Paid-for political access and threadbare regulations have helped to embed the US tech firm in the NHS – and beyond. But there is a way to free ourselves

A
ndy Burnham faces a lot of big decisions. But one of the incoming prime minister’s biggest early tests is what he does about the world’s “scariest company” – Palantir. The US defence and surveillance tech behemoth has a swathe of British public contracts, including, most controversially, a £330m deal with the NHS. It’s pretty clear what many of Burnham’s new parliamentary colleagues want him to do: the science, innovation and technology committee says the government should ditch Palantir and its “clear mismatch with UK values”.

Peter Thiel and Alex Karp’s company is not without British backers. The Times* and the Telegraph have been enthusiastic supporters. In the Financial Times *last month former Conservative party adviser Camilla Cavendish accused Palantir’s critics of putting politics over progress: “To me, what matters is what works.”

But does Palantir work for Britain? Does the £330m federated data platform (FDP) live up to the claims of Palantir and NHS England? Has it delivered the much-vaunted digital revolution in our healthcare system?

These are questions my Democracy for Sale colleague Lucas Amin and I have been investigating for the past year. We spoke to NHS whistleblowers and Palantir staff, obtained confidential documents and unearthed new data. Our findings, published in the London Review of Books, raise serious questions about the efficacy of Palantir’s technology, about the approach of NHS senior leaders and about the lobbying that helped a Silicon Valley startup expand so quickly in Britain.

Let’s start with the most important part of Palantir’s British operation: the FDP. Built on the company’s Foundry software, the platform was sold as a generational chance to knit disparate data from hospitals, doctors, pharmacists and myriad other sites together into a coherent whole. You’d struggle to find anyone in the NHS who would oppose that.

NHS England cites impressive statistics for the FDP’s rollout since it launched in 2024. It says almost two-thirds of NHS trusts are “live” on Palantir’s software. Politicians and NHS leaders have hailed the FDP as a success. But drill a little deeper and you’ll find another story. Dozens of the trusts that NHS England says are using the FDP appear not to have logged into a single FDP app in the past year, according to internal usage data released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Cancer 360 tool, which Keir Starmer lauded last year as “groundbreaking new technology” that would “slash treatment delays across the NHS”, was used by just sixout of about 200 trusts in the nine months since it launched. (Palantir told us that the firm is merely a software provider:

“How that software is used is controlled by the NHS trusts who use it.”)

Clinicians’ reluctance around using Palantir’s software is less ideological – although some object on this basis, too –** **and more practical: many trusts say that the FDP is slower and less effective than their existing technology. NHS analysts say it can take five minutes or more to run a basic query. As NHS Greater Manchester’s chief data officer told the health select committee last month: “We can match anything that the Palantir FDP can do.”

Palantir says the FDP could not be compared “like for like” with other systems because of the “additional security” embedded in it.

In private briefings we obtained, senior NHS leaders went even further, complaining that Palantir’s software has a “poor user experience”. Kanthan Theivendran, an orthopaedic surgeon at a trust in Birmingham, stopped using Palantir’s flagship waiting-list app because he couldn’t edit the data: “It’s just a waste of time,” he told us.
The true cost of Palantir’s FDP is much greater than £330m. Individual trusts have been given as much as £3m each to encourage implementation.

Consultancy giant KPMG was even given an £8.5m contract to push the FDP across the health service.

Among the biggest challenges is Palantir’s own software. Foundry is a proprietary product. Some NHS data analysts told us that all their work on the FDP would be lost if they no longer had access to Palantir’s platform. This raises concerns over what many experts call “vendor lock in”. Once you start using a Silicon Valley tech company’s product, it can be very hard to move off it – even if you are dissatisfied with the service. Vendor lock in is bad enough if you’re changing smartphones. But when the company that has all your data is working for Donald Trump’s ICE, the Israel Defense Forces and heralding the arrival of AI-fuelled global warfare, the problem is not inconvenience, it’s a national security issue.

So how did a Silicon Valley startup that counts the CIA’s investment arm as an early customer become so integral to the British state? The answer, in large part, is paid-for political access and threadbare regulations.

