NHS England published heavily redacted Palantir contract as festivities began

NHS England picked the last working day before Christmas to publish a heavily redacted contract for the controversial Federated Data Platform, which it awarded to US spy-tech firm Palantir in November. Large sections of the three contract documents - published on Friday December 22 as workers packed up for the holidays - have …

[ColinPa]

Transparency

"lessons have been learned from previous data programmes including the need for a) transparency and b) data to be held in secure environments with the correct checks and balances in place"

But we are not telling you what the lessons learned were, or how we are going to protect the data - we are being totally un-transparent about this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Transparency

"lessons have been learned from previous data programmes including the need for a) transparency and b) data to be held in secure environments with the correct checks and balances in place"

You are missing the *fact* that they did not say that the lessons learned would be *applied* !!!

:)

Yet another moumental failure in the making .... as per usual for this govt !!!

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Transparency

I think the main lesson learned is that they have to keep quiet about it. This is about as far as they could get with applying it.

[RegGuy1]

Re: Transparency

The main lesson learned is that defining a style to put black text on a black background is an amazing way to speed up the contracting process. Nothing is hidden. It's just a presentation thing. In the more advanced course you learn to present your data with white text on a white background. Then no one knows you've given anyone the data, and so no one can complain. But you only get to lesson two when the total contract value exceeds $500m.

[Tubz]

Re: Transparency

Not the government, NHS as an organisation, this would have happened under a Labour or Liberal government, people need to learn to separate the two.

[BebopWeBop]

Re: Transparency

It might have done but the NHS is meant to be accountable to those who own and fund it. And by that, I don't mean just those who leach and reuse the data for purposes that are not transparent.

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Transparency

Not the NHS, "NHS Digital", which is a QUANGO set up on April 1st 2013, by the Tory government.

It didn't exist under the previous Labour government, so you can hardly try to claim it would have happened under Labour.

In fact, trying to make this, "oh, but they're all the same" claim is the usual sort of FUD one would come to expect from right-wing lie-mongers, to feed into the Daily Heil reader's mentality of "they'd all cut off my balls, so I might as well keep voting for the local Tory to cut them off."

If you can't stop being an idiot, at least try to stop being a useful idiot shilling for a venally corrupt hard-right populist excuse for a government.

[WageSlave5678]

Re: Transparency

Without transparency, it's hard to know if it;s truly an NHS only decision / initiative, or if it's been pushed down by a Gov't Health Minister becasue of commercial lobbying and hiddenm agendas.

All the more reason to give the cross-party oversight Committees greater teeth to force transparency, and at the very least allow Opposition MPs to inspect confidential documents if needed, and ratify any decision for redaction.

It seems that everything this current gov't does has a stench of corruption wafting behind it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Transparency

The decision to go with Palantir was made by the Cabinet Office under the advice of the Department of Health and Social Care.

It's a political decision to monetise patient data as thanks for donations and to also continue the end of the NHS as a care providing organisation. It's a very much Tory move.

Once you have data all in one lake and the significant centralisation of the NHS (which has already happened due to Tory poltiically appointed leadership) then it's so much easier to gift to the American health insurers/Tory donors.

The Tories only want the NHS brand - they don't get a fig for universal healthcare or anything else the NHS used to be associated with.

Please don't expect the Tories to lower taxes once the NHS has been sold off. No, no, your pounds keep their retirement packages from Parliament golden. I do hope the British are looking forward to having to pay for health insurance on top of the taxes they currently pay/avoid/don't earn enough to pay.

[elsergiovolador]

Corruption

So we don't have economic environment suitable for creation and growth corporations capable of servicing such contracts.

Corporations from countries were taxes are lower and environment for running business is friendlier, have huge competitive advantage over our domestic businesess.

Therefore, I'd say either create a level playing field or ban corporations HQ at businesses friendlier countries from participation.

Or that is just done on purpose. Government doesn't want domestic business to grow and gain power and on the other hand, foreign big corporations are less likely to engage in challenging the status quo.

From that point of view, government should be investigated for creating such environment hostile towards the tax payer and well being of the nation.

[Antipode77]

Re: Corruption

Or some people were given kickbacks.

We will give you this xx million contract if you drop y % of the amount into our cayman accounts.

And to hell with the tax payers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Corruption

Whilst I don't know about Cayman accounts, I personally see a lot of behaviour in the NHS that smells of corruption, with the largest offender being that of bypassing the tender process.

