reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There are weapons being developed to target specific individuals by using their DNA and medical profiles. This raises concerns about privacy, especially in terms of commercial data protection. Over the past 20 years, expectations of privacy have diminished, particularly among younger generations. People willingly provide their DNA to companies like 23andMe, which then own and can potentially sell this data without sufficient intellectual property or privacy safeguards. The lack of legal and regulatory frameworks to address these issues is a problem. It is crucial to have an open and public political discussion about how to protect healthcare information, DNA data, and personal data, as adversaries may exploit this information for developing such weapon systems.

If you care about not being surveilled illegally, about the treatment of people who come into the country illegally but deserve adequate treatment, and about lives in Gaza, Ukraine, and worldwide where Palantir is used, you're gonna want the best software in the world because it's the only way you can reduce and more precisely target the people and justify it; and actually the only way where you can say this person did this and they deserve to go.

Speaker 0 says body cams ensure behavior because "we're constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on." He argues the first AI step for government is to "unify all of their data so it can be consumed and used by the AI model," bringing health data, EHRs, and genomic data into a single platform; the UAE has rich data, the NHS data is fragmented. He insists "data centers ... need to be in our countries" for privacy and security, likening them to airports and ports. He forecasts: "the last year you will ever log on to an Oracle system with a password" and "biometric logins" that use voice recognition and even "index finger on the return key." He cites ransomware with FBI advice to "Just pay them because there's nothing we can do about it." Speaker 1 adds: "there's an amazing opportunity to reimagine the state, the way that government functions, and the service that it can provide for its citizens."

The first thing a country needs to do is to unify all of their data so it can be consumed and used by the AI model. You have to take all of your healthcare data, your diagnostic data, your electronic health records, your genomic data. The NHS in The UK has an incredible amount of population data, but it's fragmented. We have to take all of this data we have in our country and move it into a single, if you will, unified data platform so that so we provide context. When we wanna ask a question, we've provided that AI model with all the data they need to understand our country. We need to unify all of the national data, put it into a database where it's easily consumable by the AI model, and then ask whatever question you like.

Gates was asked to condemn Microsoft's Azure program for allegedly leaking sensitive classified information to the CCP. He was also asked if he is pro-CCP. The speaker referenced the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's financial connections to the CCP and its ownership of Microsoft shares. Gates was asked again to condemn Microsoft's government Azure program for leaking classified information from the US military. Gates did not respond.

The discussion centers on the kill chain concept and Palantir’s role within it. One speaker explains that the system you call the kill chain was created privately, while publicly lawyers frame it as something like “tech for the amelioration of unwanted blah blah blah.” The term kill chain sounds good to him, though not originally Palantir’s; it’s a general military sequence from identifying a target to taking a life. Palantir’s contract added their software and artificial intelligence to the kill chain, making it quicker, and, in his view, “better and more violent.” He notes that stepping back to examine the actual application of these technologies can be destabilizing. Another speaker discusses a personal trajectory: Juan didn’t leave Palantir entirely for ethical reasons, only taking another job, but his motivation to speak out against Palantir grew after observing the Israeli invasion of Gaza following the October 7 attacks. Palantir has contracts with the Israeli Defense Forces, with the exact nature intentionally opaque, yet evidence suggests Palantir’s AI tech was used for target selection in Gaza. The speaker Carp embraces controversy as part of marketing, stating Palantir is comfortable being unpopular. He adds that Palantir works with health insurance companies to build AI for denials management to protect revenue, raising the question of whether Palantir’s AI should decide what care is covered for individuals. A third speaker explains the technical approach: they use what legal scholars call predicate-based search to identify indicators of potential bad behavior in a person’s life. In essence, Palantir makes software that helps customers collect and analyze data and then act on the analysis. By 2013, a decade after founding, Palantir’s client list included the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Marines, the Air Force, Special Operations Command, and more. Palantir already had contracts with the IRS to analyze taxpayer data to guide auditors to easier audits, handling financial information for many. They also had multiple contracts with the Department of Health and Human Services, whose core responsibility is Medicare and Medicaid, controlling millions of Americans’ health records and access to health care. A final speaker warns that as we increasingly live in a simulated world, we move toward governance by algorithm, governed by those influencing these AI systems to advance profit- or control-seeking objectives.

