If NYC has data that has not previously been used for surveillance and Palantir is enabling them to use it for surveillance ("you're violating the fire code!") then it is ushering in an era of civil surveillance. I don't see what the hyperbole is.
I would argue that the surveillance isn't in how the data is used, but rather in the fact that NYC has that data at all.
Limits on acceptable data collection are more straightforward, enforceable, and fair than limits on acceptable data analysis. What would you say if a human had reached the same conclusion as Palantir by analyzing the same data?
> Limits on acceptable data collection are more straightforward, enforceable, and fair than limits on acceptable data analysis.
I strongly disagree. In this electronic age, it is unreasonable to to expect companies and agencies not to store data electronically. Isolated, these data points are not illegal - the USPS knows your address, the IRS knows where you work, the DOT knows your license plate - these are all necessary for these agencies to do their jobs. Private companies know stuff too - your phone company knows about calls you make, your ISP knows about sites you visit, your bank knows about purchases you make. Some of these can be forgotten, some are necessary to do business.
The problem comes when someone cross-references innocent data to a level that results in an invasve unwarranted intrusion into your privacy.
Should we penalize Facebook for keeping our photos? No, that's what we use it for. Should we penalize shopkeeper for recording security videos of their store to help analyze thefts? No, that's within his rights. Should anyone be allowed to correlate all the images with all the security footage to have a camera-by-camera record of the motions of everyone in the city? No, that's a dystopian horror story in the making. The criminal intent is in the analysis, not the storage.
Why is it quiet when IBM does it, but horrific when Palantir/Big Bad Thiel does it?
It's either: a) no one cares about what IBM does anymore, because they're seen as "old school", or b) no one was paying attention before and only now caught wind of it?
