Palantir in New Zealand and California

One of the 2013 NZ Parliamentary debate topics was Palantir's contract with NZ intelligence agencies. Dr Russel Norman or the NZ Green Party queries as to the scope of Palantir's operational capabilities in NZ.  Norman asks PM John Key if Key would cut the government's ties to Palantir if "it is proven to be involved in violating the privacy of New Zealanders through the PRISM spy system?"

Not mentioned in the debate is Palantir's ties to the '100 Resilient Cities' program, started by and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.  The program includes cities across the globe, including Christchurch (NZ), which was near the epicenter of the September 2010 earthquake which produced over 11,000 aftershocks between Sept 2010 and Sept 2012.  Seismic activity is still detected in what was previously an unknown to be a fault before the 2010 quake.  In 2011, Peter Thiel donated $1million to Christchurch.  During the 2013 debate, John Key brings up Peter Thiel's donation, after Norman asks Key to clarify the relationship between the Prime Minister and Thiel.

Locally, here in California, Palantir has ties to policing and surveillance agencies, one example of which is Palantir's development of the license-plate scanner database.  As well, San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley are all members of the '100 Resilient Cities' program; Palantir developed the network to provide data management for cities, and connectivity between city government agencies.  City governments should be able to explain what the limits of Palantir's operational capabilities are, pertaining to '100 Resilient Cities' and to contracts with policing agencies.  There should be an explanation by local governments as to how a mass surveillance corporation - which has spied on activists and journalists - came to prominence.
=======================================================================================

http://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-nz/50HansD_20130612/c1454c726692811a26c216b5e668938c78cd05dd

Excerpt from New Zealand Parliamentary Debates
(HANSARD)
FINAL DAILY
Wednesday, 12 June 2013

Intelligence Agencies—Contracts with Palantir and Use of Data-mining Software

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: What intelligence agencies that he is responsible for, have contracts with Palantir; if so, what is the nature of those contracts?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): It is not my practice to discuss the operational capabilities or contracts of the New Zealand intelligence agencies. I do not believe it is in the public interest to do so.

Dr Russel Norman: Does intelligence data-mining company Palantir have any contracts with other New Zealand Government agencies or departments, such as the Police or Defence Force?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the intelligence agencies, it is not my practice to talk about who they have contracts with and who they do not. In terms of the Police or others, I am not in a position to answer that question.

Dr Russel Norman: Will he allow Palantir to embed one of its analysts in his Government, given that the company is advertising just such an embedded position?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What takes place in terms of the operational matters of intelligence agencies and any company they may contract with is a matter for them, and they would not reference that to me.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the job advert from Palantir for an embedded analyst in Government New Zealand—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the document, please?

Dr Russel Norman: It is a job advertisement from a company called Palantir—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, but where has the member sourced the advert from?

Dr Russel Norman: The document is from May 2013, and it was printed off the Palantir careers website.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Dr Russel Norman: Given that it is obvious his Government is using Palantir, will he cut Government ties with the company if it is proven to be involved in violating the privacy of New Zealanders through the PRISM spy system?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I have said on numerous occasions, it is not my policy—nor has it been any other Prime Minister’s policy—to talk about the operational matters of the Government Communications Security Bureau or SIS. What I can reconfirm for the member, though, is the same point I made yesterday: I am confident, on the legal advice that I have received from my agencies, that they act within the law at all times, and there have not been any occasions where the Government Communications Security Bureau has advised me that it has sought to circumvent the law.

Dr Russel Norman: Is his Government using Palantir to replicate the US PRISM spy system so that it can more intensely spy into every aspect of New Zealanders’ online activity?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is basing his question on a hypothetical assumption. As I said, I am not in a position to comment about what capability our intelligence agencies have or do not have. But what I can say, though, is that the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS have very clear rules under which circumstances they can gather information about New Zealanders. Those rules require, not least of all, me, as the Minister in charge, tosign the warrant. That warrant has to be recommended and supported by the Commissioner of Security Warrants. It is a very detailed and significant process.  The member knows that, and the reason he shakes his head in answer to those questions is that he is trying to delude members of the public. He sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee, he knows what goes on, and if he wants to carry on the act, he is free to do so, but I do not think he will convince very many New Zealanders.

