Palantir enables immigration agents to look up information from the CIA(theintercept.com)
theintercept.com
Palantir enables immigration agents to look up information from the CIA
https://theintercept.com/2017/03/17/palantir-enables-immigration-agents-to-access-information-from-the-cia/
197 comments
To expand on your point on Palantir just being a database, it's a good lesson to startup founders: solve the problem your user had.
The biggest problem that Palantir solves is: we (CIA, FBI, whatever) have to pull together data from 500 software systems that don't share a common taxonomy, hold petabytes of data in totally different ways, live in agencies across the world, and have all sorts of nuanced permissions models (e.g. "Five Eyes" or "this data was shared to New Zealand by a country that doesn't share data directly with the US, but New Zealand does share data to the US. I'm a US agent looking at NZ data, do I see this?").
They basically clean and centralize information. It's super unsexy (probably my least favorite thing to do as an engineer.) But that is the problem that these organizations have.
The biggest problem that Palantir solves is: we (CIA, FBI, whatever) have to pull together data from 500 software systems that don't share a common taxonomy, hold petabytes of data in totally different ways, live in agencies across the world, and have all sorts of nuanced permissions models (e.g. "Five Eyes" or "this data was shared to New Zealand by a country that doesn't share data directly with the US, but New Zealand does share data to the US. I'm a US agent looking at NZ data, do I see this?").
They basically clean and centralize information. It's super unsexy (probably my least favorite thing to do as an engineer.) But that is the problem that these organizations have.
> To expand on your point on Palantir just being a database, it's a good lesson to startup founders: solve the problem your user had.
Exactly. You can find this in almost any 'stodgy' business around. If you see very little computers around or only computers with glowing Word screens, you can be sure, if you find some business person to talk with, he or she can tell you what really would boost their business. And then you suddenly have a business if the competitors also do not have it (usually they don't). Gov is a good one as they are usually slow and not very creative (generally! don't want to step on toes but what I saw so far in the world shows me that this is generally true).
Exactly. You can find this in almost any 'stodgy' business around. If you see very little computers around or only computers with glowing Word screens, you can be sure, if you find some business person to talk with, he or she can tell you what really would boost their business. And then you suddenly have a business if the competitors also do not have it (usually they don't). Gov is a good one as they are usually slow and not very creative (generally! don't want to step on toes but what I saw so far in the world shows me that this is generally true).
Very good points. Any insight as to how Palantir learned so much about its customers' problems? Does Palantir employ a good number of its customers' former analysts, etc.? Just curious how this is done so well in practice.
[edit: clarity]
[edit: clarity]
It was funded by In-Q-Tel (the CIA's VC firm) from the start
They behaved basically like a consulting shop. send tons of "forward deployed engineers" onsite.
> My friend Chris Rohlf has a snarky dismissal of a lot of "hardware hacking" and "IOT" security conference talks: "look at this debugger debugging!
> Stories like this call that snark to mind. "Look at this database databasing!"
This isn't a technical story, it's a social and governmental one.
> if you're angry at Palantir for assisting mass deportation, you should be equally angry at Oracle and Cisco. I am --- in fact, a little more so.
Isn't Palantir's assistance clearer and more direct? Aren't they building applications with a lot of knowledge of what they'll be used to do? As far as I know, Cisco doesn't sell products like "gigabit mass-deporation cloud router 2239." Any assistance they give is much more indirect.
> Stories like this call that snark to mind. "Look at this database databasing!"
This isn't a technical story, it's a social and governmental one.
> if you're angry at Palantir for assisting mass deportation, you should be equally angry at Oracle and Cisco. I am --- in fact, a little more so.
Isn't Palantir's assistance clearer and more direct? Aren't they building applications with a lot of knowledge of what they'll be used to do? As far as I know, Cisco doesn't sell products like "gigabit mass-deporation cloud router 2239." Any assistance they give is much more indirect.
> As far as I know, Cisco doesn't sell products like "gigabit mass-deporation cloud router 2239."
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ciscos-latest-attempt-...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/ciscos-latest-attempt-...
Assuming ICE is operating legally, what's the difference? Cisco assumes ICE is using their routers for legal purposes. Same with Oracle or SAP or IBM. At the point at which we're witch-hunting tech companies for their involvement it's already way too late.
The first part of this comment is in fact what I'm saying. The second part, where you call this "witch hunting", I don't agree with. I think our profession is way, way too detached from the consequences of the applications of our work.
Nobody bats an eyelash when doctors refuse to help with executions or torture, or pharma companies resist selling execution drug cocktails. But for some reason technologists are just fine selling the technical building blocks of a surveillance and mass deportation system. That's not right; it's a sign of the diminished professionalism of our field versus other professions, and it does need to change.
Nobody bats an eyelash when doctors refuse to help with executions or torture, or pharma companies resist selling execution drug cocktails. But for some reason technologists are just fine selling the technical building blocks of a surveillance and mass deportation system. That's not right; it's a sign of the diminished professionalism of our field versus other professions, and it does need to change.
Interesting to flip it around, though: is the doctor who administers a (legally ordered) lethal injection a monster? Why or why not? Or, who gets to decide yes or no?
And where is the line? Is the programmer who writes code for a surveillance drone ( immoral? What about one who writes code for a submarine that may carry ballistic missiles? Or for the missile guidance system itself?
And where is the line? Is the programmer who writes code for a surveillance drone ( immoral? What about one who writes code for a submarine that may carry ballistic missiles? Or for the missile guidance system itself?
[deleted]
Since I never said anything about doctors being monsters, I don't accept the premise of the question.
Sorry for being unclear. You said: "Nobody bats an eyelash when doctors refuse to help with executions". So I just wanted to flip it around; if the doctor willingly agrees to assist in an execution, what, if any, implications or judgments does that entail?
Does that require clarification? Is this some kind of socratic dissection? Are we going to take this somewhere, after we get the obvious part in writing?
When a doctor assists in an execution, they participate in what is a murder, just under some other context. Lift that action up and out of the auspices of state and governance, and you have a murderer, accessory to before or after, or an accomplice to.
This isn't a particularly rare occurrence, but someone is there to cut the life short, do harm, and achieve a goal. Justice, revenge, passion, grudges aside. There's a winner and a loser.
It could be a misanthrope and henchmen, or it could be a doctor, somehow more distinguished than a common thug. The doctor chooses gets hands dirty for different reasons, there they are all the same. But the doctor gets to walk away from his murder, and commit more, so long as the state and government are not deposed.
When a doctor assists in an execution, they participate in what is a murder, just under some other context. Lift that action up and out of the auspices of state and governance, and you have a murderer, accessory to before or after, or an accomplice to.
This isn't a particularly rare occurrence, but someone is there to cut the life short, do harm, and achieve a goal. Justice, revenge, passion, grudges aside. There's a winner and a loser.
It could be a misanthrope and henchmen, or it could be a doctor, somehow more distinguished than a common thug. The doctor chooses gets hands dirty for different reasons, there they are all the same. But the doctor gets to walk away from his murder, and commit more, so long as the state and government are not deposed.
It sounds great in theory but it's so divorced from reality I can't help but feeling anger at Palantir is misdirected. If Palantir refused the contract ICE would walk down the street and offer it to IBM/SAP/Northrop/Raytheon etc. If by some miracle they all refused it remember most three letter agencies have very skilled in-house teams.
All of this is just distracting from the real issues at hand.
All of this is just distracting from the real issues at hand.
Something something if you had invented Facebook, you would have invented Facebook something.
As anyone with the pleasure of having contracted with IBM or Lockheed can tell you, there is a significant difference between working with giant government contractors versus the best funded Silicon Valley firms.
As anyone with the pleasure of having contracted with IBM or Lockheed can tell you, there is a significant difference between working with giant government contractors versus the best funded Silicon Valley firms.
Maybe not IBM :o) I think they learned their lesson last time they sold tech to help doorkickers round up undesirables
> If Palantir refused the contract ICE would walk down the street and offer it to IBM/SAP/Northrop/Raytheon etc.
What what we debating here? ICE's conduct or Palantir being an enabler? Because if we're talking about Palantir, "someone else would have done it" is not a good excuse.
What what we debating here? ICE's conduct or Palantir being an enabler? Because if we're talking about Palantir, "someone else would have done it" is not a good excuse.
I'm saying worry about ICE's conduct, worrying about Palantir is unproductive. ICE's ability to build a database is not the limiting factor.
Though it's easier to attract bright and hopefuls to work for Palantir than ICE, right? And it's easier for these employees to excuse their actions with an "I didn't know my efforts would end up being used for that purpose", or "I just wanted to work on interesting problems".
Worrying about both is appropriate: in both cases, folks are acting like amoral jerks, mentally divorcing their actions from the amount of suffering they directly or indirectly cause.
I think the long term question is: how can we make these choices less okay and less profitable?
I think the long term question is: how can we make these choices less okay and less profitable?
> I'm saying worry about ICE's conduct, worrying about Palantir is unproductive.
How so? Exposing and holding people and companies accountable for wrong behavior does not stop anyone from trying to change the government policies that encourage the wrong behavior. The added media exposure probably helps, especially with people that are interested in the person/company but are not aware of the government policies and their impact.
How so? Exposing and holding people and companies accountable for wrong behavior does not stop anyone from trying to change the government policies that encourage the wrong behavior. The added media exposure probably helps, especially with people that are interested in the person/company but are not aware of the government policies and their impact.
> holding people and companies accountable for wrong behavior
That's the question, right? Is this wrong behavior? It's legal, that's for sure. Just because you don't agree with ICE's actions doesn't mean every Palantir employee agrees with you.
That's the question, right? Is this wrong behavior? It's legal, that's for sure. Just because you don't agree with ICE's actions doesn't mean every Palantir employee agrees with you.
All of your replies in this topic have been logical fallacies:
1. "Someone else would have done it."
2. False dichotomy.
And now piling on:
3. Moral relativism.
4. Finish the Job. (#49 in http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm)
1. "Someone else would have done it."
2. False dichotomy.
And now piling on:
3. Moral relativism.
4. Finish the Job. (#49 in http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm)
That's not really constructive. Do you have an actual point to make?
