- Pascal's Chatbot Q&As
- Posts
- Olsthoorn likens Palantir’s quiet expansion across democratic institutions to a “technological coup,” not with tanks but with predictive algorithms, opaque partnerships, and unchecked data networks.
Olsthoorn likens Palantir’s quiet expansion across democratic institutions to a “technological coup,” not with tanks but with predictive algorithms, opaque partnerships, and unchecked data networks.
While Palantir publicly claims to respect privacy and human rights—citing advisory boards and internal “privacy engineering” departments—the article reveals the hollow nature of these safeguards.
Pascal Hetzscholdt
August 18, 2025
Palantir’s Expanding Influence and the Global Democratic Dilemma
by ChatGPT-4o
The article "'Palantir mafia' leads tech coup" by Peter Olsthoorn, published on Netkwesties, offers a scathing and deeply researched critique of Palantir Technologies—a data analytics and surveillance firm closely tied to U.S. military, intelligence, and law enforcement operations. The article traces Palantir’s controversial evolution, from a War on Terror tool and domestic surveillance engine to what the author describes as the orchestrator of a global “tech coup,” backed by an elite network of political and academic allies.
The article uses the provocative term “Palantir mafia” to describe a tight-knit web of former employees, tech entrepreneurs, academics, and government actors who have helped export Palantir’s surveillance logic worldwide. Central to this narrative is the role of co-founder Peter Thiel—tech billionaire, Trump confidant, and champion of using technology to consolidate state power. Olsthoorn likens Palantir’s quiet expansion across democratic institutions to a “technological coup,” one conducted not with tanks but with predictive algorithms, opaque partnerships, and unchecked data power.
While Palantir publicly claims to respect privacy and human rights—citing advisory boards and internal “privacy engineering” departments—the article reveals the hollow nature of these safeguards. Advisory bodies such as the Palantir Council of Advisors on Privacy and Civil Liberties (PCAP), which include respected academics, serve more as reputational shields than true oversight mechanisms. Meanwhile, Palantir software is reportedly used for real-time analysis of biometrics, surveillance footage, and financial data, facilitating everything from counterterrorism operations to workplace immigration raids.
The Global Spread of a Security Logic
The article shows how Palantir’s footprint now stretches far beyond the U.S., with growing traction in Europe. Europol has used its Gotham platform since 2016. France adopted Palantir after the 2015 terrorist attacks. In Germany, courts declared certain predictive policing tools illegal. In the UK, the NHS's use of Palantir's Federated Data Platform met fierce resistance, particularly from grassroots group NoPalantir, which warned of commercial encroachment on public health data. The piece also foreshadows concerns in the Netherlands, hinting at an upcoming article about Palantir's quiet encroachment there.
What unites these examples is a recurring theme: democratic institutions adopting Palantir under the banner of safety and efficiency, while civil liberties, transparency, and accountability erode in the background.
An important subplot in the article concerns Palantir's entanglement with Trumpism. Olsthoorn notes how Trump has sued The Wall Street Journal over reporting that connects him to Jeffrey Epstein, while simultaneously backing a state apparatus strengthened by Palantir technology. The irony, according to the author, is that while left-leaning media like The New York Times and CNN vocally oppose Trump, it is the more centrist Wall Street Journal that is now leading the pushback against Palantir’s growing shadow.
This dynamic underscores a broader concern: Palantir’s tools, while sometimes useful in combating terrorism, drug trafficking, or child exploitation, are politically malleable. The same predictive and integrative powers that help catch criminals can be redirected to suppress dissent, target immigrants, or undermine journalistic freedom—depending on the regime in power.
Surprising, Controversial, and Valuable Statements
Surprising:
Dutch law professor Nico van Eijk, later head of oversight for Dutch intelligence (CTIVD), once sat on Palantir’s privacy advisory board—raising questions about revolving doors between democratic regulators and surveillance firms.
NATO recently purchased Palantir’s Project Maven, signaling that even international defense alliances are growing dependent on proprietary, privately-owned data systems.
Controversial:
The characterization of Palantir as the enabler of a “tech coup” within democracies suggests that the danger lies not in hacking from outside, but in legal yet opaque integration of private power into public governance.
