I'm never sure why people assume that Palantir is magically unlike the overwhelming majority of tech startups/companies I've worked at: vastly over promising what is possible to create hype and value while offering things engineering knows will never really quite work like they're advertised.

To your point, but on a larger scale, over hyping Palantir has the added benefit of providing a chilling effect on public resistance.

As a former government employee I had the same reaction to the Snowden leaks: sure the government might be collecting all of this (which I don't support), but I've never seen the government efficiently action on any data they have collected.

Incompetence might be the greatest safety we have against a true dystopia.

Because Snowden, agree with him or not, showed us that reality blew away our imagination.

It may feel normal now, but back then, serious people, professionals, told us that the claims just were not possible.

Until we learned that they were.

Incompetence could also be incredibly dangerous given enough destructive willpower.

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/nsa-palantir-israel-...

I've often said we're recreating Brazil [1] instead of 1984. It's an excellent film if you haven't seen it btw, and in many ways rather more prophetic and insightful than 1984. But the ending emphasizes that incompetence just leads to a comedy of absurdity, but absurdity is no less dangerous.

As for PRISM, it's regularly used - but we engage in parallel construction since it's probably illegal and if anybody could prove legal standing to challenge it, it would be able to be legally dismantled. Basically information is collected using PRISM, and then we find some legal reason of obtaining a warrant or otherwise 'coincidentally' bumping into the targets, preventing its usage from being challenged, or even acknowledged, in court. There's a good writeup here. [2]

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJCxVkllxZw

[2] - https://theintercept.com/2018/01/09/dark-side-fbi-dea-illega...

They're not trying to use the data to act efficiently (or in the public good for that matter), and they sure as fuck don't want you to see it. They're trying to make sure that they have dirt on anyone who becomes their enemy in the future.

> I've never seen the government efficiently action on any data they have collected.

Someone else on HN said it would be nice if the NSA published statistics or something, data so aggregate you couldn't determine much from it, but still tells you "holy shit they prevented something crazy" levels of information, harder said than done without revealing too much.

You've never seen it because when it's efficient you won't see it.

If they throw out things like due process and reasonable doubt they can do a whole lot with the data they've collected.

That may sound hyperbolic but I hope it's obvious to most people by now that it's not.

> ... I've never seen the government efficiently action on any data they have collected.

It isn't usually a question of efficiency, it is a question of damage. Technically there is an argument that something like the holocaust was inefficiently executed, but still a good reason to actively prevent governments having ready-to-use data on hand about people's ethnic origin.

A lot of the same observations probably apply to the ICE situation too. One of the big problems with the mass-migration programs has always been that there is no reasonable way to undo that sort of thing because it is far too risky for the government to be primed to identify and deport large groups of people. For all the fire and thunder the Trump administration probably isn't going to accomplish very much, but at great cost.

>I've never seen the government efficiently action on any data they have collected.

As a former intelligence officer with combat time I promise you there are A LOT of actions happening based on that data.

doing Bad Things poorly is still doing Bad Things.

I see palntir as a techno whitewashing Mckinsey consultant. But the tech is there to make a much bigger problem than prior art, halucinations et al.

They are still dangerous even if theyre over promising because even placebos are dangerous when the displace real medical interventions.

Because palantirs selling proposition is: you can’t find the answers in your own data, but we can.

It sure would be convenient if they were always ineffective. Sadly there have been periods in history where governments have set themselves to brutality with incredible effectiveness.

Except you don't need to solve any remotely hard technical problems for the capabilities to be terrifying here.

No, incompetence is terrifying. No one wants to get caught in a machine driven by imbeciles who don't care about truth or honoring the Constitution.

Competence is also terrifying, but for different reasons.

I honestly tempt fate for fun to see how good police surveillance tech is the last few years.

I let one of my cars expire the registration a few months Everytime, because I'm lazy and because I want to see if I get flagged by a popup system Everytime a police officer passes near me. My commute car is out of registration 3 months right now. And old cop friend told me they basically never tow unless it's 6 months. I pay the $50 late fee once a year and keep doing my experiment for the last 6-7 years. Still no real signs they care.

My fun car has out of state plates for 10 years now. Ive been pulled over once for speeding, and told the officer I just bought it. I've never registered it since I bought it from a friend a decade ago. They let me go. It makes me wonder if one day they'll say "sir, we have plate scanners of this vehicle driving around this state for a year straight.. pay a fine." Not yet.

[dead]

[flagged]

lol. came here to say pretty much the same thing.