My actual point is you are a troll engaging in Sea lioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning
> Nobody bats an eyelash when doctors refuse to help with executions or torture
But it turns out that no one (initially) cares when doctors do help with torture, either. The APA helped design the American torture program, and despite some inflammatory articles never saw any real consequences for it.
I don't think this devalues your point about technologists, but it does make me suspect that our uniqueness is overstated; quite a few 'respectable' professions have at one point or another joined in on horrific government overreach.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/report-says-american-p...
But it turns out that no one (initially) cares when doctors do help with torture, either. The APA helped design the American torture program, and despite some inflammatory articles never saw any real consequences for it.
I don't think this devalues your point about technologists, but it does make me suspect that our uniqueness is overstated; quite a few 'respectable' professions have at one point or another joined in on horrific government overreach.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/report-says-american-p...
I think your analogy is incorrect with regards to doctors (since we're talking about action, not inaction). A clearer one might be: is the doctor who saves the life of a murderer, rapist, etc a wrong for doing so. We say "no she isn't" because she's absolved of responsibility for that decision by her medical oath...if she wants to remain doctoring, she HAS to offer her services without regard to the who the person is. In the case of the programmer, there's no such (legal) obligation.
Thanks, we need more of that courageous attitude in our industry. It's one thing if a company makes a generic product, markets it as such, and bad people happen to decide to use it for bad purposes. It's a totally different thing if a company markets their products as great ways to commit human rights abuses--even if those abuses are legal--shouldn't that at least raise a few eyebrows?
> I think our profession is way, way too detached from the consequences of the applications of our work.
Are (using your example) Cisco and/or Oracle offering material support, other than making the products that are used? If not, I don't see how they could prevent the government from using their products - the government would just buy the products through a cutout if they had to.
Are (using your example) Cisco and/or Oracle offering material support, other than making the products that are used? If not, I don't see how they could prevent the government from using their products - the government would just buy the products through a cutout if they had to.
Thank you, well said.
>> if you're angry at Palantir for assisting mass deportation, you should be equally angry at Oracle
> Isn't Palantir's assistance clearer and more direct?
Are you aware that the name "Oracle" comes from the original CIA contract?
(crappy reference I found via wikipedia in case you didn't realise this, but it's not a secret part of company history: https://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0,3604,215072,00.html )
> Isn't Palantir's assistance clearer and more direct?
Are you aware that the name "Oracle" comes from the original CIA contract?
(crappy reference I found via wikipedia in case you didn't realise this, but it's not a secret part of company history: https://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0,3604,215072,00.html )
> Are you aware that the name "Oracle" comes from the original CIA contract?
I'm not saying that companies should shun the CIA, so that's irrelevant. The distinction I was making was between providing generic products which can be used to implement a policy and products specifically designed to that policy's business requirements. My understanding is Palantir produces the later, and if the policy in question is problematic then they are more culpable than if they developed something generic.
Also, your link doesn't really support your characterization that Oracle Database was developed for the CIA:
> Ampex was developing a giant database for the CIA, and Ellison was assigned to the project, along with Bob Miner and Ed Oates. The CIA's codename for the project was Oracle. The project was something of a disaster, but it led eventually to the formation of Oracle Corporation and its current hugely successful range of databases.
If you pay attention, it says Ampex was the company with the CIA contract, and that project inspired Ellison to found Oracle.
I'm not saying that companies should shun the CIA, so that's irrelevant. The distinction I was making was between providing generic products which can be used to implement a policy and products specifically designed to that policy's business requirements. My understanding is Palantir produces the later, and if the policy in question is problematic then they are more culpable than if they developed something generic.
Also, your link doesn't really support your characterization that Oracle Database was developed for the CIA:
> Ampex was developing a giant database for the CIA, and Ellison was assigned to the project, along with Bob Miner and Ed Oates. The CIA's codename for the project was Oracle. The project was something of a disaster, but it led eventually to the formation of Oracle Corporation and its current hugely successful range of databases.
If you pay attention, it says Ampex was the company with the CIA contract, and that project inspired Ellison to found Oracle.
fascinating article:
"Ellison was wrong about the success of massively parallel processing computers (though he invested his own money in the idea), wrong about the success of so-called video-on-demand (as Oracle found when it ran a pilot with British Telecom), wrong about network computers replacing PCs (or at least, there's no evidence yet), and wrong about several other things - though we might have to revise that view in 10 years and say he was right but too early."
looks like history has proven that he was right about all of these things!
"Ellison was wrong about the success of massively parallel processing computers (though he invested his own money in the idea), wrong about the success of so-called video-on-demand (as Oracle found when it ran a pilot with British Telecom), wrong about network computers replacing PCs (or at least, there's no evidence yet), and wrong about several other things - though we might have to revise that view in 10 years and say he was right but too early."
looks like history has proven that he was right about all of these things!
> I think Peter Thiel is a monster
Genuinely curious what you base this opinion on. If it's based solely upon his support of Donald Trump, this is a ridiculous statement. If there is something else that would make a reasonable, politically neutral person agree that he is a "monster," I am not aware of it, so I would be interested to hear what it is.
Genuinely curious what you base this opinion on. If it's based solely upon his support of Donald Trump, this is a ridiculous statement. If there is something else that would make a reasonable, politically neutral person agree that he is a "monster," I am not aware of it, so I would be interested to hear what it is.
Peter Thiel is a racist, misogynist oligarch. Some quotes:
But since a multicultural rape charge may indicate nothing more than belated regret, a woman might ‘realize’ that she had been ‘raped’ the next day or even many days later.
----
The purpose of the rape crisis movement seems as much about vilifying men as about raising ‘awareness’.
----
Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
But since a multicultural rape charge may indicate nothing more than belated regret, a woman might ‘realize’ that she had been ‘raped’ the next day or even many days later.
----
The purpose of the rape crisis movement seems as much about vilifying men as about raising ‘awareness’.
----
Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.
> If it's based solely upon his support of Donald Trump, this is a ridiculous statement.
You're projecting. At least let him explain his reasoning. Creating your own fictional version which you can denounce prior that that explanation doesn't really help the conversation.
You're projecting. At least let him explain his reasoning. Creating your own fictional version which you can denounce prior that that explanation doesn't really help the conversation.
No, I am not projecting. The most common Thiel criticism I am aware of (especially in tech circles) is that he supported Donald Trump (along with nearly half of all voters). It is ridiculous to call half of all US voters "monsters". So if there is something else that makes him a person worthy of such a dramatic label, I am sure everyone would love to know what it is. If it's just more politically-motivated Valley-bubble drivel, then there is nothing to see here.
While I'm going to choose in this instance not to allow you to pry open my braincase and crawl around to see which of my beliefs do and don't make sense to you, let me clarify that I do not in fact believe that "nearly half" (really: a far lower percentage) of US voters are monsters. Voting for Trump doesn't make someone a monster.
Hope that helps.
Hope that helps.
> It is ridiculous to call half of all US voters "monsters".
Peter Think is not situated equally to all Trump voters. Even if we accept that it is a priori unreasonable that nearly half of the voting population on the recent election could be described as "monsters" (I don't, as popularity of an act does not contradict depravity of the act), it's quite possible to believe that voting for Trump reveals that one is either a monster or decieved by a monster, and believes that there are things about Think that make it particularly unlikely that he is a dupe, and thus that he is a monster but not all those voting for Trump are.
Peter Think is not situated equally to all Trump voters. Even if we accept that it is a priori unreasonable that nearly half of the voting population on the recent election could be described as "monsters" (I don't, as popularity of an act does not contradict depravity of the act), it's quite possible to believe that voting for Trump reveals that one is either a monster or decieved by a monster, and believes that there are things about Think that make it particularly unlikely that he is a dupe, and thus that he is a monster but not all those voting for Trump are.
You say:
> No, I am not projecting.
And then you go on to pull out a bunch of statistics and imply the statement was about half of all US voters, and calling them "monsters", instead of the actual statement, which was about a single person.
Then you specifically acknowledge you still don't know what his justifications are:
> If it's just more politically-motivated Valley-bubble drivel, then there is nothing to see here.
Perhaps you need to look up what projecting means. Or, if you prefer, we can call what you're doing a Straw Man man argument. Not quite the same, but related, and it also applies.
> No, I am not projecting.
And then you go on to pull out a bunch of statistics and imply the statement was about half of all US voters, and calling them "monsters", instead of the actual statement, which was about a single person.
Then you specifically acknowledge you still don't know what his justifications are:
> If it's just more politically-motivated Valley-bubble drivel, then there is nothing to see here.
Perhaps you need to look up what projecting means. Or, if you prefer, we can call what you're doing a Straw Man man argument. Not quite the same, but related, and it also applies.
I am not sure this is even response-worthy, but why not. All I said was that if his "monster" label was based solely upon Thiel's support of Donald Trump, then that is a ridiculous statement because he is then calling all supporters of Donald Trump monsters. That is hardly a straw man argument. Perhaps you should look up Euclid's Common Notions. Specifically this one: "Things which equal the same thing also equal one another."
Trump wasn't even in the conversation. The standing of people who voted for Trump wasn't in the conversation. You brought those in yourself. You not only assumed a political reasoning for the assertion, you then went on to introduce that to the discussion, and provide your opinion if that was the reasoning, but not in a constructive way ("it's ridiculous"). You continue to bring additional political arguments into this when I've been careful to note that it's not about politics, but about you assuming someone's reasoning using little or no evidence. That's not a useful way to have a discussion, and since my point was "doesn't really help the conversation" I think the state of this thread is ample evidence I was correct.
I assumed nothing. I actually put the Trump issue in there to avoid a political discussion, as I think everyone has had enough of the "Trump bad" crap from the Valley crowd. I was essentially saying "you needn't reply if this is the nonsense you have based your 'monster' comment on". It of course had the opposite effect because liberal heads explode when they see Trump's name written anywhere there is a comments section, but that wasn't the intent.
I think what we had is a failure of interpretation based on some ambiguity in the wording. To my eyes, it appeared not that you were trying to avoid that conversation, but starting it (see my other recent comment on this topic, in which I almost added the gist of this comment). This was, to use again an overused and currently debated term, me projecting. That said, I see this as a somewhat unavoidable part of communication, and I didn't necessarily meanit in a pejorative manner when I originally used it.