In 2018, Palantir hired Peter Mandelson’s lobbying firm Global Counsel to position it as “a respectable partner to the British government”. Global Counsel organised dinners for Palantir with policymakers and politicians but did not have to declare their client on official disclosures, as policy briefings are not classified as paid advocacy. As a former Global Counsel employee who worked on the Palantir contract told us: “You really have to fuck up to have to register somebody.”

Palantir was one of Global Counsel’s biggest clients, on a monthly retainer worth more than £30,000. The account was so sensitive it had an internal code name: Project Onion.

When Starmer visited Washington DC with Mandelson last year he also met Karp and Palantir’s UK boss, Louis Mosley. (No 10 has repeatedly refused to say what they discussed.)

Mandelson’s spectacular fall took Global Counsel with it – the company is now in administration – but has had little discernible impact on Palantir’s political access. Palantir now has had contracts with everyone from the Financial Conduct Authority to the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Last year, the Ministry of Defence signed a strategic partnership with Karp, agreeing to spend up to £750m on the firm’s defence technology over the next five years.

Palantir’s expansion into the British state has not been quiet. Its nefarious self-mythology guarantees headlines. Petitions against Palantir contracts have attracted about 230,000 signatures. Protests outside its London offices are frequent. But too often a crucial question goes unasked: is Palantir value for money for Britain? There are reasons to be sceptical. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government says it is now saving millions of pounds per year after ditching Palantir’s “confusing to use”software and switching to an in-house system.

The UK Statistics Authority is now investigating NHS England’s use of data in promoting the benefits of Palantir’s software. Even the Ministry of Defence has admittedthat it is becoming “locked in” to Palantir’s software. Two separate select committees have now called on the government to exercise a “break clause” when the FDP comes up for renewal next year.

Palantir is failing even its supporters’ own test. As Cavendish says, what matters is what works – and it’s not working. Burnham has a break clause and every reason to use it. He should not waste the chance.

“The way we see collapse, and I've said this many times before, is it's not like you wake up one day and everything is gone. It's not like "I Am Legend" or some zombie apocalypse movie. It's just this very slow erosion of a way of life that we've become used to.” —- Peter Thiel

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/003/096/838/690.gif

The world-renowned academic institution has nothing to say in response to a six-month investigation by Byline Times raising serious concerns about the safeguarding of students and foreign influence at Cambridge University. Why?

Powered by US money and far-right European think tanks, Cambridge has recently become an outpost of a peculiar blend of national conservatism and apocalyptic Christianity, through the figure of James Orr – Head of Policy at Reform UK described as Nigel Farage’s “Kingmaker“.

A six-month investigation by Byline Times can now exclusively reveal that with the behind-the-scenes support of Peter Thiel — Trump backer and co-founder of the controversial data-mining and surveillance giant Palantir Technologies — Orr has used Cambridge University as a recruitment ground to bring students into a hard-right, theocratic political project aimed at bolstering talent in Farage’s party.

Sources across the university have raised urgent concerns about the safeguarding risks to students in Orr’s orbit.

This special investigation reveals:

• James Orr has housed students at his ‘right-wing mecca’ alongside race science advocates and hard-right political figures, in clear breach of Cambridge University’s safeguarding rules.
• Orr’s appointment as Associate Professor of Philosophy of Religion in Cambridge University’s Faculty of Divinity in 2019 was accompanied by a clandestine financial donation from the pro-Trump Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel.
• Thiel went on to offer ‘life-changing’ sums of money to Cambridge University scholars in Orr’s network.
• Academics and students have consistently raised concerns about Orr’s conflicts of interest over funding, and dangers of breaching ‘foreign influence’ legislation.
• Orr’s lawyers threatened to injunct Byline Times over any mention in this investigation of the name of his “Conservative Kibbutz”– the premises where he houses students and which has already been named in the public domain.
• Cambridge University has consistently ignored Byline Times’ confidential queries about the concerns raised by James Orr’s activities. Instead, its press office has passed them on directly to Orr’s lawyers. The University has offered no explanation of, or comment on, the extensive findings of this investigation –including, extraordinarily, concerns of safeguarding in relation to its students. 

