Maine observers allege their details entered Palantir’s case system
Newly public court documents allege that federal agents in Maine entered photos and vehicle plates of people observing immigration enforcement into a Palantir case system. Four observers are seeking restrictions on how their information is used. The allegations connect street-level surveillance with investigative databases and border screening; the US Department of Homeland Security, or DHS disputes the case.
Artificial Intelligence··Midday
Public filings trace the observers’ information
Four people observing immigration enforcement in Maine, in the northeastern United States, allege that federal agents entered their photographs and vehicle plates into a Palantir-built investigative system. A redacted court filing became public on October 2. Their proposed class action concerns surveillance during January’s Operation Catch of the Day. The allegations remain disputed: the US Department of Homeland Security calls the case meritless.[1], [2]
Photos reach case files and facial searches
The system is Investigative Case Management, or ICM, which manages investigations for the Homeland Security Investigations division of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. It uses Palantir’s Gotham software. The plaintiffs say an agent created entries for observers and sent some photographs to a Customs and Border Protection officer for facial-recognition searches through the Mobile Query application.[1]
A vehicle-plate search also retrieved address, telephone and cohabitant information about plaintiff Carlyn Williams from LexisNexis’s Accurint database. The filing alleges that an agent circulated photographs and called her.[1]
Plaintiffs seek limits on border flags
A DHS privacy assessment says ICM subject entries are shared with the border-screening system TECS and can become lookout records. Williams allegedly remained flagged for secondary inspection until at least January 2027. The plaintiffs seek restrictions on using the collected information and on threatening or following observers. The government argues that nobody was nominated to a terrorist watchlist and that DHS policy prohibits the alleged conduct.[1]
