The Swiss government has ended its contract with American analytics company Palantir, after federal agencies in the country rejected Palantir at least nine times over seven years.
-
The Swiss government has ended its contract with American analytics company Palantir, after federal agencies in the country rejected Palantir at least nine times over seven years. The reason? Security concerns that should make other countries think carefully:
- Risk of US intelligence gaining access to sensitive data
- Potential loss of national sovereignty
- Dependence upon foreign specialists in crisis situationsSwiss authorities won't touch their software with a bargepole.
1/2
-
The Swiss government has ended its contract with American analytics company Palantir, after federal agencies in the country rejected Palantir at least nine times over seven years. The reason? Security concerns that should make other countries think carefully:
- Risk of US intelligence gaining access to sensitive data
- Potential loss of national sovereignty
- Dependence upon foreign specialists in crisis situationsSwiss authorities won't touch their software with a bargepole.
1/2
Meanwhile, the UK has signed contracts worth over £800 million with Palantir for NHS and Ministry of Defence systems. British MPs are now asking awkward questions about why their due diligence has reached such a different conclusion.
Switzerland chose sovereignty over convenience. They chose not to risk using Palantir.
Other countries should be asking themselves: if Switzerland deemed these risks unacceptable, what are we missing?
What do you think?
2/2
-
Meanwhile, the UK has signed contracts worth over £800 million with Palantir for NHS and Ministry of Defence systems. British MPs are now asking awkward questions about why their due diligence has reached such a different conclusion.
Switzerland chose sovereignty over convenience. They chose not to risk using Palantir.
Other countries should be asking themselves: if Switzerland deemed these risks unacceptable, what are we missing?
What do you think?
2/2
Switzerland is showing the way, while making some very reasonable points.
I suspect the rest of Europe will follow. The UK, I am not so sure.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
Meanwhile, the UK has signed contracts worth over £800 million with Palantir for NHS and Ministry of Defence systems. British MPs are now asking awkward questions about why their due diligence has reached such a different conclusion.
Switzerland chose sovereignty over convenience. They chose not to risk using Palantir.
Other countries should be asking themselves: if Switzerland deemed these risks unacceptable, what are we missing?
What do you think?
2/2
@gcluley don't you just hate it when your bribe cheque bounces
-
Meanwhile, the UK has signed contracts worth over £800 million with Palantir for NHS and Ministry of Defence systems. British MPs are now asking awkward questions about why their due diligence has reached such a different conclusion.
Switzerland chose sovereignty over convenience. They chose not to risk using Palantir.
Other countries should be asking themselves: if Switzerland deemed these risks unacceptable, what are we missing?
What do you think?
2/2
@gcluley Palantir? Steer well clear.
-
Meanwhile, the UK has signed contracts worth over £800 million with Palantir for NHS and Ministry of Defence systems. British MPs are now asking awkward questions about why their due diligence has reached such a different conclusion.
Switzerland chose sovereignty over convenience. They chose not to risk using Palantir.
Other countries should be asking themselves: if Switzerland deemed these risks unacceptable, what are we missing?
What do you think?
2/2
-
Meanwhile, the UK has signed contracts worth over £800 million with Palantir for NHS and Ministry of Defence systems. British MPs are now asking awkward questions about why their due diligence has reached such a different conclusion.
Switzerland chose sovereignty over convenience. They chose not to risk using Palantir.
Other countries should be asking themselves: if Switzerland deemed these risks unacceptable, what are we missing?
What do you think?
2/2
What do I think?
I think it's wise to follow the money:
Peter Thiel and Larry Ellison are two of the biggest donors to the Tony Blair Institute, the grifting machine that is controlling the 'Labour' government.
-
The Swiss government has ended its contract with American analytics company Palantir, after federal agencies in the country rejected Palantir at least nine times over seven years. The reason? Security concerns that should make other countries think carefully:
- Risk of US intelligence gaining access to sensitive data
- Potential loss of national sovereignty
- Dependence upon foreign specialists in crisis situationsSwiss authorities won't touch their software with a bargepole.
1/2
- Risk of US intelligence gaining access to sensitive data
I don't know that Theil particularly cares about America, at least not its government. He's a neo-fuedalist. His fuckery is more towards advancing those aspirations than specifically providing benefit to the US government. Meaning, I think the bigger risk is less the US IC, specifically, than that Theil would happily sell one country's information to another "for the right price" if it advanced his overarching neo-feudalist goals.
...which is to say, if China or India were to offer him a neo-feudalist paradise within their borders in exchange for any given country's information — even the US's — he'd sell the target countries out in a heartbeat. -
The Swiss government has ended its contract with American analytics company Palantir, after federal agencies in the country rejected Palantir at least nine times over seven years. The reason? Security concerns that should make other countries think carefully:
- Risk of US intelligence gaining access to sensitive data
- Potential loss of national sovereignty
- Dependence upon foreign specialists in crisis situationsSwiss authorities won't touch their software with a bargepole.
1/2
@gcluley Bravo!!
