3 ms·

Palantir is a solution provider for my company [Airbus]. We are reasonably satisfied with the product they provide us. Not being politically involved, and as a

by lolive 3y ago

Palantir is a solution provider for my company [Airbus]. We are reasonably satisfied with the product they provide us. Not being politically involved, and as a European not really aware of the action of Palantir in the US, could you elaborate on the « nastiness » of that Palantir?

SushiHippie 3y ago
Airbus uses Palantir Foundry, which I think is not that controversial. The controversial things everyone talks about are their other products like Gotham which is for the police/military. In germany it is Unconstitutional to use. Here is a german article about it: https://www.hessenschau.de/politik/warum-die-polizei-software-hessendata-von-palantir-so-problematisch-ist-v2,urteil-bundesverfassungsgericht-hessendata-100.html https://www.hessenschau.de/politik/warum-die-polizei-softwar...
- lolive 3y ago
  Good to know, thanks. [yes, we mostly use Foundry]
  - ng12 3y ago
    FWIW Foundry isn't that much different than their government products. It's just a platform for data management and analysis.
- ng12 3y ago
  So you're saying selling any sort of data analytics software to the government is a criminal act?
  - Sporktacular 3y ago
    If it breaks the laws of the land you can call it illegal. And without doubt immoral if it's used to mass control and surveil populations.
    - ng12 3y ago
      Immorality is a tricky subject but the original commenter was specifically talking about illegality. Whatever your feelings about Palantir's business (and the defense contracting business as a whole) I don't think there's any convincing argument that Palantir is engaged in illegal or illicit business.
BoorishBears 3y ago
Palantir makes tools that are used to police people in extremely invasive ways, and coordinate intelligence in ways that can violate human rights. And Germany has bought and used those same tools, it's not a US specific thing. At some point it comes down to your own personal ethics on this, but to me you can't say "that Palantir"... it's all Palantir.
constantcrying 3y ago
It should be considered part of the US military industrial complex and people largely object to it for the same reasons they would object to Raytheon or Lockheed Martin being involved with something. Palantir obviously operates on a different layer, but it still provides support for the military operations of the US. Of course that should not be controversial for Airbus, which themselves operate military industry and directly cooperate with firms like Raytheon and are competing with Lockheed and such. Working with Palantir is just another drop.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  Lots of very fine reasoning when it comes to “provid[ing] support for the military operations of the US.” Microsoft, Google, and Amazon all have substantial sales to the DoD. Part of the military industrial complex? What about Uber, Hilton, AB InBev, and Coca-Cola? What about Harvard and Yale? What about White House staffers?
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    >Part of the military industrial complex? I would say absolutely yes. All these companies make US military operations possible. >What about Uber, Hilton, AB InBev, and Coca-Cola? Not really. If they are used at all, they are used incidentally so. Certainly the military does not need them. >What about Harvard and Yale? Difficult question. I tend towards yes. >What about White House staffers? Depends I think.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  In my opinion there's nothing wrong with being part of the military-industrial complex - as recent developments have shown, defence industry is a fundamental need for any modern society including democratic ones, and we're voting to increase funding for military personnel and hardware (part of which gets bought from the US), and getting volunteers from all fields of technology involved in applying hardware and software for military needs (e.g. adapting consumer drones for dropping grenades, working on software tools for artillery coordination, etc), thus effectively becoming part of the military-industrial complex - and I consider that not only morally permissible, but even morally imperative to support the resistance against Russian invasion of Ukraine not only with words and humanitarian aid, but with actual military-industrial effort. Building weapons of war is not evil, because resisting evil requires them, and blocking the building of weapons does not make you a good person - it makes you a bystander, and being a bystander to evil is not neutral, but harmful.
superkuh 3y ago
The hacked HBGary emails show that Palantir was committing criminal acts in order to attack Wikileaks and associated. They're not law enforcement but they do things that only police/FBI normally could get away with (post-2018 law changes allowing the FBI to hack anyone). They're so entwined into the US security state they might as well be part of it, except they have no accountability and because they're not government they can do many things government agencies are restricted from. It's basically a loophole corporate shell game. If it weren't done on behalf of the federal government itself the feds would definitely have charged them and shut them down. As for the other parts of Palantir that do business with other parts of the security state like Boeing, well, that's why they incorporate. To avoid legal and social accountability for their criminal actions by abstracting it away even within their organization.
- webdoodle 3y ago
  It was also a Palantir engineer that helped Cambridge Analytica with the data analysis of Kogan Facebook psychological profiles that they used to psyop Trump into the Whitehouse and Johnson into 10 Downing Street. Karp handily threw that employee under the bus, and 'absolved the company of guilt'.
colordrops 3y ago
They worked with the government to smear, infiltrate, and destroy Wikileaks. https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-apology-2011-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-apology-2... https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-2011-2#-13 https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-2011-2#-1...
sealeck 3y ago
Bloomberg had a good feature on this: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel.

