Posts Tagged ‘Digital privacy’



“It isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me.’” That warning from Philip K. Dick captures the slope Palantir is already halfway down—turning citizens into data points, and autonomy into algorithmic obedience (Goodreads).

As Edward Snowden put it, “Under observation, we act less free, which means we effectively are less free” (Goodreads). That’s the business Palantir is in: surveillance disguised as efficiency, control dressed up as analytics.

This isn’t theory. Palantir already fuels ICE raids, predictive policing, corporate risk dashboards, and battlefield logistics in Ukraine (IBANet). As Thor Benson reminds us, “Don’t oppose mass surveillance for your own sake. Oppose it for the activists, lawyers, journalists and all of the other people our liberty relies on” (Ammo.com).

Palantir isn’t just selling software. It’s selling obedience. And like all Silicon Valley myths, it started with a story about “innovation” that hid something darker.


Origins & Power Connections

Founded in 2003 by Peter Thiel, Alex Karp, Joe Lonsdale, and Stephen Cohen (Wikipedia), Palantir wasn’t born in a garage—it was born in Langley’s shadow. Early funding came from In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture arm (DCF Modeling). When your first investors are spymasters, your product isn’t disruption. It’s surveillance.

Its flagship platform, Gotham, was built hand-in-glove with U.S. intelligence agencies. Palantir engineers embedded inside government offices stitched together oceans of data: phone records, bank transactions, social media posts, warzone intel (EnvZone). Palantir didn’t just sell a tool; it sold itself into the bloodstream of the national security state.

By the time it was worth billions, Palantir was indispensable to the U.S. war machine. Its software was used in Afghanistan and Iraq (SETA Foundation), where surveillance wasn’t a civil liberties debate but a weapon of war. When those tools came home to American cities, they carried the same battlefield logic: control first, questions never.


Domestic Impact: Policing & Immigration

Palantir’s second act was on U.S. streets. Its predictive policing contracts in Los Angeles, New Orleans, and beyond promised crime prevention through data. In reality, biased arrest records fed the machine, and the machine spit bias back out dressed as math (SETA Foundation).

Shoshana Zuboff warned: “Surveillance is the path to profit that overrides ‘we the people,’ taking our decision rights without permission and even when we say ‘no’” (Goodreads). Prediction isn’t neutral—it’s a form of control.

Immigration enforcement sharpened that control. Palantir built ImmigrationOS for ICE, consolidating visa files, home addresses, social media posts, and more (American Immigration Council). Critics call it “deportation by algorithm.” In Palantir’s language, that’s “efficiency.” The human cost is invisible in the spreadsheet.

A traffic stop can spiral into deportation. A visa application can flag someone as “high risk” with no explanation. Entire neighborhoods live under digital suspicion. And when protests erupted against these tools, six activists were arrested outside Palantir’s New York office in 2025 (The Guardian).

Palantir insists it only “builds the tools.” But when those tools fracture families and criminalize communities, the line between code and consequence vanishes.


Global Expansion: From Battlefields to Boardrooms

War proved Palantir’s business case. In Afghanistan and Iraq, its engineers sat beside soldiers, mapping bomb patterns and insurgent networks with data fusion software (SETA Foundation). The Pentagon called it a breakthrough. Critics called it privatized intelligence.

Now, Ukraine is Palantir’s showcase. Its tools analyze satellite imagery, coordinate battlefield logistics, and even gather evidence of war crimes (IBANet). CEO Alex Karp boasts Ukraine is a “tech-forward war.” But once normalized on the front lines, surveillance rarely stays in the trenches.

And Palantir’s reach doesn’t stop at war. Its Foundry platform runs inside JPMorgan, Airbus, Merck, and Fiat Chrysler (Wikipedia). What began as battlefield software is now a corporate dashboard—tracking supply chains, financial risks, and consumer behavior. The architecture is the same: consolidate data, predict outcomes, reduce uncertainty. Only the labels change.


Surveillance Capitalism & The Future

Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon imagined a prison where one guard could watch every inmate without them knowing when they were being watched. “Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower… Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at” (Farnam Street). It was a theory then. Palantir has built it for real—and scaled it to entire societies.

Zuboff called surveillance capitalism a regime that reshapes human behavior for profit (Yale Law Journal). Palantir goes further, reshaping governance itself. Its platforms don’t just analyze data; they dictate institutional behavior, target populations, and define acceptable outcomes. The architecture dictates the politics.

Glenn Greenwald cut to the core: “The mere existence of a mass surveillance apparatus, regardless of how it is used, is in itself sufficient to stifle dissent” (Goodreads). That stifling doesn’t make headlines. It happens in silence—when a protest isn’t planned, when a whistleblower doesn’t speak, when communities live in quiet fear of an algorithm they can’t see.

And that’s why Benson’s warning should stick: “Don’t oppose mass surveillance for your own sake. Oppose it for the activists, lawyers, journalists, and all of the other people our liberty relies on” (Ammo.com). Because the weight of Palantir’s code doesn’t fall evenly. It presses hardest on those who dare to resist.

Orwell said it plainly: “Big Brother is watching you.” The 21st-century twist is worse. Big Brother has been privatized, optimized, and sold at a markup (The Guardian).


Truth Over Tribalism

Follow anarchyroll:

Wisdom Is Resistance

590

 

 

By @anarchyroll

The golden rule. Only hard to abide when it is an inconvienience to our ego.

The right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution. However, Americans have since the country’s inception, have implicitly demanded a right to privacy. If that were not the case, the Quartering Act of 1765 wouldn’t have been a big deal, catalyst for the colonies.

Americans work hard. So whether or not we play hard or not, we seemingly demand to know that if we do play hard that it will remain our business. What is our business? Whatever we do when we are not trading our time for money or services from another person or persons. That time off the clock, that is our personal time, our free time.

Personal and free are two words the vast majority of Americans take to heart regardless of age, creed, color, sex, or status. What we do with our personal/free time is nobodies business but our own as long as no laws are broken.

Is that not the perceived right to privacy? Is that asking too much?

Apparently the ask is too low because it is a right that has been bought and sold in a deal between the Republican controlled Congress and Internet Service Providers. The only thing surprising is how public and unapologetic the entire thing was. The legislation may have been crafted in the smokey backrooms of private Washington D.C establishments, but the sellout was done very much in the public eye.

The legislation was covered both by the internet press and mainstream media. There was plenty of outrage but very little resistance. The parties that will benefit from this have gerrymandered themselves into partisan footholds of the legislative branch. Hardline partisan politcal lines have been made facing consequences for many in Congress as much a part of the past as the personal privacy they just stripped away from everyday Americans.

Privacy may not be good enough for common folks anymore, but those in power still command it. Literally at the same time Congress took away privacy from the public, the White House announced it would no longer make public its visitor list citing “privacy concerns“. This two faced hypocrisy is a poster for why having a title or position of power does NOT make a person a leader.

Taking away from the many and giving more of it to the few. Yep, that is what America was founded on alright. That is definitely the cornerstone of American values. That is what the grand experiment of democracy is all about right? Right?