I do agree blocking Palantir is a good move but the Spanish government is doing it for the wrong reason. Spain is storing all sort of data on Chinese servers, including their Intelligence, and Judicial wiretaps.
> Spain is “making a big mistake,” said Bart Groothuis [...] “Spain is now dependent on the country with the largest and most sophisticated offensive espionage program directed against us.”
I highly doubt he's naive enough to believe the "against us" qualifier exempts the operator of the largest and most sophisticated offensive espionage program ever.
would be better to be on spanish servers, but decoupling from american tech remains a public good, especially if using american tech bans american competitors
The original saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I think an intellectually honest take is that it's advantageous and prudent to depend on allies and neighbors; leveraging each party's strengths for efficiencies over strategic autonomy. This trade-off is commonly debated with depending on US military hardware in favor of EU military hardware (e.g. France's long standing position for EU strategic autonomy), or vendor lock-in with AWS vs cloud-independent offerings.
The problem is when an ally becomes inconsistent and/or uncooperative; a high stakes version of prisoner's dilemma. At which point do you replace an ally's offerings with more expensive, and often inferior, alternatives? The general populace rarely has the appetite for the short-term economic pain required to achieve long-term strategic independence.
It's expensive to home-grow your own solutions and if you try transitioning too many services at once the cost will be outrageous and you'll probably open other security holes. I am glad Spain is taking this step and I hope they continue this trend - but outright refusing to use any software built abroad requires a massive investment in domestic tech. That investment would likely pay economic dividends but it is a cost that needs to be measured against other investments Spain needs to make and in Spain's case resilience against global warming is especially important.
This section is hilariously hostile towards Palantir.
"Wired wrote that some people think Palantir "maintains a giant, centralized database of information collected from all of its clients", which is untrue."
'some people' is a classic weasel word[0] used to prop up the writer's opinion. This sentence is even funnier because it initially appears to state that Palantir has a centralized DB of clients data, only to finish with "...which is untrue." If the claim is untrue, why lead the section paragraph with it unless you're intending to smear or mislead? If I were to end sentences with "...which is untrue" I could write any number of things on Wikipedia.
It's as though I wrote "A YN user wrote that 'john_strinlai works for the CCP and uses ChatGPT to write all his posts', which is untrue."
I'll keep reading but rhetorical chicanery like this colours my interpretation of the article in general.
EDIT the section goes on: "[We can't pin anything specific on Palantir here]; still it is generally accepted that abuses by governments and data management failures can happen." What does that have to do with Palantir? "data management failures can happen" why is this in the section on "Palantir:Controversy"? This article is not good.
EDIT 2: This section is just comedy gold... 'Palantir "remains open to the critique of potentially being an accessory to acts of deportation, imprisonment, and racism through its contracts".' Open to critiques of potentially being an accessory to "racism?" What is this, the Future Crimes unit from Minority Report? This "future crimes" accusation is especially ironic in relation to the critiques of Palantir itself!
So I haven't read this whole section (it's quite long) but if this is the nature of the "smoking guns" I don't think much of it. Potentially maybe doing something according to 'some people...' this shouldn't hold water for any rational person.
If someone objects to Palantir for working with ICE I understand that, and if that's the nature of Spain's objections they should just say so.
>'Palantir "remains open to the critique of potentially being an accessory to acts of deportation, imprisonment, and racism through its contracts".' Open to critiques of potentially being an accessory to "racism?" What is this, the Future Crimes unit from Minority Report?
No. What that means is, "there's nothing here that prevents these tools from being used in this manner". It's not about what may happen in the future, it's about the current situation, which is that the tools are already produced with the objectionable capacity. It's the same reason speeding is punished, even when no harm follows as a consequence; the act is inherently reckless, regardless of the actual consequences.
Someone in ICE uses Microsoft Excel to maintain a list of people who they believe should be send to an internment camp. Therefore Microsoft is an accessory to that?
Where do you draw the line? Are we arguing there is a level of software capability that is simply too dangerous?
Maybe everyone should just stick to "I have my own biases, and I don't like Alex Karp's politics because they don't match my own. I'd rather this software was developed by someone from my side of politics - but still have the same capabilities".
>Someone in ICE uses Microsoft Excel to maintain a list of people who they believe should be send to an internment camp. Therefore Microsoft is an accessory to that?
Utterly disingenuous. Surveillance software is primarily sold to governments to spy on individuals. It doesn't exist for any reason except for the powerful to oppress the weak.
>Where do you draw the line?
"I just kept turning the heat up and the frog seemed perfectly fine. The fact that it's cooked now can't have anything to do with my actions." I don't have to propose a generalized demarcation criterion to say whether a particular example is on either side of the line.
> This section is hilariously hostile towards Palantir.
Funny, one comment ago you had no idea what the controversy around Palantir was. How could you possibly know the wikipedia article is hostile? It might be downplaying the controversies around Palantir.
This reaction almost makes it seem like you were being completely disingenuous with your first post, and had already made up your mind about Palantir. Curious.
Their CEO is a megalomaniac who brags about "killing people"[0] and can't string together coherent sentences on live television[1]. Did I mention it's backed by Peter Thiel who is openly and actively trying to tear down the world's oldest constitutional democracy in favor of a technocratic oligarchy[2]?
I think in general people are a bit distrusting of a tech firm headed by billionaires with deep political ties that sells AI driven surveillance state technology to governments
> I can't figure out what the specific objection to Palantir is.
You have to be trolling, a single online search tells you how the company CEO is the textbook definition of technofascism. Take a look at his manifesto if you don’t know
So the objections to Palantir are political? I know nothing about Spanish politics so I assume that makes sense in the Spanish political context. This helps explain why I can't find a specific concrete concern, it sounds more vibes-based. Thank you!
if you take the time to read karp’s manifesto and look into thiels beliefs, then maybe it wouldn’t seem “vibes-based” for you.
an example that may cure you of your “vibes-based” confusion, karp, palantirs ceo, argues clearly for authoritarianism and aggressive surveillance of the general population. he hilariously tries to convince people that the best way to have democracy is to not have it at all. a kind of “to protect your freedom, we’ll take away your freedom” idea that only a certain kind of person falls for.
so yes, people may find it silly to pretend those politics aren’t troubling, particularly when its relating to a government. i’m sure you’re aware that considering political ideas when thinking about how a government is operating isn’t “vibes-based”, it’s integral.
does this one example appease you that it isn’t “vibes based”? if this example doesn’t help you understand, both karp and thiel are not at all shy about their anti-freedom views. they’ve spoken loudly and publicly about them all over the place. if you’re truly curious, there is plenty of info out there you can read.
just be aware, they try to couch their ideas in rhetoric like “the best way to have democracy is to let us take it from you” or “let us surveil you so you can know you have privacy and freedom” kind of nonsense. it’s pretty obvious so i’m sure you won’t be tricked.
"he hilariously tries to convince people that the best way to have democracy is to not have it at all."
I'm sorry but I can't find where he said this. I'm finding it confusing and suspicious that the objections to Palantir & Alex Karp are all so vague and seem to lack the rigour typically required of assertions made here on YN. Usually if you declare something like someone "argues clearly for authoritarianism," you're expected to link to a source of this claim.
People keep telling me here it's so obvious Palantir is bad I shouldn't require any specific evidence and I'm stupid if I don't see it; I'm only reminded of the emperors new cloths.
> How would you interpret Thiel's “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"?
The point is that democracies tend to want to erode liberties. Take the age gating bills floating around as an example.
The solution Thiel proposes is not eliminating democracy. It's building technology that governments cannot easily control. Cryptocurrency is one good example of this.
Yes, the objections to Palantir are mostly just partisan politics. Efforts to portray Karp or Thiel as especially dangerous usually involves some taking some quote and applying a massive leap in logic.
Like, Thiel says that it's easier to change the world by inventing new technology than through democracy. And people turn around and try quote this to prop up the claim that he wants to abolish democracy.
What is this in reference to? Karp has said that US tech companies should be more willing to work with military and intelligence agencies. By that standard, though, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Booz Allen Hamilton, heck even Microsoft are all supporters of "technofascism".
They’ve been paving the path to the main US industry -> weapons. You gotta do what you gotta do to turn the profit. But you guys have also sacrificed a lot of human life.
So your answer is yes? The companies like GM, Cadillac, etc. they were buildings tanks to defeat the Nazis were themselves fascists, because producing armarments is an inherently fascist endeavor? Even if the military they're equipping is actively fighting against real fascists?
or pressed the government into building more arms, and using them against the citizenry?
theres a pretty significant change between when the US was at declared war and when the companies making arms started pressing the US into undeclared war for the sake of selling the government more arms
This is a company where 88% of employe political contributions went to Democrats. Even if many employees are apolitical, the allegations of fascism are absurd.
Without even getting into how shady his actual product is, have you seen that recent he did? He was babbling about alpha, kept babbling about how people were stealing "ontology" (yes i know it's their application layer for agents), I wouldn't trust his business on him alone. I trust even less considering how familiar I am with it.
Define doing. The government is completely block from legislating since the coalition parties will not approve any law, only those that can help their separatist movements. The national budget hasn't been renewed since 2023, affecting new projects.
What we have is a corrupt president and party he'll bent on remaining as long as possible to not face the polls
There are two takes here (and I'm impartial because I no longer live in Spain):
- The government lost their trust and should resign.
- The coalition parties are sabotaging the government even when none had the majority (even if together they do).
indeed, and he has apparently already been walking the walk
>"Burnham did not grant the US tech company any contracts during his nine years as Greater Manchester mayor, and is minded to take the same approach in Downing Street."
I know I’m a conspiracy theorist but I’m looking out for random scandals, random high profile deaths, random infrastructure issues and random large scale accidents.
Politicians and governments like to introduce crap like blacklisting when they have a good excuse to (a target the public agrees with) so that later it's easier for them to use against arbitrary targets.
They seem to have been granting contracts to manage all kinds of critical data to Huawei's Palantir equivalent lately, so it's probably less about security risks and more about the current source of the bribe money.
If they cared about security they would not outsource this kind of stuff to foreign companies. Spain is not Somalia, why not let Indra do it?
Odd take. 99.99999% of citizens will never travel to China, so it matters not that the Chinese govt holds their data.
A local company losing the data screws everyone. Palantir getting the data screws everyone, because while foreign, that data will eventually be fed into global systems like VISA, Mastercard, etc, and affect your travel in numerous countries that will be outsourcing their systems to Palantir.
I'm not sure what "travel" even does here. Possessing citizen's info opens possibilities for influence ops, blackmailing, unfair advantage in business and much more. And non-democratic countries are always better at these games, cause they need not be afraid of the next government leaking, investigating, selling whatever they did.
Meanwhile gov't losing info on one citizen screws said citizen, but losing all of it screws the gov't itself, and generally rebalances power in favor of citizens. Which one may say isn't bad.
You can't predict the future. By your own reasoning, you can't say with any degree of certainty that it will never matter if China has a citizen's data just because that person will never travel there.
Much of Spain is indeed getting very unpleasant in the summer with climate change, but in the north there are still regions that are quite fine at the moment. Where I am, we recently beat the all time temperature record with 35 degrees, but that was a single day. Most days these weeks it isn't going over 25, and I don't think we hit 30 in June except for that single day and maybe one other day.
The problem is that the right is poised to win the next election and will probably undo all the policies you like. They're pretty much against everything that has been done in the last 7 years. I still have some hopes that Sanchez might clinch another term because he's a political survivor, but prospects are not great.
He just put the last nail in the coffin when he gave citizenship to millions of migrants while Spanish has one of the highest unemployment rate of Europe.
I'm not a fan of that, but it's not like the opposition is going to be different in that respect (or like they have been different in the past). It's the companies and elites who are demanding those migrants to keep wages low, so the right will happily provide.
We will get the same migration policy (maybe with some purely aesthetic changes for show), but with the whole kit of fawning over Trump and the US, denying or minimizing climate change, cutting taxes for the wealthy, privatizing public services and so on.
Canary Islands are part of Spain and probably unaffected from climate change - we have 19-22°C all year round. If it raises to 25° still pretty livable.
Climate change affects places where more people live in the sense that more suffer from it, resources get depleeted fast but the wild temperature fluctuations won’t spare much of the planet in various ways from wet bulb effects, costal erosion, air major currents changing, glaciers melting and so on.
It isn't that simple, Canary Islands already counts with 2.2 million + tourists people and the fresh water is a highly risk resource even when desalinization plants are widespread, the groundwater aquifers are severely compromised.
The mild weather heavily depends on the trade winds. But models predict that due to fact of being so close to Africa heat waves are prone to be more and more frequent compromising the water resources.
The two capitals (Santa Cruz and Las Palmas) are pretty good spot to live in.
Tourism focuses on the south on both islands. Las Palmas has a beach with a bit touristic activity, but its not drinking tourism like Mallorca or Benidorm. Combined with nice weather all year round overall a greaet place to live. Very walkable cities, you can do without a car. Due to nice weather, you can always go by bike or scooter. Taxis are cheap. Thanks to the tourists, cheap flights all year round, every day, to all major european cities.
But yeah, if you come with kids, factor in private schools. The public system here is broken. As for internet, I pay less than 10€/month for 500Mbit fibre - I couldn't even get that in Germany and if could it would be north of 80€.
Islands are extremely vulnerable to climate change all over, as they are completely dependent in near-term precipitation for all their water (no rivers, no aquifers).
No rivers and no water is reality here for quite a while already. The islands rely a lot on desalination, and there is a big EU-funded project going on to create a desalination plant that not only is used to supply tap water, but the water basin of a new hydroelectric plant [0]. Desalination pretty much solves water issues, IF you have the energy (ideally renewable).
And then you'll have to choose another country after the next elections. Or even before, cause liking politicians from afar somehow much easier than when living in the same country.