Try and buy an updated widget from an existing supplier you've been using for years for 10K and finance will start bleating on about tenders and process, but spend millions on wasted software and start employing consultants who "you've worked with before", and that just sails through.

[JohnMurray]

Re: Corruption

I personally see a lot of behaviour in *NHSEngland* that smells of corruption.

NHSE is a political organisation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Corruption

Quite. Most NHSE staff didn't realise that it's own Board (mainly of private bankers/investors - appointed by the Tories) that voted to reduce it's workforce by 40%. What that means is less scrutiny and process and more decisions being made without accountability.

Don't worry, soon NHSE will be no more as it is consumed by the ever widening Department of Health and Social Care. You don't need NHSE when there's no NHS left to manage.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Corruption

I suspect a key consideration was that those in power do not use the NHS so it's only other people's data that ends up in the hands of Fascism Inc. Palantir. The next step is probably sending all data about state school children for surveillance to a Palantir database so they can build a profile early on.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Corruption

With pictures and addresses, so that the rich will know whose child to kidnap to use for parts if they need a new kidney or worse.

[Bebu]

One can imagine

Jim Hacker: Can they do that Humphrey?

Sir Humphrey: Apparently prime minister.

Jim Hacker: Why didn't we?

Sir Humphrey: You may recall our advice concerning the risks inherent in considering actions approaching the slippery slope of ill considered consequences ....

Jim Hacker: I feel, sometimes, Humphrey that I haven't always appreciated the soundness of your advice.

Sir Humphrey: Yes, prime minister.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: One can imagine

It remains to be seen how successful they've been in getting rid of the difficult but in the title.

[Eclectic Man]

Re: One can imagine

You remember the Victoria Wood TV continuity announcer, played by Susie Blake?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AijNCV_JWMs

After this government I cannot help imagining her saying brightly to the camera:

"That was the Prime Minister."

Smiles

"Apparently".

[Boris the Cockroach]

Maybe

the bit about the plans being openly on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet etc was not satire after all.....

[GioCiampa]

Re: Maybe

I'll just add: "This is obviously some strange use of the word 'transparent' that I wasn't previously aware of."

(With my usual apologies for paraphrasing)

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Maybe

I'd be surprised if it was even transparent to X-rays.

[Mike 137]

The very point at issue?

"The platform will use only existing data legally collected by the NHS to support direct patient care, which is lawful under all relevant data protection regulations"

The concept of centralised aggregation of direct patient care records is itself inappropriate. The doctor/patient relationship is supposed to be confidential, just like the lawyer/client and confessional relationships. The managing of the aggregated data by a third party is actually a secondary issue, as the patient can have no assurance of confidentiality once an unknown number of unknown parties have access to the data, whether NHS or third party staff, or as to what it might be used for in addition to delivery of direct care.

While it might be lawful to centralise patient care records, it's also now lawful to declare an unsafe country safe for deportees. Creating a law that allows you to act abusively does not make it right to do so.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: The very point at issue?

This is the part of diversion of money from doctors and other staff helping the patients to tech companies. They want to use the data to train the AI and then take the monies from the tax payer in exchange for delivering half ar*ed care.

It's crazy that three letter agencies are not all over this money grab, or maybe they get their cut.

[MonkeyJuice]

Re: The very point at issue?

> It's crazy that three letter agencies are not all over this money grab, or maybe they get their cut.

I'm sure they have plenty of free time on their hands, given how everything's going swimmingly here at the moment.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: The very point at issue?

I'm sure they have plenty of free time on their hands, given how everything's going swimmingly here at the moment.

Maybe if they were doing their job, we wouldn't have this mess today.

[Pete Sdev]

Re: The very point at issue?

There's a legitimate public interest in aggregate data. That's how you catch things like "Hmm, we have an above average cases of thyroid cancer in this area since 2015 which correlates to when the new waste incinerator was built, we should investigate". The data should however remain in the department of health. Outsourcing to any private company, let alone one dubious as Palantir, is beyond the pale.

There's also a use case for other parts of the NHS being able to access some patient data, such as allergies and current medication, automatically in cases of emergency. Obviously this needs to remain in house, be appropriately secured, all access logged etc. In the UK, it's probably been outsourced to Crapita or given to someone like Dido Harding...

[stungebag]

Re: The very point at issue?

