[mlinksva]

It is really too bad people are criticizing Lessig, or he thinks he is being critisized, because "Palantir is a bad company, or that it has done bad things, or that it has been funded by bad people".

That's not the first thing that comes to mind when I read "technologies that could give us, and more importantly, reviewing courts, a very high level of confidence that data collected or surveilled was not collected or used in an improper way."

That's incredible!

[jaekwon]

More people need to know about this. I think people get lost in his prose and lose the gist of what he's really trying to do.

[mlinksva]

What do you mean by "what he's really trying to do"?

Anyway, I'm pointing out that he's making/repeating a technically incredible claim. I'm ever so slightly surprised and saddened that scrutiny of that claim isn't the focus here.

[jaekwon]

He's using the issue of copyright to condone the current direction of the surveillance state, and he is offering red herrings as "balancing" compromises.

Yes, I agree with you. I think it is because we are among the first to find it, sparked by that blog post. This seems to be the technical crux of the debate.

[mlinksva]

I doubt his aim is to condone the current direction of the surveillance state, but perhaps pursuit of "balance" plus technical credulity helps achieve the same.