Palantir, a U.S. data firm collaborating with the Israeli Defense Department, criticized British doctors for prioritizing “ideology over patient interests” following backlash against its contract to manage NHS data.
Louis Mosley, executive vice president of Palantir, recently addressed the British Medical Association, which labeled the £330 million agreement to create a unified platform for NHS data—covering everything from patient information to bed availability—as a potential threat to public trust in the NHS data system.
In a formal resolution, the association expressed concerns over the unclear processing of sensitive data by Palantir, a company co-founded by Trump donor Peter Thiel. They highlighted the firm’s “study on discriminatory policing software in the U.S.” and its “close ties with the U.S. government, which often overlooks international law.”
However, Mosley dismissed these critiques during his testimony to lawmakers on the Commons Science and Technology Committee on Tuesday. Palantir has also secured contracts for processing large-scale data for the Ministry of Defense, police, and local governments.
Libertarian Thiel, who named the company after “Seeing Stones” from the Lord of the Rings series, previously remarked that British citizens’ admiration for the NHS reflects “Stockholm syndrome.” However, Mosley claimed he was not speaking on behalf of Palantir.
Palantir also develops AI-driven military targeting systems and software that consolidates and analyzes data across multiple systems, including healthcare.
“It’s incorrect to accuse us of lacking transparency or that we operate in secrecy,” claimed Mosley. “I believe the BMA has chosen ideology over the interests of patients. Our software aims to enhance patient care by streamlining treatment, making it more effective, and ultimately improving the efficiency of the healthcare system.”
In 2023, the government awarded Palantir a contract to establish a new NHS “Federated Data Platform,” though some local NHS trusts have raised concerns that the system might not only be subpar compared to existing technologies but could also diminish functionality, as reported. Palantir is also among the tech companies reported by the Guardian last week, which recently led to a discussion with Attorney General Shabana Mahmood about solutions for the prison and probation crisis, including robotic support for prisoners and tracking devices.
During the session, Senator Chi Onwurah questioned the appropriateness of involving the company in the NHS while also working with the Israeli Defense Forces in military applications in Gaza.
Mosley did not disclose operational specifics regarding Palantir’s role with Israeli authorities. Their offerings include a system labeled “supporting soldiers with AI-driven kill chains and responsibly integrating target identification.”
Onwurah remarked on the necessity for cultural change within the NHS to foster acceptance of new data systems, posing the question to Mosley: “What about a unified patient record in the future?”
“Trust should depend more on our capabilities than anything else,” Mosley responded. “Are we delivering on our promises? Are we improving patient experiences by making them quicker and more efficient? If so, we should be trusted.”
Liberal Democrat Martin Wrigley expressed serious concerns about the interoperability of the data systems provided by Palantir for both health and defense, while Conservative MP Kit Malthouse inquired about the military’s potential use of Palantir’s capacity to process large datasets to target individuals based on specific characteristics. Mosley reassured: “Our software enables that type of functionality and provides extensive governance and control to organizations managing those risks.”
Malthouse remarked, “It sounds like a Savior.”
The hearing also revealed that Palantir continues to engage Global Counsel, a lobbying firm co-founded by the current U.S. ambassador. Mosley denied any claims that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited Palantir’s Washington, D.C. office “through appropriate channels,” clarifying that Mandelson resigned as a global advisor “in early 2025.” According to the consultant’s website.
House Democrats are focusing on staffing issues at the National Weather Service field office, aiming to pass legislation swiftly to thwart further funding and staffing cuts from the Trump administration affecting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, especially following severe storms nationwide.
As reported by NBC News, the proposed amendment to the Republican Budget Adjustment Bill safeguards NOAA from disbandment and prevents its responsibilities from being shifted to other federal entities, as well as protecting its website and datasets.
Democratic representatives including Eric Sorensen from Illinois, Joe Negas from Colorado, and Wesley Bell from Missouri are poised to introduce these amendments early on Wednesday.
This legislation underscores Congressional worries about staffing levels at the National Weather Service, particularly after the Trump administration’s layoffs of prosecutors and the offering of early retirement packages to long-serving employees. Recently, a short-staffed weather room managed severe thunderstorms and tornado outbreaks during a weekend that resulted in at least 28 fatalities in the Midwest and South.
“With hurricane season on the horizon and extreme weather becoming more frequent, we cannot afford to jeopardize NOAA,” said Moskowitz, a former director of Florida Emergency Management, in an emailed statement.
