It's impressive, but without meaningful and effective restraints on its use it's potentially dangerous. There is a large focus on secrecy seemingly within the organization itself (Palantir) and the organizations it works with (NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.). One important question is, why is Palantir arming secretive organizations with very powerful technology?
If the analysis capabilities are so great (and they appear to at least be good), then there is likely tremendously more good that can be achieved by opening up the code to the software so that anyone can use it to tackle local and global problems around the planet. Instead, the company is using it to arm secret police organizations and financial organizations.
> why is Palantir arming secretive organizations with very powerful technology?
They get paid handsomely.
> more good that can be achieved by opening up the code to the software so that anyone can use it to tackle local and global problems around the planet
This attitude bothers me. Palantir is not a charity. Why are you holding them to these standards?
>> more good that can be achieved by opening up the code to the software so that anyone can use it to tackle local and global problems around the planet
>This attitude bothers me. Palantir is not a charity. Why are you holding them to these standards?
I fail to see how that statement is an 'attitude'. I'm also not holding them to any standard in that statement. As far as I can tell, it's only a statement of fact. Or at least, perceived fact.
You're implying that they should give up their competitive edge over the market so that they can help the world "tackle local and global problems around the planet". That sounds like you're saying they should give to charity and/or forfeit profit for some noble good.
And yes, it's an attitude/opinion though it sounds like you're just nitpicking words. I'm not the OP you responded to, but it's clear your attitude/opinion towards this topic is that this software should be given away for free, with the sole reason for that being that it would "[do] more good".
They invented it, they didn't steal it (presumably), and they're choosing to use that product of their intellect in a way that makes them profit. Heck, you could argue that they're already doing good by making it available to law-enforcers while still profiting. In which case your entire point is that they're not doing enough good according to your opinion.
I think it's well within the US Federal Government's purview to require source code from its contractors such that any citizen (who has paid for this product) can inspect the code or use it themselves.
If the analysis capabilities are so great (and they appear to at least be good), then there is likely tremendously more good that can be achieved by opening up the code to the software so that anyone can use it to tackle local and global problems around the planet. Instead, the company is using it to arm secret police organizations and financial organizations.