111–120 of 187 posts
But it’s already widespread in Europe, or at least in the Netherlands. Amsterdam Airport uses it, as do the Dutch police and the Dutch army. So shouldn’t it be: kick out Palantir?
Amsterdam Airport? Source?
https://www.privacynieuws.nl/binnenlands-nieuws/politie-en-j...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Palantir's technology, as its own name suggests, is inherently dangerous, regardless of who controls it. The right alternative is to simply not build capabilities similar to Palantir in the EU - ideally, to legally forbid building them at all. This type of aggregated data flow simply gives too much control to whoever has access to it, and thus greatly harms democracy.
[flagged]
But it’s already widespread in Europe, or at least in the Netherlands. Amsterdam Airport uses it, as do the Dutch police and the Dutch army. So shouldn’t it be: kick out Palantir?
> Review and phase out existing contracts with the company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That's a false choice. By investing in weapons instead of diplomacy, we've created this world of tit-for-tat violence. We can dismantle it too, it's not necessary to continue escalating until we exterminate our species.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a false choice. By investing in weapons instead of diplomacy, we've created this world of tit-for-tat violence. We can dismantle it too, it's not necessary to continue escalating until we exterminate our species.
"We've" wdym? You don't get to decide the rules. Your adversary is not signing a legally binding contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also "ICE separate[s] families" is such a ridiculous mischaracterization it makes me question all their other arguments.
> ICE separate[s] families" is such a ridiculous mischaracterization It's accurate. They do separate families. How or why doesn't matter, the fact stands in its own. It's not a "mischaracterization", it's a fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we would end up with something much worse. Whenever I see this, I recognize it as obvious scaremongering.
When I saw "defund the policy" I recognised it as virtue signalling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We've" wdym? You don't get to decide the rules. Your adversary is not signing a legally binding contract.
"We" as a species with common interests like "not eradicating ourselves through violence."
Which is why we had such destructive wars in the past..
I don't think there has ever been a company so poorly understood (willfully or otherwise) as Palantir. They make a software platform, it does not come with any data, does not come connected to any datasources, etc. You can literally sign up right now for a trial and see this for yourself. It looks the same if you were to purchase a license. This headline might as well say 'Say No to PostgreSQL' or 'Say No to Excel' o…
Salesforce, Microsoft, and PostgresSQL contributors aren't bragging about how their products enable lethal military operations.