Tag: Palantir

Privacy Concerns: Government Access to Personal Data in the UK


Latest in our reports on the human rights situation in the UK

September 2026

For some months we have been reporting on the progress of rights in the UK particularly as successive governments have passed more and more legislation to try and reduce their effect. Only in the past few days have we seen groups of people, dressed in black with balaclavas or face coverings, massing by the docks in Portsmouth and Dover yet no arrests were made. This contrasts with the hundreds of arrests made of people – without face masks or behaving in a threatening manner – who have been arrested on terrorist charges. They were promoting the cause of Palestinians which was embarrassing for the government in view, until this week, of its support for the Israeli government.

Family life

This right, protected by Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, helps safeguard our relationships and family connections. However the Immigration and Asylum Bill, passed in the Commons and now in the committee stage, seeks to narrow how people’s family life is recognised in immigration and asylum cases, wanting to limit it to a “core cohabiting family”. Other family relationships would have to demonstrate dependency beyond normal emotional ties. Factors such as financial dependence, emotional support, or concern for a relative living in a country affected by war would not individually be enough to establish dependency.

These changes could have serious consequences for people seeking asylum, migrants and their families including those already resident in the UK. They also raise a wider concern for all of us, since human rights protections are universal safeguards. They do not become conditional when issues are complex or politically contested.

Privacy

The government is reportedly again seeking access to highly encrypted personal data belonging to British users of Apple, having backed down last year in the face of political pressure from the US. Liberty and Privacy International are challenging the government’s power to use secretive ‘technical capability notices’ (TCNs) to unlock encrypted data of individuals.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) has confirmed it will hear Liberty, Privacy International and two individuals’ challenge to the legality of the Home Secretary’s decision to use her powers to secretly force Apple to allegedly give the UK Government access to users’ secured data stored on iCloud. The challenge will also cover the legality of the Government issuing these types of notices at all.

Palantir

On the subject of privacy and the security of our information, there is growing concern at the inroads another American company. Palantir, is making into our political and social life. They have contracts with the NHS, the military and the police and the concerns are about how safe is the data they are collecting.

There will be an International Day of Action on October 1st and locally, will take place between 12:00 and 14:00 in Southampton at Frobisher House which is right by the station. Participants will include NHS workers and patients, in protest against the wide ranging contracts Palantir has succeeded in obtaining in the health services as well as the military. The resistance is planned across the Americas, Europe and Britain. The software company is connected to Trumps’s discredited ICE and to Israeli surveillance and aggression in Gaza and is considered an unsafe repository for UK citizens data and government information. (See June report.)

It is part of a general increase in concern about more and more American companies controlling nearly all aspects of our social life with almost no controls over their activities.

Privacy and racial bias

The tragic case of the Cambridge professor Jason Arday, whose suicide followed prolonged harassment by the press and fellow academics about his academic credentials, is being cited as evidence that black public figures are subject to greater scrutiny than their white peers. An enquiry is being called for.

As we have mentioned above, a convergence last weekend (3rd, 4th) of 400 far right anti-immigration protesters in balaclavas in Dover followed the next day by 200 in Portsmouth, who gridlocked roads, used violence against police officers and threats against volunteers of the RNLI who had just escorted a boat full of immigrants arriving in uncontrolled crossings. It has raised questions about police unpreparedness for organised protest, about the level of anti-immigrant violence but also about the wearing of face masks.

The controversial Crime and Policing Bill of 2026 criminalises the act of wearing or otherwise using an item (for instance a face covering) that conceals a person’s identity when in an area that the police have designated. “A ‘designation’ can only be made in relation to an area when the police reasonably believe that a protest may or is taking place in that area, the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences and that a designation would prevent or control the commission of offences.”

Charities such as Amnesty and Liberty have previously argued that the measure in the Crime and Policing Bill would prejudice those who need to mask for justifiable health, religious or political safety reasons while engaging in peaceful protest. Masking in order to conceal criminal identity is clearly a different motive but it is possible that these deliberately intimidating demonstrations may make it harder for police to apply discrimination in cases of peaceful and legitimate masked protesters.

Responding to the road block and disruption at the Port of Dover by the group ‘Patriot Platform‘, Kerry Moscogiuri, CEO at Amnesty International UK said:

“The images from the port of Dover today are truly shocking. We are seeing a sickening increase in racist violence, threats and intimidation targeting communities and stopping families going about their day to day lives. The overwhelming majority of us detest violence and racism, and we need to see political leaders show clear moral leadership, challenge racist narratives and stand firmly alongside those who are being targeted.”

