Data: The New Infrastructure of Control
What a Palantir + DOGE unified data platform reveals about the future of power—and how we can still build something different.
Angela Benton
Jun 04, 2025
In recent months, whispers of a unified data platform being built by the U.S. government in collaboration with tech giants like Palantir and DOGE have raised alarm bells in privacy and civil liberties circles. While the public still lacks full clarity on the scope, the language being used—“unified,” “streamlined,” “national platform”—should make us pause.
Because history has shown us:
When data becomes infrastructure, power consolidates.
And when consent is treated as a courtesy rather than a prerequisite, it’s no longer civic tech—it’s surveillance.
It has always been political.
Colonial administrations were some of the first to institutionalize mass data collection—not to empower, but to categorize, control, and divide. The British Empire’s census projects in India and Africa weren’t just statistical—they were used to fix people into castes, tribes, and religious groups, solidifying identities that could be policed and governed more easily (Scott, 1998; British Online Archives, 2023; Steinmetz, 2024).
Under apartheid, South Africa’s passbook system functioned as a state-run surveillance architecture, using personal data to regulate physical movement, employment, and civil rights (Schoen, 2022; Stanford University, n.d.).
The through-line?
Data has long served as a precondition for domination—a quiet but potent infrastructure for enforcing systems of inequality (Scott, 1998).
It’s: What values will shape the system when it does?
While the U.S. hasn’t formalized such a system, the trajectory is troubling. If a unified platform connects healthcare, taxes, education, employment, housing, and welfare data—without clear opt-in consent—it effectively becomes a state-controlled social operating system.
Convenience becomes a proxy for control.
A Framework for Ethical Data Transmission During States of Emergency (Benton, 2020).
The idea was simple but radical:
What if data shared with governments could be routed through public trusts (Ada Lovelace Institute, 2021)—transparent, ethical intermediaries—rather than directly into the state’s domain?
The architecture proposed a layered data trust model (local, state, federal) where citizens could:
It was a blueprint for the road not taken.
Because technology doesn’t have to replicate the old power structures.
We can build something different.
Efforts like the Palantir-DOGE collaboration aren’t designed with people at the center—they’re designed to optimize state function, using people as input.
And when the platforms controlling that data are private defense contractors, the implications aren’t just commercial—they’re constitutional.
We are not witnessing neutral innovation.
We are witnessing the quiet militarization of civil data.
Where the current model demands access, Heirloom asks:
Who is this data from a real human?
Where did it come from?
Who is approved to use it?
And ultimately, who truly owns this data?
When we hear “unified,” we should ask: Unified for whom?
When we hear “streamlined,” we should ask: Streamlined for what purpose?
Because what’s being built now will either uphold individual sovereignty
—or dissolve it into centralized models we cannot undo.
I offer this not as a critique of progress, but as a blueprint for better alternatives.
We don’t have to accept inevitability.
We can design systems rooted in consent, equity, and collective stewardship—where public data trusts serve as the connective tissue between individual rights and civic participation.
And we can do it now—before the code is written in stone.
Thanks for reading! This post is public so feel free to share it.
What a Palantir + DOGE unified data platform reveals about the future of power—and how we can still build something different.
Angela Benton
Jun 04, 2025
In recent months, whispers of a unified data platform being built by the U.S. government in collaboration with tech giants like Palantir and DOGE have raised alarm bells in privacy and civil liberties circles. While the public still lacks full clarity on the scope, the language being used—“unified,” “streamlined,” “national platform”—should make us pause.
Because history has shown us:
When data becomes infrastructure, power consolidates.
And when consent is treated as a courtesy rather than a prerequisite, it’s no longer civic tech—it’s surveillance.
Data as a Tool of Power: The Colonial Blueprint
Data infrastructure has never been neutral.It has always been political.
Colonial administrations were some of the first to institutionalize mass data collection—not to empower, but to categorize, control, and divide. The British Empire’s census projects in India and Africa weren’t just statistical—they were used to fix people into castes, tribes, and religious groups, solidifying identities that could be policed and governed more easily (Scott, 1998; British Online Archives, 2023; Steinmetz, 2024).