It's all very well saying that the doctor/relationship record should be confidential, but the problem is there are a great number of doctors in the NHS and you may be being treated by several at any one time. As a recent and unwilling heavy user of two NHS trusts and several hospitals I know very well that trusts don't talk to each other and trusts and GPs don't effectively comunicate. Even different departments within a trust fail to pass on important information about patients to each other.

Example 1. I was declared ready to go home by my medical team, but they referred me to the respiratory team due to my low oxygen level. I occupied my NHS bed for two days longer than I should because the respiratory team never told anyone they were happy for me to be discharged.

Example 2: I was told I needed an urgent assessment by the respiratory team and was sent an appointment. When I turned up I was sent away: they couldn't perform the tests on me because of my recent operation.

Bettter comms, including better record keeping, could have prevcented both, each of which cost the NHS quite a bit of money. There must be a better way and that has to include a single place where all of my data from across the NHS sits. It need not be sitting in the same place as your data, but it should sit somewhere where any clinician that needs it can get at it.

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: The very point at issue?

This brings to mind my personal experience of piss-poor NHS data sharing.

Some years ago, I was unfortunate enough to experience a motorcycle accident. I was, however, fortunate enough for it to be at low speed, and my only injuries were to my pride, and to my shoulder, which was dislocated so neatly, that once the local A+E department had put it back the head of my humerus 4 or 5 centimetres back into its rightful position, there wasn't even any bruising.

Some months later, I received a letter referring me for physiotherapy with an appointment date and time. I hadn't expected this, and didn't request it (I didn't feel I actually needed it). I was certainly never asked if I wanted a referral. However, being a good citizen, I duly turned up at the appointment (sweaty and out of breath, because I'd been round the houses trying to find the right unsignposted entrance in the local hospital complex). The physiotherapist then asked me what I wanted to get out of the physio sessions, to which I had to express my bewilderment. My shoulder was absolutely fine by this point.

Decent communication and proper needs assessments could have saved me the bother of taking time off work, and, more importantly, could have made the appointment available for somebody else who actually needed it.

[I could be a dog really]

Re: The very point at issue?

Bettter comms, including better record keeping, ... There must be a better way and that has to include a single place where all of my data from across the NHS sits.

The first part does not lead to the second. Yes, there should be better data sharing, but that does NOT mean pouring it all into one massive database ripe for "leakage", and it does NOT mean handing it to a business with a "poor" track record when it comes to managing information and which is based in a country with laws which make compliance with our laws on data protection IMPOSSIBLE for that business.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: The very point at issue?

Data legally collected for patient care may only be legally used for patient care. They seem to not have understood that.

[Anonymous Coward]

The NHS Federated Data Platform and Palantir: 7 key risks

The NHS Federated Data Platform and Palantir 7 key risks June 2023

“England’s health and social care systems are in crisis. The strains of the pandemic and a huge backlog of operations are compounded by chronic underinvestment, staff shortages, and industrial unrest.”

“This report identifies seven key risks with the NHS Palantir deal”

• A flawed procurement process –

• A poorly defined and shifting project scope –

• Secrecy and a failure to design for patient consent –

• Over–centralisation –

• Monopoly lock–in –

• Palantir’s poor reputation –

• Pilot failures being ignored –

[mistersaxon]

Re: The NHS Federated Data Platform and Palantir: 7 key risks

Palantir is a company that thinks everyone is stupid. Their name itself is a blatant taunt to privacy activists…

I say this because Palantir is a reference from Lord of the Rings, and refers specifically to a group of magical artefacts that were created with good intentions to enable global communications and were transformed by Sauron into a tool for mind control and surveillance. If that is an accident I’ll eat my hat.

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: The NHS Federated Data Platform and Palantir: 7 key risks

Surely, you're not likening Peter Thiel to Sauron. Why, the very thought!

[Michael Wojcik]

Re: The NHS Federated Data Platform and Palantir: 7 key risks

It's a damned slur, is what it is. Sauron had his good points.

[Christoph]

If the data is ever held in the United States then the NSA will grab the lot.

No, I have no direct evidence for this. But given their known past behaviour it would be ludicrous to suppose that they would not grab it.

Palantir will of course be forbidden to say anything about the grab.

[Flocke Kroes]

NSA is far down the list of my concerns. Imagine how bad things would be if Peter Thiel had access to everyones' medical records.