Today (10th) a group of men assembled outside a hotel in Southampton (Cosham) having seen a coach arrive thinking (it is thought) they were asylum seekers. They were in fact members of the Pakistan cricket team. The tone of the reporting was that there was no problem and the police made no arrests. But it demonstrated that rumours spread by social media led to an assembly of mostly men at least one of whom entered the hotel. What if they had been asylum seekers … ? [Source: BBC]

Authoritarianism

Whether the recent and very welcome reset of the Labour government’s attitude to Israel’s illegal settlements will have any mitigating effect on the thousands of protesters awaiting trial on terrorism charges remains to be seen.

The determination of a terrorist connection has been made recently and solely in Palestine Action cases where for instance Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion protesters were simply charged with criminal damage. The Counter-Terrorism Act, extended in 2021, allows a judge alone to decide the nature of the sentence with no consideration by the jury during the trial. Even Rajiv Menon KC, the defence barrister of one of the Filton Four, was charged with contempt of court for reminding the jury that they had the right to acquit on conscience, making him the first defence attorney in Britain to be prosecuted over statements in a closing speech.

Amnesty’s Human Rights in the Collective (August Snapshot) looks at the inconsistency of charges of a ‘terrorism connection’ in several instances of protest where damage to property has occurred. It concludes that it is not hard to relate the UK government’s prosecution of Palestine Action (July 2025) to personal pressure from Trump on Starmer following the damage done by protesters spraying ‘Gaza is not for sale’ across his Scottish golf course (March 2025). The group is now designated as global terrorists by the US Government.

Recent posts:

Thought of subscribing?

0

Why we need to worry about Palantir


Palantir making inroads into government institutions including the NHS

August 2026

Increasing concern is being expressed by the ever widening presence of Palantir into the fabric of British society. Who are they and what are the concerns? Palantir is an American company which has the technology to enable its clients to see all the data they have, all at once. Organisations often have multiple sets of data but scattered among different systems. Harvesting information in a holistic way is often beyond their capability. Palantir uses AI to integrate, analyse and make sense of fragmented data sets. Where information sits in different ‘silos’ the firm’s technology enables it to combine that data into something meaningful and useful.

Clearly it can be realised that in something like health and a massive organisation such as the health service in the UK, putting this information together has the potential to produce clinical benefits and efficiencies in the NHS’s operations. What’s not to like? It is called the Federated Data Platform (FDP).

Problems

There are many problems however:

  • Firstly it is an American company and like other US high tech firms, there is precious little control over them as they are based in the US. There is limited transparency and they have access to a wide range of sensitive personal and medical information.
  • As we have seen with recent actions with the Trump administration, the US has diminishing concerns for international norms of behaviour. Where once we viewed America as a defender of western values of human rights and the post war ‘new world order’ (however imperfectly) these have increasingly been ignored with the ‘America first’ policy. Entrusting patient data with American firms is inherently risky therefore.
  • The firm has deep ties with US agencies including ICE which is rounding up thousands of immigrants ready for deportation. More alarmingly, two years ago, Palantir signed a contract with the Israeli military to use its technology in support of ‘war related missions’. This was signed while Israel was engaged in genocidal actions in Gaza and enabled the IDF to harmonise its data more efficiently. This suggests the firm has few if any moral qualms about how its technology is used.
  • The firm – in common with other tech companies – is a profit making enterprise and indeed there are probably hundreds of companies involved in supply materials and services to the NHS. But this firm is at the heart of the system and there are real doubts about how the data will be used by them and how secure it is in their hands.

How effective are they anyway? The BMJ has questioned that data from a supposed success story at the Chelsea and Westminster Foundation Trust is flawed and that two key claims overstate the benefits of the software. The current issue of Private Eye (No: 1681) also cast doubt over its claims to have improved the level of delayed discharges. The Health Foundation think tank found ‘no noticeable improvement’ in discharge rates although Palantir disputes their findings.

The major worry is that the government is desperate to reduce the NHS bill. Their record of IT projects has been dismal with millions lost in failed or abandoned schemes. Are they more concerned with using firms like Palantir who offer to save them money than they are with the safety of patient information? How ready are they to consider human rights and patient security issues even knowing that the firm is a willing participant in genocide and the deeply unpleasant activities of ICE? How trustworthy are the firm’s claims to protect that information? Does a desire to save money override genuine concerns over rights and safety?

ADDITION: We have received the following comments from someone working in the NHS:

“Palantir’s software is clunky. Many of its tools are basic and regressive. Some of the built in apps don’t have the functionalities that NHS organisations actually need. And Palantir provides very limited support when issues need resolving.

“But it’s not just about the software. When we work with Palantir, we don’t just use their tech, we import their ideology – and Palantir’s ideology is at best deeply uncomfortable and at worst ethically bankrupt.

“Palantir was founded for surveillance and military operations. So I am being forced to use software that’s enabled the deaths of thousands of my global healthcare colleagues. This has had a devastating impact on my wellbeing. I used to love my job so much, and now it makes me sad and sick.

“That’s why I am doing all I can to get Palantir’s NHS contract cancelled, and I am proud to work with groups like Just Treatment who are fighting for this too”.

Amnesty is pointing out that it is not mandatory for local trusts to use the firm. It is up to people to contact their MP or the trust directly to oppose the use of the technology in their local hospital, in our case Salisbury District Hospital. At the very least to express their concerns. The BMA is opposed to increasing roll out of FDP.

‘Human rights abuses thrive in silence, hidden in contracts, buried beneath complex systems’ (AI).

It’s not just the NHS and Palantir is involved with the police and the Ministry of Defence. Further information.

We are grateful to Amnesty’s recent Fact File from which we have drawn material for this post.

0

UK Human Rights Report: key issues in June 2026


Our monthly report on human rights in the UK

June 2026

UK Political Prisoners

Research by Queen Mary University of London and the protest group Defend our Juries says that custodial sentences for acts of direct action or civil disobedience were once rare. They are now being imposed with increasing length and frequency in the UK, creating ‘a new breed of political prisoners’ through the systemic incarceration of people acting to prevent climate breakdown and the annihilation of Gaza.

Rules on Transgender

The ECHR has offered clarification on  the application of the law on transgender status, confirming that since the legal definition of sex is based on sex at birth, single sex toilets must exclude transgender people for whom the provision of separate facilities is recommended.

Palantir Challenge

The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has blocked the use of Palantir platforms for the Metropolitan Police Force.  Despite its record for assisting anti-immigration police in the US and aiding Israeli surveillance in Gaza, it is alleged that the police failed seriously to consider any other company for the contract.  The lack of process is seriously concerning, since Palantir has been allowed to gain a foothold in public services to the extent that it has now amassed more than 30 contracts with the UK state.  Critics also dispute its superior performance.

A cross party group of MPs have now challenged the Government on this.  Amnesty and other concerned organisations such as the Good Law Project are coordinating local protests against the use of Palantir in NHS Trusts. see our previous post on this firm and the danger it poses.

Equality Act: Public Sector Equality Duty

Discussion around the murder of Henry Nowak has centred around whether the Public Sector Equality Duty section of the Equality Act 2010 led the police in question to mistakenly prioritise a false allegation of racism over an actual stabbing attack, as Tory leader Kemi Badenoch argued.  However, critics say the case was a failure of police procedure rather than a pointer to review the section on institutional guidance on racism. The murder has generated a great deal of political heat.

The Public Sector Equality Duty states that public authorities should ‘advance equality of opportunity between people who share and people who do not share a relevant protected characteristic’.  Protected characteristics include age, disability, pregnancy, sex and sexual orientation.  Government guidance says the duty should ‘always be applied in a proportionate way’ depending on the circumstances of the case.

The duty was introduced in 2010 as part of the Equality Act which merged previous anti-discrimination laws such as the Equal Pay Act and the Disability Discrimination Act.

Since its introduction, organisations and individuals have been able to take public bodies to court for failing to abide by the duty, for example when councils withdrew library funding, set unequal fees for council funding to private care homes, or when the Home Office had not complied with the duty in relation to how its ‘hostile environment ‘ policies would impact members of the Windrush generation.

While Reform would abolish the entire act, the Conservatives criticise only the public sector section.  The Labour Government, however, is promising further anti-discriminatory legislation, a new equality and diversity strategy, with a primary focus on getting working class people joining and progressing in the Civil Service.

Recent posts:

1

Risks to our rights steadily increasing


Our monthly report on trends in the UK is worrying

May 2026

Government appeal against Palestine Action ban

Good Law Project warns that if the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmoud wins her appeal against the lifting of the ban on Palestine Action th the combination of the Online Safety Act 2023 and the Terrorism Act 2000 could be used to silence support for anti-genocide campaigners.

The problem lies in the very broadly drafted offences which even the police have found hard to apply. Online platforms might share this difficulty and fear heavy fines if they don’t remove references to action for Palestine. The Online Safety Act obliges platforms to remove “priority illegal content” from the internet in the UK. At the top of this list is “terrorism content” which includes posts that relate to section 12 of the Terrorism Act, such as “inviting support” for a terrorist organisation or “expressing an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation” while being “reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation”. See also a previous post on this site pointing out the risks inherent in using this firm.

Palantir Data Privacy Concerns continue

The Good Law Project is supporting Democracy for Sale to raise a challenge about the information commissioner’s decision to keep secret documents sent to Wes Streeting Health Secretary and Health and Social Care Minister Karin Smyth that will reveal truths about the risks of Palantir’s data platform. The British Medical Association has expressed concern about handing sensitive health data to the company which has ties with the Israeli Military and ICE. See our previous post about the threats to our rights from this firm. Statements by the firm’s chief executive are illuminating.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Following the Good Law challenge in the Supreme Court, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been obliged by Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson to revise its guidance on the application of the Sex definition in order to provide ‘legally accurate, practical guidance’ and ensure ‘all service users are treated with dignity and respect’. Parliamentary approval will be sought in May. Recent testimonies from trans patients suggest that their health concerns are sidelined by some doctors.

Democratic decline

Amnesty International warns the UK is increasingly reflecting, rather than resisting, global trends towards weakening of democratic norms. The 2026 report can be accessed here and download the full report which is divided into countries.

In 2025 – 2026 the UK has:

– used counterterrorism powers to restrict peaceful protest

– overseen the mass arrest of peaceful protesters, with courts ruling aspects unlawful

– intensified hostile policies towards migrants and people seeking asylum

– increased surveillance and policing powers

– continued arms transfers to Israel despite clear risks of use in serious violations of international law

– cut international aid amid escalating global humanitarian need

– defended the use of national security vetoes in legacy Troubles cases, undermining truth, accountability and justice for victims and families

– pursued economic and social policies that risk pushing more people into poverty, weakening protections for economic and social rights.

As we have noted on several occasions before, successive governments have got themselves ensnared with various unpleasant regimes because of their desire to maintain arms exports. We continue to arm UAE despite their support for the rebels in Sudan and other destabilising actions in Libya and Yemen for example, and as noted, we continue to arm and support Israel despite the genocide in Gaza.

1

Palantir and the threats to our rights


Palantir’s increasing penetration a real concern

March 2026

During a presentation on increasing authoritarianism at the Exeter conference, the firm Palantir was mentioned and its potential, and part in, the worrying trend of authoritarianism on both sides of the Atlantic. The first question is what does the firm do? This is normally a straightforward enough question to answer by looking at the firm’s website and other sources. But in this case there seem to be doubts even from people who work there.

Essentially they handle information and data – colossal amounts of it. They are able to meld a wide range of data sets to provide answers to customers who include commercial firms, the military and a variety of government agencies. One of their senior employees chillingly said ‘we help with killing people and saving lives’. In this essay we want to explain why we should be concerned about the firm and its likely effects on our rights and freedoms. Information is power. As we are seeing in the current wars in Ukraine, the Middle East and Iran, information is crucial to the successful targeting of munitions and to military operations generally.

The firm is in the news again with a contract with the Financial Conduct Authority which gives it access to sensitive financial information. The Guardian reports (23 March) it will enable the firm to monitor case intelligence files, financial ombudsman complaints, problem firms, emails and social media posts. There are concerns from within the FCA that the firm will gain access to their methods and how trustworthy are they with that information. Will Palantir ‘tip off’ its friends they ask? The owner of Palantir, Peter Thiel frequently featured in the Epstein files.

As the quote above illustrates, information is not neutral. It can be used to analyse the masses of information held by the NHS to make improvements in clinical outcomes and in improving efficiency. It has been used to help in crime detection by matching large and disparate quantities of information on international criminal networks. But it has been used by ICE in its activities in the US which have drawn a lot of criticism. The essential point therefore is being able effectively to control the data and the companies like Palantir who have it. It is this which is the root of concerns.

Concerns

1. The first concern is that it is a profit based corporation. Its prime focus is on returns to shareholders and making a profit. There is no crime in that but when it comes to data and millions of files of information about individuals, moral issues and matters of security and confidentiality are crucially important. In common with all corporations these days, it has a series of reassuring policy statements about human rights for example. History doesn’t support these statements. When it is profit v. morals, which will win out?

2. The lack of security of the data it collects. In the case of the NHS, the government is desperate to secure savings and no doubt Palantir will offer them which could be genuine enough. The company is American based and as we have experienced with other tech giants, transparency and attention to the welfare of the people using their platforms is very low down on their list of concerns. Will the desire to save money outweigh the security of the data?

3. The government has shown itself to be inept in a wide variety of IT catastrophes and have chosen to outsource to Palantir because they have a system that works. In doing so, they will lose control to a corporation outside its jurisdiction. Like several other ‘tech bros’ its owner, Peter Thiel, has been happy enough to cosy up to President Trump. Thiel in his writings is keen on monopolies which is also a worry when we are talking about a public organisation like the NHS.

4. The organisation’s links to the military and help offered to the IDF. It developed a technology called Maven which dramatically speeds up what is termed the ‘kill chain’ and has been used in Gaza and Iran. It identifies, using AI technology, where a target is likely to be and enables rapid attacks and assassinations to take place. Palantir is not involved in the decision to allow killing of 15 or more innocent individuals by the IDF for one Hamas fighter but is nevertheless supplying the IT to enable it to take place.

No scruples

It all adds up to a fundamental concern about being associated with such a firm. It appears to have no scruples in terms of the uses put by its systems and technology. We have a government which has shown itself to be more and more authoritarian, keen to allow an American company over which it has almost no legal controls, access to a vast range of data about individuals.

It comes down to the sovereignty of the data, who owns it and what is done with it, its security and who has access legally or otherwise, and the ability of the UK government to protect our interests. Over all these there are big question marks. Defence experts have expressed deep concerns. When the New York Police Dept. cancelled its contract with Palantir, the company kept the insights it had gained. The Swiss army has cancelled its contract with them for the reasons set out here.

We should be deeply concerned by this firm’s penetration into our national life and be highly sceptical of promises by government ministers that they have adequate controls.

Become a subscriber, it’s free!

5

Rise in authoritarianism


Worrying increase in authoritarianism both sides of the Atlantic. Talk at the Exeter conference

March 2026

Our rights are hard won. Britain still has elements of its feudal past. We think of ourselves as a democracy and great fuss is made of elections and polls but in many respects power is not with the majority or the people. Governments have steadily attempted to reduce the ability to protest and have passed legislation to make demonstrations harder and harder. At the Exeter conference there were two presentations on the rise in authoritarianism on both sides of the Atlantic. In the US, President Trump has carried out a large number of attacks on the press, the judiciary, universities, opposition politicians and more or less anyone who disagrees with him.

What happens in America quickly crosses the pond and so it is with the rise of authoritarianism in the UK. The form may be different and it is less raucous but the erosion of rights continues steadily. The presentation gave some examples. A report by US Amnesty goes into a lot more detail.

Legislation is passed which is vague and allows for considerable interpretation by the police and others. There is an increased reliance on secondary legislation. This means important measures are placed in statutory instruments not in the acts themselves thus permitting unscrutinised measures to become law. Surveillance powers have increased. This has included the use of facial recognition technology now being introduced more widely. Failure to properly fund agencies meant to control corporations. An extreme example is the almost complete failure to control the water companies which have neglected to invest in infrastructure, have extracted billions in dividends which were offshored and have allowed rivers to become seriously polluted and open sewers.

Anti-protest

Governments do not like protest and never have throughout our history. Reforms have seldom come from the power holders but wrested from them by protest. Witness enfranchisement which has had a long and troubled history. One of the more fearful examples was the 1819 Peterloo massacre in Manchester at which 14 were killed and hundreds injured when they were attacked. There has been a succession of Reform Acts – in 1832, 1867 and 1884 for example – after long periods of unrest, marches and mass protests. Each reform gave more people the vote. After decades of campaigning and violent protest, women achieved the vote in the late 1920s.