As artificial intelligence becomes more powerful, a debate is emerging over who should decide how critical data is used. Tech executives often argue they are best placed to manage AI because they understand it, but some employees say others should also have a say. At Google, more than 500 staff signed a letter urging the company not to allow its AI tools to be used for classified military operations. The employees argue that working closely with technology creates a responsibility to speak out. This is not the first time tech employees have raised concerns. Employees at Google, Amazon, and Microsoft previously voiced concerns about how their companies’ products might have been used by the Israeli military to target Palestinians during the Gaza war. Earlier whistleblowers, including Francis Haugen at Facebook, exposed how some social media companies engineered addiction, contributing to a major legal case against them. The stakes around AI are increasing. The US is in an AI race with China. Some companies argue that restrictions could put them at a disadvantage, especially with China, described by “Silicon Valley Hawks” as having no democratic constraints. Others warn that the risks of AI being used in unethical and dangerous ways are too great. At the same time, companies are taking a tougher stance on dissent, with protests leading to firings in some cases. In 2024, Google sacked 50 employees who had protested against the company selling cloud computing services to Israel. The transcript states that it ultimately is up to a company’s board to decide which principles are inviolable and where trade-offs are appropriate. It also raises the question, “who guards the Guardians?” and notes that in the absence of federal AI regulation in the US, that role may increasingly fall to tech employees themselves.

Speaker 1 says essential digital infrastructure must be secure and sovereign: "one of the most important things is not to put the digital infrastructure in place and make sure it is secure. And often, it needs to be sovereign." Data centers must be in our countries due to privacy: "Data centers, because of the privacy requirements around the data, need to be in our countries or they're not terribly useful. They need to be in our countries, but they also need to be secure." They foresee a passwordless future: "This is the last year you will ever log on to an Oracle system with a password." "By the middle of this year, I'm quite certain you are Tony Blair." Security will rely on biometrics: "The security system, we have biometric logins. The computer recognizes you." "There's no reason to enter a password. In fact, passwords are too easily stolen." They warn about ransomware: "The data centers and data is being taken hostage all over the world." "The ransomware business is a very, very good business." And a preemptive approach: "not after the data is stolen, but before the data is stolen. We can make sure that we're using the latest security technology, and it is going to be biometrics assisted by AI to make sure that you are, in fact, Tony Blair, and I'm sure you are."

Amnesty has expressed concerns about the UK government granting access to health data records to companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Palantir to build a COVID-19 database. They emphasize the need for transparency. However, the speaker disagrees with Amnesty, stating that it is unlikely for non-anonymized patient data to be shared with these companies. The speaker mentions that when signing up for services, it is mentioned that data may be used for purposes unrelated to healthcare and may not be anonymized. The speaker clarifies that they are not an expert but believes that Palantir does not have personalized data and only uses organized data. They mention their engagement with Palantir on a data dashboard project for the NHS, which did not involve personal medical records. The speaker is unsure if Palantir is working on a separate project involving personal records.

