6 ms·

It seems like the sole purpose of palantir is to give data to the government they wouldnt have access to without a warrant. So now everyone is just being warran

• bigyabai 8mo ago
  > So now everyone is just being warrantlessly surveiled??? It's been like that for a while; I don't think either side of America's political aisle has the heart to extricate themselves of such a privilege.
  • hinata08 8mo ago
    correct PBS's _spying on the homefront_ piece from 2007 already described this very kind of omniscient private database. The government itself isn't constitutionally allowed to build or run anything of the kind, but it can commission friends in the private sector to do one and query it with little to no oversight I am definitely not uploading my face and ID on Discord or any site
    • pylua 8mo ago
      How is it guaranteed to be the same accuracy of data that is not retrieved through a warrant ?
      • pavel_lishin 8mo ago
        It just needs to be accurate-enough to eventually get a warrant.
        • hinata08 8mo ago
          you don't need warrants to query these databases They went from warrant, to FISA, to just write a request about a name, to more or less describe a vague group of ppl on whom you want the data You should watch this show. It's available online and pretty informative. If things weren't bad enough in 2007, things that have changed since then are most notably the cloud act that was created, Ring that started to "backup" your home CCTV in the cloud, then also Ring that enabled so called "Search Parties" and made a superball ad about it
          • pavel_lishin 8mo ago
            Right, I understand they don't need a warrant for the databases. I'm saying that they use the databases to get enough data for a warrant that they wouldn't be able to get without the databases.
      • greedo 8mo ago
        Parallel construction. They get enough data, legal or not, to know who to look for. Then they surveil you until you slip.
    • sneak 8mo ago
      Your bank and mobile data carrier and cable company already did for you, on your behalf. It’s all searchable via your phone number, which you have to provide to all the apps you DO sign up for, so they can easily query your name, photo, address, purchase history, etc.
• bebop 8mo ago
  This is a very accurate take. There is a ton of collection that the government is explicitly not allowed to do. However, the ability to purchase this data is much less regulated. So the work around is, get contractors to do the data collection and then purchase that data.
  • colechristensen 8mo ago
    There needs to be a landmark supreme court case that decides that "Search and Seizure" protections include paying corporations for the sought after items.
    • b00ty4breakfast 8mo ago
      As long as Alito and Thomas are still alive, this will never happen. I have no doubt that both of them have been the recipients of Peter Thiel's "generosity".
      • ch4s3 8mo ago
        It’s not just Alito and Thomas who have been hostile to the 4th amendment, disrespect for the 4th amendment has been a bipartisan affair for 50 years. I don’t see why anyone is downvoting this, it’s trivial to see the history of votes on 4th amendment cases. Terry v Ohio is a great example.
        • b00ty4breakfast 8mo ago
          because this isn't simply a matter of the constitution, it involves a massive corporation and both of these men have been caught receiving gifts from wealthy "friends" then openly refusing to cooperate when this information came to light. We are assuming they are the only 2 doing (and as far as I know, none of the other judges have been implicated) but that's like finding two drunk guys passed out on a bench on a college campus and assuming that binge drinking isn't rampant in college.
          • 8mo ago
• einpoklum 8mo ago
  Well, you know it's that time again... In Capitalist Russia, you are on surveillance by bought off government; In Soviet America, government bought off by surveillence on you!
• crimsoneer 8mo ago
  It's a software company, it sells software. You can literally go read the docs. It doesn't magically bypass the law anymore than Microsoft Sharepoint does. https://www.palantir.com/docs/foundry https://www.palantir.com/docs/foundry
  • malfist 8mo ago
    Do you expect palantir's public documentation to explain how they operate as a spy agency?
    • crimsoneer 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      • coliveira 8mo ago
        They don't need a backdoor, the whole company is a backdoor receiving sensitive information from governments 24x7.
        • jonnybgood 8mo ago
          So Palantir receives info from governments only to… hand it back to them? It seems like most people really don’t know what Palantir actually does and are just speculating.