Sorensen, the sole meteorologist in Congress, emphasized:
“As a meteorologist who has reported on severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, I understand the critical need for the National Weather Service to be fully staffed at all times.”
Rep. Eric Sorensen, D-Ill, of Rockford, Illinois, in 2023. Chris Nieves/USA Today Network
However, the amendment faces significant opposition from Republicans who control the House. The Trump administration’s initial budget proposal proposed cutting over $1.5 billion from NOAA.
The National Weather Service is working to address staffing shortages this spring. Recently, NOAA initiated a “period of reallocation” to recruit 76 meteorologists for critical roles that were left vacant due to budget cuts.
At least eight of the nation’s 122 weather forecast offices, including in Sacramento, California; Goodland, Kansas; and Jackson, Kentucky, anticipate reducing or discontinuing overnight operations within the next six weeks, according to Tom Fahy, director of the National Weather Service employee organization. He noted that over 52 of the weather forecast offices in the U.S. are experiencing staffing shortages exceeding 20%.
The National Weather Service has not provided additional details regarding staffing levels at its various offices.
“The National Weather Service remains committed to its mission of delivering life-saving forecasts, warnings, and decision support services to the public,” stated NOAA’s communications director, Kim Dester, in an email. “In the near future, NWS will update its service level standards for weather forecast offices to adapt to changes in human resources while prioritizing mission-essential operations.”
Last weekend, the Jackson office of Kentucky was put to the test during dangerous storms statewide. Fahy mentioned in an interview that staff worked overtime to manage the situation with “every available hand,” although the challenges were anticipated ahead of time.
“We had sufficient lead times in monitoring supercells,” Fahy explained, adding that unforeseen serious events could arise at any moment. “A severe thunderstorm has the potential to generate tornadoes and multiple tornadic activity, which can be difficult to predict.”
Meteorologists outside of the agency noted that forecasters in Jackson and other offices performed admirably during the tumultuous weekend but expressed concerns that operational pressures could overwhelm the already stretched staff.
“The tornado warnings were issued very effectively,” remarked Chris Vaguski, meteorologist and research program manager at Wisconet, a network of weather stations in Wisconsin, though he emphasized the uncertain long-term impact of staff fatigue.
“How do forecasters recover physically, mentally, and emotionally? Will this affect the quality of their warnings?” he inquired.
Vaguski noted that the warning time for tornadoes issued by the Jackson office exceeded 15 minutes, which is an improvement over the average performance.
Victor Gensini, a meteorology professor at Northern Illinois University, stated that while assessing the impact of staffing shortages is challenging, meteorological services may face declines in performance as fewer meteorologists are available for critical tasks.
“It’s challenging to evaluate performance based on a single significant event,” Gensini stated. “But we should prepare for a gradual decline in performance, though quantifying that impact may be difficult.”
Last year, Vermont achieved a historic milestone by enacting the nation’s first climate superfund law, aimed at enabling the recovery of funds from fossil fuel companies to manage the escalating expenses associated with climate change.
This depends, however, on whether we can prevail against the mounting legal challenges.
Recently, the Department of Justice initiated a federal lawsuit, with Vermont being one of the states, alongside New York, to adopt the Climate Superfund Act. The lawsuit argues the measure is “a bold effort to seize federal authority” and forces others to subsidize state infrastructure expenditures.
Shortly after, West Virginia Attorney General John B. McCauskey announced he was spearheading another challenge against Vermont’s law, claiming it “encroaches upon American coal, oil, and natural gas producers.”
McCauskey had previously filed a similar lawsuit against New York, seeking $75 billion from oil and gas companies over the next 25 years. On Thursday, he warned that the Vermont version could be “even more perilous” as it lacks a financial cap.
He, along with 23 other attorneys, is joining the lawsuit filed late last year by the American Petroleum Research Institute, an affiliate of the US Chamber of Commerce and the Federal Court of Vermont.
West Virginia is a significant source of natural gas and coal, and the complaint asserts that fossil fuel companies operate legally. It argues that “Vermont enjoys affordable and reliable fuels while simultaneously punishing those who produce such energy.”
The Climate Superfund Act is patterned after the federal Superfund program, which aims to clean up hazardous waste sites. This program has been operational for decades, ensuring that businesses contributing to contamination help finance the cleanup.
The new climate superfund law stems from the understanding that the burning of fossil fuels—which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases—is a primary driver of climate change. Consequently, the law permits states to pursue funding from fossil fuel producers to mitigate the costs of global warming. Similar legislative initiatives are gaining traction in states like California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
Patrick Derprue, an expert in environmental law in Vermont, characterized the Justice Department’s case as “a display of virtue signaling” and anticipates a dismissal. He expects the state will argue that the Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit is premature, given that officials are still determining how the law will be applied and are not directly implicated.
