2/15/2026 at 6:14:56 PM
It seems like the sole purpose of palantir is to give data to the government they wouldnt have access to without a warrant. So now everyone is just being warrantlessly surveiled??? The difference between now and a few years ago seems to be that companies are assisting law enforcement with even more advanced datacollection.by marysminefnuf
2/15/2026 at 6:18:30 PM
This is a very accurate take. There is a ton of collection that the government is explicitly not allowed to do. However, the ability to purchase this data is much less regulated. So the work around is, get contractors to do the data collection and then purchase that data.by bebop
2/15/2026 at 8:21:37 PM
The government gets to ignore the will of its people and companies get to be middlemen leeches, it's perfect really.by glaslong
2/15/2026 at 8:53:34 PM
[flagged]by themafia
2/16/2026 at 12:57:26 AM
Over 50k USD dollars!by copperx
2/16/2026 at 8:32:40 AM
Noob question: how private orgs can do surveillance that government can’t?Could I - as an individual - do such surveillance[1]? Won’t three letter agency knock on my door? Is there a difference between digital surveillance and physical surveillance?
[1] obviously at smaller scale, but imagine same level of creepiness.
by trymas
2/16/2026 at 3:47:23 PM
create an LLC and start doing online marketing ("online marketing").you're a marketing company. you're gathering data for data mining that you will sell to other brokers. lots of small or niche marketing firms out there.
could you do it as one (1) person? might be hard. but you and a few coworkers / employees is perfectly reasonable.
chances are you won't sell directly to the government but to an aggregator, but it's not crazy to think that a small org could potentially sell to the gub'mnt if the data is juicy enough. would have to be very niche stuff though, like maps of labor / union folks, or data tracking Islamic prayer app use, etc.
keep in mind that being a government vendor means you have to jump through certain hoops, and those can be onerous, but again, not theoretically impossible.
by red-iron-pine
2/16/2026 at 1:40:06 PM
Not as an individual but as a business basically yesby awakeasleep
2/15/2026 at 7:05:29 PM
There needs to be a landmark supreme court case that decides that "Search and Seizure" protections include paying corporations for the sought after items.by colechristensen
2/15/2026 at 7:38:37 PM
As long as Alito and Thomas are still alive, this will never happen. I have no doubt that both of them have been the recipients of Peter Thiel's "generosity".by b00ty4breakfast
2/15/2026 at 9:54:51 PM
> As long as Alito and Thomas are still alive, this will never happen.Unless the court shrinks down to three seats (or four, if the Circuits cooperate) Alito and Thomas alone can’t dictate the way the Court treats the issue.
by dragonwriter
2/15/2026 at 9:52:00 PM
It’s not just Alito and Thomas who have been hostile to the 4th amendment, disrespect for the 4th amendment has been a bipartisan affair for 50 years.I don’t see why anyone is downvoting this, it’s trivial to see the history of votes on 4th amendment cases. Terry v Ohio is a great example.
by ch4s3
2/15/2026 at 11:31:35 PM
because this isn't simply a matter of the constitution, it involves a massive corporation and both of these men have been caught receiving gifts from wealthy "friends" then openly refusing to cooperate when this information came to light.We are assuming they are the only 2 doing (and as far as I know, none of the other judges have been implicated) but that's like finding two drunk guys passed out on a bench on a college campus and assuming that binge drinking isn't rampant in college.
by b00ty4breakfast
2/15/2026 at 11:41:25 PM
You’re claim is totally unrelated to what I’m saying.by ch4s3
2/15/2026 at 8:16:33 PM
I thought Carpenter vs United States was that case, but apparently it wasn't. Terry stops by local officers based on tips from regional Fusion Centers via WhatsApp sounds less unusual every day. Parallel construction has become a long-established technique.by leftbrainstrain
2/15/2026 at 10:51:22 PM
I would hope this case wouldn't be hard to make. If the government isn't allowed to censor people through third parties (e.g., threaten onerous investigations of a platform unless a specific person is kicked off), the government shouldn't be allowed to conduct unreasonable searches through a third party. Would we be okay if the FBI contracted with private detective firms to conduct warrantless searches?by vharuck
2/16/2026 at 11:23:01 AM
But what would be the legal basis for such a decision?by rayiner
2/15/2026 at 8:29:46 PM
I don't want to see any more landmark cases from the current supreme court.by thfuran
2/16/2026 at 8:11:27 PM
At times, depending on the state, the government can even put out RFCs specifically to ask for corporations to bid on providing data that the government can't collect itself.by FireBeyond
2/15/2026 at 7:23:46 PM
Purchase? You're misunderstanding how government consultancy works (this is what EU states use consultancy firms for, and that's what Palantir really is)A purchase works as follows: I like ice cream. I give you 5$. You give me an ice cream. I enjoy ice cream.
