.com/aaron_hbgary_com/13188.html http://leaks.anonamegame.com/aaron_hbgary_com/13188.html How did they get a pt-themis-bcc@palantir.com forwarding address? You call them vague allegations, but they look like facts to me. "In error" meaning "oops we got caught", or, facetiously "oh dear did I push the plan and scheme and conspire button again?"
- gojomo 15y ago
  Palantir did not say they had "nothing to do with" HB Gary. Palantir said they should not have been portrayed as a part of the controversial Wikileaks-related offensive-actions proposal – because Palantir did not, and would not, approve of such tactics. Palantir also said, after that proposal, that they were breaking all contacts with HB Gary – which admits there were other ties. The fact that HB Gary licensed some Palantir software or even had other project-related aliases with Palantir is wholly consistent with Palantir's explanation. Perhaps any association whatsoever with HB Gary was a mistake. If so, doesn't Palantir get any credit for (belatedly) "sever[ing] any and all contacts with HB Gary"? Also, as a government contractor, you don't necessarily have full control over every other contractor on related projects.
  - loopdoend 15y ago
    The Wikileaks-offensive project was known as Team Themis. Perhaps you didn't realize that. The email address pt-themis-bcc@palantir.com, along with the sharing of third party software, is enough to prove that they were a part of this action, whether they "approved" of it or not. Saying after you got caught that you didn't approve of the actions and using a young engineer as a scapegoat doesn't get you any credit in my books. (As if there were only one person working on this project, then why the bcc forwarder?) The whole episode has been broken down and explained in great detail by third-parties other than the Palantir PR department, and my rebuttal is by no means an attempt at a full explanation. I am just pointing out they did indeed provide software that could be used for the tactics shown in the presentation, so there was no error.
    - gojomo 15y ago
      You should provide links to where this is "explained in great detail", rather than more vague assertions. If out of all the compromised HB Gary emails, one about sharing a license to third-party "application integration" software is the most incriminating one you can reference, that suggests a pretty flimsy case. HB Gary's entire corpus of email was compromised! Shouldn't there be at least one email from a Palantir employee showing enthusiasm about the offensive tactics, or review/approval of the deck, or something? (And how exactly would the milquetoast not-created-by-Palantir Kapow Katalyst 'application integration platform' be "used for the tactics shown in the presentation", tactics like 'disinformation', 'fake documents', and 'cyber attacks'?) Palantir's explanation remains unrefuted: that an employee gave the mistaken impression of participation in a specific effort that the company itself did not and would not support, as a matter of both policy and software capabilities. Update: Looking for a good 'explained in great detail' overview, this write-up seems credible and balanced: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/the-ridiculous-plan-to-attack-wikileaks.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/the-ridiculo... It suggests HB Gary was financially desperate to propose something big; Palantir was enticed by the size of the potential deal, but Palantir's payment demands were problematic for HB Gary. The Palantir employee(s) chasing the sale clearly knew and repeated HB Gary's dirty tactics bullet points, but it's not clear Palantir higher-ups saw the proposal as anything other than a potential large sale of their standard passive analysis stuff. I know 'misrepresentation by overzealous employee' is a convenient excuse deserving some suspicion. But I also know that such vaguely-rogue sales-motivated oversteps happen all the time, even in much smaller organizations than Palantir.

jchonphoenix 15y ago

How could Palantir software even accomplish what was claimed in the above links? I don't see how data visualization software can be used to crush wikileaks in the manner that the article says.

rhizome 15y ago
Anything's possible in the world of government contracting.
- jchonphoenix 15y ago
  From the above article "We do not provide – nor do we have any plans to develop – offensive cyber capabilities. Palantir Technologies does not build software that is designed to allow private sector entities to obtain non-public information, engage in so-called “cyber attacks” or take other offensive measures." This is a true statement.
  - natch 15y ago
    A true statement that looks carefully crafted to have huge loopholes. Loophole 1: apparently they're OK with building software that is designed to allow public sector entities (bad governments) to obtain non-public information. Loophole 2: I guess they're OK with building software that is designed to allow private sector entities to obtain public information [and... the part left unsaid: distill it to create insights not readily noticeable by others with access to the same public information, thus giving these private sector entities overwhelming advantages in things like figuring out how to manipulate politicians]. That stuff, from reading the quote, I am left believing they are OK with. Which means the statement just comes off as PR-speak, and disingenuous.
    - joshma 15y ago
      Loophole 2 is called a product - what's wrong with being able to analyze public information? It's true that Palantir's software can enable wrong doing, but at that point you might as well blame computer manufacturers for building machines to run the software. This isn't a legal document, it's a press statement. Go look for conspiracies elsewhere.

lawnchair_larry 15y ago

Tinfoil hats like to say that facebook is probably tied to the CIA, but Palantir is the one that actually is. "Palantir was founded in 2004 by Peter Thiel, Dr. Alex Karp, Joe Lonsdale, Stephen Cohen, and Nathan Gettings. Early investments came in the form of $2 million from the CIA's venture arm In-Q-Tel and $30 million from Thiel and his firm, The Founders Fund. Dr. Alex Karp is Palantir's CEO. Palantir’s name comes from the "seeing stones" in the Lord of the Rings. Palantir was built through iterative collaboration between computer scientists and analysts from various intelligence agencies over the course of nearly three years, through pilots facilitated by In-Q-Tel."

seiji 15y ago
At least they don't try to hide it. Be sure to watch their recent startup school talk/video/awakardness.

presidentender 15y ago

Palantir also develops some very big-deal intelligence communications stuff for all branches of the military, except the Army: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/89048-us-army-spent-2-7-billion-on-a-battlefield-computer-that-doesnt-work http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/89048-us-army-spent-2-7-b...