[streaky]

What makes you think the NSA would wait for the NHS to ship it off post-anonymisation if they wanted it? If the NSA wants data, they're taking it - particularly when you consider all the sketchy contractors involved with data handling for the NHS.

[I could be a dog really]

You forget the CLOUD Act. Palantir is a US company, therefore it falls under the CLOUD Act, that means the US TLAs can basically rock up at their offices and say "hand over this information wherever in the world it is held". It is fundamentally impossible for any US based business to comply with EU or UK data protection law. What can be done is complicated corporate shenanigans, such as having a European corporation which runs the European stuff, is technically independent, but which is 100% owned by the US parent company. Only by doing that, and the EU based people imposing sufficient technical measures that their US colleagues physically cannot access the data, can there be any pretence at being legal.

However, given that Microsoft in the US handed over information held on servers in Ireland on the day the CLOUD Act came into force does lead one to question how well that works in practice.

[Howard Sway]

Appropriate response

The ministers responsible for giving away our data like this deserve to have their ███ ███ ███ with a rusty ███ before being made to ███ a ███ on live tv, before ███ ███ ███ and ███ ███ ███ ███. For trying to rush it out when nobody would notice, they should also have to ███ ███ ███ ███ ███.

[J. Cook]

Re: Appropriate response

I think I've seen an adult movie about that one.

But really, with a sheep and a goat, while on a horse?

[ecofeco]

Re: Appropriate response

In Texas, they call that "yeehaw!".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Appropriate response

Of course not.

It was a sheep and a *donkey*, while on a horse.

The goat wouldn't stay on set.

[J. Cook]

Re: Appropriate response

It was a well trained goat, with the sole exception that it kept eating what little clothing the actors were wearing, or removing them from the set. /rimshot

[Anonymous Coward]

The platform will use only existing data legally collected

ad Hitlerum: gas chambers were legal too.

[Vometia has insomnia. Again.]

Re: The platform will use only existing data legally collected

Only if they referred to them by the correct euphemism, which I forget offhand. Some hapless secretary also forgot and mentioned "gas chambers" in a telegram; they guillotined her.

[Eclectic Man]

I cannot help feeling

that all this criticism of Palantir as an excessively powerful processor of OUR data plays into their hands. IF we are so worried about them getting access to it and analysing it, they must be really clever, so can charge the spook agencies loads more.

I'll get my tin hat.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: I cannot help feeling

IF we are so worried about them getting access to it and analysing it, they must be really clever

Or dumb. You wouldn't give a crackhead a flashdrive with your medical records and ensure they know the flashdrive has valuable information on it.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Mind Bleach

Visualise if you will, The NHS as a patient, on an examination table and Palantir as a Proctologist, having a good root around for things that may be of interest to them

[Eclectic Man]

Re: Mind Bleach

Oh thanks for that mental image [not]. I will have seriously clenched buttocks for the whole day now.

In future please post an alert for us squeamish people beforehand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Mind Bleach

can we get goatse to sit on thiels head (and not the head of his cock) seeing as thiel wants data he can get some there

[Jason Bloomberg]

Why?

Why would anyone trust someone to keep something safe if they are not even prepared to say how they will keep those things safe?

You would have to be a fool to do so. Unfortunately we don't have any choice but to be taken for fools.

Welcome to 2024. Nothing ever seems to get better.

[Vometia has insomnia. Again.]

Re: Why?

"Trust me bro."

And having seen that very weird and aggressive Palantir freak being interviewed on the telly, I'm not sure why anyone would trust them. Giving that everyone's most private and sensitive data has to be one of the worst things HMG has ever done.

[Anonymous Coward]

They told us

that if we privatised and deregulated all of our vital services then it would all be cheaper and better. I am not feeling it.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: They told us

Deregulation is not for the benefit of you and me, but big corporations that can quickly corner various niches using vast capital at their disposal, do some enough bad things so that next government says "that's it, we need to regulate!". They already would have bagged a ton of cash and then they will get de-facto monopoly on a silver plate.

De-regulation makes sense to aid growth of small and medium business, but big corporations need a lot of red tape for our safety as they have too much power.

When corrupt governments talk about de-regulation, they mean more regulation for small business and less for big ones - stakeholder capitalism.

[Eclectic Man]

Re: They told us

It's like that bit in TLOTR film:

Frodo: "Sméagol promised!"