The suggestion that Palantir advisory boards are mere “schaamlapjes” (fig leaves) rather than functioning ethical bodies challenges the legitimacy of corporate governance structures in high-stakes tech firms.
Valuable:
The article provides an unusually detailed map of Palantir’s reach—linking its tools not just to U.S. military and immigration enforcement, but to EU counterterrorism, French national security, German police, and British healthcare.
It also highlights the complicity of academic elites in normalizing Palantir's expansion, urging readers to examine who legitimizes surveillance technologies, not just who builds them.
Personal Perspective and Lessons for Other Nations
This article delivers a stark warning: Palantir is not just another tech vendor—it is a quasi-state actor embedded within critical infrastructure, law enforcement, and national security institutions worldwide. Its software is not neutral, and its partnerships often bypass democratic debate under the guise of “national security” or “public service efficiency.”
From my perspective, the most chilling implication is the normalization of data-driven governance without corresponding democratic oversight. Even in countries with strong data protection laws, once surveillance systems are embedded into government workflows, it becomes nearly impossible to dismantle them. They become part of the logic of the state.
Other countries—especially those outside the Five Eyes intelligence network—should draw several lessons:
Recommendations for Nations That Want to Resist Negative Influence from Palantir
Enforce Legislative Oversight on Surveillance Tech Procurement
Public contracts with firms like Palantir must be debated in parliament, not just signed off by interior ministries or defense departments.
Mandate Transparency and Audits
All uses of predictive policing, immigration targeting, and AI surveillance must be auditable and disclosed. Democratic nations should demand source-code audits, independent evaluations, and access to training data.
Protect Civil Society and Whistleblowers
Encourage NGOs, researchers, and journalists to scrutinize public-private surveillance partnerships. Provide legal protection to whistleblowers revealing abusive applications.
Develop Independent, Local Alternatives
Instead of outsourcing to Palantir, invest in open-source, privacy-preserving alternatives developed by academic institutions or independent consortia.
Create International Norms for Surveillance Technology
Coordinate at the EU or UN level to create a binding framework for lawful, ethical use of data analytics in public governance.
Block Palantir and Similar Companies from Sensitive Sectors
Just as some countries block Huawei in telecom infrastructure, it may be necessary to exclude Palantir from healthcare, education, or judicial data systems.
Conclusion
Peter Olsthoorn’s article is a wake-up call. It dismantles the sanitized corporate image Palantir cultivates and shows how one company—with close ties to power, secrecy, and ideology—can quietly reshape the architecture of democratic societies. For countries that value civil liberties, transparency, and democratic governance, the lesson is clear: do not underestimate the stealth and scale of surveillance capitalism. The price of inaction is not just privacy—it is sovereignty.
·
2 FEB
Asking AI services: Tell me everything you know about Palantir Gotham, Europa and explain just how dependent Europe is on Palantir for its enforcement and intelligence work and analytics.
·
1 JUL
Palantir – Total Surveillance or Security Guarantee?
·
12 AUG
Palantir Technologies: What Do They Actually Do?
·
2 FEB
It's probably not the best basis for the US either. A LOT more disciplines, experts and scientists of many more fields are required. A tech heavy think-tank(er) is likely going to topple. But Karp does display a lot of masculinity though, with his strong talk! 🦾 🤖 💪 Clip:
·
11 AUGUST 2024
Asking AI services: Please read the article "Microsoft is partnering with Palantir to sell AI to US government agencies" and the post "Palantir and Microsoft Partner to Deliver Enhanced Analytics and AI Services to Classified Networks for Critical National Security Operations
·
19 APR
·
8 MAR
Asking AI services: Please read the article “We found a DOGE guy at NASA because his Google Calendar was public” and explain whether this demonstrates that by using DOGE, the Trump Administration is effectively collaborating with the Deep State? How do you think the MAGA movement will feel about that?
·
15 MAY
The Indelible Hand: Assessing the Trajectory of UK-US Alignment Under the Starmer Government
·
17 APR
Peter Thiel: Influence and Intersections Across Technology, Politics, and Finance
·
21 DECEMBER 2024