- The report centers on nearly a year of investigation into the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) and Larry Ellison, the world’s second-richest man, highlighting a close relationship between Ellison and the Israeli government, including Benjamin Netanyahu, and noting Ellison’s donations to Friends of the IDF as their biggest donor. Oracle, co-founded by Ellison, is described as on the verge of taking over the US version of TikTok, a platform influential with American youth. - The narrative emphasizes Ellison’s advocacy for the use of social media as a battlefield and identifies Oracle’s potential role in global information control through AI and data strategy. - Safra Catz, Oracle’s former CEO, is quoted as saying she wants to embed love and respect for Israel into American culture. The transcript also notes a controversial LinkedIn policy stance on hate speech, with a claim about “from the river to the sea.” - It is claimed that David Ellison, Larry Ellison’s son, owns Paramount, which recently took ownership of CBS News, run by Ari Wise, described as a “self-proclaimed Zionist fanatic.” The report asserts that anti-Zionism is equated with anti-Semitism in the narrative. - The event coverage includes a Dubai World Leaders Summit in February where Ellison, interviewed by Tony Blair, spoke about AI. Ellison allegedly proposed unifying national data into a single, easily consumable database for AI models. - The investigation indicates the UK government is starting to unify its data, with Blair’s Institute advising on this effort. Blair is depicted as a long-time advocate for ID cards and digital ID cards, proposing to bring together all personal data in one place. - The discussion contrasts the potential benefits of digital ID (faster, cheaper, more reliable interactions with the state) with the potential dangers of centralized personal data controlled by a single private company, noting Blair’s push and Oracle’s willingness to take on the role. It is noted that Ellison advocated for ID cards as far back as 2001. - The conversation expands to health data: a call to consolidate health care data, diagnostic data, electronic health records, and genomic data into a single unified data platform, arguing the NHS has a rich but fragmented population data set not easily accessible to AI models. These models are said to be trained mainly on data from the Internet, implying national health records are particularly valuable and not publicly available. - The report asserts deep TBI involvement in Keir Starmer’s government, creating a risk that valuable UK data could be co-opted by Ellison and Oracle for private gain. It claims Oracle has earned over £1.1 billion in UK government contracts and Ellison has already benefited from such arrangements. - It is alleged that Blair and Ellison have maintained a long relationship, with Blair appearing in Ellison’s yachts and on Lanai. Blair has recorded a video for Oracle; Ellison’s wealth and ventures are described through the rhetorical question about the difference between Larry Ellison and God, implying Ellison’s outsized influence and wealth. - The piece asserts the potential for surveillance-driven monetization through AI and data consolidation, with Ellison stating that citizens will be on their best behavior as data is constantly recorded, “the camera’s always on,” and that recordings are accessible only with a court order. - The report finishes by noting the influence of the Tony Blair Institute in UK policy, its international reach, and the concern that its promotion of big-tech and AI boosterism may overshadow the needs of local populations. It calls for further independent media scrutiny of big-tech lobbying and its impact on policy, inviting support for Double Down News on Patreon.

DNA companies are under scrutiny for potentially selling and weaponizing personal DNA information. It is claimed that a person's DNA and medical profile could be used to target them with a biological weapon. Concerns are raised about individuals willingly submitting their DNA to companies like 23 and Me, resulting in private companies owning and potentially selling that data. It is argued that open discussions are needed regarding the protection of healthcare and DNA information. The speaker asserts that adversaries could procure and collect this data to develop harmful systems.

Donald Trump suggested Elon Musk audit the federal government. One speaker believes AI can democratize government and increase transparency, or enslave citizens to the government and intelligence agencies, and that Musk understands this best. The Pentagon has failed every audit for the last 20 years and lost $4.3 trillion in the last audit. This money was primarily lost on equipment purchases whose locations are unknown, forcing the Pentagon to repurchase them. These problems are solvable with AI, which could track stockpiles and warehouses to identify the location of equipment.

Speaker 0 addresses Microsoft Azure, saying, “Like to condemn Microsoft Azure program for leaking sensitive classified information to the CCP.” The speaker then questions Bill Gates directly: “And then I think that Are you pro CCP, mister Gates? I understand your foundation owns a lot of Microsoft shares now, and your Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has heavily financed and is financially connected to the CCP.” The speaker asks, “So is that why you're not answering the questions about governments, Microsoft's Azure program, mister Gates?” Continuing, the speaker presses the issue: “Are you sure you don't wanna condemn them for leaking classified information from our US military?” The speaker reiterates the demand: “One more time, mister Gates. Would you like to condemn Microsoft's government Azure program for leaking classified information at the CCP?” The response implied by the transcript is “No? Okay.”

Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss the implications of AI in military use. They consider whether consumer AI is being bypassed with a secure, military-specific platform that would be sealed—essentially one-way in and no information out—for the Pentagon and military services. The key questions raised are: who controls the AI, who informs its algorithms, and who gives it its orders on how to answer questions, highlighting concerns about privatization and outsourcing of war. Speaker 1 argues that the future of war with AI hinges on two issues: ownership of AI platforms and the sources of their programming. They note that AI can deflect or defer to institutional structures rather than empirical accuracy, raising concerns about the reliability of information provided to military personnel. They also reference the myth that advancing technology automatically reduces civilian harm, citing that precision-guided munitions were designed for efficiency, not necessarily to prevent civilian casualties, noting that the intent was to reduce the number of bombs needed to achieve targets. The conversation shifts to the concept of precision in weapons. Speaker 1 points out that laser- and GPS-guided bombs were not primarily invented to minimize civilian casualties but to increase efficiency. They mention the small diameter bomb as an example, explaining that its use increases the number of bombs that can be deployed rather than primarily limiting collateral damage. The discussion then moves to real-world AI systems used in conflict zones. Speaker 1 cites Israeli programs—Lavender, Gospel, and Where’s Daddy?—as examples of nefarious and insidious AI in war. Lavender supposedly scans the Internet and other databases to identify targets, for example flagging someone as a Hamas supporter based on years of activity. Where’s Daddy? allegedly guides Israeli drones to strike fighters when they are with their families, not away from them. This reporting is linked to coverage from Israeli media and Nine Seven Two magazine, and Speaker 2 references Tucker Carlson’s coverage of these issues. Speaker 2 amplifies the point by noting the emotional impact of such capabilities, arguing that targeting men when they are with their children is particularly disturbing. They also discuss broader political reactions, including a remark attributed to Ambassador Huckabee about Israel not attacking Qatar but “sending a missile there” that injured nearby people. Speaker 1 concludes by invoking Orwell’s reflection on the Spanish Civil War, suggesting that those who cheer for war may be confronted by the consequences when modern aircraft enable distant bombing. They emphasize the need to make the costs of war felt by the ruling classes who benefit from it, not just the people on the ground.

Palantir is allegedly in partnership with the Netanyahu syndicate and the breakaways. The government pays Palantir massive amounts of money through contracts. A new sole-source ICE contract is on the way to Palantir. Palantir has Treasury, IRS, and Social Security data, and will soon have all ICE data. Trump wants to privatize Freddie and Fannie, but Palantir will underwrite all the packages, giving them all housing data. HHS is organizing all public and private health data, which is assumed to be going to Palantir as well. This data is being managed and privatized into AI. After XAI announced a partnership with Palantir, the government gave Palantir additional contracts. An income verification service suddenly had complete data on 100% of Americans after Doge got Treasury, Social Security, and IRS data. The ICE contract allows tracking immigrants' locations in real-time through Palantir back to ICE. The primary thing going on is building a complete biometric surveillance of the entire population.

