If you support that, more power to you. Be honest about what you're supporting though. This is not just about ICE. This is not the same as the advertiser tracking.
If a gun manufacturer sells weapons to a dictatorship, even if there is no embargo and the deal is legal, you can absolutely judge the scummy ethics of the company in question.
Edit: I personally think calling them just a 'consulting' company is a silly way to obscure the things on which they consult.
Mass surveillance: the distributive close observation of an entire population, or a substantial fraction of the entire population
i.e. a means of observation of a population or subset of a population which is exactly what Palantir does, as has been demonstrated by their leaked documents. Sure, you could probably accomplish something similar with the help of other big data analytics companies, but unlike those companies, Palantir's primary business is aiding in mass surveillance
Anyways -- agree to disagree. My personal take is that once the mass surveillance has been conducted the cat's out of the bag. Once the LAPD started scannning license plates it doesn't really matter if they're using Palantir to search the data or a bunch of interns sifting through it by hand. The only thing we can do is get the LAPD and the LA City Government to be accountable to their citizens.
They make software for modeling objects. A popular object to model is a person. As technologists we should be a little more immune to the FUD spread by Vice et al.
This is just one example among many many examples of them developing software specifically for tracking people. Whether they use their generic data model and build atop it or not, they are knowingly building surveillance software and it is being misused. They know. We know. I don't think it's right. You do. We can disagree.
I never said Palantir is innocent. I didn't weigh in on the morality of it at all, in fact. My point is just that Palantir is just a data consulting company. I posted this comment in another thread concerning your example:
> Take a good look at the screenshots in that link. It's a completely generic database -- you fill in some search fields and some data is returned, you can do a join, and then you can plop that data into a chart. Palantir isn't out there collecting data on citizens or scanning license plates or anything else I would consider "mass surveillance".
How hard do you think it would be to replicate that with Oracle, Tableau, and a few half-decent data scientists? Except at least with Palantir I expect them to do a few important things right, e.g. security.
I'll leave my final thought here: if you're really concerned about mass surveillance focus your energy on the people doing the mass surveillance and not the people selling them some nice-looking dataviz tools.
Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and using this site in the intended spirit? We'd be grateful.
Also, neither SAP nor IBM are consulting companies. SAP is an ERP provider and IBM is a cloud-based solution provider and outsourcing company. Most people would say consulting companies are those like Accenture, Deloitte, McKinsey, BCG, etc.
I think the biggest confusion is that Palantir is not in the data collection industry. They make tools to analyze data and contract out consultants (Forward Deployed Engineers) to do the analysis -- but the data is not being sourced by them. There's nothing you can do with Palantir that you couldn't do with any consulting firm or an in-house data-science/data-engineering team. Palantir's value proposition is that they have better tools and smarter people, but there's nothing magical or particularly nefarious about it.
If anyone has any breakdown for Palantir's revenue by category, I'd love to see it.
The actual consulting equivalent of Palantir would be any of the many data science "guns for hire" consultancies floating around that will sell you a few people for $250 an hour to get a project done, then leave.
IBM will build you a system to analyze some data. So will Palantir. Two different firms that offer a similar service. That's the only point I was trying to make.
And no, if you do a thing once for money you are not in that business. That argument is completely ridiculous. You are in the business of whatever you primarily do for money on a regular basis.
I agree with this account of what Palantir offers, but it seems like an example of "big enough quantitative differences become qualitative".
Palantir isn't selling data no one else has, and I know the average news scare story about them is ridiculous; they're portrayed like a private NSA even though they don't do primary data gathering at all. (Why doesn't Stratfor draw those hit pieces? Just because they seem less competent and more corporate?) But there's a reason Palantir gets no-bid intelligence agency contracts. What they offer isn't in practice possible for most government agencies or companies to replicate. Part of that is simply competence, but not all of it; Palantir is a data analysis contractor noticeably focused on analyzing humans and finances.
I've seen Palantir do a couple of tech demos aimed at engineers, and they consistently focus on two big things. The first is experience and scale: Palantir has probably dealt with a problem a lot like yours in the past, and has the pre-existing tooling and expertise to produce results much faster than even an equally-competent internal team could. The second is selling human-integrated products, where instead of handing over a data lake or an ML pipeline spitting out probabilities, they provide analysis environments that let human analysts manage lots of data in easily-understood ways, and highlight further data they might wish to integrate. Neither of those things is evil, and I assume the human-integrated stuff is at least partially marketing spin, but I hope its understandable why they would make people nervous.
