Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Palantir, the War On Terror's Secret Weapon

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-blame-the-elves dept.

hessian tips a story in BusinessWeek about Palantir, a system designed to aggregate disparate data points gathered by intelligence agencies and weave them into a more useful narrative. The article summarizes it thus: "Depending where you fall on the spectrum between civil liberties absolutism and homeland security lockdown, Palantir’s technology is either creepy or heroic." "The day Fikri drives to Orlando, he gets a speeding ticket, which triggers an alert in the CIA's Palantir system. An analyst types Fikri's name into a search box and up pops a wealth of information pulled from every database at the government's disposal. There's fingerprint and DNA evidence for Fikri gathered by a CIA operative in Cairo; video of him going to an ATM in Miami; shots of his rental truck's license plate at a tollbooth; phone records; and a map pinpointing his movements across the globe. All this information is then displayed on a clearly designed graphical interface that looks like something Tom Cruise would use in a Mission: Impossible movie."

28 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. Hello by Titan1080 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Big Brother.

    1. Re:Hello by russotto · · Score: 4, Funny

      He prefers to be called "Lord Sauron" now.

    2. Re:Hello by Opyros · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nay! He does not use his right name, nor permit it to be spelt or spoken.

    3. Re:Hello by SpzToid · · Score: 4, Funny

      And like every other I.T. project it is behind schedule. Probably way over budget too, but who knows?

      At least Mark Zuckerberg is helping out in the free sector, showing everyone how well it can be done. If nothing else his company sets the bar for us all to see.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    4. Re:Hello by u38cg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This quote, from the very end, is interesting:

      Thiel...says civil liberties advocates should welcome Palantir. âoeWe cannot afford to have another 9/11 event in the U.S. or anything bigger than that,â he says. âoeThat day opened the doors to all sorts of crazy abuses and draconian policies.â

      There is something in that, I think. You can argue all you like about rights and what makes just law, but the fact is such events tend to drive the national mood squarely towards security over civil liberty.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    5. Re:Hello by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can argue all you like about rights and what makes just law, but the fact is such events tend to drive the national mood squarely towards security over civil liberty.

      While true, I don't think appeasement is the right way to handle the problem. For one thing, no matter the sales hype, there is no way that this system can guarantee there won't be any more major attacks (hell, their own promotional example relies on the bad guy being stupid enough to get a speeding ticket, as if a dedicated terrorist won't be doing everything he can be appear to be law abiding).

      So, we install Big Brother, a major attack still eventually gets through and now the baseline for new crazy draconian abuses is just that much higher to start with. But in the mean-time before that all goes down, our entire society suffers the knock-on effects of living in a surveillance state.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:Hello by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Big Brother.

      1984... is freaking real

      I wouldn't be so sure about that. If you read the article, it starts out with the story of a suspicious character by the name of Mike Fikri. Fikri has bought a one-way ticket from Egypt to Florida, he's making bank withdrawals from Russia, talking to suspicious people in Syria, scoping out crowded places at Disneyworld. The scenario lays out something a lot like the lead up to 9/11: lots of individual actions that alone mean nothing, but together make a huge red flag and make this guy a Person of Interest. And Palantir can allow the government to spot this guy before he executes his plot. And you start thinking, wow, if this technology really spotted this guy, maybe it's worth thinking seriously about it. And then the article's punchline: "Fikri isn’t real—he’s the John Doe example Palantir uses in product demonstrations that lay out such hypothetical examples."

      Here's the problem with all these liberty-vs-security debates. Before we get into the argument about just how much personal liberty we're willing to give up for security, let's first establish that the proposed measures would actually make us safer. Does any of this security theatre actually work? If torture isn't an effective interrogation technique- and all of the available evidence strongly suggests that it is not- we don't need to have a debate about whether it's moral to torture someone to save lives. If torture doesn't work, then the left, right, and centre should all be able to agree that we shouldn't torture. Similarly, has all of this government eavesdropping actually produced useful leads in the War on Terror? If so, then we can have a debate about the merits of something like Palantir. But if after ten years the government still can't point to a single credible case of where massive, indiscriminate domestic surveillance has spotted a credible threat from a terrorist, well, there's no need to even debate the civil rights aspect of it. It's just a waste of resources regardless of whether it's justifiable or not.

      Basically, the War on Terror proponents want to engage you in a debate that goes like this: "Aren't you willing to give up just a little liberty for a lot of security?" It's a reasonable proposition for anyone but a hardcore libertarian, so that's a debate they can win with many people. So if you engage them in that discussion, you're basically ceding the argument. They're going to win over the majority of the people every time. But the debate we need to be having first is, "Are all of these invasive, expensive measures you're proposing actually going to make us safer at all?"

      Or look at it this way. A guy comes up to you with a handful of beans and says, "These are Magic Antiterrorism Beans. They cost a billion dollars but they'll keep you safe from terrorists forever. Isn't that a small price to pay for security?" Before you start haggling over the price, wouldn't you want to be sure that the beans actually worked?

    7. Re:Hello by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's creepy and deeply ironic is the name.

      The Palantir were created by good to accomplish communication and ostensibly protection similar to satellite photography. However, they were appropriated by evil and used to lie, distort the truth, and fill the world with oppression.

