> Do you believe the organization that whoops-leaked 500k people’s intimate health data is capable of auditing any complex technical system?
Yes I believe that it's possible that an organization capable of effective auditing could also leak data
> Are you asserting that Palantir is no different than any other infrastructure company?
For the most part, yes. Palantir is more effective and more "ideological" than most, but in the direction away from your implication that they're vacuuming up data and mixing it across customers
> Do you think there’s any way I would approve of the NHS or NIH using Palantir based on my earlier statements?
No, but the question was whether facts or data adjust your opinion or not, and in which direction if so. Duping one mostly-competent organization on security/privacy posture is much, much harder than duping dozens or hundreds of organizations, including the most security-competent on the planet.
> Is there a reason you’re peppering me with tangential rhetorical questions sort of poking around the premise of what I said
Because the premise of what you said is wrong. The phrase "data vacuum" is clearly meant to imply a fact pattern that just isn't true. The term "unfettered access" is not true either, as data infrastructure companies (Palantir more than most) have significant controls on their exposure to customer data.
The overall implication that people's UK health data would be somehow mixed into a US government effort to kill people is laughably wrong when you actually have to write it out explicitly instead of relying on nudge nudge wink wink.
And yes I do have a Palantir mug actually! Good guess.
Let's get concrete: have you ever actually used Palantir? Ever engaged in contract negotiations with them or set up their access controls on your own data to understand what is or is not allowed, and to what degree you have visibility and control into it?
Sorry buddy but it's you who's speaking in baseless rhetoric here.