Sméagol: (smiling) "Sméagol lied"

(How is it that autocorrect puts an accent on Sméagol? The wonders of modern technology, I presume.)

[bonkers]

Threats to the UK NHS

There's not enough discussion and comment from the Regtards on this dreadful story. Perhaps because there are so many factors it's difficult to know where to begin. Fundamentally, we may have a genuine threat against the future of humanity. Yes that's a monster claim and I'm not entirely serious, but there are pernicious factors that need to be nipped out now.

Allow me to put down a few starters, for further discussion.

Firstly

American Healthcare Giants make untold trillions from the controlling position they have created - regulatory capture I think they call it.

Consider the "last dollar last day" pricing of drugs for terminal conditions - allowing a free market pitches the value of life against the value of money - just like meeting the grim reaper, "all I own for one more day?"

Our NHS pricing (aka NICE) keeps them honest, and is a huge embarrassment. It reveals their cartel.

In fact, the pure existence of the NHS - which treats maybe three times the patients for the same money - is unwanted proof that the "free to all" model works. But for this example it would soon be accepted that such things can never work.

Secondly

Our pesky insistence that medical drugs cannot be advertised to the public is under sustained threat, and is starting to falter. Look at the TV advertising for what is just a combination of ordinary painkillers, paracetamol and ibuprofen, and the price they charge - versus just combining the generic medications and taking two tablets. The promotion and branding of these trivial combination medicines is a huge moneyspinner, and the big pharmaceutical companies are desperate to let it loose over here.

On a much darker note, the promotion of "non-addictive" opiods has resulted in what, 500,000 deaths in the USA? - never mind the "less than death" adverse outcomes. Purdue Pharma are offering $6bn of the $18bn they salted away (my figures from memory) - and sure, go round again...

Thirdly

Allowing parliamentary lobbying to continue in its current form must stop. We are setting our mild and well-intentioned MP's against the world's best with regard to influence and control. These people will deconstruct any target psyche into bits, and work from there - look at the individualised text messages to American voters on social media. There's no need to bribe or blackmail any more. Donald Trump managed to get elected, and later to get Congress stormed, using manipulation of opinion alone.

Now look at how the new Palantir contract has been signed and delivered - including all the redactive measures to ensure it cannot be scrutinised. You can't get this from bribery or force, it needs full-on psychological conviction - the target needs to get it past all the colleagues, committees, civil service, legal - without being aware he is being carefully coached in each of his arguments. Quite possibly - and the numbers are speculative - this might be an individual MP pitted against a team of twelve, all expert in finding the motivations, convictions, principles of otherwise decent people, and corrupting them.

What chance does even the best well-intentioned MP have against all this?

Well, oversight within parliament helps - but this seems to have been breezed through, contracts already awarded. Our final line of defence is openness (i.e. non-secrecy) - and the independent scrutiny this allows, forever. What we see here is psychological control with careful elimination of all countermeasures.

It is not Regulatory, but more Parliamentary Capture.

We cannot sit by and let this happen.

[Strong as Taishan Mountains]

Re: Threats to the UK NHS

Can anyone stop it though? To a USian here it all looks like a long unstoppable Thatcher march there :(

[bonkers]

Re: Threats to the UK NHS

> Can we stop it though?

Possibly not, though we might impede it long enough for other measures to come into force. Very much in line with immune system strategies.

A firmer mandate that commercial secrecy does not apply to public-money contracts would be good. The redacted Palantir contract is obviously hiding something that would be unpalatable to the established review methods.

The rules are simple - if it's public money, then terms and conditions are a matter of public record. For god's sake they already publish every word of parliamentary conversation in Hansard, why should predatory corporations be offered better terms?

Disallowing any one-on-one lobbyist conversations might be an answer, conversations to government should need at least two government parties present. This hugely complicates any deliberate manipulation.

Educating politicians about the risks of soft-capture, letting them know there are highly-trained manipulators out there, is another possible defence. Maybe give them an opportunity to declare themselves as being under threat - then let them wear a wire, so that our team can disassemble the methods targeted at them? OK, take-up would be zero, I appreciate that, but it's at least a problem defined - even if as yet unsolved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Threats to the UK NHS

Can anyone stop it though?

Yes.

The voters.

Get rid of the Tories asap or soon there will be no NHS to speak of.

Or UK for that matter.

.