My original comment could have been paraphrased as "hey, please don't bring that stuff up without real cause or evidence if it's not the current topic. It's makes things toxic fairly quickly."
My original comment could have been paraphrased as "hey, please don't bring that stuff up without real cause or evidence if it's not the current topic. It's makes things toxic fairly quickly."
Euclid proved any and all support for some political figure is equivalent? That seems implausible.
>along with nearly half of all voters
Last time I checked, 46.09% of 55.3% was a little under 25.5% of all voters.
Last time I checked, 46.09% of 55.3% was a little under 25.5% of all voters.
That's the percentage of the population, which is why I was careful to say voters. In your own comment you acknowledge that 46.09% of voters voted for him. The opinions of those that choose not to vote in a country with free elections are completely irrelevant.
>The opinions of those that choose not to vote in a country with free elections are completely irrelevant.
Please.. you have to register to vote, you have to stand in a line for hours before you can vote. How many people don't vote because it's too much of a hassle? Their opinions are irrelevant?
Please.. you have to register to vote, you have to stand in a line for hours before you can vote. How many people don't vote because it's too much of a hassle? Their opinions are irrelevant?
So we are counting voters that don't vote now?
Since elections in our current environment are turnout-based, in terms of gauging popular support, "eligible voter population" is probably the right metric. By that metric, Trump got just over a quarter of the vote --- and, by any metric, less than Clinton.
Since some fraction of eligible non-voters wouldn't have voted no matter who the candidate was, the truth of the matter is obviously somewhere in between a quarter and a half. But there's no sense in which "half the vote" isn't misleading.
Since some fraction of eligible non-voters wouldn't have voted no matter who the candidate was, the truth of the matter is obviously somewhere in between a quarter and a half. But there's no sense in which "half the vote" isn't misleading.
Actually, I can think of individual cases where "voters" could mean one of each of the following depending on context:
- People who voted in the last election
- People who have voted previously in an election
- People who are capable of voting (citizens of voting age not otherwise constrained from voting).
It's probably usually obvious which one is meant in a conversation, but there are also likely cases where it can be somewhat ambiguous.
- People who voted in the last election
- People who have voted previously in an election
- People who are capable of voting (citizens of voting age not otherwise constrained from voting).
It's probably usually obvious which one is meant in a conversation, but there are also likely cases where it can be somewhat ambiguous.
Why is it ridiculous to call half of U.S. voters (or roughly 20-something percent of the U.S. population) "monsters"? Because it's a lot of people? Who cares? They voted to literally send armed paramilitary troops into my neighborhood to kidnap and detain people who have committed no crime other than being present on this side of an imaginary line. What else do you call that? Does that become not monstrous just because a lot of people think it's a good idea?
Meh. I'm a legal immigrant, it took me and my family many years. I have many friends waiting for years to go through the Green Card process. I don't understand this recent glorification/romanticization of people who chose to just come here and skirt the law, imaginary line or not.
So you don't have a problem with ICE agents lying to get into people's homes, so they can take people away at gunpoint, breaking families apart and turning children (frequently U.S. citizens) into orphans, and keeping people in detention centers indefinitely, where they are frequently mistreated, all for committing no other crime than crossing the border?
Because that's the issue here. This is what the actual process of mass deportation looks like. There are any number of more humane ways of dealing with this, among them what the Obama administration was doing for eight years, but Trump supporters voted for destroying people's lives en masse, at gunpoint, without consideration of any consequences.
This is inhumane. Full stop. This is not about romanticizing any one or any thing, this about asking people to look reality in the face and defend the thing that they're supporting.
Because that's the issue here. This is what the actual process of mass deportation looks like. There are any number of more humane ways of dealing with this, among them what the Obama administration was doing for eight years, but Trump supporters voted for destroying people's lives en masse, at gunpoint, without consideration of any consequences.
This is inhumane. Full stop. This is not about romanticizing any one or any thing, this about asking people to look reality in the face and defend the thing that they're supporting.
I do have a problem with you (or anyone) putting words in the parent poster's mouth. Please stop doing this.
So what does
> Meh. I'm a legal immigrant
mean in context, in response to talking about illegal immigrants being needlessly mistreated, to mention that random legal immigrant doesn't understand the "glorification" of people? What does "glorification" mean here? The idea that you shouldn't trample on someone just because you can? Just how much do you have to contort and squint to not get a slight... whiff here?
https://warprayer.org/
Is that putting words into one's mouth, or explaining their own words to them, because they're too lazy or dishonest to do it themselves. You can't pussyfoot around this stuff on the one hand and then sit on the moral high horse: (likely not even) putting words into someone's mouth is a complete joke to looking the other way when brownshirts do their job. Not minding what the parent poster said, not following up on it with these questions, that's the real WTF here. Please learn from your betters rather than pointlessly berating them. One poster responded correctly, the rest fucking has to live with themselves, how's that for a different view point.
> Meh. I'm a legal immigrant
mean in context, in response to talking about illegal immigrants being needlessly mistreated, to mention that random legal immigrant doesn't understand the "glorification" of people? What does "glorification" mean here? The idea that you shouldn't trample on someone just because you can? Just how much do you have to contort and squint to not get a slight... whiff here?
https://warprayer.org/
Is that putting words into one's mouth, or explaining their own words to them, because they're too lazy or dishonest to do it themselves. You can't pussyfoot around this stuff on the one hand and then sit on the moral high horse: (likely not even) putting words into someone's mouth is a complete joke to looking the other way when brownshirts do their job. Not minding what the parent poster said, not following up on it with these questions, that's the real WTF here. Please learn from your betters rather than pointlessly berating them. One poster responded correctly, the rest fucking has to live with themselves, how's that for a different view point.
> You're projecting. At least let him explain his reasoning. Creating your own fictional version which you can denounce prior that that explanation doesn't really help the conversation.
a) That isn't what projecting means.
b) He asked him about his reasoning and then criticized an explicitly hypothetical scenario. Note the 'if'.
a) That isn't what projecting means.
b) He asked him about his reasoning and then criticized an explicitly hypothetical scenario. Note the 'if'.
> That isn't what projecting means.
"transfer or attribute one's own emotion or desire to (another person), especially unconsciously."
That seems to apply here, to my eyes.
"transfer or attribute one's own emotion or desire to (another person), especially unconsciously."
That seems to apply here, to my eyes.
Hypothesizing about someone's state of mind is not projecting. Projecting is when you believe other people think/feel in the same way that you do. Since he was criticizing this belief, it is clear that it is not his own. Therefore, not projecting.
Since I didn't in fact say that voting for Trump made one a monster, the expectation that I rebut that argument is indeed a form of projection.
It's really not. Feel free to justify your position, though. As I already more than adequately pointed out, making a hypothesis about someone else's state of mind is a necessary but not sufficient condition for 'projection'. Projection is specifically taking your own mind-state and extrapolating it to someone else's. This is very, very clearly not what happened here
> Projection is specifically taking your own mind-state and extrapolating it to someone else's.
I don't think it's clearly that, since there are sources that contradict the narrowness of that view.
"to regard (something within the mind, as a feeling, thought, or attitude) as having some form of reality outside the mind"[1]
Specifically, that method in which I was using it is when someone is applying their preconceptions to someone or something else. Which is fine, everyone does that in the normal course of dealing with other people. I was simply trying to point out that there was no solid evidence that tptacek was going by that reasoning, and putting it out there in that manner was non-constructive. All it did was open the door to a political flamewar about what percentage of people voted for Trump, whether everyone that voted for trump is also a monster, etc.
1: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/projecting
I don't think it's clearly that, since there are sources that contradict the narrowness of that view.
"to regard (something within the mind, as a feeling, thought, or attitude) as having some form of reality outside the mind"[1]
Specifically, that method in which I was using it is when someone is applying their preconceptions to someone or something else. Which is fine, everyone does that in the normal course of dealing with other people. I was simply trying to point out that there was no solid evidence that tptacek was going by that reasoning, and putting it out there in that manner was non-constructive. All it did was open the door to a political flamewar about what percentage of people voted for Trump, whether everyone that voted for trump is also a monster, etc.
1: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/projecting
> "to regard (something within the mind, as a feeling, thought, or attitude) as having some form of reality outside the mind"[1]
That doesn't comport with your prior statements. You could describe literally any ideological statement as 'projecting' by that standard, which renders your prior comment utterly meaningless. Which of course, in turn, implies that that was not your intended meaning.
> I was simply trying to point out that there was no solid evidence that tptacek was going by that reasoning, and putting it out there in that manner was non-constructive. All it did was open the door to a political flamewar about what percentage of people voted for Trump, whether everyone that voted for trump is also a monster, etc.
No solid evidence, no. But not an unreasonable hypothesis, and one that he gave the OP an opportunity to rebut. Nothing wrong with that. He wasn't asserting that that is what tptacek believes, he was saying "IF this is what he believes, then that is ridiculous".
That doesn't comport with your prior statements. You could describe literally any ideological statement as 'projecting' by that standard, which renders your prior comment utterly meaningless. Which of course, in turn, implies that that was not your intended meaning.
> I was simply trying to point out that there was no solid evidence that tptacek was going by that reasoning, and putting it out there in that manner was non-constructive. All it did was open the door to a political flamewar about what percentage of people voted for Trump, whether everyone that voted for trump is also a monster, etc.
No solid evidence, no. But not an unreasonable hypothesis, and one that he gave the OP an opportunity to rebut. Nothing wrong with that. He wasn't asserting that that is what tptacek believes, he was saying "IF this is what he believes, then that is ridiculous".
> You could describe literally any ideological statement as 'projecting' by that standard
Yes. It's a natural part of communication, where we model others and use those models to interpret meaning. In this case, I could have said "You're assuming too much" and it would likely have conveyed my meaning more clearly and prevented an ultimately pointless digression into what "projecting" means. That's a failure on my part.
> No solid evidence, no. But not an unreasonable hypothesis, and one that he gave the OP an opportunity to rebut. Nothing wrong with that.