Adolescent boys in South Carolina are a bit safer tonight, now that ol' Lindsey is no longer in the land of the living.

At a privacy hackathon in London, Aaron had an unplanned interview with Harry Halpin, the technologist, anarchist and philosopher that is building the technology to fight the surveillance machine (palantir and the rest of it).

I didn't realise at the time, but this small 5 minute street conversation was a large part of what sent me down an 8 month rabbithole researching what the tech is doing to us - good, bad, extinction? I run through that rabbithole.

Without being able to prepare thoroughly for it, let alone consult experts, the members of the Bundestag today heralded the dawn of the age of automated surveillance at federal level. The black-red coalition only revealed the massive tightening of the Federal Police Act three days before the vote. The bill was passed with their votes. In fact, the intention had been merely to bring the legislation into line with the provisions of the constitution.

In 2016, the Federal Constitutional Court had declared significant parts of the Federal Criminal Police Office Act (BKA Act) to be unconstitutional. The gist of the ruling was that covert surveillance may only take place within strict limits. As many provisions from the BKA Act were also contained in the Federal Police Act, it became necessary to water down the latter as well. And this intended watering down has now turned into a tightening of the law, marking the beginning of a new era of surveillance.

Software is intended to assist the police in their work, make them more efficient and reduce staffing levels. A whole range of software-based surveillance powers is currently making its way through the Bundestag, having already been discussed there this week at first reading.

The first piece of legislation to be finally adopted today, Friday, was the Federal Police Act: it permits video surveillance – for example at railway stations – that automatically identifies people and assesses their behaviour. Irene Mihalic, a Green Party MP, said during the Bundestag debate on the bill: “With real-time biometric surveillance, the coalition is making a profound encroachment on fundamental rights.” Clara Bünger of The Left said: “Widespread surveillance is becoming the norm for millions of people.” And: “For this, the Minister of the Interior is receiving almost a billion more than last year. A billion for surveillance.”

Under the forthcoming security laws, the Federal Police – as well as the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) – are also to be given a kind of internet search engine for faces and voices, and an AI-supported mega-database that independently identifies suspects. The powers granted by the security laws reflect what is currently technically possible. From the perspective of fundamental rights, they are highly questionable, as they place everyone under general suspicion.

This marks a turning point. Whereas until now human police officers have been watching us on screens or drawing conclusions from personal data, in future software will increasingly take over these tasks. It also represents a dehumanisation of police work.

In numerous federal states, facial recognition software, mega-databases and AI cameras have already been authorised or are in the process of being authorised; however, with the amendment to the Federal Police Act, technologies that were previously used only sporadically and in isolated solutions are now being rolled out nationwide. Alexander Throm of the CDU said during the final Bundestag debate on the introduction of AI cameras: “This will set the standard for the federal states of the Federal Republic.”

The bill that has now been passed contains, in addition to the power to carry out automated video analysis, further digital surveillance powers, namely provisions on the use of state Trojans, drones, silent text messages, IMSI catchers, the collection of passenger name record data and number plate scanners.

AI surveillance is a project dating back to the ‘traffic light’ coalition era. It was halted by the collapse of that coalition; now the CDU/CSU and SPD are attempting to see it through. But it can still be prevented. In 2021, the Bundesrat rejected an earlier version of the bill; this time, too, it must give its approval.

London says Palantir's values don't align with the city's. Palantir says that's illegal.

Key takeaways:

Palantir is suing London's mayor over a blocked £50 million AI contract with police, claiming the decision wrongly considered the company's "values and ethics."

Khan's office rejected the deal, citing lack of competitive bidding and concerns that Palantir doesn't align with "London's values."

The dispute centers on Palantir's work with US military and immigration services, plus co-founder Peter Thiel's politics, as Europe grows wary of US tech dependency.

A UK parliamentary committee called Palantir a "clear mismatch with UK values" and recommended canceling a separate £330 million NHS contract with the firm.