When people wanted to restrict the National Tracing Center, they restricted it to analog data so that people can only be identified via targeted lookup. Palantir seems to sell the opposite of that; maybe you can't get somebody's phone location without a warrant, but if you can aggregate license plate scanners, automated tolling records, and credit card transactions into a unified model of where they went, maybe you don't need to.
1. What are the tools we don't know Palantir has? We know a few and while these fit in your description, they're kinda dangerous apps, and this brings me to point 2:
2. Who they sell these to?
But despite Palantir's attempts to expand into the private sector, I do believe their government side has been more successful, so I think it's fair to say that Palantir is a government contractor first and foremost.
Palantir is doing exactly the same but with much more powerful tools. It is only a matter of time until some government will use their software to commit genocide, not to mention prosecution of political dissidents which is already happening.
Of course Palantir will profit off this and get away with it just like IBM did.
I get downvoted for this every time but someone has to say it. It's the truth whether you like it or not.
The former is sisyphean, the latter is the most important thing we as a society can do.
You are conflating two separate issues here: The morality of Palantir and their employees and the practicality of stopping abuse.
To get back to the weapons analogy: We may not be able to stop everyone from selling weapons to North Korea but we can surely condemn those who do, wouldn't you agree?
> Punchcards weren't the problem, Nazis were the problem
Nazis are inevitable. Even if you assume that the government actually acquired this software with good intent, you have to anticipate that someone will abuse it. Maybe not today but tomorrow.
If the point you're making is that people who work for Palantir are morally akin to people working for the organizers of the Holocaust we'll have to agree to disagree.
From what I can see, they're a bloated DHS organ that's sucking down massive amounts of tax dollars for what amounts to security theater. You'd think in the $47 billion DHS budget they'd find some money for things like soap and toothbrushes.
$47B to stay in power is a steal.
The number on ICE's website are computed based on an Obama-era change where they can count turning away people at the border as a deportation.
Even if you support their mission There's really nothing defensible ICE. They're sucking down billions while being bad at what they do.
If you are an insane or mentally incapable parent, your kids will be, essentially 'put in a camp'. The US government is doing what it should be.
Identity politics zealots can down-vote, of course, but I fought a decade for my green card - the right way. And every time people who skirt the law are allowed to stay in this country the wrong way it disrespects, belittles and is a slap in the fact to everyone who came here the right way, respectfully waiting even while my own family was living in basically a war zone.
Anyone who comes here illegally to benefit themselves at the expense of the state is an enemy - forget this, or sacrifice this principle, and your progeny will very likely be born into a living hell of a similar kind that those people (god bless them, I'm not heartless - I grew up in it) are trying to run away from. I thought this before I had my green card as well: it's about integrity.
So we aren't going to talk about decades of US destabilization of Central and South America for corporate profit?
I'm not sure if this makes sense. If you're trying to deport someone living as an undocumented immigrant, they're already past the border. ICE explicitly does not work at the border anyway, that's a different agency.
Tell that to my grandma
Does it? How much violence is too much for this? What is the nature of this security and how many deaths is it worth? Or is this just another Vietnam/Iraq endless meat grinder of ill-considered purpose?
That would be great, actually. A mature intelligent solution that helps everyone, which is why it's not going to happen.
Sounds like you have no problem having yourself and your loved ones sitting in a cage with no hygiene considerations, then.
I guess the yc hive mind disagrees
You're right, they are just people trying to work, and there needs to be better handling of the entire situation. However almost half of them made an agreement with the government and then reneged. People should abide by the agreements they make.
Under this criteria, every person who has ever driven over the speed limit, and especially a large amount over the speed limit, is Guilty.
Do you see what the problem is with your reasoning.
On the one hand the consequences probably shouldn't be nothing. On the other they probably shouldn't be irrevocably tearing apart their family, deporting the adults abroad sometimes to the wrong country and then losing track of their young children in the social services system, as a terror tactic to try and scare other visa violators into line.
As for the people who generally approve of both, they may not be hypocrites, unless they also profess to be pro family and traditional values in which case yes very, very much, but that would be one of the mildest terms I'd use for them if it were applicable.
Or are we just going to argue that the law itself is moral and just, while ignoring the uneven application of said laws? Which is really the point here.
In the movie "Den of thieves" the actors studied real police so well they even included palantir in their dialogue.
So, you can have any opinion you want about whether or not the job fair should have acted the way it did but I think it’s well within their right to do so if they want to make an impact.
Eventually they realize it doesn't matter how many emergency half-baked 'solutions' they come up with in time before the news cycle moves on to the next outrage.
Humans of all calibre just love a scrap, it seems.