I beg to differ. It pulled in an entire topic that didn't necessarily have any place in the discussion. I could make any number of assertions here that might imply my belief about your state of mind, and doing so and allowing them to be rebutted does not justify their use. For example, "do you think I'm wrong because he's black, because that's ridiculous?" With that statement, I've implied there may be some racism on your part, which is uncalled for without far more evidence, regardless of whether that's the only interpretation I can think of or not, given the little information present (a hypothetical, to be clear). In this case, the possible implication (possible only, because the interpretation allows for some ambiguity) was that tptacek might be capable of branding someone a monster purely because they support President Trump, or supported candidate Trump. If someone feels the need to discount this specific scenario, there are far clearer ways to do so while avoiding that implication. For example, pointing out the natural shortcomings in communication while interpreting someone else's statements. E.g. "Is that because of support for President Trump? I can't think of any other reason you'd call him a monster, but that seems extreme, so likely I'm just failing to see the point you're making. Care to explain?"
Yes. It's a natural part of communication, where we model others and use those models to interpret meaning. In this case, I could have said "You're assuming too much" and it would likely have conveyed my meaning more clearly and prevented an ultimately pointless digression into what "projecting" means. That's a failure on my part.
> No solid evidence, no. But not an unreasonable hypothesis, and one that he gave the OP an opportunity to rebut. Nothing wrong with that.
I beg to differ. It pulled in an entire topic that didn't necessarily have any place in the discussion. I could make any number of assertions here that might imply my belief about your state of mind, and doing so and allowing them to be rebutted does not justify their use. For example, "do you think I'm wrong because he's black, because that's ridiculous?" With that statement, I've implied there may be some racism on your part, which is uncalled for without far more evidence, regardless of whether that's the only interpretation I can think of or not, given the little information present (a hypothetical, to be clear). In this case, the possible implication (possible only, because the interpretation allows for some ambiguity) was that tptacek might be capable of branding someone a monster purely because they support President Trump, or supported candidate Trump. If someone feels the need to discount this specific scenario, there are far clearer ways to do so while avoiding that implication. For example, pointing out the natural shortcomings in communication while interpreting someone else's statements. E.g. "Is that because of support for President Trump? I can't think of any other reason you'd call him a monster, but that seems extreme, so likely I'm just failing to see the point you're making. Care to explain?"
> If there is something else that would make a reasonable, politically neutral person agree that he is a "monster,"
"Politically neutral" is a big qualifier to throw in there. You're basically asking why, ignoring his most controversial aspects, someone would find him controversial.
I'm a little unsure how anyone would even approach your question. Thiel is a deeply political person - member of the Libertarian party, for one - how does a "politically neutral" analysis of him rate that? Ignore his politics entirely? To do so is to remove the obvious reason that some consider him to be a "monster". It's certainly possible to consider libertarianism to be monstrous, if your politics aligns as such.
Even in the context of this article: he co-founded Palantir, who are a very controversial company, and will potentially assist the administration in mass deportations. Depending your political leanings, that may well make him monstrous. He co-wrote a book named "The Diversity Myth", statements in which had to apologise for in 2016. Again, those statements might make him monstrous to a person.
"Politically neutral" is a big qualifier to throw in there. You're basically asking why, ignoring his most controversial aspects, someone would find him controversial.
I'm a little unsure how anyone would even approach your question. Thiel is a deeply political person - member of the Libertarian party, for one - how does a "politically neutral" analysis of him rate that? Ignore his politics entirely? To do so is to remove the obvious reason that some consider him to be a "monster". It's certainly possible to consider libertarianism to be monstrous, if your politics aligns as such.
Even in the context of this article: he co-founded Palantir, who are a very controversial company, and will potentially assist the administration in mass deportations. Depending your political leanings, that may well make him monstrous. He co-wrote a book named "The Diversity Myth", statements in which had to apologise for in 2016. Again, those statements might make him monstrous to a person.
I guess I could never justify calling someone a "monster" based solely upon their political leanings. I tend to be somehwere in the middle politically, and I cannot fathom calling anyone that I know on the extreme left or right a "monster" or similar simply because they disgree with me. So I guess the root of my question is that I just can't identify with people that would use such labels simply because others disagree with them. That's why I was hoping there was some other concrete reason for this opinion.
I suppose my point of contention is the very idea of being "politically neutral". You may be somewhere in the middle politically, but I'm not convinced that makes you politically neutral. For example, a libertarian approach to healthcare may well result in more poor people dying than a state-driven approach. Does a politically neutral person just... have no opinion one way or the other about that? I find that difficult to believe.
I hesitate to even bring it up, but many of the tyrants of the 20th Century were responsible for the death of millions, and for decidedly political reasons. Does a politically neutral person object to calling Stalin a monster on the basis that, aside from his politics, he was a good family man?
(No, I'm not saying Peter Thiel is Stalin. Politics exists in a vast, vast spectrum - but I'm not convinced there is a place where that spectrum doesn't exist)
I hesitate to even bring it up, but many of the tyrants of the 20th Century were responsible for the death of millions, and for decidedly political reasons. Does a politically neutral person object to calling Stalin a monster on the basis that, aside from his politics, he was a good family man?
(No, I'm not saying Peter Thiel is Stalin. Politics exists in a vast, vast spectrum - but I'm not convinced there is a place where that spectrum doesn't exist)
You're comparing Peter Thiel to Stalin? I don't have any issue with calling Stalin a monster because of his actions. Has Peter Thiel undertaken actions that could be compared to Stalin's?
As I said in my post, I'm not comparing him in the sense that "Thiel is Stalin". I'm saying that you can compare anyone to Stalin on a grand spectrum. I invoked him because he's someone that, broadly speaking, people accept is a "monster". He's the conclusive, non-debatable end of the monster spectrum, if you will.
I'm not suggesting in any way that his actions are on the same level as Stalin's, but where is the "monster line" drawn? I don't see how you could ever answer that question without factoring in someone's own political opinions. So I don't know how you could do a politically neutral examination of Thiel's supposed monstrousness.
I'm not suggesting in any way that his actions are on the same level as Stalin's, but where is the "monster line" drawn? I don't see how you could ever answer that question without factoring in someone's own political opinions. So I don't know how you could do a politically neutral examination of Thiel's supposed monstrousness.
As I said in my post, I'm not comparing him in the sense that "Thiel is Stalin".
You added your parenthesis after I responded (or perhaps while I was responding). But nevertheless, I can't come close to relating the two. Nothing I am aware of with Thiel would make a reasonable person consider him to be a "monster".
This will be my last response to this, since I apparently forgot how many ultra-liberals that hate Thiel and everyone like him would be brought out by such a seemingly simple, non-controversial, genuine question that I posed to OP (not necessarily referring to you, but there seem to be alot of people backing up this opinion based upon nothing other than politics, which makes me sad both for HN and the state of political discourse in the US).
You added your parenthesis after I responded (or perhaps while I was responding). But nevertheless, I can't come close to relating the two. Nothing I am aware of with Thiel would make a reasonable person consider him to be a "monster".
This will be my last response to this, since I apparently forgot how many ultra-liberals that hate Thiel and everyone like him would be brought out by such a seemingly simple, non-controversial, genuine question that I posed to OP (not necessarily referring to you, but there seem to be alot of people backing up this opinion based upon nothing other than politics, which makes me sad both for HN and the state of political discourse in the US).
Yes, I added the parenthesis after posting because I was concerned that someone might do exactly what you did - focus on the most controversial possible interpretation of my statement rather than address it at face value.
I'll follow your lead and say that this will be my last response too, because your post has shown to me that we're talking past each other entirely.
> there seem to be alot of people backing up this opinion based upon nothing other than politics
The point I've been making this whole time is that you simply cannot separate politics from "other" in the way you wish to. Politics is intertwined in every decision we make and every opinion we hold. The fact that you choose (without evidence) to label those you disagree with as "ultra-liberals" underlines this. You paint yourself as politically neutral yet you are clearly evaluating others in political terms.
We can't have "politically neutral" political discourse, it makes no sense. There is no "non-political Peter Thiel".
I'll follow your lead and say that this will be my last response too, because your post has shown to me that we're talking past each other entirely.
> there seem to be alot of people backing up this opinion based upon nothing other than politics
The point I've been making this whole time is that you simply cannot separate politics from "other" in the way you wish to. Politics is intertwined in every decision we make and every opinion we hold. The fact that you choose (without evidence) to label those you disagree with as "ultra-liberals" underlines this. You paint yourself as politically neutral yet you are clearly evaluating others in political terms.
We can't have "politically neutral" political discourse, it makes no sense. There is no "non-political Peter Thiel".
[deleted]
> You're comparing Peter Thiel to Stalin?
Making an analogy between two things/people/events/actions is not the same as claiming the two are equal.
Of course, Peter Thiel is nowhere near as bad as Stalin. Then again, "better than Stalin" is a pretty low bar.
Making an analogy between two things/people/events/actions is not the same as claiming the two are equal.
Of course, Peter Thiel is nowhere near as bad as Stalin. Then again, "better than Stalin" is a pretty low bar.
> I guess I could never justify calling someone a "monster" based solely upon their political leanings.
Read: "My safety has never been at risk because of the consequences of someone's political leanings and have either never met or do not consider sufficiently valuable anyone whose safety is"
Read: "My safety has never been at risk because of the consequences of someone's political leanings and have either never met or do not consider sufficiently valuable anyone whose safety is"
A very long, unproductive, and off-topic subthread starts here; virtually nothing underneath this comment engages with the concept of tech company responsibility/culpability for misuse, which is the kernel of my comment.
This would be a good place to use the thread collapse [-] button, and also a good place for the monitors to snip off a political subthread.
This would be a good place to use the thread collapse [-] button, and also a good place for the monitors to snip off a political subthread.
[deleted]
Agreed. Really, really, not where I was going with my very simple question that I thought (hoped) would be answered with something interesting by you that I did not know. In fact the only reason that I threw the Trump support issue into my original question was because I wanted to avoid nonsensical and irrelevant political discussion if that was the basis for your opinion, since we have all heard it before.
Unfortunately, bringing up the subject you're trying to avoid to get it out of the way is hard to pull off usefully (that is without causing that which you were trying to avoid). I speak from painful experiences in my youth when I tried to do such. I don't recall nearly as many instances in the last decade, so either I do it less, I got better at wording things to not trigger people's preconceptions, or I've deluded myself somewhat to not see it when I do. Likely, it's some aspect of all three.