This is: government likes private health data. Hospital gives Palantir 5$, and your health data, repeat for 1 million patients. Palantir gives the health data to government, employs the nephew of the head of the healthcare regulator. Your unemployment gets denied because the doctor said you could work.
Buying means exchanging money for goods and services. This is exchanging money AND goods AND services for nothing. It's highly illegal for private companies, if you try it you'll get sued by the tax office the second they see it and find all company accounts blocked "just in case", but of course if you are the government, directly or indirectly, it's just fine and peachy.
And you might think "this makes no sense". But you'd be advised to check out who appoints the head of the hospital first. It does make sense. (In fact just about the only break on this behavior in most EU countries is that the Vatican still has control over the board of a very surprising number of hospitals. Needless to say, the EU governments really hate that, but there tend to be deals around this. For example, in Belgium the hospitals get 50% less per resident. These sorts of deals were made, but they now mean that if the government wants the Vatican out of the board ... they have to increase spending on that hospital, often by a lot. I'd call them "Vatican hospitals" but one thing government and the Vatican really agree on is that they do not want patients to know the underlying financial arrangements around hospitals, and in many cases it's quite difficult to find who controls a hospital even though it's technically public information)
by spwa4
2/15/2026 at 7:39:06 PM
> Palantir gives the health data to governmentIce cream was sellers when they were selling it, but not the data, data belongs to someone else, who didn't explicitly allow selling it
by throwaw12
2/15/2026 at 8:17:02 PM
The problem with today's society is you walk into a hospital bleeding and they make you sign an ultimatum.Legally this should be treated as signing under duress and invalidated.
If someone's life or well-being depends on it, and undergoing services in not a choice, terms and conditions should not be legally allowed to be unilaterally dictated by one party.
by dheera
2/15/2026 at 9:13:15 PM
Fun fact: it’s illegal to open new hospitals without the permission of the government.There are multiple layers of corruption at work here. (They also cap the number of doctors, and clinics, etc).
by sneak
2/15/2026 at 9:20:26 PM
> it’s illegal to open new hospitals without the permission of the government.This doesn't seem surprising on its face given that a hospital is, not unreasonably, a heavily regulated entity.
by woodruffw
2/16/2026 at 12:44:04 AM
“on its face” is doing the heavy lifting here. Banking is highly regulated but you don’t need government permission to open new branches. The food supply chain is heavily regulated but you don’t need government permission to start new restaurants.The supply of medical care, from operating rooms to doctors themselves, is heavily controlled by the state. There are billions, perhaps trillions of dollars that would flow into reducing the cost and increasing the availability of high quality medical care in the US if this were not so.
The demand is through the roof and will continue to rise. But the right to supply is only handed out to cronies.
by sneak
2/16/2026 at 2:15:18 AM
> Banking is highly regulated but you don’t need government permission to open new branches.The closer economic unit would probably be a bank itself, and to my understanding you do effectively need the government’s permission to open one of those.
by woodruffw
2/16/2026 at 4:07:20 AM
> don’t need government permission to start new restaurantsZoning, construction permits, occupancy permits, patio permits, food licenses, liquor licenses, health inspections, dumpster permits, etc
by myroon5
2/16/2026 at 9:49:57 AM
All of those are normal things for operating any business, and are not limited in the usual case.Liquor licenses notwithstanding.