      Privacy advocates (such as myself) are rightly worried about such technology for exactly the reason their name implies.

      That's creepy.

    8. Re:Hello by pugugly · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't find it so much creepy as, well, useless.

      We keep trying to add more raw data to the system - what's needed is to remove irrelevant data from the system.

      This is just going to be a boondoggle full of data that can eventually prove Captain America Killed Kennedy in the Library with the Lead Pipe.

      We only have so many smart people that can investigate so many leads - sending them off to investigate a speeding ticket because his girlfriend dated bin Laden's father's brother's former roommate is no use whatsoever.

      Idiots.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    9. Re:Hello by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Creepy, definitely creepy.

      a system designed to aggregate disparate data points gathered by intelligence agencies and weave them into a more useful narrative

      A "more useful narrative".

      The use of that term of art sends shivers up my spine. I'm not comfortable with our intelligence agencies "weaving" "narratives".

      Looking back at the second half of the past century, I see a hell of a lot of human suffering that came from intelligence agencies "weaving narratives".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Hello by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      palantir drives people mad and doesn't tell exactly what's going to happen anyhow!

      It's not the Palantir that drives them mad, it's Sauron using it to feed them misinformation that makes them do really stupid things, drawing the Good Guy's forces away from dealing with the actual attack. Which, I might add, shows a potential problem with such systems: all you have to do is have your underlings act suspiciously, so the system starts throwing alarms, and then have them pass by the same town. You don't even need to actually do anything, just act suspiciously and let paranoia do the rest.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  2. This springs to mind by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Onion has a lot to answer for; http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-cut-agencys-cos,19753/

  3. Who is the one pulling the jokes here? by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, I hope jokes.

    For years we have been joking that 1984 is not a guide. Now it seems either someone being paid to develop this has a sense of humor or has decided to up their game. No longer will 1984 be the guide, they are out to outdo the Dark Lord Sauron himself. Though, Tolkien was trying to recreate the lost myths of Britain, and by that reasoning LotR would be our past... Has anyone noticed any recent appointees or elected officials seemingly always wearing a plain gold ring?

    --
    by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
  4. Very coo that... by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...the submitter linked to the one-page printer version. The full version of TFA spreads out over six page. I went through those six pages looking for a screenshot of the software, but there were none. So if you are going to read it (I must be new here) then stick to the printer version as submitted.

    Thanks, hessian!

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  5. Deeply creepy by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and the cries of an outraged populace are stunning in their absence. Sad days, for sure.

  6. Love the use of the name.... by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    can't wait to see the all seeing eye, can only be around the corner.

    Who would have thought that the US Government was Sauron? The same monster which consumes over four trillion dollars of our work certainly is a monster of epic proportion. No wonder that they now even feel the need to take mythic names for what they do.

    Who needs Skynet when we have all sorts of fantasy names to assign the latest abuse of our rights by our government. The US defeated (or outlasted) communism of the Soviet Union for what, a Soviet Union style government masquerading as a Republic. From control exerted over industry to health care its nearly complete, we even get the same choice in our elections, which is to say none. Vote for whomever the government has approved from these two sides of the same coin.

    Oh, ignore the guy behind the curtain; in your bedroom.

    Occupy Wall Street was too many miles North of where it should been, and targeting the wrong foe. Just as the Tea Party figured out and OWS was only hinting at, the real problem in the US isn't the rich and corporations but the politicians who use their position to empower the rich and corporations all the while securing themselves their position

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Love the use of the name.... by HiThere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a feedback system, set up around the time of the civil war. The companies pay the politicians, and the politicians pay the companies. They just use different kinds of coin. (Before then "lobbying" was illegal.)

      Expect that where-ever, whenever, you have centralized control by humans, you will have corruption. Expect it, and design your systems to account for it. One reason that elections are a bad means of selecting representatives is that they encourage corruption. A simple lottery would be better. (Simple. It is to laugh. You still need means to prevent corruption, even if almost everyone selected would start out not-yet corrupted. This means enforced penalties. Not only on those who are the corrupters, but also on those who become corrupt. And it means denying rewards in the future, not just while they hold office.)

      But in a feedback system, you can't say one link is more important than the other. They are all important. If any one breaks, the mode of operation of the system changes.

      What I propose is that if someone is selected to state or regional office, they be given a salary of 3/2 the median income in the country, an ample pension, and forbidden from accepting any gifts or favors from anyone. Expenses of office would need to be covered (which can get a bit tricky...but being a bit lavish here isn't *too* damaging to the country).

      And I also propose that they be selected at random (lottery) from among all adult citizens in an area. It would probably be best to increase the number of Senators, as we don't want a state to be represented by a delegation that's half looney. But 1/3 would be ok.

      If you don't like this, Condorcet voting or Instant Runoff is far better than the current system, as it makes it much more difficult for all contenders to be purchased before the election. But you also need to do something to eliminate the advantage that the well-funded have over the poorly funded, or even so the improvement is likely to be minimal.

