The problems Schneier is talking about have very different characteristics than the ones in this article. So the problems Schneier is talking about are still very real. But solving little pieces of the problem is definitely possible, especially with a good amount of human mediation.
As one intelligence analyst once told me " it is looking for a needle in stack of needles"
Whereas palantir situates itself as a tool for intelligence, rather than as an oracle.
If you watch some demos on their site you'll see that the workflow is almost entirely manual save for the moments when they retrieve sections of the semantic graph from the datastore.
Also notice that they never talk about the excruciatingly long process of how that data got jammed into the system. Imagine the target goal for an entire day's work for one person is to import 10 news articles into the system and you'll understand why they aren't doing the kinds of things Schneider was talking about (even if their brilliant marketing and sales departments sell it otherwise).
edit: word on the street is that they are still cashflow negative which is very worrisome considering all the fundraising they've been doing + they've almost saturated the government market
For instance, I imagine a high number of updates on a Facebook profile containing the word "drunk" might lead to a higher risk profile for auto insurance.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/10/data_mining_fo...
<quote>But the authors conclude the type of data mining that government bureaucrats would like to do--perhaps inspired by watching too many episodes of the Fox series 24--can't work. "If it were possible to automatically find the digital tracks of terrorists and automatically monitor only the communications of terrorists, public policy choices in this domain would be much simpler. But it is not possible to do so."</quote>
So did something change in the last two years? I mean Palantir is making a crap ton for presumably something similar.
Was this ever a problem, or was it overcome?