51–60 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think many people talk about it but from a different context. The NHS is being de-funded by the same politicians whose friends benefit from these deals. Hard to hire competent people when your budget keeps getting cut.
£136.7 billion seems like a lot. It also seems like it's been exponentially going up since 1950.
In English Law (and in many other jurisdictions) it's only a legal contract if "consideration" is given by both parties; i.e. Palantir here must charge something in return for it to be an enforceable contract.
The citizens would still have to agree to allowing their personal data to be processed by third-parties and consent for their data to be processed outside the EU.
Is there any evidence that this consent was given?
Is the argument against this that the NHS not be allowed to use any cloud infrastructure, and that everything ought to be on-premise?
From my understanding Foundry (the Palantir product in question) is just a data management platform. I don't understand why this is so nefarious: they gave software they usually charge for to a public health agency for free.
The section on controversies is a primer. It certainly seems worth questioning the intent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think many people talk about it but from a different context. The NHS is being de-funded by the same politicians whose friends benefit from these deals. Hard to hire competent people when your budget keeps getting cut.
£136.7 billion seems like a lot. It also seems like it's been exponentially going up since 1950.
https://i.imgur.com/iab51Zq.png
From OECD https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, they purchased it for £1? Now who's being "technically correct"?
>" Sorry, they purchased it for £1? Now who's being "technically correct"? " Palantir received one pound; the government paid Palantir for software. The title implies that the government was selling the data, but they were actually getting SaaS for a pittance.
No ambiguity there, although it doesn't adequately explain how that came about, but that's why there's an article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think many people talk about it but from a different context. The NHS is being de-funded by the same politicians whose friends benefit from these deals. Hard to hire competent people when your budget keeps getting cut.
£136.7 billion seems like a lot. It also seems like it's been exponentially going up since 1950.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/images/election2017_images/bn...
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9186
Perhaps a more fair statement to make would be that demand for NHS services has seen a dramatic increase since 1997 and as a consequence it's budget has seen dramatic adjustments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That comes out to $2k/year/UK resident which is amazingly low I'd say. Staff are also limited to 1% salary increase per year since 2010 which is below inflation.
A little pedantic - England is not the UK and that budget quoted above was for England. The budget for all countries is larger, and England spends a bit less per citizen than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. https://fullfact.org/health/what-is-the-nhs-budget/