[BebopWeBop]

Re: Threats to the UK NHS

The demise of the UK as a single entity is something to be looked forward to.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Threats to the UK NHS

The Tories are not in charge. They take orders from Davos and so will be the next government.

It's a complete failure of our three letter organisations to address this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Threats to the UK NHS

The greatest trick the genocidal white supremacists of Silicon Valley ever pulled was convincing the world that Davos is the enemy.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Threats to the UK NHS

It's not either or.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Threats to the UK NHS

Well played, sir.

[Alpy]

HMG never ever learns...

... And never holds anyone accountable for their actions. What's the point of having rules, policies and processes if people can just ignore them? I'd love to see the competitive, technical and financial analysis on this procurement. FOI

[elsergiovolador]

Re: HMG never ever learns...

Ironically what you are looking for is not FOIable.

[ScottishYorkshireMan]

Doubt the UK voter gives a shit...

Because, both the Daily Distress/Fail will say this is a good thing.

The UK always gets exactly the government it deserves. This kind of thing proves it.

However, in Scotland, the prority is...

Ferries, Bottle return scheme, Motorhome, £600K.

No wonder the planet needs an enema.

[BebopWeBop]

Re: Doubt the UK voter gives a shit...

The priotities of Scotland are rather broader than that. You are just repeating what Westminster and the MSM claim the priorities are.

[ScottishYorkshireMan]

Re: Doubt the UK voter gives a shit...

Actually, no.

Try talking to a few Scots residents and as they all seem to read the likes of the Daily Distress, Daily Fail and Daily Shitcord, they have been told their opinions. It seems to be beyond the general voter to consider the likes of The Byline Times, The National and The Canary for their news input.

Scotland is in a dictatorship, once London runs out of water, Scotland will have to pony that up too.

Jog on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Doubt the UK voter gives a shit...

using the term MSM immediately loses all credibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Money for data

What I'm amazed about is that the NHS is giving data worth hundreds of millions to surveillance firm Palantir and it's the NHS that has to pay Palantir, not the other way around. If Palantir had to pay, let's say 1 billion pounds, to the NHS to get their hands on anonymised data it would have been a very different discussion. Now it's just criminal. I hope the next government tears up the contract on day one and sues Peter Thiel into absolute oblivion (but I'm not holding my breath).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Money for data

'grinds into paste' not 'sues into oblivion'.

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Money for data

Members of the phylum Porifera have demonstrated the ability to reassemble themselves into complete organisms after being ground into a fine paste (and even back into separate organisms for several pasted up together). I'm not convinced Peter Thiel doesn't know some of the same tricks as sea sponges, so a paste may not be going far enough. Applications of a strong bleaching agent and fire may also be appropriate.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: Money for data

What I'm amazed about is that the NHS is giving data worth hundreds of millions

I wonder to what extent the data is real. Don't forget there is a lot of fraud going on. If you ever requested your medical records, you may be surprised to see what's in it. Like disease you never had and prescriptions yourself never taken.

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Money for data

What I'm amazed about is that the NHS is giving data worth hundreds of millions

Not the NHS, "NHS Digital", which is a quasi-governmental body separate from (but with its tendrils within) the NHS.

[I_am_Chris]

Re: Money for data

NHS Digital no longer exists. Same as NHS-X. It's all now just NHS England.

[Disgusted of Cheltenham]

Redaction?

Can anyone explain why the DocuSign Identifier is redacted on most (but not all) pages, e.g. page 9 or page 40? Although not simply black on black, this redaction seems to have been done manually given that it does appear where large amounts of the body text are missing and there's also one case in Doc1 on page 64 where the final E of the header is not redacted.

Why is the page number 26 redacted? (It comes between 25 and 27.)

More generally, how do you verify the digital signature on a redacted document?

[Arthur Daily]

Lots of money for an FTP program and hackable RAT server (all the same)

Yes, The US defense dept had a similar trouble - unpatched glue or integration software. The checks and balance should be a competition where pen testers can have a go on test data - and the real results and rewards published.

[Anonymous Coward]

An NHS spokesperson said the move “fundamentally misunderstands how the Federated Data Platform will operate and is totally incorrect in both matters of law and fact. The platform will use only existing data legally collected by the NHS to support direct patient care, which is lawful under all relevant data protection regulations."

