By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The NHS is reportedly set to grant “unlimited access” to identifiable patient data to staff from companies, including Palantir, involved in developing its federated data platform. This change, detailed in an internal briefing, would allow external engineers, such as those from Palantir and consultancy firms, to access the National Data Integration Tenant (NDIT) with an “admin” role. This marks a departure from current protocols, which require individual data access approvals for specific datasets. While the NHS maintains strict data management policies and security clearances for external personnel, the briefing acknowledges a potential “risk of loss of public confidence” regarding patient data safeguarding due to these enhanced permissions. Recommendations within the document suggest limiting the number and duration of these external admin roles.
Read the original article here
The news that the UK is granting Palantir “unlimited access” to NHS patient data has certainly stirred up a significant amount of conversation and, frankly, alarm. It’s the kind of headline that makes you do a double-take, wondering if you’ve stumbled into a dystopian novel. The core question on everyone’s mind seems to be: what exactly does an American defense contractor need with such extensive access to our most sensitive medical information?
Critics are voicing serious concerns, warning that this expanded access could dramatically increase the risk of a major data breach. The idea of handing over detailed user medical data to a company with a history of controversial practices is, for many, already a breach in itself. There’s a palpable sense of dread that this situation is ripe for mismanagement and could easily devolve into a truly horrific scandal down the line, with a healthy dose of sarcasm highlighting the perceived inevitability of such an outcome.
The sheer scale of this move has left many bewildered and frustrated, questioning the rationale behind it. It’s described as akin to “making a deal with the devil,” with whispers of under-the-table dealings and general incredulity at the decision. The question “WHY?” echoes repeatedly, reflecting a deep-seated confusion about why Palantir should be granted access to anything at all, especially sensitive health records.
This development also raises significant questions about transparency and democratic oversight. Many feel that decisions about such vast amounts of personal data are being made without public consultation or approval. The £300 million contract, reportedly signed when the Conservative party was in power, adds another layer to these concerns, with a reminder of the company’s own publicly stated “philosophy,” which some find unsettling.
The implications for data privacy regulations like GDPR are also being debated. The lack of explicit consent or an opt-out mechanism for patients is seen as a major oversight, with some suggesting this alone should warrant significant public outcry and action. There’s a feeling of resignation, but also a spark of defiance, as people grapple with the idea that their data is being placed outside of their control.
The framing of this deal, with Palantir staff being granted “unlimited access” to identifiable patient data through an “admin” role, is particularly concerning. This isn’t just about general data analysis; it’s about access to specific, identifiable information, which amplifies privacy anxieties. The fact that this access is being granted by NHS England, and not necessarily the entire UK government, is a point of clarification that some find crucial, while others remain deeply worried regardless of the specific entity granting the access.
The emotional response is one of intense frustration and disbelief. Many express a profound sense of disappointment, especially after having engaged in efforts to protest or raise concerns about such measures. The perceived levels of corruption are described as “unreal,” fueling a general distrust in the decision-making process.
There’s a glimmer of hope, however, in the quoted assurances from an NHS spokesperson stating that any external individual requiring access must have government security clearance and be approved by a senior NHS England official. The uncertainty about whether “external” refers to individuals outside the NHS or outside Palantir adds a layer of ambiguity, but the potential for appropriately vetted staff to improve the NHS is acknowledged by some, albeit cautiously. This represents a more measured perspective, suggesting that if the process is robust and the ultimate goal is improved healthcare, perhaps a degree of open-mindedness is warranted, though this is likely an unpopular stance.
However, for many, the involvement of Peter Thiel, a co-founder of Palantir, casts a dark shadow over the entire arrangement, with some labeling him as “one of the worst human beings.” The suggestion that this is connected to the UK leaving the EU is also being made, implying a shift in regulatory oversight or a willingness to embrace more controversial partnerships post-Brexit.
The potential consequences are painted in stark terms, with hypothetical scenarios like loan denials based on therapist visits highlighting the chilling possibilities of widespread data access. The broader societal implications are also being considered, with concerns raised about the erosion of the social contract and governments needing new methods to control their populations.
This news has also been interpreted as a harbinger of darker times, a potential scene from a bleak science fiction narrative. The question “WHYYYYY?!” is a plea for understanding, a desperate attempt to comprehend a decision that feels fundamentally wrong and even dangerous, particularly given the perceived shift towards allowing access to what should be private medical information, and the concerning, albeit speculative, mention of “eugenics” as a potential long-term agenda.
The possibility of “revolution” is being invoked, not in a political sense of changing governments, but as a call for a fundamental societal reevaluation of how data privacy and corporate influence are handled. The frustration is amplified by the feeling that such decisions are made without democratic recourse, leading to a sense of powerlessness and a deep distrust in those in power.
The fact that this is being discussed in the context of NHS England, rather than devolved nations like Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, is noted with a sense of relief by some, highlighting the fragmented nature of healthcare governance in the UK. Nevertheless, for many, the overall sentiment remains one of profound disappointment and a strong conviction that this is a “fucking awful idea.”
Ultimately, the decision to grant Palantir extensive access to NHS patient data has ignited a firestorm of criticism, fear, and profound questioning about privacy, security, and the fundamental values that should underpin public services. The narrative is one of deep concern, a feeling that a line has been crossed, and a desperate hope that the potential negative consequences can somehow be averted.