There is no default-deny for getting a business license or opening a restaurant in a commercially zoned area, anyone can do it. Licensing and permission aren’t quite the same thing.
by sneak
2/15/2026 at 8:00:50 PM
in Western history, culturally, Church was a founding force for the existance of hospitals, full-stop. Repeat with more money and more fallable humans and yes some of what you say is accurate. But, if you start naming the behavior as if it is synonymous with the original founders of Hospitals, you a) create an intellectual dishonesty on your part, b) attract wing-nuts and sociopaths who are looking for a place to join in the chanting, c) obscure important details while the casual readers focus on the glaring finger pointing.If you want to actually contribute to this very difficult topic, please refrain from welding disparate labels together in the introductory materials.
by mistrial9
2/16/2026 at 7:52:18 PM
Oh I fully realize that the original hospitals were ... let's say better than the gutter by about 10%, and no more than that. Both for the patients and everyone else in the street or even city.And I do realize the only reason the Vatican management is better is because the Vatican is ALSO corrupt ... but with different masters. The improvement is coming from the conflict between these groups. I do get the impression the Vatican is actually the more moral of the two parties, meaning compared to the government, but not by a huge margin.
by spwa4
2/15/2026 at 8:06:35 PM
The way I read it, GP is saying that the Vatican's influence reduces such unethical distribution of medical information. Your response reads like a rebuttal, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say, nor rebut.by wizzwizz4
2/15/2026 at 8:22:44 PM
>in most EU countries is that the Vatican still has control over the board of a very surprising number of hospitals.>Needless to say, the EU governments really hate that
> if the government wants the Vatican out of the board ... they have to increase spending on that hospital, often by a lot. I'd call them "Vatican hospitals"
> one thing government and the Vatican really agree on is that they do not want patients to know the underlying financial arrangements around hospitals
> in many cases it's quite difficult to find who controls a hospital even though it's technically public information)
I am responding to these somewhat "breathless" statements that imply more than they delineate. My rebuttal is that these words frame a kind of inquiry that is common among conspiracy-attracted commentors.
The subject deserves more rigor and less insinuation IMO.
by mistrial9
2/15/2026 at 9:12:40 PM
The naivete or complacency of people who work for so-called "tech" companies that perform wanton, surreptitious data collection about computer users as their core "business model" is illustrated by the belief that what is significant for the surveillance target is how the data is usedThus, a company performing data collection and sharing it with the government may trigger nerd rage whereas company performing data collection and using the data to help profile ad targets triggers nerd advocacy, i.e., attempts to defend the practice of data collection with "justifications" that have no limit in their level of absurdity
For the surveillance target (cf. the surveilling company), what is significant about data collection is not how the data is used, it is how the data _could_ be used, which is to say, what is significant about data collection is (a) the fact that data is collected at all, not (b) what may or may not happen after the data is collected
Moreover, despite equivocal statements of reassurance in unenforceable "privacy policies" and the like, (b) is often practically impossible for those outside the company and its partners to determine anyway
Hypothetical: Trillion-dollar public company A whose core "business" is data collection and surveillance-supported advertising services takes a nosedive due to unforseen circumstances that affect its ability to sell ad services. Meanwhile, billion-dollar public company B whose core business is data collection and surveillance services for goverments sees their business on the rise. Company A decides to acquire or compete with company B
There is nothing that limits company A's use of the data it has collected for whatever purpose the company and Wall Street deems profitable
As such, the significant issue for the surveillance target is (a) not (b)
Focusing on the fact that company B assists governments whilst company A assists advertisers is a red herring
Once the data is collected, it's too late
by 1vuio0pswjnm7
2/16/2026 at 7:20:33 PM
Getting call records from the phone company, a private business that collects it's users' data, used to require a warrant. Why is it different now? Only because it's so trivial to hand over access to the database? I think in the past, the only thing that provided protection from illegal searches and seizures was the physical impracticality and friction involved in doing so. The warrant just allowed LEOs to dedicate their limited resources to a particular search. That is no longer a constraint.by hydrogen7800
2/15/2026 at 7:15:13 PM
They figured out that if the government does something it is opposed by a lot of people. But if a company says they'll collect information from every single customer in exchange for some worthless token, people will willingly provide all their information to said company. And those companies will either sell that info to governments or give it away with a little ask... So, the private economy has become the biggest contributor to the surveillance state.by coliveira
2/15/2026 at 8:57:15 PM
What people have "willingly" given their data directly to any company? It's usually buried in an agreement or hidden behind some dark pattern.Suing your government generates results. Suing a company usually results in it shedding it's shell corporation and taking it's assets where you can't get them.