In modern times the growth of the ‘think tanks’ has become a major issue. Millions are spent by them on lobbying ministers and MPs. David Cameron recognised this was a growing problem when he was prime minister. He subsequently became ensnared in a lobbying scandal. Often opaquely financed they are able to suggest legislation and argue against better climate legislation for example. The biggest and best funded of the lobby organisations are the Friends of Israel groupings to ensure Israel’s position is powerfully put.

Key to the rise in authoritarianism is the need to denigrate and stigmatise those who question it or government policies. They are called ‘woke’, ‘lefty lawyers’, ‘disruptors’ or ‘extremists’ and large parts of the media are happy to promote these assaults.

Control of information is key and the secretive company Palantir was mentioned which is almost by the day, increasing its reach into the British state with few effective controls. We shall be commenting on this dangerous organisation in a subsequent post. UPDATE, 24 March. Warnings about Palantir and a contract with the Financial Conduct Authority. Later post on Palantir.

What can done?

Such is the power and reach of the various organisations, from government down through well-funded lobby organisations, American platforms including AI, and large elements of the media, that opposition is difficult. Even raising awareness is a challenge. Another problem is apathy. Many are simply unaware of the creeping authoritarianism around them. Some approve of curbs on protests. A number of people at Exeter had never heard of Palantir for example. The emotional power of the right wing is not to be overlooked.

As we learned from the Brexit campaign, simple slogans and emotional appeals are what cut through not factual presentations. Creeping authoritarianism and the steady loss of power will need to make emotional connections with people, to point out in simple language and images, the steady risks of allowing these powerful organisations, most of whom are based in America, to gain more and more influence and control over our organisations such as the NHS.

Recent posts:

Thought of subscribing? It’s free.

0

Palantir and the NHS


Human rights concerns with the use of Palantir software in the NHS

February 2024

The current issue of the Amnesty magazine (Spring 2024) poses some human rights questions concerning the use by the NHS of the American firm Palantir to create a data platform. With recent revelations surrounding Fujitsu’s Horizon program used by the Post Office and which destroyed the lives and livings of nearly a thousand sub postmasters, we should take a careful look at the firms being used to do this IT and data work. 

And looking at Palantir is not a pretty sight. Founded by the CIA, its primary interest is treating people as suspects or targets. Its software is used by both NSA and GCHQ and is designed as a surveillance tool. It is used by some police forces in the US in what is called ‘predictive policing’ which has a dubious history. It was used for workplace deportation raids also in the US as part of Donald Trump’s actions against immigrants. Another troubling use is by the Israeli military to ‘help the country’s war effort’. 

A key investor is Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal who is, paradoxically, hostile to the notion of an NHS and to government aid programmes generally. He is a funder and supporter of Donald Trump.

The Amnesty article says ‘Any company linked to serious human rights abuses should be excluded from tendering for NHS contracts on grounds of ‘professional misconduct”. Essentially, the British public needs to be reassured that information gathered by Palantir won’t be harvested by them for other purposes. 

American companies have had their eyes on the NHS for many years and have spent considerable sums trying to get contracts. It was likely to be a key issue in the UK/US trade deal negotiations post Brexit, now a lost cause. Palantir offered to assist the Covid-19 response for a fee of £1 (not one million) because it gave them an ‘in’ and the ability to build a datastore. 

As we have learned from Horizon and the Post Office, as well as other IT disasters, there are many concerns about IT firms, their actual ability to do what they claim they will do, their integrity and the security of the data they collect. Major firms like X, Facebook, WhatsApp and others have shown a cavalier attitude to online safety for the young and other vulnerable individuals. We also have British politicians and ministers openly hostile to human rights issues and some would like to see the Human Rights Act abolished. This is a toxic mix. We will have the usual platitudes and reassurances about ‘online safety is our number one concern’ and other bromides, the reality being that it is way down their lists of priorities. 

The people organising these contracts, the civil servants and the various ministers, have next to no experience of placing contracts or having anything like the expertise needed to keep an eye on this as was explained in Ian Dunt’s book How Westminster Works: and Why it Doesn’t. Twenty ministers came and went during the Post Office, Horizon scandal and did – or were able to do – nothing. 

To use a firm with the history that Palantir has, with the history of blunders surrounding IT contracts and with ministerial oversight feeble or missing altogether is to court disaster and is a huge risk for the confidentiality and security of our private medical information. 

The Salisbury and South Wiltshire group is 50 this year

3

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