[deleted]
I wouldn't use the word 'monster', but I strongly dislike Thiels' opinion that founders should aim to build monopolies. Monopolies are bad for society, but Thiels' view it that monopoly is the only way to build a successful startup.
"I sort of have a single idée fixe that I'm completely obsessed with on the business side which is that if you're starting a company, if you’re the founder, entrepreneur, starting a company you always want to aim for monopoly and you want to always avoid competition" https://youtu.be/5_0dVHMpJlo?t=26s
"I sort of have a single idée fixe that I'm completely obsessed with on the business side which is that if you're starting a company, if you’re the founder, entrepreneur, starting a company you always want to aim for monopoly and you want to always avoid competition" https://youtu.be/5_0dVHMpJlo?t=26s
I think from Thiels' capitalist view, he's totally correct on this point.
But, you could also say, from a virus' view, to reproduce and monopolize a body is also a correct point of view.
However, what Thiel ignores is the world is not just capitalist domain, it has living organisms which those monopolies can make life miserable or worse kill. Just like the virus though, he isn't considering the whole body his views are infecting.
But, you could also say, from a virus' view, to reproduce and monopolize a body is also a correct point of view.
However, what Thiel ignores is the world is not just capitalist domain, it has living organisms which those monopolies can make life miserable or worse kill. Just like the virus though, he isn't considering the whole body his views are infecting.
> I think from Thiels' capitalist view, he's totally correct on this point.
Isn't that the same as saying from Theils' capitalist view the solution is to prevent capitalism from functioning? How do you have capitalism without competition?
Isn't that the same as saying from Theils' capitalist view the solution is to prevent capitalism from functioning? How do you have capitalism without competition?
individuals and communities have different relationships to competition
monopoly through anti-competitive behavior is bad, but natural monopolies by virtue of superiority (read: customer appeal) isn't bad by default.
> expensive consultingware database
You're giving it more credit than necessary. It's just expensive consultingware. It's only incidentally a database.
You're giving it more credit than necessary. It's just expensive consultingware. It's only incidentally a database.
What portion of Palantir's revenue comes from government operations that would make anti-authoritarian hn members uneasy? (Compare to Oracle or Cisco)
Not all technologies or companies are neutral in practice.
Not all technologies or companies are neutral in practice.
While I think The Intercept is the most important news organization and overall a profoundly beneficial force in the world, I think it's important to note that The Intercept has been on a path to discredit Peter Thiel as retaliation for his support of the lawsuit against Gawker.
Several of The Intercept's reporters are former Gawker reporters and clearly carry a grudge against Thiel.
The Intercept has offered brave and groundbreaking reporting on the illicit surveillance operations conducted by the US Government, but has recently adopted the tactic of blending its reporting warning about surveillance with a focus on Palantir, likely due to its notable name and affiliation with Thiel.
Palantir got traction because it was able to meet existing government RFPs at lower cost than existing competitors. Palantir is not the only company building tools for the surveillance state, only the most notable in Silicon Valley.
I wish even a single news organization could keep its personal gripes/grudges out of its reporting. Suggesting that Palantir is unique in its catering to surveillance overreach is disingenuous. I also, fwiw, think that Thiel was within his right to help fund an adversarial lawsuit against Gawker. Gawker capitalized on its own large legal war chest, and it's fair that it suffered the same fate. It was not ideal, as Gawker was a source of good reporting and brave disregard of certain unfortunate laws, but nonetheless fair and not unethical. If all parties in lawsuits had a benefactor many miscarriages of justice would be avoided. This is a flaw of our legal system and nothing else.
Several of The Intercept's reporters are former Gawker reporters and clearly carry a grudge against Thiel.
The Intercept has offered brave and groundbreaking reporting on the illicit surveillance operations conducted by the US Government, but has recently adopted the tactic of blending its reporting warning about surveillance with a focus on Palantir, likely due to its notable name and affiliation with Thiel.
Palantir got traction because it was able to meet existing government RFPs at lower cost than existing competitors. Palantir is not the only company building tools for the surveillance state, only the most notable in Silicon Valley.
I wish even a single news organization could keep its personal gripes/grudges out of its reporting. Suggesting that Palantir is unique in its catering to surveillance overreach is disingenuous. I also, fwiw, think that Thiel was within his right to help fund an adversarial lawsuit against Gawker. Gawker capitalized on its own large legal war chest, and it's fair that it suffered the same fate. It was not ideal, as Gawker was a source of good reporting and brave disregard of certain unfortunate laws, but nonetheless fair and not unethical. If all parties in lawsuits had a benefactor many miscarriages of justice would be avoided. This is a flaw of our legal system and nothing else.
I think The Intercept is the most important news organization and overall a profoundly beneficial force
[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/intercept-reporter-juan-thomp...
No, he was not really ever a reporter there, just an intern briefly, who overstated his involvement on his resume.
quoting from the article I linked:
"The tweet was sent by the Twitter handle @juanmthompson, which is listed on the Intercept's website as belonging to the reporter..."
"The tweet was sent by the Twitter handle @juanmthompson, which is listed on the Intercept's website as belonging to the reporter..."
He was listed as one of the reporters, but was actually an intern and was released.
Clearly the guy is an activist, it just seems he's got a very unusual system of ethics that guide his activism, which most people would consider over the top or abhorrent. I'm certainly not defending him, I chalk it up to an HR mistake by The Intercept and nothing more.
Clearly the guy is an activist, it just seems he's got a very unusual system of ethics that guide his activism, which most people would consider over the top or abhorrent. I'm certainly not defending him, I chalk it up to an HR mistake by The Intercept and nothing more.
> While I think The Intercept is the most important news organization and overall a profoundly beneficial force in the world
The rest of your post makes me totally disagree with this sentiment. If they fail to meet the most basic litmus test for impartiality I don't see how they're any more important than any other news organization.
EDIT: I really, really hope you're not referring to the Hogan case as "brave disregard of certain unfortunate laws".
The rest of your post makes me totally disagree with this sentiment. If they fail to meet the most basic litmus test for impartiality I don't see how they're any more important than any other news organization.
EDIT: I really, really hope you're not referring to the Hogan case as "brave disregard of certain unfortunate laws".
It's a new trend, and to date the reporting has been so strong that it will take more than a few Thiel stories to tip the balance.
I'm hoping they come to their senses. They've been doing a lot of "in group" focused stories, which are very annoying. I think most rational readers don't want in-group stories they want solid reporting and clear analysis.
Sure, most people who want to read Greenwald's reporting about the surveillance state also don't mind reading a story implicating Thiel in the overreach, but that doesn't mean they ought to stoop to the level of calling out Tiel and not calling out the A list investors, established larger firms, and government officials who are all part of the reason we should all be concerned about the likely misuse of Palantir's (and a lot of other) tech.
To be fair, The Intercept does great investigative journalism, but as a whole does not position itself as a completely objective source. There are a fair number of "awareness" oriented stories published, and even a few rants. Rants can be very informative but it's important to differentiate them from what is supposed to be unbiased/objective news or analysis.
Sadly, clickbait-oriented metrics likely suggest to the editors of all news-ish publications that the in-group stories are what readers demand.
I'm hoping they come to their senses. They've been doing a lot of "in group" focused stories, which are very annoying. I think most rational readers don't want in-group stories they want solid reporting and clear analysis.
Sure, most people who want to read Greenwald's reporting about the surveillance state also don't mind reading a story implicating Thiel in the overreach, but that doesn't mean they ought to stoop to the level of calling out Tiel and not calling out the A list investors, established larger firms, and government officials who are all part of the reason we should all be concerned about the likely misuse of Palantir's (and a lot of other) tech.
To be fair, The Intercept does great investigative journalism, but as a whole does not position itself as a completely objective source. There are a fair number of "awareness" oriented stories published, and even a few rants. Rants can be very informative but it's important to differentiate them from what is supposed to be unbiased/objective news or analysis.
Sadly, clickbait-oriented metrics likely suggest to the editors of all news-ish publications that the in-group stories are what readers demand.
The end result of this new system: government agents will be able to more readily query other government agencies about foreign citizens. This seems... reasonable?
> "that allows ICE agents, including those in the agency’s primary deportation force, the Enforcement and Removal Office, to query information across several large government databases simultaneously"
But Peter Thiel, the new boogeyman, is involved, so this is somehow supposed to be worrisome news.
> "that allows ICE agents, including those in the agency’s primary deportation force, the Enforcement and Removal Office, to query information across several large government databases simultaneously"
But Peter Thiel, the new boogeyman, is involved, so this is somehow supposed to be worrisome news.
No, the special problem here is that the CIA is enjoined by law against conducting surveillance against US citizens. You can't simply build a system that allows ICE to query CIA data; the two are supposed to be siloed.
It is a problem that DHS is using Palantir to violate that rule. It is also a problem if Palantir is knowingly selling technology for the purposes of violating those rules. But it's doubtless also true that many other tech companies with less interesting names are involved in the same project and profiting from it in the same way.
It is a problem that DHS is using Palantir to violate that rule. It is also a problem if Palantir is knowingly selling technology for the purposes of violating those rules. But it's doubtless also true that many other tech companies with less interesting names are involved in the same project and profiting from it in the same way.
It would be nice if a line could be drawn here, since we've been told for decades that a line had been drawn here. At this point, can anyone really see the line? If the point were to keep us secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, would the giant papers-and-effects-vacuuming-up machine really have been built?
> the special problem here is that the CIA is enjoined by law against conducting surveillance against US citizens.
Laws only matter if they are enforced or if the loopholes used to exploit them are closed.
Laws only matter if they are enforced or if the loopholes used to exploit them are closed.
To what loophole are you referring?
Or better yet, can you explain the difference between a loophole and a deliberate choice of language intending to make one thing legal and another very similar thing illegal?
Or better yet, can you explain the difference between a loophole and a deliberate choice of language intending to make one thing legal and another very similar thing illegal?
I meant in a general sense but practices like having other five eyes partners or a private company surveil US citizens to avoid a US agency doing anything illegal come to mind.
The only difference is in the intent of the author or when the law was written. The fourth amendment seems quite clear but we give that up at the border for some apparent reason.