Selling user data needs to be a federal criminal offense. You need to go to jail for doing this. You need 15+ years in prison for doing this or enabling this in bulk. Let's start talking asset forfeiture next.
by themafia
2/15/2026 at 9:54:51 PM
Exactly. Most people just don't know how much data is being collected on them, and probably can't know at this point. I say can't because the reality sounds so much like a conspiracy theory that a majority of people would simply reject the truth outright.by BobbyJo
2/15/2026 at 7:06:57 PM
I keep thinking about the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Illegal data gathering was a big deal only 10 years ago. It seems like with businesses like Palantir that this behavior has been normalized to the point where what was unthinkably bad 10 years ago is just business as usual today.by runarberg
2/15/2026 at 8:46:37 PM
It’s more that many adult citizens (and increasing every year) have grown up with the patriot act and liberties being stripped away in the name of security.I talked with cousins about it 8 years ago and I got laughed at as a conspiracy nut for saying that our personal data will be used against us if we allow it. People either don’t understand or don’t care because they’ve grown comfortable with it.
by robby_w_g
2/15/2026 at 6:18:25 PM
> So now everyone is just being warrantlessly surveiled???It's been like that for a while; I don't think either side of America's political aisle has the heart to extricate themselves of such a privilege.
by bigyabai
2/15/2026 at 6:23:01 PM
correctPBS's _spying on the homefront_ piece from 2007 already described this very kind of omniscient private database.
The government itself isn't constitutionally allowed to build or run anything of the kind, but it can commission friends in the private sector to do one and query it with little to no oversight
I am definitely not uploading my face and ID on Discord or any site
by hinata08
2/15/2026 at 6:41:09 PM
How is it guaranteed to be the same accuracy of data that is not retrieved through a warrant ?by pylua
2/15/2026 at 6:42:44 PM
It just needs to be accurate-enough to eventually get a warrant.by pavel_lishin
2/15/2026 at 6:45:57 PM
you don't need warrants to query these databasesThey went from warrant, to FISA, to just write a request about a name, to more or less describe a vague group of ppl on whom you want the data
You should watch this show. It's available online and pretty informative.
If things weren't bad enough in 2007, things that have changed since then are most notably the cloud act that was created, Ring that started to "backup" your home CCTV in the cloud, then also Ring that enabled so called "Search Parties" and made a superball ad about it
by hinata08
2/15/2026 at 6:59:22 PM
Right, I understand they don't need a warrant for the databases. I'm saying that they use the databases to get enough data for a warrant that they wouldn't be able to get without the databases.by pavel_lishin
2/15/2026 at 8:17:17 PM
Parallel construction. They get enough data, legal or not, to know who to look for. Then they surveil you until you slip.by greedo
2/15/2026 at 9:15:47 PM
Your bank and mobile data carrier and cable company already did for you, on your behalf. It’s all searchable via your phone number, which you have to provide to all the apps you DO sign up for, so they can easily query your name, photo, address, purchase history, etc.by sneak
2/15/2026 at 9:09:56 PM
Did you notice how the Dow is 50,000 ?by belter
2/16/2026 at 10:29:22 PM
wasby red-iron-pine
2/15/2026 at 6:28:49 PM
Well, you know it's that time again...In Capitalist Russia, you are on surveillance by bought off government;
In Soviet America, government bought off by surveillence on you!
by einpoklum
2/15/2026 at 8:12:50 PM
It is like 1984. But shit.by shevy-java
2/15/2026 at 8:37:25 PM
It's wild they we are happily buying telescreens. Who would have imagined pre-2000s that would actually happen. And that the number one defense of capitalism would be to use telescreens as an example 'but look at how cheap your telescreen is, TVs were so expensive'.by _DeadFred_
2/15/2026 at 6:59:23 PM
It's a software company, it sells software. You can literally go read the docs. It doesn't magically bypass the law anymore than Microsoft Sharepoint does.by crimsoneer
2/15/2026 at 7:06:55 PM
Do you expect palantir's public documentation to explain how they operate as a spy agency?by malfist
2/15/2026 at 7:12:46 PM
[flagged]by crimsoneer
2/15/2026 at 7:26:11 PM
They don't need a backdoor, the whole company is a backdoor receiving sensitive information from governments 24x7.by coliveira
2/15/2026 at 7:34:04 PM
So Palantir receives info from governments only to… hand it back to them? It seems like most people really don’t know what Palantir actually does and are just speculating.by jonnybgood
2/15/2026 at 8:37:10 PM
No, we know very well how they operate. They're paid to get all kinds of sensitive information from governments and other institutions around the world and store it in their very "secure" data centers. Once there, the US government can easily get any of that information for "national security reasons", because how would they say otherwise, and the Israeli government can do the same as well without even announcing anything, because how would the US government ever say "no" to them... It's all just obvious at this point.by coliveira
2/15/2026 at 8:36:15 PM
> has anybody found any evidence..or are we just speculating?that’s what the article is discussing? the journalists found evidence.