Dr Russel Norman: How many times has he met or spoken to billionaire Peter Thiel, Palantir’s largest investor, and on what dates?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have those details with me, but if the member wants to put that down in writing, my office will be able to supply it to him.

Dr Russel Norman: In his talks with billionaire Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel did they ever discuss the opportunities for intelligence-related work in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have made it clear yesterday that I have never spoken to Peter Thiel about Palantir.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is an interesting answer from the Prime Minister, but my question was more general than that. It was about whether they ever discussed opportunities for intelligence-related work in New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: And the Prime Minister adequately addressed that question.

Dr Russel Norman: The Prime Minister discussed—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have ruled that the Prime Minister adequately addressed that question. Does the member—

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for clarity—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member—[Interruption] Order! The member is now disputing a ruling I have given.
The member has an additional—[Interruption] Order! The member has an additional supplementary question, if he wishes to use it.

Dr Russel Norman: How would he describe his relationship with Peter Thiel; is he someone he barely knows, like Ian Fletcher, who turned out to be his friend who he eats breakfast with and whom he called and offered a Government Communications Security Bureau top job to, and is this another example of the crony Government looking after its mates at the expense of New Zealanders’ right to live free from constant Government surveillance?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister can choose to answer that if he so wishes.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would describe my relationship as cordial. I have met Mr Thiel on a few occasions—I would have to go to check exactly, as I said, if the member wants to ask me. I have never had a discussion with Mr Thiel about Palantir or about intelligence matters. He is someone who happens to live a certain period of time in New Zealand. He was extremely generous after the Christchurch earthquake, as is a matter of record, and just because “Noddy”over there does not seem to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I acknowledge it was a very political question.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is calling a point of order, I will hear Dr Russel Norman.

Dr Russel Norman: I take offence at that comment. I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: And many on this side of the House would have taken offence at the question that was asked by the member.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: If members took offence at the question, they should have taken a point of order. To describe members of this
House as “Noddy” is just not on.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And I have ruled on the matter. In hindsight, I would have been better, probably, to rule the question out of order. The member got as good as he gave on that occasion.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If this is questioning a decision I have made, I am not prepared to entertain it. If it is a—[Interruption] Order! If it is a fresh point of order, I am certainly happy to entertain it.

Dr Russel Norman: Sure, a fresh point of order.  In an earlier supplementary question I asked the Prime Minister how many times—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The member is now starting to dispute a ruling that I have given.

Dr Russel Norman: No, I am not. It has got nothing to do with your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: The member had better not be.

Dr Russel Norman: The Prime Minister gave an answer to that question on how many times he had met Peter Thiel by saying he did not know and he would have to look it up, which is fair enough. It was a specific question. He now, in answer to supplementary question No. 7, has said: “Well, actually, I did meet him”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard quite sufficient. The member now is using the point of order system because he does notagree with the answer from the Prime Minister. That in itself will lead to disorder.

Clare Curran: Did the Government Communications Security Bureau—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would Clare Curran please ask her supplementary question.

Clare Curran: Did the Government Communications Security Bureau receive information from offshore intelligence partners about Kim Dotcom’s activities in New Zealand during its spying operation in December 2011?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that question is considerably wide of the initial question, and I am not in a position to answer it. I do not have those details with me in the House.

Clare Curran: Point of order. I am happy to rephrase that question.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! The Prime Minister has answered it quite adequately. He said that he did not have
those details in the House.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table selected pages from the affidavits supplied in the Kim Dotcom case, providing selected data that sets out the Federal Bureau of Investigation as being the source—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I accept that, I just want some advice from the Clerk as to whether that is now a matter before the courts. Leave is sought to table selected pages of the affidavit. Is there any objection to that being tabled? Yes, there is.