      OTOH, don't expect the Supreme Court to allow anything to be done that will impede the ability of the well-funded to rule things. They have recently and historically shown a distressing tendency to side with the wealthy, and let justice and equity go hang.

      If the Constitution was actually honored, I'd be much less likely to propose such an alteration, which is clearly unconstitutional (unless amended). However, since the constitution is ignored except when it's convenient by the powerful and wealthy, I have no qualms in such a proposal. (Besides, I know it won't be adopted, so I'll never be proven foolish.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  7. Re:Sounds like Google... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...to me. Collate their combined services and presence on the web, and you'll know "everything about anyone".

    Google is not empowered to use force against the populace, nor to maintain order, nor to enact law. The Government is. There is a subtle difference.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  8. Hmm, sounds familiar... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wasn't Palantir Technologies one of the slimy corprospook outfits(along with the notorious H.B. Gary Federal and Berico technologies) commissioned to do a little proposal for some dirty-tricks work against Wikileaks after Bank of America decided to lawyer up(with a little advice from the DOJ... How's that for a public defender?)

    Oh yes, yes they were...

    Fuck these guys and the horse they rode in on. Compared to a few pitiful fanatics who want to bomb everybody back to the 12th century, where they can feel at home, fine outfits like this are a much more serious threat to the aspects of our society worth saving.

  9. Been going that way for a while. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the summary is wrong in one aspect.

    The article summarizes it thus: "Depending where you fall on the spectrum between civil liberties absolutism and homeland security lockdown, Palantirâ(TM)s technology is either creepy or heroic."

    Fuck "homeland security lockdown". Think more about who has access to that information and whether you trust THEM with this kind of information about your daughter.

    Do you believe that there are more terrorists in the USofA than there are perverts who would have access to that system?

    1. Re:Been going that way for a while. by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you believe that there are more terrorists in the USofA than there are perverts who would have access to that system?

      Yes. Yes, I do. The whole "pervert around every corner just waiting to rape YOUR DAUGHTER!" argument is every bit as exploitative and dishonest as terrorism scare-mongering.

    2. Re:Been going that way for a while. by migla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you believe that there are more terrorists in the USofA than there are perverts who would have access to that system?

      Yes. Yes, I do. The whole "pervert around every corner just waiting to rape YOUR DAUGHTER!" argument is every bit as exploitative and dishonest as terrorism scare-mongering.

      I understood the point differently:
      The potential of misuse by idiot government thugs/bureaucrats and thereby trouble for people is greater than the terrorist threat.

      Maybe if this is just a CIA thing, where they all are real smart professionals, it wouldn't be a widespread problem (unless ones views differ from those of the CIA).

      But in general, a huge problem about this new big brother society of ours is that the people at the monitors are security guards and police officers. Have you seen those? I wouldn't let those be in charge of filming everybody all the time. There's too many stupid jerks there who'd circulate stuff they find amusing.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
  10. Palantir is *VERY* appropriate by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, now that I think about it, it is very appropriate. IIRC, the system was created for aggregating information on people who are not American Citizens, and coded to ignore and discard all data it received on American Citizens, but management removed that functionality because there was no oversight over them. Although created to be used by Good as of old a Palantir might have been used by the Lords of Gondor to track the affairs of neighboring lands, the system was taken and used for evil--indeed, one could even say that the prospect of visions within it corrupted the minds of those who watched, as with Denathor.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  11. Re:Practical use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, yes. There's a free-to-use Palantir instance set up that lets you do just that.

    https://www.analyzethe.us/

  12. they were part of Team Themis with Berico + HBGary by decora · · Score: 4, Informative

    look up any of the stories on Team Themis, Bank of America, Glenn Greenwald, etc. they were planning to character-assassinate people who were sympathetic to anonymous, including journalists.

  13. Must be nice wherever you live. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes. Yes, I do.

    Strange, because the statistics show 88,097 cases of forcible rape reporting in 2009 in the USofA.
    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_02.html

    Now, how many deaths by terrorists in the USofA in 2009?
    Zero.

    88,097 vs 0.
    And yet you believe that the system will be good enough to keep out the perverts who would abuse it.

    1. Re:Must be nice wherever you live. by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How many of those forcible rapes were by intelligence agents who used their work tools as part of the rape, over the past ten years?

      Now how many deaths by terrorists in the same time period?

  14. Nice try. by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many of those forcible rapes were by intelligence agents who used their work tools as part of the rape, over the past ten years?

    So, from 11-26-2001 until 11-26-2011 (10 years) you want me to provide you with statistics for forcible rape?

    Why can't you provide them? After all, that is your new claim, isn't it?

    Now how many deaths by terrorists in the same time period?

    Again, from 11-26-2001 through 11-26-2011 (10 years) ....

    Oh, I see what you were trying to do. You were trying to get the WTC attacks included to make the numbers look more favourable to your new claim.

    Except you didn't realize that they had happened more than 10 years ago.

    Anyway, I've already supported my position with the statistics. If you want to change your position to include the WTC attacks then you're going to have to do your own research on rape statistics for whatever time frame you finally settle upon.

    Remember, statistics first. Then opinions.
    You run into problems when you get that backwards.