i’m confused what you’re confused about.
this whole entire comment section is birthed from the evidence someone found.
by toofy
2/15/2026 at 9:13:50 PM
Did you read the article? There's no evidence cited in it at all. This comment thread made me think "wow, Palantir must be selling PHI to the mob" or something, and The Intercept has the receipts, but the article simply states that Palantir has a contract to run medicaid billing. It then goes on to say that Palantir also works with other government agencies like ICE (bad), and the Israelis (worse than ICE), and the UK (they've crossed the line now!)It's entirely left up to the reader to fill in the blanks that whatever is going on with this contract is nefarious and bad.
The Intercept used to do good work, but this article is complete trash. At least the author was self aware enough to reference the 2016 reporting.
by remarkEon
2/16/2026 at 12:00:47 AM
what evidence are you looking for?there is absolutely evidence a government agency is using palantir. the very beginning of the article:
> New York City’s public hospital system is paying millions to Palantir ... automated scanning of patient health notes to “Increase charges captured from missed opportunities,” contract materials reviewed by The Intercept show.
later it explains:
> Palantir’s contract with New York’s public health care system allows the company to work with patients’ protected health information, or PHI ... Palantir can “de-identify PHI and utilize de-identified PHI for purposes other than research,” the contract states.
so a government agency is allowing palantir access to private health information to use for other purposes other than research.
again, i dont know what kind of "evidence" you're looking for, but much of the conversation ive seen revolves around those two pieces of the article.
those two pieces of "evidence" i find to be terrifying if it were any data brokerage, but considering what we know about palantir and its founders/leaders its even moreso. and again, it seems entirely appropriate for the discussions to happen from the "evidence" the article puts forward.
the government should not be sharing private health information with private corporations "...for purporses other than research" and it absolutely shouldnt be using those data brokers to sidestep warrantless data collection protections.
if you think the government should be able to amass enormous dossiers on all of its citizens, thats fine, you're entirely within your right to think thats rad, but we're also allowed to think this directional shift is absolutely terrifying.
by toofy
2/16/2026 at 2:54:00 AM
So, again, there are two relevant paragraphs in this whole article and all they do is point out that New York is paying Palantir to optimize their billing infrastructure, and then it observes that, in order to do this, New York is also giving them PHI that Palantir is permitted to de-identify and use for other "research" purposes.This tells us almost nothing. You're obviously a cynic (understandable) about technology here, but this journalist could've done a lot more work to actually explain to the reader the nature of this so-called "research". Is it defined in the contract (most likely)? How long do they get access to this data? Are there other constraints? Has Palantir violated any terms of this contract (The Intercept is intimating that they are in at position to know this, since they have the contract materials so they say) with regard to use of this data? Are there reporting requirements if the terms of the contract are violated? Is Palantir required to notify New York about the use of PHI for these research purposes?
The Intercept doesn't tell us any of this, which to me suggests that there's not a lot of "there" there. Did they ask anyone in a position to know about the contract? No, they didn't, all they did was send a gotcha email to the mayor's office. This is not journalism.
>the government should not be sharing private health information with private corporations
How exactly do you think Medicaid/Medicare works? Private corporations handle PHI all the time. There is an entire industry that exists to do exactly that.
>if you think the government should be able to amass enormous dossiers on all of its citizens,
TFA doesn't say this.
