I disagree with that analogy. Palantir isn’t getting them more data. It’s helping them use it more effectively. The organizations already have all the data recorded.
If you don’t like the data that organizations record, I’m right there with you, but demonizing the tools that allow them to access data more effectively is an absurd stance to take. Their system also does things like add an immutable audit log, or enforce requirements on how data can be accessed.
Working with law enforcement, before Palantir there was nothing preventing an officer from looking up their ex husband or wife, or celebrities, or anyone at random. With it, there’s an audit trail of every search, and most of them need a case number as justification. Even then, certain searches would automatically get flagged for review.
We can go back to giving people direct and unaudited SQL access if you’d like, but I’d prefer some more accountability, even if the downside is organizations being able to use data _they already have_ more effectively.
If you don’t like the data that organizations record, I’m right there with you, but demonizing the tools that allow them to access data more effectively is an absurd stance to take. Their system also does things like add an immutable audit log, or enforce requirements on how data can be accessed.
Working with law enforcement, before Palantir there was nothing preventing an officer from looking up their ex husband or wife, or celebrities, or anyone at random. With it, there’s an audit trail of every search, and most of them need a case number as justification. Even then, certain searches would automatically get flagged for review.
We can go back to giving people direct and unaudited SQL access if you’d like, but I’d prefer some more accountability, even if the downside is organizations being able to use data _they already have_ more effectively.