[hwillis]

So... Should Google be reporting the addresses of people who search for drugs? Should Facebook be informing the TSA about people's religion? Do you really want corporations spying on you for the government even more than they currently do?

[ihsw2]

Those are loaded questions.

Corporations already provide user data when provided a valid court order to do so, they have been doing it for decades.

[hwillis]

I tacitly acknowledged that in my post with "even more". There is a substantial, I would say extreme, difference between submitting to a court order and proactively providing data to the government.

[jimmywanger]

> Should Google be reporting the addresses of people who search for drugs? Should Facebook be informing the TSA about people's religion?

This is a false equivalence, as searching for drugs is not actually illegal, nor is believing in a certain faith.

A better analogy would be "Should Google be reporting the addresses of people who are distributing child pornography? Should Facebook be informing the TSA of people who are planning to bomb a plane?" In both cases, the answers is yes, and they are almost legally obligated to if they have clear evidence of wrong-doing.

[valuearb]

Yea the reality is should Google report the addresses of people googling for "sexy teens"? Should Facebook inform the TSA of people who watch plane explosion videos? Whatif their profiles indicate they are Muslims?

Very very rarely does someone type into their browser that they want to rape a child, or share on Facebook their plans to bomb a plane. Instead the authorities make inferences, inferences that often lead to the harassment, even prosecution, of innocent people.

[jimmywanger]

I guess you missed the main point, which is "false equivalence". The two examples you're using have absolutely no bearing on this case.

This is a technology licensing case. Would you be angry at Google for licensing its search technology to help run background checks on childcare providers? Would you care if Facebook licensed its social graph technology to see if you should be eligible for a drivers' license based on your medical history?

[valuearb]

I don't think you understand "false equivalence". You responded to someone concerned about corporations turning people into the government because of things in their private web histories.

Your response was they should, if those people were clearly committing crimes.

My response was, it's very rarely clear whether some is committing a crime or not from their web history, and that companies can be easily coerced into sharing information that is just indicative of a possible crime, which can lead to innocent people being harassed or charged.

Specifically thousands of crimes a day (if not more) are committed by Facebook users, and some of those users leave traces of those crimes on Facebook. Facebook is heavily incented to help turn in those criminals to show they are good corporate citizens, and to head off extensive regulation and even civil penalties that could be created by grand standing lawmakers. Facebook has little to no incentive to protect my rights.

Now my kid posts "I love weed" on their FB profile, and it's caught the massive dragnet of data being turned over to authorities every day from Facebook. Police get a warrant, bust down my door, and arrest my child if they find weed in their room. If my kid had a couple ounces of pot and the cops think I'm a jerk, they may seize my home.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-hous...

If they don't find weed but find painkillers in my wife's purse not accompanied by her legal prescription for them, they will arrest her to justify the raid.

Or a dozen other bad things could happen, like they could shoot my barking 60 lb dog (who has never bitten anyone in her life), or worse.

So no, I don't want web service providers who have access to my personal information sharing that information with law enforcement. The police can do real police work to catch real criminals, most of their time they seem to abuse the constitution to arrest people for victimless crimes, I don't think they need more tools for that.

[jimmywanger]

> So no, I don't want web service providers

Thanks for proving the example false equivalence. Palantir is not a service provider to you, it is a data analysis company.

If Google or Facebook performed data mining on data it owned, that'd be one thing. Palantir is providing tools that analyze publicly available information.

> Or a dozen other bad things could happen

Yes, that's life. At any point any bad things can happen that's out of your control.

If somebody in your family posted "I love weed" on a public billboard, you might expect increased police attention.

Extrapolating a dead dog and painkiller arrests (both vanishingly rare events) are hysterical statements not based in fact.

[valuearb]

No knock warrants are not "vanishing rare events" and having nervous cops point weapons at you is not pleasant. And people get arrested for prescription drug abuse all the time, and plocue have the "discretion" to arrest you if you are carrying certain drugs without your prescriptions on you (don't worry if you work in the DAs office, warning only).

So you might not be concerned about getting trapped in the maw of our now enormous law enforcement machine, but plenty of people are given virtually every adult in the US has committed a felony at one point or another because of one crazy law or another. Not only do I not want Google or Facebook using automated algorithms to pit me in the maw, I don't want them sharing that data with Palantir so it can do it either. That gives for Chase Bank, Verizon, etc.

[hwillis]

Palantir is providing circumstantial evidence, just like the two examples I gave. There is no false equivalence.

[jimmywanger]

Most law enforcement actions are predicated on circumstantial evidence.

We already provide such information, which is completely legal.

For instance, if there's a pipe bomb, police track down the list of people who've bought ingredients from the bomb (from retailers, cell phone companies) and other sources of information to narrow down the list of probable suspects.

The Boston bombers were caught by such techniques. I don't see why this is any different.

[hwillis]

It's different because this isn't the government doing it. It is corporate vigilantism at best, which means there is no oversight and no privacy.

Regardless, your reframing is not convincing. Portraying immigrants as "criminals" isn't gonna make people want to deport them any more than saying drug users are inherently criminals. The reality of the law is way less important than its actual morality, which people have made up their minds about already.

[jimmywanger]

> It is corporate vigilantism at best

Palantir is a company selling data analysis software. They're doing what they're paid to do. How is this corporate vigilantism?

> The reality of the law is way less important than its actual morality

That is absolutely untrue. There are ways to change the law. People fail to understand that when you break the law to protest it, you still have to face the consequences.

This latest federal judge injunction against the travel bad is a horrible thing for our system, no matter what you think of the ban.

The president is well within his purview to establish regulations and restrictions for foreign travel. For an activist judge to make a decision like this, gives ample reason for his removal and/or sanction. Once you have the judicial branch trying to enact policy or morality, you have the ability for the executive branch to remove all dissent.

[hwillis]

The immigration act makes it explicitly illegal to discriminate based on religion. That act is instructions to the president from Congress. The president is banning travel from those countries for their religion. The president absolutely does not have the power over foreign travel you say he does, that belongs solely to Congress. You're delusional.