Under apartheid, South Africa’s passbook system functioned as a state-run surveillance architecture, using personal data to regulate physical movement, employment, and civil rights (Schoen, 2022; Stanford University, n.d.).
The through-line?
Data has long served as a precondition for domination—a quiet but potent infrastructure for enforcing systems of inequality (Scott, 1998).
The U.S. and the Illusion of Exception
In the United States, we tend to believe we’re insulated from this kind of systemic control. But the foundations are already being laid:- Palantir powers federal systems across ICE, the DOJ, and predictive policing pilots (NPR, 2025; The New York Times, 2025; Economic Times, 2025).
- Healthcare, welfare, criminal justice, and educational data are being increasingly linked in federal “modernization” efforts, often under the banner of “equity” and “efficiency” (The New York Times, 2025).
The question isn’t just: Will it happen here?
It’s: What values will shape the system when it does?
The Modern Panopticon Is Digital
The concept of state surveillance isn’t new. In China, the social credit system—a government-administered, data-driven framework—assigns citizens numerical scores based on financial behavior, speech, and social activity. These scores determine access to jobs, education, even transportation. It’s a fully integrated system of behavioral governance—optimized through data (Join Horizons, 2024; MS Advisory, 2025; National High School Ethics Bowl, 2025).While the U.S. hasn’t formalized such a system, the trajectory is troubling. If a unified platform connects healthcare, taxes, education, employment, housing, and welfare data—without clear opt-in consent—it effectively becomes a state-controlled social operating system.
This is the shadow side of digital efficiency.
Convenience becomes a proxy for control.
I Saw This Coming in 2020
During the height of the pandemic, when contact tracing was being rolled out rapidly and often recklessly, I published a concept called:A Framework for Ethical Data Transmission During States of Emergency (Benton, 2020).
The idea was simple but radical:
What if data shared with governments could be routed through public trusts (Ada Lovelace Institute, 2021)—transparent, ethical intermediaries—rather than directly into the state’s domain?
The architecture proposed a layered data trust model (local, state, federal) where citizens could:
- Anonymously opt-in to share specific types of data
- Governance through layered data trusts (local, state, federal)
- Set parameters around what data was shared, with whom, and for how long
- Retain control over revocation and modification
- Independent oversight bodies—not just tech contractors that centralize power
It was a blueprint for the road not taken.
Because technology doesn’t have to replicate the old power structures.
We can build something different.
What’s Happening Now—and Why It’s Dangerous
The data systems being built today do the opposite.Efforts like the Palantir-DOGE collaboration aren’t designed with people at the center—they’re designed to optimize state function, using people as input.
And when the platforms controlling that data are private defense contractors, the implications aren’t just commercial—they’re constitutional.
We are not witnessing neutral innovation.
We are witnessing the quiet militarization of civil data.
A Human-First Alternative
This is why I returned to this conversation through my work at Heirloom—a platform built around consent, provenance, and control. While the State races to centralize, we’re working to decentralize intelligently—creating systems that begin with the human first, not the government or the corporation.Where the current model demands access, Heirloom asks:
Who is this data from a real human?
Where did it come from?
Who is approved to use it?
And ultimately, who truly owns this data?
And the frameworks we design now—especially those used by governments—will determine whether AI and data systems amplify democratic participation or entrench digital authoritarianism.
If It’s “Unified,” Who’s At the Center?
The language of innovation often hides what’s really at stake.When we hear “unified,” we should ask: Unified for whom?
When we hear “streamlined,” we should ask: Streamlined for what purpose?
Because what’s being built now will either uphold individual sovereignty
—or dissolve it into centralized models we cannot undo.
I offer this not as a critique of progress, but as a blueprint for better alternatives.
We don’t have to accept inevitability.
We can design systems rooted in consent, equity, and collective stewardship—where public data trusts serve as the connective tissue between individual rights and civic participation.
And we can do it now—before the code is written in stone.
Thanks for reading! This post is public so feel free to share it.