However, they didn’t say that our data wouldn’t be shared, sold or sent off-shore. I’m guessing that accounts at least some (if not most) of the redactions.

[Stig]

US Shell companies

In the 1990s the UK Defence company I worked for, Ferranti Computer Systems, wanted to expand into the USA.

A merger of sorts was negotiated, but the US Defence company was not permitted to reveal any details of their contracts, just implied values & order book outlines- referencing National Security considerations.

It was a complete scam, the USA firm was just a shell - nothing more - resulting in the destruction of Ferranti along with it's employees.

Ok, so National Security was invoked in that case, but this NHS/Palantir hookup seems to have similar one sided & redacted transparency. BE WARNED.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: US Shell companies

People who are involved most likely don't use NHS anyway, so who cares if it collapses. All that count are the bags of money.

[Mister Jones]

A Bit Wider Than Worries About Palantir......

One central argument for centralised data is that there are huge benefits for improvements in diagnosis, and then perhaps improvements in treatment.

We are also told that personal privacy is protected because the records are "pseudonymised".

Unfortunately, the Government completely fails to mention some central arguments about risks:

(1) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/23/anonymised-data-never-be-anonymous-enough-study-finds

(2) No mention of "data in transit"..... focus only on a final "central database"

(3) Never mind Palatir SELLING the data, or otherwise abusing trust, what about unknown third parties HACKING the database

Then there's the relaibility of each NHS Trust in the first place:

(4) https://www.ft.com/content/6954971e-5d3a-11e9-939a-341f5ada9d40

(5) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/03/google-deepmind-16m-patient-royal-free-deal-data-protection-act

And even Government agencies routinely ignore the law......never mind Palantir:

(6) https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/10/ipco_report_2020/

Yup........It's not just that Palantir is a "contract too far".....Government agencies, NHS Trusts, and the basic technology are all BIG RISKS too!

[elsergiovolador]

Re: A Bit Wider Than Worries About Palantir......

One central argument for centralised data is that there are huge benefits for improvements in diagnosis

If someone says "yuge benefits", probably there are none. It's a great dataset for pharmaceutical companies though. Just look up the shareholders of Palantir...

[s. pam]

Bloody liars them lot are then!

"NHS England has said the FDP competition is fair, open and transparent procurement"

Sure, the cheque is in the post!

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

"Clinicians will easily have access to the information they need to do their job – in one place – freeing up time spent on administrative tasks and enabling them to deliver the most appropriate care for patients," it said.

That's a bold claim , given that each and every trust spens millions on dozens of different systems all woven together to achieve that end.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get rid of the NHS

The NHS is fast becoming an emergency treatment system only. More and more layers of management are put in place, and pharmaceuticals charge extreme amounts for dubious treatments, which costs millions of £s a year. The NHS, in its current role, cannot survive.

Oh, and sack the doctors who walk out on strike, despite taking a pledge to protect patients under their care. They are just being greedy.

Ex NHS employee with over 25 years working for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Get rid of the NHS

NHS keeps me alive so GTFO

[Elongated Muskrat]

Re: Get rid of the NHS

The NHS isn't the problem, it's cowardly anonymous hard-right shills like you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Get rid of the NHS

They purposely do all they can to ruin the NHS, and then say "See? Long waiting lists, bad results, striking doctors. We need to privatise it" and idiots like you believe it.

If you knew 1% of what the US healthcare system does to people, you'd change your tune, but ignorance is bliss. I guess you voted for brexit too.

[Anonymous Coward]

poor redaction

Redacting the DocuSign envelope number in the top left corner of the page only works if you do it on every page! (page 9 was the first mishap if you were wondering)

[Disgusted of Cheltenham]

Re: poor redaction

But why redact it anywhere? Unless Docusign will give you the document if you can quote it, what information does it or could it give away? Perhaps it's just someone told to redact the signature and not quite understanding that a digital signature is not the same as a scan of a wet one.

[Paul 195]

It's hard to think of a corporation I would trust less with my sensitive health data than Palantir, a company that does business with intelligence services all over the world, and that was founded by far-right supporter and all around bad egg Peter Thiel.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't describe Palantir as "a company that does business with intelligence services", I would describe it as a privatised intelligence firm that doesn't work for democratically elected governments but for a Nazi billionaire.

[steviebuk]

If you have to redact

then you know its shit and that everyone will disagree with the contract. More evidence of the Tories trying their best to privatise the NHS.