NHS England staff voice concerns about access controls on US spy-tech firm Palantir's COVID-19 data store
- Reference: 1625479265
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/07/05/palantir_covid_data_store/
- Source link:
According to documents seen by The Register , some staff at the non-departmental body of the Department for Health and Social Care (DHCS) are concerned about the lack of clarity when requests are made for data sets on the system built on Palantir's Foundry platform.
Some requests for data are ignored, with no information given in the fields for “decision maker” or “decision reason,” according to screengrabs seen by El Reg .
[1]
Even if NHS England staff get access to the data they request, names of decision-makers might be given as “unknown group or user”, while the reason for a decision might be “approved by a triage panel”. The lack of transparency is leaving staff frustrated that they cannot get more information on the data sets they request.
[2]
[3]
The documents, and views of NHS England staff, raise the possibility that NHS England management is restricting access to data without giving proper justification. Others have speculated that the American software firm itself, with its consultants still working on the system, is restricting access to the data.
According to NHSE's own Data Protection Impact Assessment for the NHS COVID-19 Data Store
[4]PDF , also available [5]here
, Palantir does have access to that data.[6]
It states:
Only members of the Palantir team authorised and onboarded by NHSE to the Foundry platform may have access to de-identified NHSE data.
Palantir employs controls which prevent Infrastructure Operators accessing data integrated in the Foundry platform.
Palantir employee access is approved by designated Palantir team leads following Palantir’s annually updated and management approved Access Control policy and processes.
They include requirements for the verification of identity, regular verification of users and access, and procedures for new user access requests, changing access, and updating and deleting users upon termination or when responsibilities change.
We are awaiting a statement from NHS England, which was contacted for comment last week.
Palantir declined to comment.
NHS data crew not happy
Meanwhile, data workers and system planners have expressed concerns about Palantir’s involvement with the healthcare body, with negative opinions said to be shared among the many of relevant employees.
Staff we have spoken to point to the fact that while data is pseudonymised – where personal details are given an anonymous marker – individual patient records can be reconstructed by triangulation over several data sets or reintegration with the original marker set. For example, the [7]Personal Demographics Service , controlled by NHS Digital, another non-departmental body of DHCS, can link NHS numbers to patient names and addresses.
Palantir is a US company that carries out information analysis and processing work for the defence and intelligence communities, often creating bespoke solutions such as digital-profiling tools for the [8]CIA and ICE , the latter being the controversial US immigration agency. The company was founded by [9]prominent Trump financier and [10]PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel.
Why not FOSS?
Members of technical teams at NHS England have told The Register they see little or no functionality in the Palantir Foundry platform that is not already available with open-source data warehousing and analytics tools.
NHS England was also asked for a response to the information about its relationship with Palantir, as well as transparency of the Foundry system.
Campaigners fought for greater transparency over Palantir’s involvement with the NHS and its COVID-19 data store since [11]its role in the pandemic response first emerged in March 2020 .
[12]
Palantir was named along with fellow providers Microsoft, Google, and AWS, as well as Faculty, a UK analytics firm with links to the Vote Leave Brexit referendum campaign.
[13]UK health secretary Matt Hancock follows delay to GP data grab with campaign called 'Data saves lives'
[14]British Medical Association calls for clarity on patient deadline for opting out of NHS Digital's GP data grab
[15]Of all the analytics firms in the world, why is Palantir getting its claws into UK health data?
[16]Palantir and UK policy: Public health, public IT, and – say it with me – open public contracts
How we got here
In May, [17]a broad-based campaign group wrote to UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock calling for greater openness around the government’s embrace of this gang of private-sector tech companies. The group — including Liberty, openDemocracy, Foxglove, and Privacy International — said promises of openness in handling the health data of millions of UK citizens had not been fulfilled.
In June 2020, [18]the UK government published the contracts it holds with the tech firms and the NHS for the creation of a COVID-19 data store, just days after the campaigners fired legal shots over a lack of transparency.
In December 2020, the [19]NHS signed a £23m two-year contract with Palantir without scrutiny , even though the AI firm’s engagement with the UK health service was originally supposed to be a temporary emergency measure to help address the COVID-19 pandemic.
In February this year, [20]campaigners filed for a judicial review of the UK government’s decision to award the new contract to Palantir, while separate investigations showed the American software business had been in discussions with the NHS about using the health data of UK citizens since the middle of 2019 — well before the pandemic.
In March, the government [21]agreed not to expand Palantir’s work on the NHS data store beyond COVID-19 without notifying the public . At the same time, it agreed to engage citizens about Palantir’s role in the NHS via patient juries, apparently bowing to pressure from campaigners.
