Say No to Palantir in the NHS

Scope of Opposition

• Many argue people should refuse Palantir contracts globally, especially for healthcare and government, with some extending this to all large US tech firms tied to defense and immigration enforcement.
• Others push back on “all or nothing” arguments, framing targeted opposition to Palantir as useful incrementalism rather than hypocrisy or “whataboutism.”

Palantir vs Other Tech Giants

• One side: Palantir is qualitatively worse because it is built around defense, surveillance, ICE, and military targeting; its leaders explicitly embrace a pro‑US‑supremacy, techno‑militarist role.
• Other side: most large tech firms now have defense/intelligence contracts; singling out Palantir while using products from others is seen as politically selective or inconsistent.

NHS Use Case, Capabilities, and Costs

• Supporters note Foundry’s strengths in complex data integration, operational analytics, and privacy controls, and see it as addressing long‑standing NHS IT fragmentation and lack of technical leadership.
• Critics highlight very high costs, heavy integration effort, vendor lock‑in, and the availability of open‑source or domestic alternatives; some say research institutions or public-sector teams should build these systems instead.

Privacy, Surveillance, and National Security

• Strong concern that giving a US “spy‑tech” company access to patient‑level health data risks de facto access by US security services, especially in immigration and conflict contexts.
• Defenders say Palantir typically deploys on the customer’s own infrastructure and does not routinely exfiltrate data; skeptics respond that US legal compulsion and political realities make such assurances unreliable.
• Several frame healthcare data as part of national security; outsourcing to a foreign, security‑linked vendor is seen as inherently risky.

Ethical and Political Concerns

• Many object to Palantir’s work on deportations, Gaza targeting, and “kill chain” applications; some argue better targeting tools can reduce civilian harm, others see that as industry propaganda that ultimately enables more war.
• There is debate over whether the core problem is Palantir specifically, billionaire control of public infrastructure more broadly, or the absence of laws and consequences for harmful corporate behavior.

Alternatives and Structural Responses

• Proposed responses include: building sovereign/open‑source platforms, limiting critical systems to trusted domestic vendors, stricter regulation of surveillance tech, and political action rather than mere consumer “boycotts.”
• Some are skeptical the UK state has the capacity or will to build and maintain something Foundry‑like; others argue that is precisely what a serious, sovereign government should do.