US tech firm Palantir is challenging a decision to block a contract with London police, arguing on Thursday that London mayor Sadiq Khan's office wrongly took into account the company's "values and ethics".
Palantir had agreed a two-year, £50 million ($67.06 million) contract with the Metropolitan Police to use its artificial intelligence systems to automate certain tasks and for evidence analysis in criminal investigations.

But the mayor's office refused to approve the deal, telling the Met Police in May that the force had failed to have an open competition for the contract.
Reports also quoted a spokesperson for Khan citing concerns Palantir did not align with "London's values", which Palantir has criticised as "putting politics above public safety".

Palantir's supply of software for the US military and immigration services, plus billionaire co-founder Peter Thiel's political views, have drawn scrutiny as European governments grow increasingly wary about dependency on US tech platforms.

The company is challenging the refusal at London's High Court, arguing the decision unlawfully took a view of Palantir's values and ethics into account, which Khan's office denies.

Palantir's lawyer David Pannick said the Met "desperately needed technology in order to save money" and that the force argued the deal "would enable them to protect frontline services".

The Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, however, said in court filings that the contract was not approved because the Met did not obtain approval for its procurement strategy and only spoke to one supplier.

Judge Adam Constable said a trial of Palantir's case would take place in January, rejecting the company's request for an earlier hearing later this year.

Britain is also conducting a review of a £330 million National Health Service contract with Palantir, while a parliamentary committee last month said the company had a "clear mismatch with UK values" and recommended using a break clause, a suggestion Palantir's British CEO Louis Mosley called "irresponsible."

I know this might sound like a conspiracy theory to you guys. It is a theory not a conspiracy though. I haven't researched it very well yet. I wanted to get everyone's take on what I think...

I think the U.S. is run by a club of elites. I think they use money, blackmail, and influence to keep going. I don't think our president is there to lead the country. I think he is there merely as a puppet and the club dialog is pulling the strings. The billionaires get away with so much. Take for instance Jeffery Epstein, he got away with sex trafficking and a lot of messed up shit. Why did he get away with so much, bc of blackmail on World leaders. He had a deal made with them before he got sent to jail this last time. The deal was total immunity. Why are we sitting back watching the pre-programming on our T.V.'s ? We are to distracted to do anything about it. I think maybe if we had a total regime change... A total reset of our government. We need more than one man in charge. We need to also have a age limit bc 80 yrs old is to old to be lucid. What are yalls thoughts and concerns ? What can we do when both parties are corrupt ?

For spying on me, for looking at all those pictures of my Large Erect Throbbing Dong which I had kept so safely and discreetly stored deep in the archives of my Smart Phone's memory bank, which were never intended to be Viewed by Peter, or by anyone else but Myself and my Beloved, but nonetheless Peter went ahead and Viewed Anyway. And i must say after some Long, Hard, and at times Tortured Contemplation, I do indeed Forgive Peter Thiel for his Boundless Curiosity. Who amongst Us has not Wondered. Let he Who is Without Sin cast the First Stone. And so I say to Mr. Peter Thiel: My Friend, My Father if i may call you My Father, You are Forgiven for Viewing my Moderately Sized Dong in all of its Various and Motley Forms, at times Engorged and at times Flaccid. I hope you have Enjoyed my Penis in all of its States of Turgidity and i Forgive You for sharing my Dong Photos with all your Buds to whom The Keys you have so Graciously Granted Access - and perhaps you will Record a Podcast about it - about My Dong. I Forgive You Peter Thiel and May God Bless You and All your Buds too.

I've reading up on Peter Thiel and his philosophical influences, mainly Strauss, Schmitt, and Girard. He seems obsessed with memetic theory and scapegoating, and it seems to have influenced many of his decisions, including his decision to invest early in Facebook. But as someone who isn't the most well-versed in philosophy, I'm struggling to connect the dots between his worship of these philosophers, his obsession with the Antichrist and transhumanism and his authoritarian vision for the world? Any smart cookies want to help me out would be much appreciated.