How could Palantir software even accomplish what was claimed in the above links?
I don't see how data visualization software can be used to crush wikileaks in the manner that the article says.
I don't see how data visualization software can be used to crush wikileaks in the manner that the article says.
Can you elaborate? I'm just having a really time seeing how "Palantir was going to destroy wikileaks" which is what everyone says, but if you read the documents that were exposed, this doesn't really seem to be implied.
Additionally, the type of software Palantir makes couldn't really be used to destroy wikileaks in the ways claimed.
Yes, Palantir is a government contractor, but that doesn't mean they do evil things. You don't call google evil because HBGary uses google search. In the same way, I don't see how you can call Palantir evil for making a data visualization platform.
I think that most people forget/aren't aware that the data was actually stolen by a 22 year old private. In fact, he goes in front of the court tomorrow: http://bit.ly/viXkwq
When I say 'prevent Wikileaks' via data visualization I'm referring to preventing corporate espionage and data leaks, not destroy the Wikileaks organization itself.
It's more of an easy way to explain it to people:
Them: 'Hey what's your thesis on?' Me: 'Preventing Wikileaks' Them: 'Oh, cool' confused expression
"We do not provide – nor do we have any plans to develop – offensive cyber capabilities. Palantir Technologies does not build software that is designed to allow private sector entities to obtain non-public information, engage in so-called “cyber attacks” or take other offensive measures."
This is a true statement.
Loophole 1: apparently they're OK with building software that is designed to allow public sector entities (bad governments) to obtain non-public information.
Loophole 2: I guess they're OK with building software that is designed to allow private sector entities to obtain public information [and... the part left unsaid: distill it to create insights not readily noticeable by others with access to the same public information, thus giving these private sector entities overwhelming advantages in things like figuring out how to manipulate politicians].
That stuff, from reading the quote, I am left believing they are OK with. Which means the statement just comes off as PR-speak, and disingenuous.
This isn't a legal document, it's a press statement. Go look for conspiracies elsewhere.
So, not right this second and, so far, not in the future. That leaves out a lot of time!
Those of us that have been on HN for awhile know that you don't downvote things just because you disagree with them. This comment is really constructive and I'm disappointed that people are instinctively downvoting it because it can be construed as supporting a company they're biased against.