The only difference is in the intent of the author or when the law was written. The fourth amendment seems quite clear but we give that up at the border for some apparent reason.
The Supreme Court is the only body charged with interpreting the Constitution, and they've been very consistent and clear that for the most part the fourth amendment doesn't apply at the border. 4A protects against unreasonable searches. Searching people entering the country at an international border is entirely reasonable, so 4A doesn't apply.
Obviously there's debate about considering a state road 98 miles inside the country a "border zone," and I don't think border rules should apply there, but at the border is pretty much settled law.
Obviously there's debate about considering a state road 98 miles inside the country a "border zone," and I don't think border rules should apply there, but at the border is pretty much settled law.
You need to read the article I guess, because the CIA isn't conducting surveillance against US citizens and providing that data to ICE. The CIA has data on foreign citizens and is providing that info to a system that ICE will have access to.
You seem to have replaced the phrase "foreign citizens" with "US citizens." They're obviously very different but especially in this context.
For those that don't understand the concern: a lot of us have an interest in the government being inefficient at tasks. You may think to yourself "So what, keep the terrorists away?"
But when I hear stories about border agents asking to inspect peoples' phones, and taking notes if somebody has an app for hookups and asking them about it next time they cross that border it concerns me.
Sometimes making an irresponsible system more efficient is a bad thing. Hitler was only able to exterminate 2/3rds of the Jewish race because there was registry of Jews.
But when I hear stories about border agents asking to inspect peoples' phones, and taking notes if somebody has an app for hookups and asking them about it next time they cross that border it concerns me.
Sometimes making an irresponsible system more efficient is a bad thing. Hitler was only able to exterminate 2/3rds of the Jewish race because there was registry of Jews.
> But Peter Thiel, the new boogeyman
Well he is quite vocal about his political opinion, and he is rich. Maybe that is what he wants anyway.
Well he is quite vocal about his political opinion, and he is rich. Maybe that is what he wants anyway.
Honestly a bit disturbing to see people coming out of the wood works to defend palantir.
They've assisted NSA, and now they're using some skills to help agents look up info on undocumented immigrants.
Sure, we should be tackling the source of the problem, but enablers such as palantir should be taken to task too.
It should be considered how active a role Thiel took in getting this to happen as a Trump ally, which this in turn benefits his company.
They've assisted NSA, and now they're using some skills to help agents look up info on undocumented immigrants.
Sure, we should be tackling the source of the problem, but enablers such as palantir should be taken to task too.
It should be considered how active a role Thiel took in getting this to happen as a Trump ally, which this in turn benefits his company.
> Honestly a bit disturbing to see people coming out of the wood works to defend palantir.
It was a very sexy startup a while back. And success breeds friends.
It was a very sexy startup a while back. And success breeds friends.
I'm not fan of the current immigration system, but it seems like "looking up info on undocumented immigrants" is no better or worse than any other criminal database use. Being here illegally is, well, ya know, illegal. We can discuss whether or not that should be illegal or not, but it currently is. Let's not act like it isn't.
The Republican controlled house, Senate, executive branch, and majority of state governments highlights how important it is that people and companies resist, and that we support groups that do.
Casting it off as, "it's just a job someone has to do it", is a pretty weak defence.
Casting it off as, "it's just a job someone has to do it", is a pretty weak defence.
They're not criminals until they're found guilty in court. Imagine if the local police were able to use CIA records, including phone and location data, to prosecute you for, say stealing a car.
Entering the country without permission is illegal, but let's not act like it's a crime so heinous that law enforcement should be exempt from due process and warrants and such when prosecuting people for it.
Keep in mind that ICE does sometimes inadvertently deport US citizens, and that there is no central database of who is or is not a US citizen, nor any single canonical way to prove citizenship.
Entering the country without permission is illegal, but let's not act like it's a crime so heinous that law enforcement should be exempt from due process and warrants and such when prosecuting people for it.
Keep in mind that ICE does sometimes inadvertently deport US citizens, and that there is no central database of who is or is not a US citizen, nor any single canonical way to prove citizenship.
Well I mean, it seems pretty much case closed that they are criminals if they are undocumented immigrants. I'm not advocating that law enforcement should be exempt from due process, but if you're not a citizen I'm not sure what rights you're entitled to here? It's a bit messy, but it's very close to the bottom of the list of police actions I'm worried about. I'm way more concerned about things like the disproportionate amount of African Americans locked up than the due process of people who are here illegally.
Every country on the planet has borders that are enforced. Every country has immigration policies that just be followed. Every country that finds immigrants that are there undocumented (illegally) deports them and uses databases with public/private cooperation to do so.
There are ways to prove citizenship. Easily obtainable documents like a social security card, passport, birth certificate, etc... . There is no real issue with ICE deporting Americans. None whatsoever.
Every country on the planet has borders that are enforced. Every country has immigration policies that just be followed. Every country that finds immigrants that are there undocumented (illegally) deports them and uses databases with public/private cooperation to do so.
There are ways to prove citizenship. Easily obtainable documents like a social security card, passport, birth certificate, etc... . There is no real issue with ICE deporting Americans. None whatsoever.
Nothing in the Constitution says that due process only applies to citizens.
Obviously if they're undocumented immigrants then they're criminals. My point is that ICE can't consider them to be definitely criminals until that's actually proven in court. You can't just say, well, ICE is totally sure that José over there is undocumented, so it's OK if ICE treats him like a criminal even though they haven't gone to court.
I'm not saying we shouldn't guard the borders or enforce immigration law. I'm saying that it's still law enforcement and the ideas of innocent until proven guilty, and requiring warrants for searches, still applies. Or at least should apply.
Not every US citizen has a social security card, passport, or even a birth certificate. There are quite a few US citizens that get detained by ICE:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/504031635/...
And yes, sometimes they do get deported:
https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deport...
Obviously if they're undocumented immigrants then they're criminals. My point is that ICE can't consider them to be definitely criminals until that's actually proven in court. You can't just say, well, ICE is totally sure that José over there is undocumented, so it's OK if ICE treats him like a criminal even though they haven't gone to court.
I'm not saying we shouldn't guard the borders or enforce immigration law. I'm saying that it's still law enforcement and the ideas of innocent until proven guilty, and requiring warrants for searches, still applies. Or at least should apply.
Not every US citizen has a social security card, passport, or even a birth certificate. There are quite a few US citizens that get detained by ICE:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/22/504031635/...
And yes, sometimes they do get deported:
https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-keeps-mistakenly-deport...
Yeah but it's largely a non-issue.
Also while people in the US who are here illegally may be permitted due process, it'll be a pretty easy case. Are you a US citizen? Yes? No? Pretty simple. I guess you could argue that the state has to provide evidence that you're not, but if the evidence doesn't exist you're asking the state to prove something exists that doesn't, which is a non sequitor.
Also while people in the US who are here illegally may be permitted due process, it'll be a pretty easy case. Are you a US citizen? Yes? No? Pretty simple. I guess you could argue that the state has to provide evidence that you're not, but if the evidence doesn't exist you're asking the state to prove something exists that doesn't, which is a non sequitor.
People getting charged with murders they didn't commit is largely a non-issue, but that doesn't mean we should just bypass the whole trial thing.
I don't understand your last part. If the state can't prove something exists that doesn't, then the state can't prove its case, so the accused should go free, no? We don't change the rules of legal proof just because it's inconvenient to the state.
I don't understand your last part. If the state can't prove something exists that doesn't, then the state can't prove its case, so the accused should go free, no? We don't change the rules of legal proof just because it's inconvenient to the state.
So all I have to do is show up in a country and just say "I'm a citizen" and if they can't disprove that claim then I get to stay?
Because that's essentially what you're saying here.
Because that's essentially what you're saying here.
Well no, you're the one who said it's impossible to prove lack of citizenship, not me.
I'm guessing that ICE is generally able to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most illegal immigrants are not citizens. Most can be fairly easily proven not to have had US citizenship from birth (due to being born outside the US to non-American parents), and there is a central database of naturalized citizens, so if they are also absent from that, done.
What I'm saying here is simply that if it is indeed impossible to prove, as you say, that is not a good reason to relax standards of proof.
I'm guessing that ICE is generally able to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most illegal immigrants are not citizens. Most can be fairly easily proven not to have had US citizenship from birth (due to being born outside the US to non-American parents), and there is a central database of naturalized citizens, so if they are also absent from that, done.
What I'm saying here is simply that if it is indeed impossible to prove, as you say, that is not a good reason to relax standards of proof.
There are issues with CBP personnel harassing Americans. I have a constitutional right to freely travel around the country without fear of search or seizure if I'm not suspected of a crime. CBP personnel camp out in airplane jetways ambushing law-abiding American citizens who have no choice but to submit to an illegal and improper search of their personal papers to prove their citizenship. Any freedom loving citizen of the United States should resist this bullshit.
> improper search of their personal papers to prove their citizenship
this is pretty sensationalized. It's very rational to request proof of citizenship before allowing entry to a country
this is pretty sensationalized. It's very rational to request proof of citizenship before allowing entry to a country
I was referencing domestic travel. Within the US.
I doubt that "camp out in airplane jetways" is describing border controls entering the US. Probably something more like this: http://sfist.com/2017/02/24/border_patrol_agents_stop_and_ch...
Rational or not, in the US, we have placed upon our officers the burden of having a reasonable suspicion (one that can be later explained to a court) before requiring anything of a detained person.
As such, if I am a U.S. citizen, and say so, the burden is then upon the officer to identify a reason to suspect that I am not actually a citizen before requiring that I submit to additional questioning or produce documentation. We desire that our cops be required to have an actual reason before hassling us. That form of behavior was what goaded our forebears into shooting at the king's men.
At the risk of inciting an opinionated pissing contest, I'd say that meekly presenting your official papers to a government authority is reason to suspect that you are not an American, and that loudly arguing with the officer (especially when relying on spurious legal grounds) is almost as good as stapling a notarized copy of your birth certificate to your forehead.
I think a simple majority of Americans would probably prefer the government to treat the public more respectfully and courteously--citizens or not--even if it means some dangerous people will find it easier to commit crimes. I may be mistaken in this perception, but I wish for it to be true. It's a crying shame that people are deciding not to visit because our government is acting like a paranoid brute and that I can't find any rational grounds to disagree with their decisions to stay away.
