“MAKING DATABASE-management seem transgressive is a feat. Palantir, a technology firm, has managed it by publishing manifestos bemoaning the West’s hollowed-out civic culture, by working with trigger-happy American border enforcers and Israeli soldiers, and by having a chairman who is fond of invoking the Antichrist. That the firm is named after J.R.R. Tolkien’s creepy all-seeing orbs may not have helped.
Britain is spooked. It may boot Palantir out of the National Health Service (NHS), where the firm has a contract to manage medical data. Two parliamentary committees have recommended doing so. London’s mayor, Sir Sadiq Khan, has blocked its work with the Metropolitan Police. Palantir has probably over-sold its software’s impact. Its boasts (echoed by the NHS) of enabling 110,000 extra surgeries look exaggerated. By British standards, its lobbying is brash.
Still, ditching Palantir would be a mistake. Sir Mark Rowley, head of the Met, says that, without Palantir’s time-saving software, hundreds of officers will be pulled from front-line policing. It seems to be doing a better job of digitising the NHS than the government’s latest effort, which devolved into a costly mess. If the firm’s public-sector clients deem its contributions valuable, that is a reason to keep it. Losing its technology could further maul Britain’s mangled state capacity.
One set of criticisms concerns Palantir’s business model. The conspiratorially minded fret that the firm could steal and sell British data. More sober types worry about “lock-in”, where Palantir burrows deep into the state, ensconces itself, then overcharges for its services.
These fears stem from a misunderstanding of what Palantir does.
It licenses software and sends consultants (“forward-deployed engineers”) to handle data. But those data remain firmly in the hands of the clients.
Lock-in is a worry—and also something all vendors desire.
It is up to buyers to ensure that contracts are fair.
And if Palantir does become indispensable, that would mean its software is keeping hospital beds free and criminals jailed.
More misguided objections concern Palantir’s politics. Parliament’s science, innovation and technology committee cited a “mismatch with UK values” as a reason to cut ties. It warned of Palantir’s involvement in the American government’s “highly controversial policies and activities” and criticism by its chairman, Peter Thiel, of “the concept of a national health service”.
Everyone is entitled to their views on state-run health care or Donald Trump’s mass deportations (The Economist has plenty). Still, working with the elected government of a British ally or having a chairman with thoughts on health policy should not disqualify a contractor. A government awarding business on the basis of politics is illiberal. It also sounds a lot like the MAGA tactics of punishing individuals and institutions, such as law firms, asset managers or universities, for annoying Mr Trump. This is precisely the sort of thing many of Palantir’s British critics deplore.
The last set of worries has to do with technological sovereignty. Plenty of governments are reliant on American tech and under Mr Trump, America has become a less reliable partner. In June it briefly ordered Anthropic to stop letting foreigners use its latest artificial-intelligence models. European politicians point out that some advanced weapons they get from America, such as F-35 fighter jets, have “kill switches” that could disable them remotely (which America has denied) or risk losing technical support from their makers on a presidential whim. One German state has replaced Microsoft Teams with a domestic video-call app.
In a world of geopolitical fracture, governments may sometimes want homegrown alternatives to foreign technology. The best way to nurture these is to give domestic incumbents and startups an incentive to innovate. Cosseting local firms by blocking foreign competition has the opposite effect. In any case, no British firm can match Palantir’s offering. As for the Anthropic incident, that was more the administration’s bungled response to a legitimate worry about powerful AI hacking-tools getting into the wrong hands than an attempt to weaponise other countries’ reliance on American tech. Were the White House to attempt such weaponisation, Palantir and its fellow American tech giants would resist it, given the sizeable share of revenues they derive from Europe, including Britain.
To see far off, and to converse in thought
In Tolkien’s books, the truth offered by palantirs is seldom straightforward. Repeatedly, those peering into them misinterpret out-of-context information and make dire, self-destructive choices. The British critics of Palantir, the company, risk falling into the same trap.” [1]
1. Don’t ditch Palantir. The Economist; London Vol. 460, Iss. 9513, (Aug 22, 2026): 8, 9.
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą