WIRED obtained internal Slack messages showing Palantir employees questioning ICE contracts, possible involvement in an Iranian school missile strike, and a manifesto suggesting reinstating the draft.
Key Takeaways
Palantir’s Privacy and Civil Liberties team admitted during an internal AMA that “a sufficiently malicious customer is basically impossible to prevent” – enforcement relies on post-breach auditing and legal action only.
Slack channel #palantir-in-the-news had its retention cut to 7 days with no announcement; a cybersecurity team member confirmed it was a direct response to leaks.
Karp pushed ICE contract expansion despite sustained internal pushback; employees who pressed for more details were offered only NDAs, not answers.
Palantir’s Maven targeting system is under active investigation for possible involvement in the February 28 Tomahawk strike on an Iranian elementary school that killed over 120 children.
A 22-point Saturday manifesto derived from Karp’s book – including a suggestion to reinstate the draft – drew 50+ internal Slack reactions criticizing both the content and the business logic of posting it publicly.
Hacker News Comment Review
Strong consensus that Palantir is functioning as designed: the company was founded with CIA seed money to build government targeting and data aggregation systems, and current ICE and DoD contracts are not deviations from mission.
Split on whether smart, ethically-minded people should stay inside national security contractors to shape outcomes, or whether staying amounts to providing institutional cover for the outcomes already being shipped.
A recurring undercurrent: the internal Messiah Complex – believing you are the safeguard against abuse while simultaneously building systems where abuse is acknowledged to be unpreventable after the fact – is treated by some commenters as itself a structural risk, not just an individual rationalization.
Notable Comments
@jimmar: “analogous to employees of a missile manufacturer being upset that their missiles were used for their intended purpose” – sharpest formulation of the founding-intent argument.
@Ritewut: recommends Careless People by Sara Wynn-Williams as a case study in how tech workers systematically convince themselves the ethical company is just one internal navigation away.
@HaloZero: flags that a PAC funded by current Palantir employee Lonsdale ran attack ads against former Palantir employee Alex Bores specifically for having worked at Palantir – the internal contradiction made external.