-
The Swiss government has ended its contract with American analytics company Palantir, after federal agencies in the country rejected Palantir at least nine times over seven years. The reason? Security concerns that should make other countries think carefully:
- Risk of US intelligence gaining access to sensitive data
- Potential loss of national sovereignty
- Dependence upon foreign specialists in crisis situationsSwiss authorities won't touch their software with a bargepole.
1/2
@gcluley my local NHS "Trust" has signed one of those contracts with Palatir. I'm genuinely at a loss as to what healthcare option there is, if I don't want my subject data with them.
-
Meanwhile, the UK has signed contracts worth over £800 million with Palantir for NHS and Ministry of Defence systems. British MPs are now asking awkward questions about why their due diligence has reached such a different conclusion.
Switzerland chose sovereignty over convenience. They chose not to risk using Palantir.
Other countries should be asking themselves: if Switzerland deemed these risks unacceptable, what are we missing?
What do you think?
2/2
@gcluley While you should never rely on another entity's decision, if other companies/countries are publicly rejecting vendors then it should raise red flags
-
Meanwhile, the UK has signed contracts worth over £800 million with Palantir for NHS and Ministry of Defence systems. British MPs are now asking awkward questions about why their due diligence has reached such a different conclusion.
Switzerland chose sovereignty over convenience. They chose not to risk using Palantir.
Other countries should be asking themselves: if Switzerland deemed these risks unacceptable, what are we missing?
What do you think?
2/2
@gcluley UK was always an US slave that obey it's master.
And now they don't have EU tie, they return to their Full slave yes yes decision.
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
-
The Swiss government has ended its contract with American analytics company Palantir, after federal agencies in the country rejected Palantir at least nine times over seven years. The reason? Security concerns that should make other countries think carefully:
- Risk of US intelligence gaining access to sensitive data
- Potential loss of national sovereignty
- Dependence upon foreign specialists in crisis situationsSwiss authorities won't touch their software with a bargepole.
1/2
Not wanting to associate with literal nazis should be in the list of reasons
-
Switzerland is showing the way, while making some very reasonable points.
I suspect the rest of Europe will follow. The UK, I am not so sure.
Like the USA, politics in the UK are overly entwined with The Moneyed, white supremacy, and fossil fuel funded fascists.
The wealthy are determined to fry both democracy itself, along with the planet.
Mapped: Donald Trump’s Transatlantic Anti-Green Network
As Donald Trump takes his oath of office to become the 47th president of the United States, his second term comes at an ever-more critical time for climate change. Climate scientists have warned that 2024 was the hottest year on record, and without dramatic action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, global pledges to limit warming […]
DeSmog (www.desmog.com)
-
Meanwhile, the UK has signed contracts worth over £800 million with Palantir for NHS and Ministry of Defence systems. British MPs are now asking awkward questions about why their due diligence has reached such a different conclusion.
Switzerland chose sovereignty over convenience. They chose not to risk using Palantir.
Other countries should be asking themselves: if Switzerland deemed these risks unacceptable, what are we missing?
What do you think?
2/2
The NHS using Palantir is scary. At least it would scare me if I lived in the UK.
-
Meanwhile, the UK has signed contracts worth over £800 million with Palantir for NHS and Ministry of Defence systems. British MPs are now asking awkward questions about why their due diligence has reached such a different conclusion.
Switzerland chose sovereignty over convenience. They chose not to risk using Palantir.
Other countries should be asking themselves: if Switzerland deemed these risks unacceptable, what are we missing?
What do you think?
2/2
@gcluley Carole Cadwalladr has been ringing this alarm for years, hopefully more will take up the task
Peter Thiel's New Model Army
The Palantirisation of the UK military is a national security disaster
(substack.com)
-
@gcluley Carole Cadwalladr has been ringing this alarm for years, hopefully more will take up the task
Peter Thiel's New Model Army
The Palantirisation of the UK military is a national security disaster
(substack.com)
@gypsyvegan @gcluley "If our national security rests on US technology, we have no national security." This applies just as much for us here in Australia.
-
@gypsyvegan @gcluley "If our national security rests on US technology, we have no national security." This applies just as much for us here in Australia.
@Ooze @gypsyvegan @gcluley
Greetings stranger.
Did you know Australia has been a US vassal for the past half century?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis -
The Swiss government has ended its contract with American analytics company Palantir, after federal agencies in the country rejected Palantir at least nine times over seven years. The reason? Security concerns that should make other countries think carefully:
- Risk of US intelligence gaining access to sensitive data
- Potential loss of national sovereignty
- Dependence upon foreign specialists in crisis situationsSwiss authorities won't touch their software with a bargepole.
1/2
@gcluley there never was a contract. They never signed a contract with Palantir, so there’s nothing to end.
-
Meanwhile, the UK has signed contracts worth over £800 million with Palantir for NHS and Ministry of Defence systems. British MPs are now asking awkward questions about why their due diligence has reached such a different conclusion.
Switzerland chose sovereignty over convenience. They chose not to risk using Palantir.
Other countries should be asking themselves: if Switzerland deemed these risks unacceptable, what are we missing?
What do you think?
2/2
@gcluley I think, you’re right.
