Read on Twitter
The 
Government published the 4-page(!) contract w/ #Palantir, following requests and pressure from @e_triantafillou @DiEM_25 + @Homo_Digitalis_ .Lots of to unpack here. Follow: @e_triantafillou who made a fantastic job in covering the topic. Here are some interesting bits 1/
Government published the 4-page(!) contract w/ #Palantir, following requests and pressure from @e_triantafillou @DiEM_25 + @Homo_Digitalis_ .Lots of to unpack here. Follow: @e_triantafillou who made a fantastic job in covering the topic. Here are some interesting bits 1/
Unsurprisingly, Palantir offers its services ‘free’ of charge. Sources from the Government framed it as a 'donation', possibly in an attempt to escape the requirement of publishing the contract at the first place.
Government framed it as a 'donation', possibly in an attempt to escape the requirement of publishing the contract at the first place.
Interestingly, in a contract amendment signed one week (!) after the initial agreement, we read a clause that changes the categories of personal data to be processed. Some categories are added, and the term ‘pseudonymised’ is removed.
The contract has an explicit clause of no-publicity!
I'm curious-Is this a thing every time Palantir does business?
I'm curious-Is this a thing every time Palantir does business?
Oddly, if Palantir faces any legal action arising from its contract with , the Government will have to cover its lawyers’ fees
, the Government will have to cover its lawyers’ fees
The original agreement was extended for 3 months. What I understand from this document is that Palantir (the services provider) ‘mutually agrees’ with the Customer () on an extension, and yet signs the contract 6 days later (on the expiration of the original agreement).
) on an extension, and yet signs the contract 6 days later (on the expiration of the original agreement).
In response, the Ministry of Digital Governance noted that Palantir a) provided data visualisation services and b) assisted in data-driven decision making. It had only access to 1) open data; and 2) anonymised data from Law Enforcement and the National Healthcare Organisation.
Ministry of Digital Governance noted that Palantir a) provided data visualisation services and b) assisted in data-driven decision making. It had only access to 1) open data; and 2) anonymised data from Law Enforcement and the National Healthcare Organisation.
A final point -> The debate in so far (thisincluded) was pure legalism. But assuming that everything was legal (transparent, explainable, pseudonymised, GDPR
etc…) Are we happy? Is it OK to empower infrastructures that are used to abuse human rights abroad?
so far (thisincluded) was pure legalism. But assuming that everything was legal (transparent, explainable, pseudonymised, GDPRetc…) Are we happy? Is it OK to empower infrastructures that are used to abuse human rights abroad?
This is an inherently political Q that cannot be accommodated within the rationalised legal arena. So, the more we talk about law, the less we invest in Qs of politics. *Worth reminding that power enjoys avoiding political confrontations more than it does engaging in them. end/