Speaker 0 discusses The New York Times piece about Trump tapping Palantir to compile data on Americans, noting mixed reactions online and outlining the background. In March, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the federal government to share data across agencies, raising questions about a potential master list of personal information and untold surveillance power. Behind the scenes, officials have quietly placed technological building blocks to enable the plan, with Palantir—the data analysis and technology firm—playing a central role. Palantir is described as more than a data firm. The Trump administration has expanded Palantir’s work across the federal government in recent months. The company has received more than 113,000,000 in federal government spending since Trump took office, including new contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon, plus existing contracts. A separate note mentions a $795,000,000 Department of Defense contract awarded last week that has not yet been spent. Representatives of Palantir are said to be in discussions with at least two other agencies—the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service—about buying its technology, according to six government officials and Palantir employees. A key Palantir product, Foundry, is used in at least four federal agencies, including DHS and the HHS, widely adopted to organize and analyze data and to pave the way for merging information from different agencies. This is linked to the ability to create detailed portraits of Americans based on government data. Government officials say the administration has sought access to hundreds of data points on citizens and others through government databases, including bank account numbers, student debt amounts, medical claims, and disability status. Critics say such data access could be used to advance political agendas, policing immigrants, and punishing critics; privacy advocates, student unions, and labor rights organizations have filed lawsuits to block data access. A notable point in the piece is that Palantir’s selection as a chief vendor was driven by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, with at least three Doge members formerly at Palantir and two others who had worked at Peter Thiel-funded companies. Some current and former Palantir employees have expressed unease, with 13 former employees signing a letter urging Palantir to stop its endeavors with President Trump, including Linda Shah, a Palantir engineer who left last year, who said the concern was not the technology but how the administration planned to use it. The article also notes Palantir’s main products: Foundry and Gotham, the latter described as helping organize and draw conclusions from data and tailored for security and defense purposes. Gotham is interpreted by some as precrime software. Palantir was founded with initial funding from the CIA’s venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel, and Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, and In-Q-Tel also funded Founders Fund. Speaker 1 interjects with a quote from Palantir’s Alex Karp claiming Palantir built PG to stop the rise of the far right in Europe and to distribute the COVID vaccine with Foundry, and to create a “digital kill chain.” Speaker 0 questions the desirability of a technology that compiles banking data, social security information, online presence, and other personal data for precrime analysis across government, especially under an administration associated with claims of stopping a far-right rise. The discussion continues with concerns about the potential weaponization of data and the implications for speech, political ideology, and dissent.

The transcript surveys Palantir’s rise as a powerful data analytics company intertwined with government and military aims, emphasizing how fear, surveillance, and control have shaped its growth and public image. It frames Palantir as aiming to become “the ultimate military contractor and the ultimate arbiter of all of our data,” with its software described as enabling governments and major institutions to collect, analyze, and act on vast datasets, including in war zones. Key points include: - Palantir’s positioning and clients: The company claims it can revolutionize government systems with AI-powered data analysis and has been hired by the Department of Defense, the FBI, local police, the IRS, and other entities, including non-government customers like Wendy’s. Its business model is described as transforming “information those organizations collect, collect even more information, and use that data to draw conclusions.” - The kill chain concept and AI: Palantir’s tech is linked to the “kill chain,” a military term for the series of decisions leading to targeting and potentially taking life. Palantir’s contract adds AI to this chain, making it “quicker and better and safer and more violent.” - Founding story and rhetoric: Palantir traces its origins to a PayPal-connected network (the “PayPal mafia”) and to Alex Karp, who studied neoclassical social theory, with the company named after Tolkien’s Palantir. Middle-earth imagery is used to juxtapose potential good versus dangerous power. - Data, surveillance, and ontology: The software is described as capable of reconfiguring an organization’s ontology—what systems matter, what information matters, how processes are structured, and what biases are introduced. - Inside views and ethics: A former Palantir employee, Juan, explains his departure and later criticisms after observing the Israeli invasion of Gaza; Palantir’s involvement with the Israeli Defense Forces is noted, though contract details are opaque. The claim is that Palantir’s AI may have been used for target selection. - Revenue and focus on government: In 2024 Palantir earned nearly $2.9 billion, with 55% from government sources, most of it American. Palantir’s CTO Sham Sankar is cited with a Defense Reformation rhetoric that aligns with the Defense Innovation Board’s push to fund emerging tech, suggesting a fusion of defense spending and Palantir’s growth. - Domination and market strategy: Palantir is depicted as striving to be the “US government’s central operating system,” with Doge (an internal effort) aimed at unifying data across agencies like the IRS and Health and Human Services, potentially giving one contractor broad access to Americans’ data and health records. - Corporate culture and risk: The company is described as comfortable being unpopular, with leaders like Peter Thiel investing heavily and having a role in politics; Karp emphasizes civil liberties in terms of lawful use of government data and its potential misapplication. - Ethical tension and viewpoint: The piece notes that Palantir’s reach could enable governance by algorithm and automated decision-making, potentially reshaping personal lives, battlefields, and governance. The founders’ ownership structure preserves control through class voting shares. - Final reflections: The speakers argue that criticizing the system is fraught because watching and fear can silence dissent, and warn against replacing a broken system with an even more broken one, urging vigilance over who wields powerful data and AI.

Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Finance are all involved in promising that data will improve our healthcare, making it more convenient, affordable, and keeping us healthier. However, global organizations and governments are also entering this space. The future of healthcare lies in the digitalization of the system, which is essential as our healthcare systems will eventually collapse without it. It's remarkable how similar the messages from politics, business, science, and media are. Is this really just about our health, or could there be other interests at play?

Weapons are being developed to target specific individuals using their DNA and medical profiles. This raises privacy concerns, especially with the degradation of privacy expectations over the last twenty years. People willingly submit their DNA to companies like 23 and Me, resulting in private companies owning and potentially selling their DNA with minimal privacy protection. Current legal and regulatory systems are inadequate to address this. An open, public, and political discussion is necessary to determine how to protect healthcare information, DNA, and personal data, as adversaries will collect this data to develop these targeted weapon systems.

The discussion centers on Palantir Technologies and a proposed March 2025 executive order that would require federal agencies to share and control data, aiming to centralize government data using Palantir’s Foundry platform. It is claimed that Palantir has already deployed Foundry in at least four agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, and that the company has received over $113 million in federal contracts since Trump took office, with a recent $795 million Department of Defense contract. The speakers allege that the initiative could enable a comprehensive database on all Americans—“light years beyond Real ID, the Patriot Act, and Prism”—and that those who control it seek “complete power over you and everyone else.” They warn of mass surveillance and privacy violations, lack of oversight, and potential political abuse. Key concerns include the breadth of data that Palantir’s system could merge, such as bank accounts, medical records, driving records, student debt, disability status, political affiliation, credit card expenditures, online purchases, tax filings, and travel and phone records, creating “detailed profiles on every single American.” The speakers argue this centralization would enable unchecked monitoring with “zero oversight,” increasing data security risks and the potential for breaches, leaks, or mismanagement. They emphasize a history of opaqueness in Palantir’s operations and tie the company’s AI tools to predictive policing and military applications lacking public accountability. They cite Palantir’s CEO Alex Karp as having controversial views and describe the firm as aligned with a profit-driven push for technomilitarism. The talk links Palantir to broader power dynamics, including ties to Elon Musk’s and Peter Thiel’s spheres, and suggests a technocratic oligarchy could emerge that prioritizes corporate and political agendas over public interest. While acknowledging stated goals like fraud detection and national security, the speakers assert the lack of checks and balances, and fear that the surveillance infrastructure would be embedded to be expanded by future governments. The “kill chain” terminology is discussed both in military and cyber contexts, with Palantir’s Gotham platform described as designed to shorten the kill chain by fusing large datasets into actionable intelligence, enabling faster targeting decisions. They provide examples like the use of Palantir to improve the accuracy and speed of Ukraine’s artillery strikes and, publicly, the Israeli Defense Forces’ use for striking targets in Gaza. The segment also mentions Palantir’s use in predictive policing, including tools used by the Los Angeles Police Department, and argues that Palantir aims to track “everybody, not just immigrants.” The speakers conclude that this centralized system is “light years beyond Real ID, the Patriot Act, or Prism” and advocate resisting it and “thinking of ways we can break the links in the kill chain.”