It seems like the sole purpose of palantir is to give data to the government they wouldnt have access to without a warrant. So now everyone is just being warrantlessly surveiled??? The difference between now and a few years ago seems to be that companies are assisting law enforcement with even more advanced datacollection.
This is a very accurate take. There is a ton of collection that the government is explicitly not allowed to do. However, the ability to purchase this data is much less regulated. So the work around is, get contractors to do the data collection and then purchase that data.
The government gets to ignore the will of its people and companies get to be middlemen leeches, it's perfect really.
There needs to be a landmark supreme court case that decides that "Search and Seizure" protections include paying corporations for the sought after items.
I thought Carpenter vs United States was that case, but apparently it wasn't. Terry stops by local officers based on tips from regional Fusion Centers via WhatsApp sounds less unusual every day. Parallel construction has become a long-established technique.
As long as Alito and Thomas are still alive, this will never happen. I have no doubt that both of them have been the recipients of Peter Thiel's "generosity".
> As long as Alito and Thomas are still alive, this will never happen.<p>Unless the court shrinks down to three seats (or four, if the Circuits cooperate) Alito and Thomas alone can’t dictate the way the Court treats the issue.
It’s not just Alito and Thomas who have been hostile to the 4th amendment, disrespect for the 4th amendment has been a bipartisan affair for 50 years.
I don't want to see any more landmark cases from the current supreme court.
Purchase? You're misunderstanding how government consultancy works (this is what EU states use consultancy firms for, and that's what Palantir really is)<p>A purchase works as follows: I like ice cream. I give you 5$. You give me an ice cream. I enjoy ice cream.<p>This is: government likes private health data. Hospital gives Palantir 5$, and your health data, repeat for 1 million patients. Palantir gives the health data to government, employs the nephew of the head of the healthcare regulator. Your unemployment gets denied because the doctor said you could work.<p>Buying means exchanging money for goods and services. This is exchanging money AND goods AND services for nothing. It's highly illegal for private companies, if you try it you'll get sued by the tax office the second they see it and find all company accounts blocked "just in case", but of course if you are the government, directly or indirectly, it's just fine and peachy.<p>And you might think "this makes no sense". But you'd be advised to check out who appoints the head of the hospital first. It does make sense. (In fact just about the only break on this behavior in most EU countries is that the Vatican still has control over the board of a very surprising number of hospitals. Needless to say, the EU governments really hate that, but there tend to be deals around this. For example, in Belgium the hospitals get 50% less per resident. These sorts of deals were made, but they now mean that if the government wants the Vatican out of the board ... they have to increase spending on that hospital, often by a lot. I'd call them "Vatican hospitals" but one thing government and the Vatican really agree on is that they do not want patients to know the underlying financial arrangements around hospitals, and in many cases it's quite difficult to find who controls a hospital even though it's technically public information)
> Palantir gives the health data to government<p>Ice cream was sellers when they were selling it, but not the data, data belongs to someone else, who didn't explicitly allow selling it
The problem with today's society is you walk into a hospital bleeding and they make you sign an ultimatum.<p>Legally this should be treated as signing under duress and invalidated.<p>If someone's life or well-being depends on it, and undergoing services in not a choice, terms and conditions should not be legally allowed to be unilaterally dictated by one party.
in Western history, culturally, Church was a founding force for the existance of hospitals, full-stop. Repeat with more money and more fallable humans and yes some of what you say is accurate. But, if you start naming the behavior as if it is synonymous with the original founders of Hospitals, you a) create an intellectual dishonesty on your part, b) attract wing-nuts and sociopaths who are looking for a place to join in the chanting, c) obscure important details while the casual readers focus on the glaring finger pointing.<p>If you want to actually contribute to this very difficult topic, please refrain from welding disparate labels together in the introductory materials.
The way I read it, GP is saying that the Vatican's influence <i>reduces</i> such unethical distribution of medical information. Your response reads like a rebuttal, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say, nor rebut.
>in most EU countries is that the Vatican still has control over the board of a <i>very surprising</i> number of hospitals.<p>>Needless to say, the EU governments really hate that<p>> if the government wants the Vatican out of the board ... they have to increase spending on that hospital, often by a lot. I'd call them "Vatican hospitals"<p>> one thing government and the Vatican really agree on is that they do not want patients to know the underlying financial arrangements around hospitals<p>> in many cases it's quite difficult to find who controls a hospital even though it's technically public information)<p>I am responding to these somewhat "breathless" statements that imply more than they delineate. My rebuttal is that these words frame a kind of inquiry that is common among conspiracy-attracted commentors.<p>The subject deserves more rigor and less insinuation IMO.
