"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.

"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 !!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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".

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

" 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.

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.

[1]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 –

[1] https://www.foxglove.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023_06_05-FINAL-The-NHS-Federated-Data-Platform-and-Palantir.pdf

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.

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

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 ███ ███ ███ ███ ███.

ad Hitlerum: gas chambers were legal too.

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.

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.