Can someone explain why Palantir are seen as such a threat? My understanding is their product is a PowerBI++ and they don't host any user data themselves. Are people scared of backdoors?
Can someone explain why Palantir are seen as such a threat? My understanding is their product is a PowerBI++ and they don't host any user data themselves. Are people scared of backdoors?
Two Reasons:
1) It holds deeply sensitive data and does so in the US. In times of increased mistrust of the US, many (including myself) see that as a risky choice.
2) Speaking of mistrust in America and American corporations, have you heard their execs talk? It's absolute cuckoo-town:
> If they are not scared, they don’t wake up scared, they don’t go to bed scared, they don’t fear that the wrath of America will come down on them, they will attack us. They will attack us everywhere.
Well, you've convinced me. I'm scared of America, I'm scared of American companies and I'm scared of your company in particular.
Good job, I guess?
Are you sure they hold sensitive data themselves though? My understanding was they integrate their tools with customers own data and don't have access to it themselves (at least in theory).
Of course I agree that quote is insane and you can dislike them for political reasons, but I want to understand the technological fears and see if any are unfounded.
The article mentions “while the underlying data may remain under the MoD’s control, any insights derived from that data do not. The implications of this, the insiders say, are far-reaching, especially because of the vast quantity of personal and other data the company has access to across UK government departments.”
Part of the core offering is data washing.
they most definitely do not, and especially not on-prem, national security systems like are being discussed here. They sell software.
https://www.palantir.com/palantir-is-still-not-a-data-compan...
I’ve only had their platforms explained to me by them (palantir) at a conference but the mental model that stuck with me was more of an operating system than a single tool. Think AWS managed services + databricks + whatever library of ready made intelligence software they have already built for others.
They also have “forward deployed engineers” to help organizations actually use the platform. It looked complicated enough to probably be completely useless without these specialists, even in a “self hosted” setup.
The managed hosting also seems like a major selling point so many deployments that probably should be self hosted probably aren’t because muh managed services added value.
And the backdoors of course. There is no way it isn’t full of plausibly deniable “metrics endpoints” that helpfully spew out all the internal data if the right key comes knocking. There’s no way it’s auditable at the level of detail you would need compared to the value of the data and the sophistication of the potential attacker (NSA).
Even if the software is mundane I don't think most people should want their country offloading sensitive spy stuff to a guy who's obsessed with the antichrist to the extent the Vatican itself is complaining he's going to Rome and giving secret speeches about it.
The loudest people about this have no idea what they're talking about essentially.
It's not sufficient but the first thing you can filter by is anyone who comments on the name first (literally one of the most effective marketing strategies in government contracting history basically).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell#Distribution_of...
It’s just the latest implementation of a winning formula.
For a company that tries exclusively to sell to people that are very far removed from the use (government), yet have onerous reporting standards for all spending (government), there sure is very little independent reporting on the efficacy of whatever it is they are even selling. Even the contract with NHS was heavily censored. So frankly I oppose it on that ground alone.
The United States is no longer a reliable ally.
That is the reality that the world is having to adapt to. Even when Trump is gone, it will take a long time to rebuild that trust.
You shouldn’t assume trust will naturally just regrow. This may be it, we may have passed peak USA.
Hence the Carney strategy up here in Canada. We can realize in hindsight that we were far too dependent on a single ally. We're diversifying - and even if America wants to become reliable again we've learned and will (hopefully) never be so dependent again.
In the post WW2 era most western countries grew lazy about sovereignty due to America's open-handed approach - this has been a wake up call and has severely lowered America's soft-power globally.
Would you trust Palantir if you're I'm the US?
Surely this time around, technological advancements in the name of "national security" won't end up used on its citizens ;)
Genuinely a bit shocked at the naivety on HN on this topic but maybe thats a misunderstanding on my part. Happy to be shown otherwise. Alex Karp, if you're reading this, please don't send your fent laced urine spraying drones after me!
[flagged]
This prompted me to read the Qanon Wikipedia page, and it is pretty funny that it also involves a right-wing South African software engineer warning us of the threat of global Satanists.
[flagged]
Uh… have you heard Thiel talk? If that’s not evil, I don’t know what is.
I honestly haven't heard him talk much, so would appreciate specific quotes for my analysis/interpretation.
https://www.ft.com/content/a46cb128-1f74-4621-ab0b-242a76583...
He has a paper thin understanding of classics, which he then uses a device to sprinkles everywhere to make him appear more clever.
https://fortune.com/2026/02/04/peter-thiel-antichrist-greta-...
I can't find the speech anymore, but his basic thrust is that Tunberg and anyone who thinks that unleashing raw AI on the internet is an antichrist.
They are the antichrist because they are holding back progress.
Despite the US scientific budget being ripped apart by Trump.
I'm not sure being a pseudointellectual (if that's what he is) would make him evil, would it?
I've seen his 'antichrist' talk as part of headlines out of context and to be honest assumed that this is a rhetorical/hyperbolic device, rather than a literal thing. Is your claim that he actually literally thinks someone is the antichrist? So far he just seems to be someone with a bent against degrowthers?
Is there a specific quote or position that makes him _evil_? Rather than just ill-informed or with an unpopular political opinion? Like he might just believe in tech growth at all costs because he really does think it will benefit everyone, or he might pretend to think that because he thinks it will benefit him at the expense of everyone else. It's hard to tell from what you've provided so far.
> would make him evil
I should have been more clear, I am not asserting he is "evil", that is a caricature.
Given his background, and where and how he grew up, the couching of his views through evangelical eyes is cynical. I am asserting that he is a dickhead, who believes he's playing 4d chess, whilst cultivating a band of people who you would describe as "odious" at best.
Now some people might say "oh he's keeping his viewpoint broad", which is bollocks. He's always been an edgelord who thinks he's Machiavelli.
The fact that he keep Karp about, who is so obviously limited as a CEO, and doesn't put a huge fucking gag on him is a leading indicator on what he thinks is reasonable
Clearly not or are being very dishonest with themselves.
[dead]