The naivete or complacency of people who work for so-called "tech" companies that perform wanton, surreptitious data collection about computer users as their core "business model" is illustrated by the belief that what is significant for the surveillance target is how the data is used<p>Thus, a company performing data collection and sharing it with the government may trigger nerd rage whereas company performing data collection and sharing it with advertisers triggers nerd advocacy, i.e., attempts to defend the practice of data collection with "justifications" that have no limit in their level of absurdity<p>For the surveillance target (cf. the surveilling company), what is significant about data collection is not how the data is used, it is how the data _could_ be used, which is to say, what is significant about data collection is (a) the fact that data is collected at all, not (b) what may or may not happen after the data is collected<p>Moreover, despite equivocal statements of reassurance in unenforceable "privacy policies" and the like, (b) is often practically impossible for those outside the company and its partners to determine anyway<p>Hypothetical: Trillion-dollar public company A whose core "business" is data collection and surveillance-supported advertising services takes a nosedive due to unforseen circumstances that affect its ability to sell ad services. Meanwhile, billion-dollar public company B whose core business is data collection and surveillance services for goverments sees their business on the rise. Company A decides to acquire or compete with company B<p>There is nothing that limits Company A's use of the data it has collected for whatever purpose the company and Wall Street deems profitable<p>As such, the significant issue for the surveillance target is (a) not (b)<p>Focusing on the fact that Company B assists governments whilst Company A assists advertisers is a red herring<p>Once the data is collected, it's too late
They figured out that if the government does something it is opposed by a lot of people. But if a company says they'll collect information from every single customer in exchange for some worthless token, people will willingly provide all their information to said company. And those companies will either sell that info to governments or give it away with a little ask... So, the private economy has become the biggest contributor to the surveillance state.
Did you notice how the Dow is 50,000 ?
> So now everyone is just being warrantlessly surveiled???<p>It's been like that for a while; I don't think either side of America's political aisle has the heart to extricate themselves of such a privilege.
correct<p>PBS's _spying on the homefront_ piece from 2007 already described this very kind of omniscient private database.<p>The government itself isn't constitutionally allowed to build or run anything of the kind, but it can commission friends in the private sector to do one and query it with little to no oversight<p>I am definitely not uploading my face and ID on Discord or any site
Your bank and mobile data carrier and cable company already did for you, on your behalf. It’s all searchable via your phone number, which you have to provide to all the apps you DO sign up for, so they can easily query your name, photo, address, purchase history, etc.
How is it guaranteed to be the same accuracy of data that is not retrieved through a warrant ?
It just needs to be accurate-enough to eventually get a warrant.
you don't need warrants to query these databases<p>They went from warrant, to FISA, to just write a request about a name, to more or less describe a vague group of ppl on whom you want the data<p>You should watch this show. It's available online and pretty informative.<p>If things weren't bad enough in 2007, things that have changed since then are most notably the cloud act that was created, Ring that started to "backup" your home CCTV in the cloud, then also Ring that enabled so called "Search Parties" and made a superball ad about it
Parallel construction. They get enough data, legal or not, to know who to look for. Then they surveil you until you slip.
I keep thinking about the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Illegal data gathering was a big deal only 10 years ago. It seems like with businesses like Palantir that this behavior has been normalized to the point where what was unthinkably bad 10 years ago is just business as usual today.
It is like 1984. But shit.
Well, you know it's that time again...<p><i>In Capitalist Russia, you are on surveillance by bought off government;</i><p><i>In Soviet America, government bought off by surveillence on you!</i>
It's a software company, it sells software. You can literally go read the docs. It doesn't magically bypass the law anymore than Microsoft Sharepoint does.<p><a href="https://www.palantir.com/docs/foundry" rel="nofollow">https://www.palantir.com/docs/foundry</a>
Do you expect palantir's public documentation to explain how they operate as a spy agency?
[flagged]
> has anybody found any evidence..or are we just speculating?<p>that’s what the article is discussing? the journalists found evidence.<p>i’m confused what you’re confused about.<p>this whole entire comment section is birthed from the evidence someone found.
Did you read the article? There's no evidence cited in it at all. This comment thread made me think "wow, Palantir must be selling PHI to the mob" or something, and The Intercept has the receipts, but the article simply states that Palantir has a contract to run medicaid billing. It then goes on to say that Palantir also works with other government agencies like ICE (bad), and the Israelis (worse than ICE), and the UK (they've crossed the line now!)<p>It's entirely left up to the reader to fill in the blanks that whatever is going on with this contract is nefarious and bad.<p>The Intercept used to do good work, but this article is complete trash. At least the author was self aware enough to reference the 2016 reporting.
Sorry, where? Maybe I've missed something, but the article is just about their health business growing in New York rather than an illegal data backdoors?
They don't need a backdoor, the whole company is a backdoor receiving sensitive information from governments 24x7.
Your link and description of it as a software company are irrelevant to the discussion, which concerns their retention and use of personal data. I welcome anyone to give their disclosure a critical reading. (They promise to follow the law- whew!)<p><a href="https://www.palantir.com/privacy-and-security/" rel="nofollow">https://www.palantir.com/privacy-and-security/</a>