The mysterious work of the planter and its founder, the original Trump ally and anti-press crusader Peter Thiel, has been the subject of numerous controversies in recent years, and is not so controversial in its ongoing business with the ICE. But with direct listing all around the corner, the famous secret company is in for a lot of scrutiny.
In the forthcoming S-1 filing of Polanter acquired by TechRunch, the public company will soon allay concerns about maintaining its brand reputation as some of its contracts attract unwanted attention. In part on the risks of unpublished financial filing, Polantier largely claims that his business may be harmed by “coverage that contains misleading, misleading, incomplete, or harmful information about the company.” “Depends on or relies on.
“As our business has grown and interest in the planter and technology industry has grown, we have been attracted to it, and may continue to be attracted to it, including inappropriate coverage and coverage that There is no direct reason. Authorized by our leadership, who misrepresents the statements of our leadership or employees and the nature of our work, maintains baseless speculations about involvement in the company, or any other. The case is misleading.
The filing also states that due to the “sensitive nature” of contracts and privacy requirements, the company has been reluctant to respond to these false misleading reports.
Incomplete reporting is essential for a company that has largely exposed the nature of its business to the public. Historically, any information about the planter’s work with U.S. defense and law enforcement agencies comes from the FOIA, which recently developed for defense and intelligence agencies. The company has developed a user manual for the signature software platform, Paliner Gautam.
“Because of working with these organizations, workers and the press have taken a special interest in a company whose products or activities are harmful,” Palter acknowledges. The S-1 does not name the planter’s work with the IMA as a course, but the agreement has attracted scrutiny, from both the company’s external observers and employees. Filing note that the indefinite relationship resulted in public criticism of the company and “inappropriate coverage”.
Last year, the Washington Post reported that Pelenter employees were aggressively accounting for the company’s work for the U.S. Immigration Agency.[debating] ICE deals with town hall meetings, office hallways, slack channels and e-mail threads.
While other tech companies have taken on defense and law enforcement critics, Paliner has instead added to its most controversial deals over time. The company’s S-1 discusses this decision-making process:
Workers have also taken part in public protests over our properties. Workers’ criticism of our relationships with consumers can create potential and potential dissatisfaction among existing consumers, investors, and employees, which is how we address political and social concerns in our business activities.
In contrast, it is believed that taking advantage of targeted activity by certain consumers may damage our relationships with certain consumers, including the governments and government agencies with which we do business, whose views are political or May or may not be compatible with social workers.
In 2018, as the tech industry overcame the ethical implications of a for-profit federal defense work, more than 200 employees wrote a letter to Paliner CEO Alex Corp expressing their concerns over their ICE contracts. Paltner has two recent agreements with ICE, one for the agency’s Investigative Case Management (ICM) internal database and the other for software called Falcon. Collectively, the deals are worth 92 million.
Planter makes a huge chunk of its revenue by selling software from US agencies that combine data streams to monitor individuals, but the company draws a line under it to help China do just that.
“We do not work with the Chinese Communist Party and have chosen not to host our platform in China, which may limit our growth prospects,” the S-1 states said. Declared anti-cultural.
“We do not consider any sales opportunities with the Chinese Communist Party, do not host our platform in China, and promote the protection and defense of privacy and civil liberties, in order to protect our intellectual property. China imposes restrictions on access to our platforms in China to promote data security.
Despite the blasphemous warnings about Chinese tech dominance, Polanter’s anti-China stance is not surprising. This is the place that strengthens its relationship with the White House, which has since launched an extraordinary crusade against the Chinese social media giant Tiktuk. Still, it is strange, remarkable, and a sign that the refusal to do business with China is clearly stated in a tech company’s S-1.