Opinion writer argues Palantir chore coat is tainted by surveillance firm's government ties
The garment, described as a traditional French working-class item, is now viewed by critics as "cursed" due to the company's association with military drone programs and domestic surveillance systems.
Opinion columnist Van Badham has criticised AI surveillance firm Palantir for releasing a chore coat as part of a new corporate merchandise range. The author argues that the brand is now tainted by the company's association with authoritarian surveillance, stating that the contamination makes the wearer feel compelled to incinerate the item.
According to the article, Palantir explicitly avoided "bland corporate polos or vests" to create a distinct brand identity, opting instead for the traditional 19th-century French working-class garment known as a veste de travail. While the style is associated with figures like Paul Newman and Jeremy Allen White, Badham contends the item has become a cultural victim of a megacorp with a market capitalisation exceeding $325 billion.
The piece highlights Palantir's significant footprint in Australia, noting the firm has accumulated $80 million in government contracts within the country alone, alongside $160 million in investment. This local presence is set against a backdrop of global use by militaries and police forces for drone programs and criminal profiling, including operations by the Pentagon and the IDF in Gaza.
Critics have described Palantir's recent manifesto as resembling "Robocop" or the "ramblings of a supervillain," with UK politicians from both governing and opposition parties echoing these sentiments. The controversy extends to co-founder Peter Thiel, who is noted for building a bunker in New Zealand and funding far-right political influence operations.
Palantir CEO Alex Karp previously stated to shareholders that the company's role includes the necessity to "scare enemies and, on occasion, to kill them." In response to calls for its banning in Australia, a spokesperson reportedly replied that the company was "proud" its software was used to "keep Australians safe and tackle financial crime," though the definition of safety remains a point of contention.
Despite Palantir describing itself as "just a software company" that provides tools for organising information, with usage determined by the customer, the columnist argues that sovereign democracies should restrict the firm. Badham concludes that governments should not hand sensitive data to such entities, particularly given the rewards far-right influence campaigns receive when governments partner with corporations people already distrust.