5 ms·
Palantir CEO Says Making War Crimes Constitutional Would Be Good for Business
- orionblastar 11mo agoThere is a reason why they are war crimes and not Constitutional.
- JohnFen 11mo agoSo Karp wants to profit from murder? I honestly wish I were surprised by this.
- andsoitis 11mo agoNo, he is saying that if you want a precise answer (constitutional) you need precise information, which Palantir can offer.
- AnimalMuppet 11mo agoThat is what the article says. But it is also quite different from what the headline implies.
- toast0 11mo agoI think it's a question of what it means to make something constitutional, and also how to refer to that thing. If the headline was Palantir CEO Says Making Boat Attacks Constitutional Would Be Good For Business, it would be easier to read it both ways; change the boat attacks so they comply with the constitution, or change the constitution so the boat attacks are no longer prohibited. It's just a little harder to say change the war crimes so that they comply... But if they comply, are they still war crimes? And if they are still war crimes, and we entered a treaty to prohibit war crimes, and the constitution says treaties are the supreme Law of the Land, how can it be constitutional to carry them out?
- emodendroket 11mo agoHowever sloppily expressed I think the intent is clear: he is saying “I don’t think it’s important that they comply with laws concerning their conduct, but they’re drumming up business for me, so I don’t mind.”
- andsoitis 11mo ago> he is saying “I don’t think it’s important that they comply with laws I cannot see where Karp says that. Do you have the quote?
- emodendroket 11mo ago> “Part of the reason why I like this questioning is the more constitutional you want to make it, the more precise you want to make it, the more you’re going to need my product,” Karp said. His reasoning is that if it’s constitutional, you would have to make 100% sure of the exact conditions it’s happening in, and in order to do that, the military would have to use Palantir’s technology, for which it pays roughly $10 billion under its current contract. Make your own judgment but I thought that it was a reasonable inference if his answer is about how he’s got dollar signs in his eyes that he doesn’t see a moral imperative here.
- andsoitis 11mo ago> That is what the article says. But it is also quite different from what the headline implies. Sure, but that’s on the reporter and the reader.
- kbelder 11mo agoRelevant quote, for your own judgement: At the New York Times’ DealBook Summit on Wednesday, Karp was asked about the worries over the unconstitutionality of the boat strikes. “Part of the reason why I like this questioning is the more constitutional you want to make it, the more precise you want to make it, the more you’re going to need my product,” Karp said. His reasoning is that if it’s constitutional, you would have to make 100% sure of the exact conditions it’s happening in, and in order to do that, the military would have to use Palantir’s technology, for which it pays roughly $10 billion under its current contract.
- nhinck2 11mo agoYes, of course, famously no ambiguity in the constitution.
- potato3732842 11mo agoIf you're not being deceitful and seeking to violate people's rights for your own purposes (i.e. a politician or someone in that orbit) it's pretty clear. Like "papers and effect", "shall make no law", stuff like that's pretty hard to screw up if you're not trying.
- OkWing99 11mo agoYou missed the rest of it. > “So you keep pushing on making it constitutional. I’m totally supportive of that,” Karp said.
- AnimalMuppet 11mo agoWhich in context means, you keep pushing to make the military be sure they are operating within the bounds of the constitution.
- emodendroket 11mo agoWhen he says "push to make it constitutional" what he means is push to make them comply with complex rules.
- 11mo ago
- paxys 11mo agoDoes it really matter if they are constitutional or not when there's zero penalty for committing them?
- hippo22 11mo ago[flagged]
- bogantech 11mo agoIt's because they're ramping up for the midterms
- techblueberry 11mo agoAmazing that we’ve decided to be more perturbed at people getting worked up over war crimes, rather than being perturbed by all war crimes.
- hippo22 11mo agoI’m perturbed by partisan politics dividing the country.
- emodendroket 11mo agoI'd say that many of the people upset now didn't like that either but it at least had the pretense of bothering with a declaration of war.
- hippo22 11mo agoWhen did we declare war on Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia? Frankly speaking, bombing a wedding is way worse than bombing a drug boat.
- dialup_sounds 11mo agoHow many historical examples of civilians being misidentified as combatants does it take before we question whether these strikes have all been drug boats?
- bdangubic 11mo agoIt was War on Terror, no? As a direct response to murder of thousands of citizens… (not condoning it though, America loves to murder people though I’ve heard a lot in October during election campaign that this time will be different…)
- emodendroket 11mo agoI feel like the headline kind of misleads since what he actually says is, essentially, "yeah, go nuts trying to limit it, then they need to buy from me." Which is still crass but not what the headline suggests.
- spprashant 11mo agoWe are finally making data dashboards that provide insights into war crimes compliance.
- foresight981 11mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- HardwareLust 11mo agoWhy is this flagged?
- red-iron-pine 11mo agotech executives own social media?
- HardwareLust 11mo agoIs that bad?
- red-iron-pine 11mo agoin case you forgot, Palantir and all associated with it are capital E Evil
- photochemsyn 11mo agoRequired reading on Palantir and its cousins, Dataminr etc. : "IBM and the Holocaust, The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation." The book is good because of the extensive historical documentation of IBM practices, Nazi procurement orders, and the eagerness that IBM leaders displayed in fulfilling those orders, even though they knew the purpose: > "The racial portion of the census was designed to pinpoint ancestral Jews as defined by the Nuremberg Laws, ensuring no escape from the Reich's anti-Semitic campaign. In addition to the usual census questions, a special card asked whether any of the individuals grandparents was Jewish." In a not-so-unique historical inversion, the Israeli government is now using American tech firms like Palantir to assist in their ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide programs in the West Bank and Gaza, which have certainly not ended, ceasefire or no, as any reading of the statements of Israeli government officials, bloggers, online commentators etc. demonstrates (even though Twitter no longer provides translations of Hebrew to English, it's not hard to decipher the intent). As far as Palantir and Dataminr's agenda? Same as IBM's - delivering value to their shareholders.