But even if you ignored the cruel and unusual punishment aspects - deporting the children separately is unforgivable. In some cases they didn’t even bother to record the family connection before separating them.
Fundamentally, America has given the right - no, demanded - that police do "papers please" stops on people, and given them the right to detain them indefinitely until they produce papers. This is like a mandatory ID card system but without the benefits or coherent organisation.
As for poor living conditions, it isn't really a systemic or intentional thing. Conditions vary by facility. Some are remarkably fine, some are strained beyond their capacity. That's not really their fault. Let's apply some agency to the people coming across the border, rather than just ICE. Personally, I wouldn't think to illegally sneak into a country, refuse to leave, then complain about not getting dental care and a comfy bed fast enough. Spare me. How about we just not let them in?
Fake outcry. If a parent is sent to jail, the children are given to protective services not sent into internment camps without basic necessities. How about all the Europeans go back to their countries and the natives round up their kids in internment camps.
Are you implying unwanted mass immigration was bad for the native Americans? Is it good for the Europeans now?
if I took money from Trump, am I going pretend to act shocked when he did something controversial? No, I knew the whole time
Meanwhile, Apple, Google, etc all get a free pass for working with China, which is doing far worse things to its citizens, and has made no attempt to conceal that it wants to use those tech companies to do even worse things. The hypocrisy on this board is astounding at times.
It's like saying Fox News should be less conservative. A very bad idea: there's big money in conservative television media.
EDIT: Heh. For those who say 'we don't do that!' - yes, you do.
In other countries illegal aliens are deported because they are breaking the law. In Bolivia you would have a very difficult time finding bolivians who want to allow illegal colombians or brazilians to stay in the country. They want them out because they disproportionately commit more of the drug/violent crime.
In argentina, they want illegal bolivians out because they take jobs for very little money.
You can go on country by country.
Why is the US so divided on this? Who spent so much money to push this train of thought for decades onto people?
1. enforce e-verify nationwide. If a company is caught employing undocumented workers and the company is not using e-verify, the executives are put in prison. Documentation fraud from the immigrant remains a crime punishable by prison and deportation.
2. Regardless of deporting or not, those in detention should be treated humanely, given food, water, shelter, and adequate space. Parents and children should not be separated. For those not charged with a crime, it should not be built the same way as a prison -- It doesn't have to be the Four Seasons to be humane.
3. ICE raids terrorize legal residents and citizens of color. As mentioned in #1, any such "raids" should be against HR. If you make employers accountable, the problem becomes much smaller. Yes, if someone is arrested and is undocumented they should be deported. No, we shouldn't be breaking down doors and sending militarized teams to do so.
4. Immigration reform is a completely different topic.
Extending this today to other Nations is not so foreign an idea.
That being said, I personally would not mind retiring in the UK with British medicine, British housing and British retirement benefits.
This idea that 'America Great Again' means selfishness and abandoning the old and poor, is a purely modern idea of the last decade.
This assumption that the US is uniquely strict in its border enforcement does not seem to hold water.
Orange Man bad, basically.
The left's position has not changed much on border security at all. Process asylum claims faster, penalize employers for participating in illegal hiring, and use modern tech to control borders.
If I had to stack-rank:
(a) a literal Southern border wall motivated by President Trump's vile campaign rhetoric.
(b) making the border completely open and defunding ICE entirely
I'd prefer (b) - but I still think (b) is a terrible idea. I actually (unlike most people who are "afraid of immigrants") know a convicted violent felon who was deported from the United States to their home country (in Europe) after serving a prison sentence who I legitimately think is a threat to people I care about, and who I don't want re-entering the country under any circumstances (Ironically the deportee is a diagnosed pathological narcissist) - and I still prefer open borders to what the current executive leadership of the United States is pushing.
The question is not whether to have controls on who/what crosses the border, the question is how and why.
I personally think the marginal utility of spending additional Federal dollars policing the border and enforcing immigration controls is a net negative to the United States given our current infrastructure, so I believe we should spend less time and money doing it. That doesn't mean there aren't other avenues for controlling externalities caused by illegal immigration (such as they are).
The hard-right scoff at the results of scientific inquiry into climate change. The hard-left scoff at the results of scientific inquiry into sex differences.
Both sides would do well to set aside their cherished narratives and simply analyze the facts revealed by the current best science.
> Sponsored by some of the country's biggest companies: https://lesbianswhotech.org/newyork2019/#Sponsors
"A group of people who value diversity overwhelmingly support politics which promote diversity and reject politics which do not. But I wish they either didn't care about diversity or valued diversity in a way that didn't influence their politics because it annoys me."