I think there is no significant disagreement between the two of us, perhaps only on the topic of intentionality of things and degrees of involvement.

A gun has the intent of projecting violence at a distance. No matter if it is used within the frame of the law or not.

A vaccine has the intention of protection against disease. No matter if it is used within or outside the law.

A fence contains the intent of separating things.

A system built to deeply and widely track and catalogue and eavesdrop on people has the intention of being intrusive.

The purpose of a system is what is does. If a system does help the violent actions towards civilians and citizens then that is the purpose of what the engineers at Palantir built.

(I also think I was a bit too confrontational in my earlier reply, sorry about that)

I think you're right and it's possible to have something that exists with no other purpose than to cause harm. And it's not moral to make that thing. I also don't think it's fruitful to find the specific circumstances it's moral to eat babies (go down philosophical rabbit holes until you find the one time that doing something despicably immoral is actually the moral thing to do). But I would say the technology is the least important part of the problem. A moral person uses dangerous tools sparingly and intentionally harmful tools never. If Palantir did not exist, would they perform the raids? I think so.