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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.