As such, if I am a U.S. citizen, and say so, the burden is then upon the officer to identify a reason to suspect that I am not actually a citizen before requiring that I submit to additional questioning or produce documentation. We desire that our cops be required to have an actual reason before hassling us. That form of behavior was what goaded our forebears into shooting at the king's men.
At the risk of inciting an opinionated pissing contest, I'd say that meekly presenting your official papers to a government authority is reason to suspect that you are not an American, and that loudly arguing with the officer (especially when relying on spurious legal grounds) is almost as good as stapling a notarized copy of your birth certificate to your forehead.
I think a simple majority of Americans would probably prefer the government to treat the public more respectfully and courteously--citizens or not--even if it means some dangerous people will find it easier to commit crimes. I may be mistaken in this perception, but I wish for it to be true. It's a crying shame that people are deciding not to visit because our government is acting like a paranoid brute and that I can't find any rational grounds to disagree with their decisions to stay away.
Is your argument that ICE has data they're not supposed to have? Part of ICE's job is to enforce immigration rules. Let's work on your analogy here:
> Imagine if the local police were able to use CIA records, including phone and location data, to prosecute you for, say stealing a car.
Imagine if the local police were able to use their plate reader software to identify and prosecute people who had stolen cars?
> Imagine if the local police were able to use CIA records, including phone and location data, to prosecute you for, say stealing a car.
Imagine if the local police were able to use their plate reader software to identify and prosecute people who had stolen cars?
Right, ICE's job is to enforce immigration rules, so they're getting phone and location records from the CIA without a warrant, and that's OK because...?
Police are allowed to use license plate readers because that's considered to be in public view. Since the CIA is separate from both ICE and the local police, let's just use CIA in the analogy too.
Police are allowed to use license plate readers because that's considered to be in public view. Since the CIA is separate from both ICE and the local police, let's just use CIA in the analogy too.
> ICE's job is to enforce immigration rules, so they're getting phone and location records from the CIA without a warrant
Do you have a source for this? It's not clear to me that this is the case -- and if it is we are totally screwed whether Palantir is involved or not.
Do you have a source for this? It's not clear to me that this is the case -- and if it is we are totally screwed whether Palantir is involved or not.
Maybe I'm assuming too much, but given the broad language and complete lack of mention of judicial oversight, it seems like it. This document about how ICE uses ICM, a similar system that works with data from other agencies, only mentions warrants in the context of the database holding information about them, or certain information in the database being obtained using them: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy...
Except undocumented immigration(·) is actually not a crime. You don't go to jail when you're caught by ICE. There's no criminal trial. You're sent out of the country. So, it's not really logical to apply the analogy of criminal database use.
(·) Edit: Unlawful entry (border hopping) is a crime, punishable by $250 in civil penalties, but no jail time. Essentially a jaywalking ticket. Unlawful presence is not a crime.
(·) Edit: Unlawful entry (border hopping) is a crime, punishable by $250 in civil penalties, but no jail time. Essentially a jaywalking ticket. Unlawful presence is not a crime.
> (·) Edit: Unlawful entry (border hopping) is a crime, punishable by $250 in civil penalties.
No, it's a crime punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months and/or fine of up to $5,000 (as a class B misdemeanor) for a first offense and 2 years imprisonment and/or fine of up to $500,000 (as a felony) for a subsequent offense.
It is also a civil offense with civil penalties of $50-$250 the first time a civil penalty is imposed, and double that subsequently.
See 8 USC § 1325(a) for the crime, associated imprisonment, and reference to fines under title 18, and § 1325(b) for the civil offense; 18 USC § 3559 for classification of crimes based on maximum imprisonment, and § 3571 for fines based on classification of crimes.
No, it's a crime punishable by imprisonment for up to 6 months and/or fine of up to $5,000 (as a class B misdemeanor) for a first offense and 2 years imprisonment and/or fine of up to $500,000 (as a felony) for a subsequent offense.
It is also a civil offense with civil penalties of $50-$250 the first time a civil penalty is imposed, and double that subsequently.
See 8 USC § 1325(a) for the crime, associated imprisonment, and reference to fines under title 18, and § 1325(b) for the civil offense; 18 USC § 3559 for classification of crimes based on maximum imprisonment, and § 3571 for fines based on classification of crimes.
Well in order to be present they had to enter unlawfully. So pretty clear that it's illegal.
> Well in order to be present they had to enter unlawfully
Wrong, you can be present unlawfully after completely lawful entry.
> So pretty clear that it's illegal.
Unlawful presence is obviously illegal, but it is not criminal. The two words do not mean the same thing.
Wrong, you can be present unlawfully after completely lawful entry.
> So pretty clear that it's illegal.
Unlawful presence is obviously illegal, but it is not criminal. The two words do not mean the same thing.
But you can't be present lawfully after unlawful entry, that is the point.
No, the claim was "in order to be present they had to enter unlawfully"; that claim is what is under discussion and it is factually untrue.
What you present is the converse of the claim under discussion. And, for that matter, is also false. A lawful permanent resident alien who enters (say, after a vacation abroad) other than at a designated border crossing is not unlawfully present, but has committed the offense of illegal entry.
What you present is the converse of the claim under discussion. And, for that matter, is also false. A lawful permanent resident alien who enters (say, after a vacation abroad) other than at a designated border crossing is not unlawfully present, but has committed the offense of illegal entry.
> Honestly a bit disturbing to see people coming out of the wood works to defend palantir.
> They've assisted NSA, and now they're using some skills to help agents look up info on undocumented immigrants.
I'm supposed to be outraged that a company is supplying software to help a government employee do their job in an efficient manner?
> They've assisted NSA, and now they're using some skills to help agents look up info on undocumented immigrants.
I'm supposed to be outraged that a company is supplying software to help a government employee do their job in an efficient manner?
If you believe the job is immoral, yes.
IBM supplied computation systems to Nazi Germany, where they were used to carry out the murder of millions of people.
Had it done so knowingly, its management should have been taken out back and shot, right alongside the other perpetrators.
IBM supplied computation systems to Nazi Germany, where they were used to carry out the murder of millions of people.
Had it done so knowingly, its management should have been taken out back and shot, right alongside the other perpetrators.
As with every Nazi comparison with the current administration, this is neither helpful nor honest.
Blanket dismissal of a comparison because it uses include Nazis is not useful. The point of learning from history is to actually be able to compare current events to the past. Putting Nazi Germany on a pedestal as uniquely evil is harmful, in that it prevents us from learning from those mistakes. Using it where unwarranted is also harmful, but we should not got to such lengths to avoid that as to reduce this historical period to uselessness.
Comparisons to the current administration are likely overblown, but are not entirely without merit. Comparisons could also be made to past administrations. The important thing is to consider how well the comparison matches, how problematic the features being compared are in each item, and how that works within context.
If those that cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it, so too are those that refuse to consider the past.
Comparisons to the current administration are likely overblown, but are not entirely without merit. Comparisons could also be made to past administrations. The important thing is to consider how well the comparison matches, how problematic the features being compared are in each item, and how that works within context.
If those that cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it, so too are those that refuse to consider the past.
I have implied nothing of the sort.
I have, however, implied that "Helping the government do its job" has no bearing on the morality of your actions. What the job is does.
I have, however, implied that "Helping the government do its job" has no bearing on the morality of your actions. What the job is does.
It's intellectually dishonest to draw a comparison of IBM helping the Nazi's commit a genocidal action to the US government deporting illegal aliens, and then say "well I didn't _imply_ anything"
Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse and are trolling.
Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse and are trolling.
It's intellectually dishonest to dismiss any ethical controversy about your behaviour with "Well, I'm making a lot of money by helping a government do what it wants, so surely I'm in the clear."
Palantir assists with quite a number of... Ethically controversial government activities.
Palantir assists with quite a number of... Ethically controversial government activities.
There's a fair amount of evidence that IBM knew exactly what their customers were doing with their computing systems. There were IBM engineers on site to operate the counters and they had classifications for why they were in the camps (disabled, gay, Jewish) and the methods in which they died - including 'death by gas chamber'. All of that info was being compiled by employees of IBM.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1301691
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1301691
Deporting immigrants who decided to violate the law is in no way comparable to the systematic murder of millions of people. Get a grip.
Well, yes. Not everything the government does is supposed to be about efficiency. The legal system is very deliberately inefficient. We make police and prosecutors jump through all sorts of hoops when investigating and prosecuting crime, because the goal isn't to make their jobs as easy as possible, the goal is to ensure that innocent people don't get convicted.
Reminds me of when I was robbed in NY and had to go to a police station to talk to a detective. After I described the physical features of the suspect, he had me use an antiquated program that brought up hundreds of suspects' mugshots who were known criminals in the area that matched my description. The computer and software was comically slow, and after paging through about a dozen slowly loading pages of (poorly lighted) mugshots, I gave up.
I was initially annoyed at how inefficient that software was, how its slow speed and clunky interface inevitably made it hard to focus on the work of identifying suspects. I could think of a lot of ways to make it easier to filter and interactively rank/pin photos for easier on-the-fly comparison. But then on further reflection, I realized it's probably a good thing that that software is so clunky. Making the software slicker (i.e. as portrayed in CSI shows) could mislead or pressure users (both police and victims) into thinking that their human ability to identify people from mugshots is more accurate than it actually is.
I was initially annoyed at how inefficient that software was, how its slow speed and clunky interface inevitably made it hard to focus on the work of identifying suspects. I could think of a lot of ways to make it easier to filter and interactively rank/pin photos for easier on-the-fly comparison. But then on further reflection, I realized it's probably a good thing that that software is so clunky. Making the software slicker (i.e. as portrayed in CSI shows) could mislead or pressure users (both police and victims) into thinking that their human ability to identify people from mugshots is more accurate than it actually is.
>into thinking that their human ability to identify people from mugshots is more accurate than it actually is
Identifying in mugshot does nothing, you have to identify suspect in person and detective will interrogate suspect and you both. There are multitude of checks before anything is done. So still failing to understand how good software which could possible show the suspect is the problem? The main reason possibly could be that they(government) cannot hire good programmers who could build useable systems.
