Skip to content
Make AI Good

Graph · Strategy

Map the corporate supply chain behind state AI-driven harm

01 · In focus

One strategy, in the field.

The structured facts the source records about Map the corporate supply chain behind state AI-driven harm, the count of declared adjacencies in the corpus, and the federation map zoomed on this node and its neighbours.

strategy

↑8 declared connections

Kind
Strategy
Status
active
Confidence
high
Entity ID
strat-map-the-ai-supply-chain-of-state-harm
Network
View in network

Tags supply-chain-mapping, corporate-accountability, federal-contracting, data-brokers, surveillance, no-tech-for, naming-the-vendors

Map the corporate supply chain behind state AI-driven harm · 8 direct neighbours visible

02 · Connections

8 adjacencies, by relation.

Split by direction. Direct links are the ones Map the corporate supply chain behind state AI-driven harm’s source record names; inferred backlinks are records elsewhere in the corpus that point at this entity.

Inferred backlinks

8 links

Other records that name this entity.

03 · Background

From the source record.

Body prose as it appears in movement-graph’s published markdown for this entity. Links to other corpus entities resolve to their graph page; links to deeper repo paths are kept as text so the page does not invent a route.

Identify the specific companies, contracts, data brokers, and cloud providers that make a coercive state programme — deportation, mass surveillance, predictive policing, targeted spyware — technically possible, then publish the map. The deliverable is a sourced public document naming names: contract numbers, dollar amounts, the vendor's stated role, the technical capabilities it provides. The document is then handed to investors, employees, students, and shareholders of the named vendors.

An actor chooses this strategy because the state programme is too well-defended to attack directly and too distributed across statute and discretion to legislate against. The corporate vendors are softer targets — they answer to investors who care about reputational risk, to employees who can refuse to work on a project, to universities that can drop them from research partnerships. Naming the vendor converts a diffuse political fight into a specific institutional one with clear pressure points.

It trades off attribution risk and a treadmill problem: vendors can be replaced, contracts re-routed, and the campaign has to remap on every rotation. The strategy works best when paired with a constituency (immigrant rights, civil rights, tech workers) whose pressure on the vendor is credible; without that, the map is journalism, not leverage.

04 · Sources

Where this came from.

7 sources listed from the pinned corpus. Links are shown only when the source URL is a valid HTTP(S) address.

  1. edpb.europa.eu

    Checked 2026-06-10

    EDPB announcement of the Italian Garante decision of 10 February 2022 against Clearview AI — sourced for the regulatory-action effect: €20 million fine, web-scraping ban, deletion order, EU-representative designation requirement

  2. edpb.europa.eu

    Checked 2026-06-10

    EDPB announcement of the Dutch Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens decision of 16 May 2024 against Clearview AI — sourced for the cumulative >€100M judicial-outcome effect anchor: €30.5 million fine (largest European Clearview fine to date), four compliance orders, violations of GDPR Articles 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 27

  3. privacyinternational.org

    Checked 2026-06-10

    Privacy International campaign page — sourced for the UK Upper Tribunal 13 October 2025 jurisdictional ruling upholding the ICO's authority over Clearview, the 10-billion-image database figure, and the documented compliance gap

  4. bloomberg.com

    Checked 2026-06-10

    Bloomberg reporting on UC Berkeley Privacy Law Scholars Conference severing its eight-year Palantir sponsorship 5 June 2019 — sourced for the earliest documented institutional-sponsorship corporate-behavior-change effect under #NoTechForICE pressure

  5. vice.com

    Checked 2026-06-10

    Vice coverage of the 19 November 2019 #NoTechForICE national student day of action — sourced for the Palantir UC Berkeley recruitment-session cancellation, the Duke and Yale hackathon-sponsorship drops, and the 2,500-signature 30-campus pledge figure

  6. citizenlab.ca

    Checked 2026-06-10

    Citizen Lab and R3D October 2023 update on Pegasus deployment in Mexico 2019–2021 — sourced for the Ejército Espía earned-media effect contradicting the López Obrador 2019 surveillance-ended undertaking and naming the Mexican Center for Military Intelligence as a Pegasus operator

  7. en.wikipedia.org

    Checked 2026-06-10

    Wikipedia overview of the No Tech For Apartheid campaign — sourced for the documented coalition-adoption effect that the 2021 No Tech For Apartheid campaign's name was modelled on Mijente's #NoTechForICE and drew its organising architecture from the #NoTechForICE template; secondary source, used because the lineage signal is the relevant fact, not the campaign's internal organising detail

Source: entities/strategies/strat-map-the-ai-supply-chain-of-state-harm.md — movement-graph pin 5d136ad.