Look, Palantir and others involved in XKS and all the rest of warrantless and illegal surveillance activity do not get the benefit of the doubt. My problem here is that this article is shit, is intended to generate clicks, and the quality of investigative journalism on this topic is a pile of hot garbage. There's dozens of other questions this journalist should've gone out and investigated but, no, it was easier to drop in two paragraphs that tell the reader nothing, and then build up a bunch of ancillary observations about other work that governments and private corporations do (all legal, btw) to make everything sound as inflammatory as possible without actually informing anyone of anything.
by remarkEon
2/16/2026 at 5:51:32 AM
Considering that other agencies have been using palantir (and other data whores) to sidestep established norms on gathering/using information against its citizens, and considering that the article pointed to just some of the other well known instances of those other agencies using that private company, i think its entirely reasonable for people to discuss "this situation is concerning".if we take all context away and only look at this in some weird isolated island, sure, "lets wait for more information", but ignoring wide swaths of context is honestly kind of silly. we don't do that in the real world: courts take context into consideration, military takes context into consideration, board rooms take context into consideration, household planning takes context into consideration, data hoarding takes context into consideration, and on and on. when we consider wider context, yes, this is an incredibly worrying trend.
i don't know how many different government agencies would need to feed data/slurp data to/from these private data brokers before you would feel comfortable calling it out, but it clearly isn't at that point yet, and that's ok. you're entitled to your opinions, and so is everyone else. much of the conversation here indicates those people are concerned that its very quickly getting worse.
it doesn't matter if its bush's administration, clinton's, biden's, or trump's, this is gathering momentum and i think its wrong, regardless of who is in charge.
we've been moving towards a situation where privacy dynamics are flipping on their head. we are now at a point where those with the most power expect complete privacy and cry foul when people reveal their deeds. while those with the least amount power, if they wish to engage with society on any meaningful level are forbidden to have privacy. this is yet another example of the government and private companies working together making this new lack of privacy dynamic worse.
> if you think the government should be able to amass enormous dossiers on all of its citizens,
you're correct here, i misspoke, i should have said access rather than amass:
if you think the government should be able to access enormous dossiers amassed by a private company to use against its citizens that's fine, you're entirely within your right to think that's rad, but others are also allowed to think this directional shift is absolutely terrifying.
by toofy
2/16/2026 at 6:24:45 AM
Okay, so, your point appears to be that the government sharing any data with the private sector for any purpose is axiomatically bad, and this is because your null hypothesis is that doing so is going to have deleterious effects on privacy norms. If that's your point, it's certainly a defensible one. My original point was that this article does not provide evidence one way or another in that regard because it is (very) poorly researched and executed. Perhaps I am making a meta point that, in order for those who hold your views to more convincingly argue the case, the evidentiary standards need to be raised because otherwise it just looks like noise - and in particular re: Palantir, there is an enormous amount of FUDD and mystery (intentional or otherwise) around what they do, and as a result of this people reflexively revert to "data sharing bad, BigCorp evil" like this is a Marvel comic book movie. Not saying you are doing that, but any time this company comes up the comments become retrenched and the usual technical depth that this website is supposed to be known for goes out the window.by remarkEon
2/16/2026 at 3:41:49 PM
The logic you're applying here is "ICE uses an iPhone app to illegally scan people's faces and hunt them down" -> "Every hospital's iPhone app is just a tool to send your private data to the feds".by deaux
2/15/2026 at 9:05:45 PM
Sorry, where? Maybe I've missed something, but the article is just about their health business growing in New York rather than an illegal data backdoors?by crimsoneer
2/15/2026 at 9:55:12 PM
There's no evidence it's just speculation. Microsoft has a contract with the same exact orgs. So does AWS. Anyone with a little bit of common sense would know that. Palantir's CEO and Peter Thiel are not particularly well liked so presumably people are speculating without any evidence at all. Could there be an issue? Yes, absolutely but not just with Palantir but let's not let facts get in the way of a narrative. In any event I think the question of data being shared with the government could be a problem even if the software was made in house and then open sourced by the hospital (which is itself ridiculous to expect but this is HN) because the hospital themselves could provide the data to the government. At this point someone might say "no that won't happen because hospitals are nice and Palantir is evil" or "there are laws" but I am not sure why Palantir would be exempt unless anyone has proof or anything besides a vibes based argument but then we're back to square one.by onetimeusename
2/16/2026 at 12:13:38 AM
was someone arguing there are illegal backdoors?by toofy
2/15/2026 at 7:15:58 PM
Your link and description of it as a software company are irrelevant to the discussion, which concerns their retention and use of personal data. I welcome anyone to give their disclosure a critical reading. (They promise to follow the law- whew!)by oscaracso
2/15/2026 at 7:22:54 PM
You mean the logging of their web traffic and communications with them like every corporate website does? Can you specify?by jonnybgood