I agree there's no reason to "pause" anything but it's just a broken clock being right twice per day.
The controversial things everyone talks about are their other products like Gotham which is for the police/military.
In germany it is Unconstitutional to use.
Here is a german article about it: https://www.hessenschau.de/politik/warum-die-polizei-softwar...
And Germany has bought and used those same tools, it's not a US specific thing.
At some point it comes down to your own personal ethics on this, but to me you can't say "that Palantir"... it's all Palantir.
Of course that should not be controversial for Airbus, which themselves operate military industry and directly cooperate with firms like Raytheon and are competing with Lockheed and such. Working with Palantir is just another drop.
Microsoft, Google, and Amazon all have substantial sales to the DoD. Part of the military industrial complex?
What about Uber, Hilton, AB InBev, and Coca-Cola? What about Harvard and Yale? What about White House staffers?
I would say absolutely yes. All these companies make US military operations possible.
>What about Uber, Hilton, AB InBev, and Coca-Cola?
Not really. If they are used at all, they are used incidentally so. Certainly the military does not need them.
>What about Harvard and Yale?
Difficult question. I tend towards yes.
>What about White House staffers?
Depends I think.
There is valid criticism for some of these military-industrial companies lobbying for various horrible historical acts to improve their business, and that obviously is immoral - but that's not immoral because they make weapons but because of these specific acts which put them in the exact same position as United Fruit Company, which caused violent conflicts to benefit their banana business.
I share your ideal but realistically this is a useless stance if there is anyone in the world that doesn’t share your ideal and doesn’t mind slaughtering others.
As for the other parts of Palantir that do business with other parts of the security state like Boeing, well, that's why they incorporate. To avoid legal and social accountability for their criminal actions by abstracting it away even within their organization.
https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-apology-2...
https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-wikileaks-2011-2#-1...
Perhaps it's plainly true in some trivial sense (all large orgs have committed some crimes), but not in any legally-relevant sense. Otherwise people have to explain the obvious incongruity between this "plain truth" and the obvious fact that Palantir is not facing the sort of legal problems that would be expected of a "criminal organization" (and no, saying "the US judiciary is just very very corrupt" is not a "plain truth" either.)
By all means criticise away, by constructing an argument and preferably providing sources.
Saying "X is bad" is cheap and does not further discussion or teach anyone. In fact, that kind of behaviour being normalised is the most susceptible to brigading and bot farms.
no person on earth -- who is informed by anything aside from safeguarding or expanding their own capital -- would make that argument.
Comments such as: > Yeah, no shit. That's what I'm saying, Peter
Are in contradiction with HN guidelines and what makes this site valuable, in my opinion, is informed discussion. There are multiple forums where sarcasm and low effort comments are the norm; HN should be more than that.
This isn’t like a big conspiracy theory people have won Pulitzer Prizes over it and all that.
It’s a completely reasonably inference that this person advocating for fewer restrictions on a powerful new technology is hoping to use it to conduct more sophisticated mass surveillance on Americans.
As I said, nothing could be more substantive to this thread.
Even were that the case, it's unclear to me that merely providing material aid to a criminal government organization would make a company a "criminal enterprise".
Perhaps uncharitably, this seems akin to arguments that would condemn a large share of contractors involved in military / police / intelligence work as "criminal".
Yes of course the inability of the legal system to deal with it is a deep problem.
My argument is that people who break the law are criminals. It’s not a subtle point I’m making here.
The only point of confusion seems to be your surprise to discover that people with power commit crimes openly and with impunity.
In any case, even when illegal government programs exist it's again unclear to me what sort of due diligence a contractor would have to make to avoid being labeled as a "criminal organization". Similarly, a lot of people consider soldiers who fought in Iraq to be murderers, and I see the point but it would come off as confusing in a normal conversation about a particular person to just casually label them as a murderer because of this.
I am pleased that all in this discussion have now demonstrated such a rigorous grasp of the obvious.
To your more specific point, my first recommendation for government contractors who wish to avoid being labeled as a “criminal organization” would be to avoid repeatedly and blatantly committing crimes.
Has there ever been an era in American history where there aren’t private entities with high government officials as allies who engage in organized criminal activity to further our international trade interests while avoiding consequences?
Not sure if you’re a history buff, but…
"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
It may be illegal, but this is not legally relevant at the moment.
I do find that Karp sounds like a huckster, but criminal … sad that this got so many upvotes.
This seems like the kind of team sports mentality that has destroyed politics.