by lolive 3y ago

SushiHippie 3y ago

Airbus uses Palantir Foundry, which I think is not that controversial. The controversial things everyone talks about are their other products like Gotham which is for the police/military. In germany it is Unconstitutional to use. Here is a german article about it: https://www.hessenschau.de/politik/warum-die-polizei-software-hessendata-von-palantir-so-problematisch-ist-v2,urteil-bundesverfassungsgericht-hessendata-100.html https://www.hessenschau.de/politik/warum-die-polizei-softwar...

lolive 3y ago
Good to know, thanks. [yes, we mostly use Foundry]
- ng12 3y ago
  FWIW Foundry isn't that much different than their government products. It's just a platform for data management and analysis.
ng12 3y ago
So you're saying selling any sort of data analytics software to the government is a criminal act?
- Sporktacular 3y ago
  If it breaks the laws of the land you can call it illegal. And without doubt immoral if it's used to mass control and surveil populations.
  - ng12 3y ago
    Immorality is a tricky subject but the original commenter was specifically talking about illegality. Whatever your feelings about Palantir's business (and the defense contracting business as a whole) I don't think there's any convincing argument that Palantir is engaged in illegal or illicit business.

BoorishBears 3y ago

Palantir makes tools that are used to police people in extremely invasive ways, and coordinate intelligence in ways that can violate human rights. And Germany has bought and used those same tools, it's not a US specific thing. At some point it comes down to your own personal ethics on this, but to me you can't say "that Palantir"... it's all Palantir.

constantcrying 3y ago

It should be considered part of the US military industrial complex and people largely object to it for the same reasons they would object to Raytheon or Lockheed Martin being involved with something. Palantir obviously operates on a different layer, but it still provides support for the military operations of the US. Of course that should not be controversial for Airbus, which themselves operate military industry and directly cooperate with firms like Raytheon and are competing with Lockheed and such. Working with Palantir is just another drop.

bradleyjg 3y ago
Lots of very fine reasoning when it comes to “provid[ing] support for the military operations of the US.” Microsoft, Google, and Amazon all have substantial sales to the DoD. Part of the military industrial complex? What about Uber, Hilton, AB InBev, and Coca-Cola? What about Harvard and Yale? What about White House staffers?
- constantcrying 3y ago
  >Part of the military industrial complex? I would say absolutely yes. All these companies make US military operations possible. >What about Uber, Hilton, AB InBev, and Coca-Cola? Not really. If they are used at all, they are used incidentally so. Certainly the military does not need them. >What about Harvard and Yale? Difficult question. I tend towards yes. >What about White House staffers? Depends I think.
PeterisP 3y ago
In my opinion there's nothing wrong with being part of the military-industrial complex - as recent developments have shown, defence industry is a fundamental need for any modern society including democratic ones, and we're voting to increase funding for military personnel and hardware (part of which gets bought from the US), and getting volunteers from all fields of technology involved in applying hardware and software for military needs (e.g. adapting consumer drones for dropping grenades, working on software tools for artillery coordination, etc), thus effectively becoming part of the military-industrial complex - and I consider that not only morally permissible, but even morally imperative to support the resistance against Russian invasion of Ukraine not only with words and humanitarian aid, but with actual military-industrial effort. Building weapons of war is not evil, because resisting evil requires them, and blocking the building of weapons does not make you a good person - it makes you a bystander, and being a bystander to evil is not neutral, but harmful.

superkuh 3y ago

The hacked HBGary emails show that Palantir was committing criminal acts in order to attack Wikileaks and associated. They're not law enforcement but they do things that only police/FBI normally could get away with (post-2018 law changes allowing the FBI to hack anyone). They're so entwined into the US security state they might as well be part of it, except they have no accountability and because they're not government they can do many things government agencies are restricted from. It's basically a loophole corporate shell game. If it weren't done on behalf of the federal government itself the feds would definitely have charged them and shut them down. As for the other parts of Palantir that do business with other parts of the security state like Boeing, well, that's why they incorporate. To avoid legal and social accountability for their criminal actions by abstracting it away even within their organization.

webdoodle 3y ago
It was also a Palantir engineer that helped Cambridge Analytica with the data analysis of Kogan Facebook psychological profiles that they used to psyop Trump into the Whitehouse and Johnson into 10 Downing Street. Karp handily threw that employee under the bus, and 'absolved the company of guilt'.

colordrops 3y ago

They worked with the government to smear, infiltrate, and destroy Wikileaks. https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-apology-2011-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-apology-2... https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-2011-2#-13 https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-2011-2#-1...

sealeck 3y ago

Bloomberg had a good feature on this: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel.