 |
| Pix credit here |
As data workers, we reject a false distinction between the ethics of a supplier and the effectiveness of the tools we use. The quality of our datasets is useful only when staff, patients and the public trust the NHS to hold their data securely.
NHS England is demanding that data workers across the NHS, from local hospitals to national teams, put huge amounts of sensitive health data into Palantir's FDP. Meanwhile, Palantir's UK CEO, Louis Mosley, publicly confirmed that if Reform UK wins the next election with a “clear public mandate” to share health data for the purposes of mass deportation efforts, the company will adhere to this. (Open Democracy: We’re NHS analysts organising together against Palantir. Here’s why )
I have been considering the ways in which the leading, or vanguard, forces of tech based productive forces have sought to add considerably to the form, content, and direction around the role, value, use, and "realities" of tech based measures, constructs, methods, systems, etc. as they become a foundational element of human collective organization, to a greater or lesser degree among states as a function of their stage of development. Two of the more interesting voices were projected from out of the institutional organs of Palantir and Anthrop\c.
In Reflections on the Palantir "Manifesto": The Oracular Semiosis of a "Technological Republic" Within its Own Cage of Techno-Modernization, I suggested that Palentir approached the question from an institutional and collective disciplinary space--on the (re)constitution of a social ordering the collective expresison of which must be managed in a specific way to meet both internal and external threat projections--but in a sort of tragically conventional way, that is by deploying traditional tropes and signified objects projections. This was oracular, programmatic, institutional, and permeated with the sort of traditional combination of hubris, principle, and good intention that sets up the triadic dialectic of our Anglo-European cognitive foundations. Palantir was coding the generative architecture of physical beings as the magisterium that then aligned that coded natural order with the mimetic ordering of the virtual spaces of their animated virtual realities.
In Science Fiction Double Feature: Anthrop\c's "2028: Two scenarios for global AI leadership," in the Shadow of Palantir's "Manifesto", I suggested that f Palantir sought to code human collectives in dialectical mimesis with the creators they created and with which they now engage in (for the monument) dependence based action iterations, then Anthrop/c, on the other hand, it reduces technology to a tool the deployment of which is a critical instrument in competition among different and divergent normative political-economic models. It seeks to reduce its creation, and the ecologies in which virtual life operates, to an instrument, the maintenance and improvements of which are of critical importance to human, not human-machine dialectical mimesis. If Palantir was Greek in its semiotic orientations (that is the way they signify and interpret, and thus rationalize the world around them), the Anthrop\c was comfortably Hebrew in their approach to the fundamental constitution of the lifeworld (lebenswelt) in which the human and their creation could be situated in ways that domesticated the "soulful machines" they have a hand in creating.
Both views, of course, invite counter thrusts. And one begins to find that counter thrust from emerging Soviets of counter-leading forces dedicated not to the eradication of the modalities of the coming technologically enhanced digitized organization of human collectives, but rather on the nature of the control relations within that rising ordering. Within those control relationships of course would be embedded the core values, sensibilities and biases of the vanguard group, the essence of which is oppositionally incompatible with those of the major forces of institutional tech power that they seek to resist, and once resisted, to displace. So it is that these counter-vanguards might reasonably be assumed to have collectives like Palantir in their cross hairs.
And so they do. Recently elements of the technologically oriented labor forces of the U.K. NHS distributed for signature (until 5 June 2026), and solidarity a declaration in the form of an open letter, NHS Analysts Together: Open Letter regarding the Federated Data Platform and Palantir Technologies.
This letter is organised by a collective of NHS data and digital professionals known as NHS Analysts Together. It is open to signatures from NHS analysts, engineers and any staff who work with NHS data and digital systems at the national, regional, ICB and local level. (Open Letter)
One is told that the effort is supported by a number of aligned organizations: United Tech and Allied Workers Union; UNISON, Greater Manchester Mental Health; UNISON, Homerton Health; Unite, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust; and the NHS Muslim Women's Network. (Ibid.). Their opposition is not to digitzation and the analytics of digitalization producing further movement along the based based decision making pathways of the current era of tech development. Instead the Open Letter
expresses "serious professional, ethical and practical concerns regarding the Federated Data Platform (FDP) and NHS England’s contract with Palantir Technologies. We do so not in opposition to digital transformation – we have dedicated our careers to exactly that – but because we believe the FDP in its current form represents a risk to patient trust, staff wellbeing, data quality, national sovereignty and the long term integrity of NHS data infrastructure."(Open Letter) .
The object, then, and the enemy, is Palantir. "But analysts and other data workers continued to be quietly outraged at
the NHS's willingness to work with a company known for its role in
military operations, deportations and surveillance." (Open Democracy: We’re NHS analysts organising together against Palantir. Here’s why
). That political opposition presumes a judgment of institutional character and fears the consequences that their sense of Palantir's character will have of their values, which, they believe, ought to be the ones embraced by the institutional actors representing the Crown in (and perhaps as) Parliament and its administrative apparatus.
The NHS Constitution states that “The NHS is accountable to the public, communities and patients that it serves”, and it is in this spirit that we outline below our objections to collaborating with Palantir Technologies on the Federated Data Platform. We believe that Palantir’s FDP is regressive in many organisational contexts; that data completeness will be compromised by the erosion of patient trust; that data privacy protections are inadequate; and that data structures are at risk of misuse. We also register our ethical concerns regarding Palantir Technologies. (Open Letter) .
The Open Letter then explains why. I leave that to my readers--the full text of the Open Letter follows below. What is clear, however, is that tech and tech development, remains as much a n object for capture, and instrumentalization with all groups vying for the power of translating their own imaginaries, their moral premises, their value judgments, and the enhancements of all of these projected back out from tech onto the human population affected by those technologies.
Now that is politics. . . which remains human for the moment. But perhaps not for long. And it is to the coding, the imprinting, of appropriate values, judgments, sensibilities etc. within the digitized realities from out of which human affecting processes will emerge that now appears to have become the great prize of politics at this moment.
NHS Analysts Together: Open Letter regarding the Federated Data Platform and Palantir Technologies
This letter is organised by a collective of NHS data and digital professionals known as NHS Analysts Together. It is open to signatures from NHS analysts, engineers and any staff who work with NHS data and digital systems at the national, regional, ICB and local level.
Please read the full letter below then fill out the form to add your signature if you wish to sign. This form is also open to people who plan to take, or have already taken, voluntary redundancy from their roles in 2026.
This letter also has the support of the following unions, organisations and branches:
- United Tech and Allied Workers Union
- UNISON, Greater Manchester Mental Health
- UNISON, Homerton Health
- Unite, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust
- NHS Muslim Women's Network
If you wish to sign as a group/organisation/staff network please email analyststogethernhs@protonmail.com.
As a collective, we are available to support any signatories who are concerned about speaking up, and invite you to contact us on analyststogethernhs@protonmail.com if you have any questions or concerns. You may also wish to join one of these unions listed above. This open letter will not be sent before we reach a minimum of 40 signatures from staff.
Any details you choose to provide us will not be shared anywhere aside from in submitting the letter to the chosen recipients and contacting you with any follow up or response. You may select to sign anonymously, but we encourage you to include your name. If you sign anonymously, your name will not be included in the sent letter.
This form will close on midnight on the 5th of June. The letter will be sent to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), Wes Streeting and other relevant ministers, Jim Mackey (NHSE CEO), Ayub Bhayat (CDAO), Phil Huggins (CISO), Bola Akinwale, and hospital Trusts and ICBs. The letter (without names) will also be published on the NHS Analysts Together Substack which you can subscribe to for updates here.
Open Letter
We are NHS data and digital professionals working across a wide range of organisations – including Integrated Care Boards, NHS Trusts, Commissioning Support Units and primary care – at every level from entry grade to senior leadership. We build, maintain, interrogate and interpret the data systems that underpin clinical decision making, service planning, population health management and operational efficiency across the NHS.
We are writing collectively to express our serious professional, ethical and practical concerns regarding the Federated Data Platform (FDP) and NHS England’s contract with Palantir Technologies. We do so not in opposition to digital transformation – we have dedicated our careers to exactly that – but because we believe the FDP in its current form represents a risk to patient trust, staff wellbeing, data quality, national sovereignty and the long term integrity of NHS data infrastructure.
The decisions being made now about NHS data infrastructure will shape what is possible – and what is not possible – for decades. They will determine whether the NHS retains meaningful control over its data infrastructure and whether the public continues to trust the NHS with their data.
We therefore believe that communicating our concerns over Palantir and the FDP is part of our professional duty to ensure safe, ethical and responsible handling of NHS data.
The NHS Constitution states that “The NHS is accountable to the public, communities and patients that it serves”, and it is in this spirit that we outline below our objections to collaborating with Palantir Technologies on the Federated Data Platform.
We believe that Palantir’s FDP is regressive in many organisational contexts; that data completeness will be compromised by the erosion of patient trust; that data privacy protections are inadequate; and that data structures are at risk of misuse. We also register our ethical concerns regarding Palantir Technologies.
It is for the reasons outlined that we object to the continuation of Palantir’s FDP contract and urge the use of the upcoming break clause. This should be followed by a review of the FDP business case and purpose, a reassessment of delivery, monitoring and governance arrangements, and, ultimately, a new procurement.
In addition to the above, we request:
- The development and implementation of an NHS Ethical Procurement Framework.
- A consultation with NHS data and digital professionals regarding the technical merits of existing NHS data infrastructure that could be learned from, scaled or replicated.
Whilst the contract remains in place, we:
- Register our objection to working in contact with Palantir employees.
- Register our objection to using and refining the FDP and any other Palantir software .
- Register our disillusionment with the approach taken by NHS leadership to the implementation of the FDP.
We request formal response to this letter within 28 days of receipt. Please note this letter represents the views of the individuals signed below and does not necessarily represent the official position of their employing organisations.
Technical and Professional Concerns
1.1 Palantir’s FDP is regressive in many organisational contexts
The narrative that the FDP represents a technological step forward for NHS data infrastructure does not reflect the reality experienced by many of our organisations, and we note with concern the push for FDP products above other data architecture options.
A number of NHS bodies have, over many years and with significant investment of professional expertise, developed sophisticated local and regional data platforms – including linked dataset environments, population health tools, and advanced analytics capabilities – that in several respects exceed the functionality currently offered by the FDP.
For these organisations, adoption of the FDP does not represent progress. It represents regression – the replacement of mature, fit-for-purpose, NHS-managed infrastructure with a commercially owned platform, which introduces significant new risks around data sovereignty and commercial dependency. We are concerned that this reality has not been adequately represented in the business case for the FDP, and that the platform has been presented as universally superior, when the evidence from practitioners on the ground does not support this.
We note with concern that the success of the FDP is frequently measured on delivery metrics as a proxy for benefits. This is not evidence of successful digital transformation, but of the significant push to adopt the FDP. Notably, some benefit claims have relied on methodologically weak assumptions - we are concerned that there is an over-reliance on associative indicators. The implication that adoption of the FDP will automatically produce benefits is concerning.
We are concerned by the significant local opportunity cost that investment in the FDP comes with, both at the software and professional level. With Palantir maintaining significant control over the core platform and the intellectual property rights of its associated products, NHS institutions risk depending on this software and Palantir staff for the maintenance and design of their data infrastructure. We do not believe this significant vendor lock-in is a sustainable option for NHS digital infrastructure.
At the same time, many of our colleagues, including experienced data and digital professionals who manage essential workflows and could manage alternative data architecture to the FDP, are being forced into redundancy. Data analysis expertise in a healthcare context is not a commodity function that can be automated away. It requires clinical knowledge, organisational understanding, contextual judgement and professional accountability. These are professional capabilities that no platform, however sophisticated, can replicate.
1.2 Data completeness will be compromised by erosion of patient trust
The quality of NHS data is inseparable from the trust that patients place in the NHS to use their information appropriately and safely. That trust has been hard won over a long time and is not guaranteed.
We are concerned that the association of NHS patient data infrastructure with Palantir Technologies – a company with a well documented history of involvement in surveillance and immigration enforcement – will erode patient confidence in data sharing. Patients who do not trust how their data will be used will opt out, and data completeness may fall. Demand for an opt-out mechanism is high, reflected in numerous Parliamentary petitions. YouGov polling found that 48% of UK adults who have not yet opted out of NHS data sharing are likely to do so if their data was being processed by a private company with Palantir's profile. Thousands of patients have already complained to their trusts about Palantir software, and unions such as the British Medical Association are exploring how their members can refuse to use the software.
Weaker patient trust in the health system damages clinical care and reduces our ability to harness data to promote public health. The operations and reputation of the supplier risk undermining the quality of the data, and therefore patient safety.
1.3 Data privacy protections are inadequate
We have concerns about the approach to data privacy within the FDP. A recent HSJ article found that almost one third of trusts using the FDP are not meeting minimum data security requirements. We know that Palantir staff can access data held in the FDP – many of us receive and manage their access requests – and have serious concerns about the monitoring of this. In addition, we believe there is insufficient governance and clarity around the use of AI within the FDP.
We are also concerned that there is a data sovereignty privacy risk. American corporations are bound by the US CLOUD Act and Foreign Intelligence Service Act, which allows the US government to request data held on the systems of an American corporation. Although Palantir refutes that sensitive information held on its platform could be obtained by the US government, its involvement in controversial mass surveillance operations with the US spy agency NSA brings its suitability as a data processor into question.
1.4 Data structures are at risk of misuse
Any data infrastructure which federates, centralises or links data must be built on a bedrock of trust in the security of the data infrastructure, the ethics of any external suppliers and the protection from government abuse of data infrastructure.
We note with concern that Palantir’s work with US Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) supports the identification and targeting of individuals for immigration enforcement purposes using addresses obtained from Department of Health data. We are alarmed that Palantir UK CEO Louis Mosley confirmed to the Observer that Palantir would share NHS data for immigration enforcement purposes should a future government legislate for it. A Palantir-run FDP therefore exacerbates the risk of government abuse of NHS data architecture.
In this regard, we also register concerns over the technical validity of the patient pseudonymisation techniques used for data within the FDP. The lack of transparency regarding the governance of the pseudonymisation applied by IQVIA's Privacy Enhancing Technology (PET) provides little assurances that patient data will be kept safe.
Ethical concerns regarding Palantir Technologies
Palantir Technologies is not a neutral software provider, but a highly controversial, politically active and military-focussed technology company. We recognise that other potential suppliers may also be ethically compromised. However, Palantir’s technology is not yet essential for the day-to-day work of most NHS data and digital professionals, and this provides a window of opportunity to act on these concerns. This can be followed by the development of a full ethical procurement framework.
Amnesty International has called on all public bodies, including NHS England, ICBs and hospital trusts specifically, not to use Palantir software on the grounds of serious involvement in alleged human rights abuses. This includes the use of Palantir software in operations such as drone warfare, battleplanning and mass deportation operations.
We are concerned that continued partnership with Palantir indirectly links NHS staff and resources with the alleged human rights abuses.
We are aware that a number of our colleagues, particularly those from ethnic minority backgrounds, have experienced distress as a result of being required to work with this platform. Palantir’s CEO Alex Karp has stated he wants Palantir to “power the West to its innate superiority” and his book, The Technological Republic, declares some cultures superior to others. Karp has also expressed a desire for violence against analysts who spoke out against the company, proclaiming he wants to “spray them with fentanyl-laced urine”. Chairman and Co-Founder Peter Thiel is a prominent financial backer and supporter of the American far-right movement and has previously expressed dismay at women being given the right to vote. With dignity and respect being core to the NHS constitution, legitimate concerns regarding the psychological safety of NHS staff must be taken seriously.
Conclusion
We write this letter with the greatest respect for the complexity of the challenges facing NHS data infrastructure, and with a commitment to improving patient care and public health through digital transformation.
We must identify, learn from and scale the most advanced NHS-developed data infrastructure already in existence, rather than replacing it with a commercial alternative. Where external partners are sought, it must be with transparent governance, the elimination of commercial conflicts of interest, and a commitment to prioritising patient trust and ethical procurement.
We believe that alternatives to the FDP that can truly transform NHS data infrastructure already exist for a multitude of use cases, and we are ready to build and develop the rest. This requires a shared commitment to the principles of open standards, interoperability, data sovereignty, ethics, transparency and co-design based on need.
It is for the reasons outlined above that we object to the continuation of Palantir’s FDP contract and urge the use of the upcoming break clause. This should be followed by a review of the FDP business case and purpose, a reassessment of delivery, monitoring and governance arrangements, and, ultimately, a new procurement.
In addition to the above, we request:
- The development and implementation of a formal NHS Ethical Procurement Framework.
- A consultation with NHS data and digital professionals regarding the technical merits of existing NHS data infrastructure that could be learned from, scaled or replicated.
Whilst the contract remains in place, we:
- Register our objection to working in contact with Palantir employees
- Register our objection to using and refining the FDP and any other Palantir software
- Register our disillusionment with the approach taken by NHS leadership to the implementation of the FDP.
We request formal response to this letter within 28 days of receipt. Please note this letter represents the views of the individuals signed below and does not necessarily represent the official position of their employing organisations.
No comments:
Post a Comment