Ventless temperature control units are extremely popular there so it's probably not an unwise investment but you're not really ahead of the curve. The construction of most European buildings[1] lends itself poorly to anything that requires knocking a hole in a wall but the systems that can exhaust heat through water lines are usually quite reasonable to set up.
1. Though this is significantly less prevalent in Spain due to a lot of reconstruction happening after the civil war - that isn't to say buildings there are perfect, they just have different problems than the classic German 30cm thick stone wall.
People in the comments here are praising the move, so presumably something is public. I've googled but I can't see some specific breach or documented misuse. Is the objection to Palantir strictly political?
There's been a lot of recent scandals going public against the social democratic party ruling on spain now (PSOE) and its previous dirigents. See Zapatero case. leaked by US agencies recently once Spain put some kind of friction to the Rota south spain bases getting involved on anything vs Iran.
The president P. Sanchez, has been clearly antagonizing Trump in these and other intl issues (even if only visible in spain, as he is not that relevant internationally, etc)
But anyways, this seems like deepstate fighting vs current US admin and current Spain admin, one can infer "Palantir" is basically a gag order away from giving the US govt anything it wants, so as an antagonist. to its current admin, it seems smart to avoid having them as critical providers.
why choose china? Makes no sense, but probably the only other big bro Spain can rely on if the US isn't it anymore
well it could be limited to companies who are entirely dedicated to surveillance and massive data collection on citizens like palantir. particularly with that and how ideology based palantir appears to be.
i’m sure they wouldn’t be nearly as concerned about a US company that manufactured screwdrivers or nike or something similar.
It is possible and this in particular is a decision that I'm sure the US will pressure the government to reverse. However, it's misguided to see the entire world through the US political lens where reversing policy decisions is seen as a free win by the voting base. Spain's current democracy is only about fifty years old and extremism is viewed very negatively so outright undoing is generally less common then gradual undermining.
yeah, he seems to have the same issue a lot of these guys have. i’m convinced we’re going to find out at some point they’re all on some kind of modern meth type drug that entirely breaks their reality. the similarities between so many of their shifts are too striking.
The Spanish government trusting the CCP over Palantir is wild.
The CCP's intolerant, cruel and authoritarian nature is a direct threat to humanity in ways that Peter Thiel could barely imagine in his darkest dreams.
The lack of perspective on show here is astonishing. They are destroying trust with vital Western allies -- trust is gained in drops and lost in buckets -- and Lurch and his dodgy friends are clearly out of their element.
Palantir is profoundly untrusted in Europe in part because of Alex Karp. He is viewed as a dangerous neo-nationalist (not incorrectly).
Never really sure why Anduril doesn't catch the same grief; they are maybe even creepier. Perhaps Palmer Luckey is just a less visible obvious Bond villain crackpot.
> Anybody here think that Palantir is not a security risk for Spain?
It boggles the mind a bit, but I’ve seen a few comments on here with people defending them to the tune of “what’s the big deal, they just help governments with their data! They're innocent” which is uh, either aggressively naive, or just paid PR behaviour.
Someday, the US will be just a bubble where no other country gives their data to.
We continue this decent into fascism to the point that nobody likes us.. or values us. Is this their idea of Utopia?
Why don't you stop using American sites and services now then? I see comments like this a lot but no one wants to be personally inconvenienced to stop using hn/youtube/reddit/whatever.
> The firm holds a €16.5 million contract signed in 2023 with the Armed Forces Intelligence Center (CIFAS), which is scheduled to expire this upcoming November.
> Military leadership, including the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Navy, has lobbied Defense Minister Margarita Robles to renew the contract, citing the platform's operational superiority.
Palantir wins contracts because they are better at what they do. If Europe wants to maintain digital sovereignty while not being left behind they need to have a heart-to-heart conversation about how to fix that.
I find it unbelievable that the current chief of Nato (Rutte) is basically an extension of Palantir. He is making sure countries are signing contracts with this extreme company that on pair with the Nazi ideology. They would support mass extermination camps. You probably think this is over exaggerated. But no its not. This company is evil.
You're out of your mind -- and politically radicalized -- if you think that Palantir is on part with the Nazis. And this kind of facile comparison is offensively trivializing those who died in the holocaust.
“offensively trivializing those who died in the Holocaust” - calling someone nazi or fascist is not trivializing Holocaust. These are clear terms and both Palantir and Karp often publish texts with fascist ideological elements and views. Read something they published like Technological republic. They are not hiding it.
You're moving the goalposts. The original poster wrote that Palantir is on par with the Nazis. (Typos notwithstanding.) That's what I'm responding to.
And yes, it is offensive and trivializing to the millions that were murdered to suggest that that their murderers were on the same moral footing as a modern government software consultancy. (The views that you read into some of their executives are, in fact, not equivalent to actions such as exterminating millions of people.)
