A company that profits from violence and war really can't be expected to be terribly trustworthy.
That's great, but it's more likely a publicity play than a notable source of revenue.
"Early investments came in the form of $2 million from the CIA's venture arm In-Q-Tel." They've been catering to the defense industry from the beginning. That's not inherently bad, and there's no reason to skirt around the issue.
One of Palantir's cofounders was recently interviewed (http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=3052). He reminisced about pitching the product to two defense industry suits who actually high-fived each other at the end of his presentation. That was when he knew he had made it.
If you want to find examples about how the military uses Palantir's software, you don't have to look far. For instance, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/no-spy-software-scan...
The company is a defense contractor. Yes, they've successfully commercialized their technology for law enforcement, bank fraud detection, disaster recovery, and whatnot, but you'd be silly to think that intelligence (and "tracking down terrorists") is not central to their business. They were funded by the CIA's VC firm.
That sounds an awful lot like "If you've got nothing to hide, you should tell us what you're doing".
I'm all for transparent governments, but I don't think transparency should be a requirement of a private company.
So a transparent government is well and good for those who need utmost secrecy. They just contract out to the non-transparent companies!
I am not saying it's like "If you've got nothing to hide, you should tell us what you're doing". I am saying that you have to be able to manage the public image of your company even if it is a private company. Or things like that will happen and it will be hard to restore your reputation over people you ignored.
It's all about the communication, public image, reputation... There are even companies dedicated to do that for you. I don't know for instance they should use the same idea behind their website: a company of high quality dedicated to BigData, and advertise that in every public media with nothing related to war, secrecy or others things... Just a company providing high value products to who you want.
You can't have it both ways. If private companies are going to provide important government services, then those companies must accept a certain measure of public scrutiny and transparency, a much greater measure than an ordinary private company would need to accept.
If the companies don't like it, then they shouldn't bid on government contracts. No one is forcing them to do so. And if you don't think the government should occupy such a large segment of the economy, AWESOME! I'm all for that! I say dismantle the whole military-security-industrial complex!
Also, I don't think it's entirely fair to construct a black-and-white dichotomy between government and private company. Companies working on government contracts are by definition somewhere between the two, so perhaps it's fair to demand transparency somewhere in between? I don't know where to draw those lines, I'm just trying to point out that there isn't, logically, much room for absolute arguments about private vs public on this particular topic.
You're right, just tracking the rest of us.
2 of the 4 named industries sound like "terrorist hunters" and 3 of the 4 are not generic big data. None of them are e-coli outbreaks.
Palantir is easy to condemn because from their own messaging to third party analysis, every angle you look at them they look like a boilerplate "evil company" on par with Blackwater/XE/whatever they're called now.
Glassbox reviews and interview reviews are absurd and eye opening, tangles with RICO law and unethical business partners seem the norm, and on and on and on. Other than some nice looking tech, they're public image is one of "mercenary nerds for hire".