> Palantir’s clients also include the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a federal agency who rely on Palantir’s products for their ethnic cleansing..."
And don't forget the UK National Health Service
And don't forget the UK National Health Service
The first question makes no sense at all. The latter question, however, is an important one for democratic governments to tackle.
Your (and the sibling) responses also beg the question: must governments contract to big foreign consultancies? It's not illegal to do things in-house if they so choose, you know.
Of course you can try with a local consultancy, but I wouldn’t know of any, and I assume the reason for choosing one over the other is mostly a matter of reputation.
Where it comes to organisational complexity and the barriers it creates, bear in mind that the British state is vastly more centralised than the USA. Fragmentation in the NHS was massively exacerbated by the Lansley Reforms which also forced trusts to outsource a lot of work.
"Your (and the sibling) responses also beg the question: must governments contract to big foreign consultancies? It's not illegal to do things in-house if they so choose, you know."
No, they don't must do this. No, it's obviously not illegal to do things in-house. They choose not to because it's obscenely hard to build what Palantir has already built and to battle test its security anything close to what Palantir has done.
(Disclaimer: I used to work there, so you can go ahead and dismiss my opinion outright, but I am responding directly to what you're saying)
While true, it also doesn’t answer legitimate concerns that the British public had that their medical data was being shared with a foreign entity that had actively participated in foreign government programmes of questionable morality.
The response to that was “all fundamental contractors have done dodgy things.”
To which you have my quoted reply. Which I’m not sure you understood at all, judging by your response.
The blog's moral stance is that GAFAMs are "neutral" or even "marginally good", because I suppose, they are, among other things, "pro-West".
I don't know which repressive country he "spent a few years in", but I am not sure why he seems more concerned by Russia and China (especially in a country under direct nuclear umbrella) than the risk of parts of the West turning repressive.
And that's not even counting the damage that they might cause outside, like Facebook's complicity in Myanmar's genocide.