My point is you should be directing your criticism to government data collection practices that enable them to have data to process, once that 1st step is achieved, it doesn't matter who achieves step 2, 3, 4 or beyond, so your focus on Palantir is fleeting at best.
> My point is you should be directing your criticism to government data collection practices
I agree. It's not a binary choice, though: if I rob a bank, and you drive the getaway car, I'm clearly guilty, but you share some responsibility.The point is that there is enough culpability to go around.
Re: my examples (in the same order)...
HSBC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-usa-idUSKBN1E50YA
EDO MBM Technology ltd https://www.undocs.org/en/S/2018/594
IBM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
It's a reasonable position to complain about a company who knowingly enables bad behaviour of a third party, even if they don't directly carry it out.
Tell me: is the bus driver culpable if the murderer took the bus to get away from the scene of the crime?
It's not like Palantir is selling hamburgers to millions of faceless individuals. They themselves want to take the responsibility for their consulting for government agencies. I assign responsibility to them, too.
Can you think of examples of amoral company decisions from history? I can...
Palantir's arguments are more annoying, though, since the company management is not just amoral, but proud of itself.