Identifying in mugshot does nothing, you have to identify suspect in person and detective will interrogate suspect and you both. There are multitude of checks before anything is done. So still failing to understand how good software which could possible show the suspect is the problem? The main reason possibly could be that they(government) cannot hire good programmers who could build useable systems.
I know, they ended up catching him and I had to identify him in a lineup. He ended up pleading guilty.
Identifying a mugshot isn't "nothing". It can be used as evidence for probable cause in getting a search warrant or at least paying the suspect a visit.
Identifying a mugshot isn't "nothing". It can be used as evidence for probable cause in getting a search warrant or at least paying the suspect a visit.
> I think Peter Thiel is a monster
Why, pray tell, is he a monster? It can't be his libertarian philosophy that supports individual self-determination. It can't be that's he's a proudly gay, christian role model. I hope its not Palantir, which technology is most often applied in analyzing complex financial crimes and criminal networks. Its tragically ironic that Thiel viewed more for fears about what Palantir might be used for, than for what he's actually accomplished, what he seems to stand for, and how Palantir's software is actually used. Its kafkaesque.
Why, pray tell, is he a monster? It can't be his libertarian philosophy that supports individual self-determination. It can't be that's he's a proudly gay, christian role model. I hope its not Palantir, which technology is most often applied in analyzing complex financial crimes and criminal networks. Its tragically ironic that Thiel viewed more for fears about what Palantir might be used for, than for what he's actually accomplished, what he seems to stand for, and how Palantir's software is actually used. Its kafkaesque.
I think it's interesting that people link Palantir to Peter Thiel's "evilness" so easily because he's a libertarian. When it seems Thiel has very little involvement with Palantir outside of its intial founding (and owning a chunk of it) - and the founder of Palantir is an avowed socialist. The structure of the company explicitly revolves around "doing social good". As they say, the road to hell...
Palantir figures prominently in his book Zero to One, and is used as an example of his entrepreneurial approaches. It's also a tossup whether Thiel is more execrable for The Diversity Myth or Palantir is for being a key enabler of a surveillance state. They're bad in different ways.
I have seen multiple times in this thread references to terrible statements Thiel made in "The Diversity Myth" but know one has said what he actually said. Does anyone know specifically what he said that is so objectionable?
While Zero to One is well written and often edifying, The Diversity Myth contains clinkers like "But since a multicultural rape charge may indicate nothing more than belated regret, a woman might ‘realize’ that she had been ‘raped’ the next day or even many days later. Under these circumstances, it is unclear who should be held responsible. If the alcohol made both of them do it, then why should the woman’s consent be obviated any more than the man’s? Why is all blame placed on the man?"
That's pretty awful, even compared to the notable lack of diversity and bro culture in some tech companies.
That's pretty awful, even compared to the notable lack of diversity and bro culture in some tech companies.
The first question to ask there is why is a university investigating and adjudicating allegations of a serious violent crime.
> It can't be his libertarian philosophy that supports individual self-determination.
Why not? Complete self-determination is essentially "Fuck off" to everybody else at best and wholesale exploitation at worst.
Why not? Complete self-determination is essentially "Fuck off" to everybody else at best and wholesale exploitation at worst.
No it isn't. This is complete hyperbole.
This is how modern society works (not that I think it was ever not the case). Many people have 'strong arguments' that 'fair' is defined by things that benefit themselves. Another large portion pays lip service to this by supporting "progressive" causes, while acting in precisely the ways they rail against.
Libretarians are as guilty as progressives. While the stereotype of zero regulation is untrue, most would argue only for regulations that benefit them, and believe that regulations that detriment them are the one that are unfair. (As a defense of myself and my position - I do the same, but I also acknowledge that, and consider the fact that most people are arguing in their own self interest an important part of how we achieve 'fair')
This is a sardonic and mean-spirited view, but it is a necessary devils advocate - Too much is done with 'hope', not strategy.
Libretarians are as guilty as progressives. While the stereotype of zero regulation is untrue, most would argue only for regulations that benefit them, and believe that regulations that detriment them are the one that are unfair. (As a defense of myself and my position - I do the same, but I also acknowledge that, and consider the fact that most people are arguing in their own self interest an important part of how we achieve 'fair')
This is a sardonic and mean-spirited view, but it is a necessary devils advocate - Too much is done with 'hope', not strategy.
Not at all true. Self-determination/Libertarianism is not a hermit's existence or a rejection of society as you characterize it. Its society's reliance on individuals to allocate resources as opposed to government. By way of example only... "We" walk by the homeless in DC thinking someone or government should do something about it; but in practice its individuals and groups of individuals having the greatest positive impact in that community. Government provides an excuse for doing nothing.
Government that is properly resourced can have an impact at a far superior scale to any individual. Having individuals allocate resources generally winds up with the individual and his friends having most of the resources (Putin, Saddam, the Emirs, the Saudi Royal family, etc.).
The government, and only the government, will write a check (or legislate and require others) to build low-cost housing, provide food for poor children, or provide healthcare so that we don't have lepers dying in the streets. That's not a society, and individuals aren't going to do anywhere near enough - they had their opportunity in 1895, and they acted selfishly, which is how we eventually got to 8 hour work days, medicare and social security.
The government, and only the government, will write a check (or legislate and require others) to build low-cost housing, provide food for poor children, or provide healthcare so that we don't have lepers dying in the streets. That's not a society, and individuals aren't going to do anywhere near enough - they had their opportunity in 1895, and they acted selfishly, which is how we eventually got to 8 hour work days, medicare and social security.
ICE spent $10M on Palantir in 2016. There are 26 firms that collected more money: are we protesting them as well?
[*] USASpending.gov
[*] USASpending.gov
But only one of those was founded by Peter Thiel!
Can you provide the names of those companies? I want to know if they're attracting top tech talent to solve hard programming problems. At least that is what Palantir says it does to attract new recruits.
Also, how is "others are doing it worse, we shouldn't care" an acceptable argument?
Also, how is "others are doing it worse, we shouldn't care" an acceptable argument?
Actually surprised that this doesn't exist already! Don't think there is anything wrong with making it easier/faster to find the information that other government systems may already have
Of course it existed already. But there were forces at work who didn't want to enforce immigration laws - cheap labour benefits quite a few industries.
Would you be OK with it if your local police force could access every bit of data the Feds have on you?
No... but if the FBI gives the local PD an account on their mysql database, I'm not going to protest mysql.
This story somehow manages to make it sound like the CIA wanted to keep this information secret, but then ICE hired palantir to hack the gibson. Focusing on the wrong players.
This story somehow manages to make it sound like the CIA wanted to keep this information secret, but then ICE hired palantir to hack the gibson. Focusing on the wrong players.
No argument there. The tool itself is fine. If there's a problem with how it's being used then that's on the agencies using it. Palantir isn't doing anything nefarious.
Can we say that companies such as Palantir are just IBM-wannabes?
So what? IBM was a synonym for success for long times, and although I do not completely agree with their recent strategy, they still create value for their shareholders. Should anybody be ashamed for wanting to be successful?
Palantir is 5x more efficient than IBM if you look at revenue per head.
By the time they grow as large as IBM, they will be just as (in)efficient. :)
Well, IBM has had experience helping countries figure out who does and does not belong. Germany in the 30s comes to mind.
Disclaimer: I do not know how much did IBM know about the events in the 1930s Germany, and more importantly: how much could have they predicted about future developments of their deals, or how much and what king of support did they give later on.
You should also understand that where there is demand, supply will appear sooner or later. If you want to make business, you may want to grab some potentially problematic deals, as if you don't do, others will. After all, it is not you, doing anything bad, and you have to make profits after all. This may make deals potentially problematic in the future still desirable, sometimes simply to retain market share.
Can a miner or an ironworker be held responsible for coal used to make gunpowder and iron used to make guns? If you take responsibility and blame too far from the actors and more importantly the commanders of disgraceful deeds, you may even find yourself guilty in things you would never agree with.
I believe that unless very deeply entangled in those crimes, IBM should not be blamed for anything, if they abided the national and international laws, and acted in good will. (I have not examined this topic in detail, cannot express a more specific opinion about this.) Also I believe this topic is also a bit of storm in a teacup. Palantir did a job that others would have done if they didn't grab the opportunity, and it doesn't seem so hellish to me, just a reasonable tool for use by government agencies, to match the evolving threats a country faces in the 21st century. It seems to me that the anti-immigration spin is only attached to this tool because of recent policy changes and pretty divided opinions about them in the USA.
You should also understand that where there is demand, supply will appear sooner or later. If you want to make business, you may want to grab some potentially problematic deals, as if you don't do, others will. After all, it is not you, doing anything bad, and you have to make profits after all. This may make deals potentially problematic in the future still desirable, sometimes simply to retain market share.
Can a miner or an ironworker be held responsible for coal used to make gunpowder and iron used to make guns? If you take responsibility and blame too far from the actors and more importantly the commanders of disgraceful deeds, you may even find yourself guilty in things you would never agree with.
I believe that unless very deeply entangled in those crimes, IBM should not be blamed for anything, if they abided the national and international laws, and acted in good will. (I have not examined this topic in detail, cannot express a more specific opinion about this.) Also I believe this topic is also a bit of storm in a teacup. Palantir did a job that others would have done if they didn't grab the opportunity, and it doesn't seem so hellish to me, just a reasonable tool for use by government agencies, to match the evolving threats a country faces in the 21st century. It seems to me that the anti-immigration spin is only attached to this tool because of recent policy changes and pretty divided opinions about them in the USA.
for further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
Stories like this call that snark to mind. "Look at this database databasing!"
I'm loathe to stick up for Palantir, because I think Peter Thiel is a monster, and I have no particular reason to believe that Palantir is an especially moral team in its operations and management. But I think most commentary about Palantir's role in surveillance is overblown. From what I can tell, it's a very expensive consultingware database with a name that has special valence with nerds.
Be mean to Palantir all you want, I guess. But don't let other tech companies off the hook. I've been trying to make this point for years with, I think, pretty limited success: if you're angry at Palantir for assisting mass deportation, you should be equally angry at Oracle and Cisco. I am --- in fact, a little more so.