Evidence seen by The Register shows staff with NHS England share some of the campaigner’s concerns. ®
Get our [22]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YOMsn7mfBECPtPAwYjye6QAAANc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YOMsn7mfBECPtPAwYjye6QAAANc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YOMsn7mfBECPtPAwYjye6QAAANc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/202004-DPIA-NHS-COVID19-data-store-v1.4.pdf
[5] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/07/01/nhs_covid_19_data_store_palantir_data_protection_doc.pdf
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YOMsn7mfBECPtPAwYjye6QAAANc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://digital.nhs.uk/services/demographics
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/26/palantir_s_1_ipo_filing_ice/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2016/11/22/thiel_asks_silicon_valley_to_help_trump/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2010/02/18/paypal_on_facebook/
[11] https://healthtech.blog.gov.uk/2020/03/28/the-power-of-data-in-a-pandemic/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/databases&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YOMsn7mfBECPtPAwYjye6QAAANc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/22/uk_health_secretary_data_saves_lives/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/16/nhs_digital_gpdpr_deadline/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/15/palantir_uk_sci_tech_committee/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/01/palantir/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/19/covid19_nhs_data_store_open_letter/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/05/uk_government_publishes_covid_19_contracts/
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/21/nhs_awards_23m_twoyear_deal/
[20] https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/24/nhs_palantir_judicial_review/
[21] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/30/ukgov_caves_over_nhs_palantir_lawsuit/
[22] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: So the government has agreed not to expand Palantir's work without "notifying" the public
To make it absolutely clear: "So the government has not agreed not to expand Palantir's work without failing to deny not "notifying" the public'
What a surprise
Backroom dealings without scrutiny or supervision end up in unsatisfactory data handling. Count my gast flabbered.
Face it : it's Palantir's data now, not yours.
How anyone can decide to work with this slime is beyond me, but that's what you get when Democracy is not first in mind when the deciders go about their business.
Re: What a surprise
"Palantir's data now"
Exactly what I was thinking, given the nature of the firm and it having access to NHS data, they probably have everything they want with back ups all the way down.
Re: What a surprise
And we will grant you access to your data for $$$$$$.......
Re: What a surprise
Quite. Access to NHS staff for Civid-19 research is not as lucrative as other uses of that (no longer) private personal data.
Re: What a surprise
How anyone can decide to work with this slime ...
How?
You said it: it's all about the deciders' business.
And it's the Tory present government's deciders.
Isn't it?
O.
Re: What a surprise
> How anyone can decide to work with this slime ...
I have another explanation, even more simple: Money.
NHS England said "they see little or no functionality [...] that is not already available with open-source data warehousing and analytics tools". But open-source software doesn't lobby and/or hand out generous gifts...
blah, blah, blah
Brexit. Get over it, FFS! Were you cheated on the vote!? Was it rigged? You know you're starting to sound like Trump supporters, right?
Re: blah, blah, blah
Triggered.
You are Darren Grimes and I claim my £5.
Re: blah, blah, blah
Brexit - get over it. No. Because that’s not the way democracy works. Democracy only works if you have reasoned argument and counter argument, debate - and elections based on a considered weighing up of the facts. Once an election has been held, the ‘loser’ isn’t expected to roll over - they get to keep presenting their evidence and arguing the point until the next election.
Were you cheated on the vote? Actually, yes. Two reasons - one, if you have resort to knowingly lying to make your point (as team leave did) then you’re making a mockery of the process. Two - the margin was so slim and the impact so catastrophic that there was not sufficient mandate to leave. Especially on an advisory referendum that even vote leave wanted a 60% margin on for the result to be accepted (well, they did before they realised they were winning). Remember that if Remain had won then the status quo would have been preserved and Leave could have had a second referendum without any impact on the country. Leave won - and now we’re out with huge damage to our economy and reputation and no chance of getting back in without significant concessions (bye bye Gibraltar, bye bye veto, bye bye all those organisations which were based in the UK). We may (hopefully) get back in one day, but we’ll never be as well off as we were before Brexit.
Was it rigged? Well yes… and no. Yes, because a credulous electorate were knowingly lied to - and that’s not how a democratic system is supposed to work. See my earlier points. No, because the count was as near as dammit accurate, and therefore the result was as reported (with a very slim majority)
Sound like Trump supporters? Not really. To do so it would be necessary for us to lie and deny the opinions of anyone who disagrees.
I can’t work out whether you’re making a very bad joke or whether you’re just appallingly thick.
Re: triggered
No, but it appears 33rpm was
Re: blah, blah, blah
Was it a 60% margin to join, you know when the British public were lied to and told it was only a trading block?
Edited to add: BTW 45RPM you do sound rather condescending in your last sentence old boy. Sort of the way labour treated their voters calling them thick racists if they voted for Brexit, that worked out well
Re: blah, blah, blah
"Edited to add: BTW 45RPM you do sound rather condescending in your last sentence old boy. "
Not if OP is Darren Grimes. He was ruled too thick to fill in a form by a British court of law.