          • coliveira 8mo ago
            No, we know very well how they operate. They're paid to get all kinds of sensitive information from governments and other institutions around the world and store it in their very "secure" data centers. Once there, the US government can easily get any of that information for "national security reasons", because how would they say otherwise, and the Israeli government can do the same as well without even announcing anything, because how would the US government ever say "no" to them... It's all just obvious at this point.
      • 8mo ago
• runarberg 8mo ago
  I keep thinking about the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Illegal data gathering was a big deal only 10 years ago. It seems like with businesses like Palantir that this behavior has been normalized to the point where what was unthinkably bad 10 years ago is just business as usual today.
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  • robby_w_g 8mo ago
    It’s more that many adult citizens (and increasing every year) have grown up with the patriot act and liberties being stripped away in the name of security. I talked with cousins about it 8 years ago and I got laughed at as a conspiracy nut for saying that our personal data will be used against us if we allow it. People either don’t understand or don’t care because they’ve grown comfortable with it.
    • deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
• coliveira 8mo ago
  They figured out that if the government does something it is opposed by a lot of people. But if a company says they'll collect information from every single customer in exchange for some worthless token, people will willingly provide all their information to said company. And those companies will either sell that info to governments or give it away with a little ask... So, the private economy has become the biggest contributor to the surveillance state.
  • themafia 8mo ago
    What people have "willingly" given their data directly to any company? It's usually buried in an agreement or hidden behind some dark pattern. Suing your government generates results. Suing a company usually results in it shedding it's shell corporation and taking it's assets where you can't get them. Selling user data needs to be a federal criminal offense. You need to go to jail for doing this. You need 15+ years in prison for doing this or enabling this in bulk. Let's start talking asset forfeiture next.
    • BobbyJo 8mo ago
      Exactly. Most people just don't know how much data is being collected on them, and probably can't know at this point. I say can't because the reality sounds so much like a conspiracy theory that a majority of people would simply reject the truth outright.
• shevy-java 8mo ago
  It is like 1984. But shit.
  • _DeadFred_ 8mo ago
    It's wild they we are happily buying telescreens. Who would have imagined pre-2000s that would actually happen. And that the number one defense of capitalism would be to use telescreens as an example 'but look at how cheap your telescreen is, TVs were so expensive'.
• belter 8mo ago
  Did you notice how the Dow is 50,000 ?
  • red-iron-pine 8mo ago
    was
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 8mo ago
  The naivete or complacency of people who work for so-called "tech" companies that perform wanton, surreptitious data collection about computer users as their core "business model" is illustrated by the belief that what is significant for the surveillance target is how the data is used Thus, a company performing data collection and sharing it with the government may trigger nerd rage whereas company performing data collection and using the data to help profile ad targets triggers nerd advocacy, i.e., attempts to defend the practice of data collection with "justifications" that have no limit in their level of absurdity For the surveillance target (cf. the surveilling company), what is significant about data collection is not how the data is used, it is how the data _could_ be used, which is to say, what is significant about data collection is (a) the fact that data is collected at all, not (b) what may or may not happen after the data is collected Moreover, despite equivocal statements of reassurance in unenforceable "privacy policies" and the like, (b) is often practically impossible for those outside the company and its partners to determine anyway Hypothetical: Trillion-dollar public company A whose core "business" is data collection and surveillance-supported advertising services takes a nosedive due to unforseen circumstances that affect its ability to sell ad services. Meanwhile, billion-dollar public company B whose core business is data collection and surveillance services for goverments sees their business on the rise. Company A decides to acquire or compete with company B There is nothing that limits company A's use of the data it has collected for whatever purpose the company and Wall Street deems profitable As such, the significant issue for the surveillance target is (a) not (b) Focusing on the fact that company B assists governments whilst company A assists advertisers is a red herring Once the data is collected, it's too late
• hydrogen7800 8mo ago
  Getting call records from the phone company, a private business that collects it's users' data, used to require a warrant. Why is it different now? Only because it's so trivial to hand over access to the database? I think in the past, the only thing that provided protection from illegal searches and seizures was the physical impracticality and friction involved in doing so. The warrant just allowed LEOs to dedicate their limited resources to a particular search. That is no longer a constraint.