A bipartisan group British politicians sound the alarm on the situation in the country partnership with the data analysis company Palantir.
In a report released Tuesday, the 11-member House Science, Innovation and Technology Committee warned that the country’s growing reliance on Palantir’s technology “represents an unacceptable point of weakness” that could give the company overwhelming bargaining power in future negotiations.
“We know that with provider lock-in, over time we will get more expensive and lower quality services,” Dame Chi Onwurah, committee chair and MP, told WIRED. “It’s a trap that must be avoided.”
In a worst-case scenario, a deeply entrenched provider could threaten to suspend services in order to impose its will, Onwurah believes. “This could cripple public services and our economy,” she said. “It’s a huge risk.”
Although the commission says its objections to Palantir are not ideologically motivated, the report also describes a “clear disconnect with British values.” He points to politically charged comments from Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, who in 2023 described the British public’s affection for the NHS as “Stockholm Syndrome“- and one Manifesto in 22 points based on a recent book by CEO Alex Karp, which advocates absolute loyalty to the United States and its interests.
“We have a key vendor that says they will use the technology in line with their policy mission,” Onwurah said. “If what the UK is trying to do in our NHS or in our defense does not match Palantir’s policy objectives, we clearly cannot rely on them as a supplier.”
To minimize risks, the committee recommended that the National Health Service, one of Palantir’s main partners in the UK, activate a clause in its contract next February that would end the relationship early.
The UK government began using Palantir’s technology in 2020 as it worked to map the spread of the Covid-19 virus and transport medical equipment across the country. Since then, Palantir and its partners have won contracts worth a total of $750 million with the NHS and the Ministry of Defenseamong others. The company touted its ability to enable “innovation and rapid problem solving” in the UK public sector.
The report highlights similar dependencies on U.S.-based cloud providers Microsoft and Amazon Web Services, as well as Fujitsu, the Japanese company at the center of the market. Horizon post office scandal. But “Palantir concerns us most,” the committee wrote.
Palantir did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
These relationships have recently come under increased scrutiny regarding the company’s work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as well as the U.S. and Israeli militaries. The manifesto based on Karp’s book further stoked concerns about the company’s policies.
“This is not a company that should be close to UK public services,” says Donald Campbell, advocacy director at Foxglove, a non-profit that has previously campaigned for the NHS to return to its contract with Palantir. “Do you want to give a company of this type – with these openly expressed views and ideologies – a central role within the British state from which it may become increasingly difficult to expel?
Appear before the committee in July last yearLouis Mosley, who runs Palantir’s European operations, distanced the company from Thiel’s comments on the NHS. Palantir’s goal is to “support democratically elected governments in fulfilling the mandate for which they were elected,” he said. “We represent a diversity of political views and do not take political positions as a company.”
Some supporters have argued that political grievances risk derailing the UK government’s stated aim of transforming the UK into a “truly digital state” and improving the efficiency of a beleaguered NHS.
But any government that entrusts sensitive data to a third-party vendor needs to be sure it won’t act against its interests, others say.
“These companies are of such size that we can’t really inspect what they are doing,” says Eerke Boiten, professor of cybersecurity at De Montfort University. “If data is going to be leveraged, in 99% of cases the vendor will need to be able to see the data. That means you have to trust them.”