Re: blah, blah, blah
Well, 67% voted to join in 1975. Now that’s what I call a mandate. It covered both the Common Market (the trading bloc that you refer to) and also the EC, the predecessor of the EU.
With regard to further integration, that was covered in the manifestos of the political parties involved - and we all had the choice to elect them (or not). In fact, this provides the only real legitimacy of the Leave vote - in that the Tory party got elected again.
Re: blah, blah, blah
Godwin's Law of Nazi analogies needs to be updated in the UK to something involving Brexit.
But to address PTW's view of public opinion in the 1970s and put to bed the arrant nonsense that "the British public were lied to and told it was only a trading block":
Just over 67% of voters in the 1975 referendum supported the Labour government's campaign to stay in the EEC.
To give you a feel for the campaigns, two days before the referendum there was a televised debate watched by nearly 11 million people with former Tory prime minister Edward Heath, and Liberal Party leader Jeremy Thorpe, speaking in favour of remaining in the EEC and Labour Secretary of State for Health and Social Services Barbara Castle and Secretary of State for Trade Peter Shore speaking against it.
You can watch [1]Heath's speech and decide whether he was just talking about trading block. I'll give you a clue - Heath says during his introduction that "first and foremost its [i.e. the EEC's] purpose is a political one". Similarly you can watch [2]Castle's speech on the other side complaining about issues such as having to give the EEC priority in policy making, civil rights etc.
The Times editorial on the day of the referendum discussed campaign speeches that had given a “sense of European development as an ideal”, and agreed we were part of a “European family”.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVf2nON4pS8
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydw1ZHk0Tmc
Re: blah, blah, blah
What has that got to do with Palantir?
The only reference to Brexit is 'Palantir was named along with fellow providers Microsoft, Google, and AWS, as well as Faculty, a UK analytics firm with links to the Vote Leave Brexit referendum campaign.' which just shows that it an analytics company which is one of a group of analytics companies - one of which (Faculty) was involved with Brexit. I don't particularly see why they put this in as I don't see any relevance to the story but there is no suggestion of any vote cheating or rigging mentioned.
Re: blah, blah, blah
The reason is that it is virtually impossible to mention Brexit anywhere without it setting someone off.
(And quite rightly so, it's an enormously stupid decision, made in a very dubious way thanks to a lot of fear and lies by the "winning" side, that has, is, and will continue to cause enormous damage to the UK's economy, security of food (and other) supply, our standing in the world as a friendly, reliable and trustable country, …need I go on?)
Gain of Function
At this point probably everyone has got this data apart from people who actually need it to do meaningful work to help humanity.
How else this data could be used? For example, a government or private company can find a common vulnerability in the group of people they hate and then engineer a virus that is going to be extremely violent exploiting that vulnerability while being mild for other groups.
Probably China already has this ability, as we all were able to suffer the "demo" and how it affects different groups.
Now Western governments and private entities scramble to match the capabilities in this space and they need data and more data.
Looks similar to the nuclear weapon race.
Good job...
... We don't have an arse kissing career politician running the Department of Health now.
Phew.
I’m just picturing that hospital scene in Idiocract
Not long now
> individual patient records can be reconstructed by triangulation over several data sets or reintegration with the original marker set
Funnily enough this is *exactly* what Palantir Foundy is designed to do.
Health agencies do not care about data privacy law
Just received a response from a local health service agency with the results of their formal review of their handling of a FOI Request I submitted a few months ago. I called for the review as many of the documents (including DPIAs) they provided in response to the FOI request looked like drafts rather than finished/formal documents.
From their review:
"the panel expressed regret that certain documents still remain in draft format"
"However, following review, the panel can confirm that this has been due to business pressures outside of the control of the
This is their response regarding the DPIA that they allegedly carried out in the early 2019 for a change in processing of personal data. In reality the DPIA has sat in draft (i.e. uncompleted) form since then and it will only allegedly be completed by December (more than 2 years after they actually implemented the processing changes that the DPIA was supposed to "evaluate") only because I highlighted the matter.
So its ok for a NHS organisation not to comply with data protection law for several years because of "business pressures" outside their control?
NHS signed a £23m two-year contract with Palantir
Well, you can't expect to be allowed access to your own data for such a piddling amount as that!
Yet more proof that the Big Data Grab is not going to be for the benefit of the NHS at all. The people who are trying to control our lives by owning our data and profiting from it however will be richer and more powerful than ever.
This was all foreseen...
... And the now ex-Health Secretary reassured the House that everything would be fine!
Well, it's not fine, is it? That data needs to be repatriated to something the NHS runs, not Palantir or some other third-party outfit.
Re: This was all foreseen...
The only thing they can do is stop sending any new data. The chances of getting back what is there and preventing any on-going use is non-existent.
The data should never, ever have left the NHS in the first place but inept management and corrupt politicians believed they new better.
“I Like Money” - Frito
So the government has agreed not to expand Palantir's work without "notifying" the public
So that's alright then...