Julie Moore, the secretary of the Vermont Natural Resources Agency, indicated her involvement in both filings and stated her office is reviewing the specifics. She noted that the Justice Department’s actions were “not unforeseen” in light of President Trump’s April 8 executive order, which aims to “protect America’s energy from federal overreach.”
This order explicitly mentions the new laws in Vermont and New York, deeming them threats to national economic and security interests.
Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, who is named in the DOJ lawsuit, stated that the Climate Superfund Act “will ensure that those responsible for the climate crisis contribute to remedying the damages they have inflicted.”
Meghan Greenfield, an environmental attorney with prior experience at the DOJ and the Environmental Protection Agency, now a partner at Jenner & Block, remarked that legal conflicts regarding such new laws are inevitable. Some arguments relevant to these measures are novel and untested, revolving around the concept of “equal sovereignty” between states, which posits that states should be equitably treated by the federal government.
“We are navigating complex legal landscapes, with new types of laws and challenges emerging, making predictions difficult,” she noted.
She also expressed anticipation for further confrontations regarding more conventional state climate regulations, particularly those in New York and California.
A year later, Vermont enacted the Climate Change Superfund Act, holding an oil and gas company financially responsible for the state’s climate damages. A similar law was passed in New York in 2024 and is pending in California, Maryland, and Massachusetts.
Understanding the law involves attribution science, a field that uses global temperature data to model numerous scenarios to determine if extreme weather events like floods and heatwaves are linked to emissions from burning oil, gas, and coal.
A new paper published in Nature Journal on Wednesday magnifies this work to connect emissions from specific entities to the economic impact of extreme events.
“The oil industry is astonished by the state’s climate superfund laws and their increasing popularity, as they are the first policies globally to hold a significant portion of the major losses responsible for the substantial damages incurred by their products.”
The response to the law was swift. In February, West Virginia and other Republican-led states sought to challenge New York’s laws, arguing that only the federal government has the authority to regulate emissions. President Trump signed an executive order this month criticizing the state law as a burden and ideological motivation, calling on Attorney General Pam Bondy to block enforcement.
Environmental attorneys have been exploring how harm can be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions for years, according to Martin Rockman, a climate law fellow at Columbia University’s Sabine Center.
“Attribution science is crucial because it establishes links between particular activities of businesses that profit from fossil fuels and specific harms to states and communities,” Rockman stated. “If you’re causing harm, you should be accountable for mitigating it, it’s that simple.”
The new study will enhance an approach known as “end-to-end” attribution, linking a specific emitter (e.g., a company) to a particular climate-related impact (e.g., extreme heat) and subsequent damage (impact on the global economy).
The study revealed that Chevron’s emissions caused heat-related losses totaling up to $3.6 trillion in the global economy. Christopher Callahan, a postdoctoral geoscientist at Stanford University and the study’s author, noted that such high costs still underestimate the global repercussions of fossil fuel combustion in less affluent tropical regions with minimal emissions responsibility.
“That astounding figure represents the detriment from just one of the climate impacts,” stated Delta Melner, associate director of the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Coalition of Concerned Scientists. “The overall harm caused by major emitters is undoubtedly much greater when considering the full range of climate risks.”
Theodore J. Bootras Jr., a Chevron Corporation lawyer, argued that the study “disregards the scientific impossibility of attributing a specific climate or weather phenomenon to a particular country, company, or energy consumer.” He labeled it as futile state litigation and a misleading advocacy campaign for energy penalties and regulations.
Overall, the paper estimated that the global economy would suffer $28 trillion in damages due to extreme heat caused by emissions from 111 major carbon producers between 1991 and 2020.
More than 100 climate-related lawsuits have been filed annually since 2017, as per a recent study. However, these cases scrutinize attribution studies that struggle to connect emissions to estimated economic losses.
This innovative framework can offer similar capabilities in other major damage and liability cases, analogous to those handled in tobacco-related lung cancer lawsuits and pharmaceutical claims for addiction.
Justin Mankin, a geography professor specializing in climate science at Dartmouth University and co-author of the Nature paper, remarked:
World Weather Attribution, a group based at Imperial College London, has regularly published attribution reports over the past decade.
“Unfortunately, we are still one of the few entities engaged in this work, and we are not an official institution. It’s essentially a project I undertake as a university professor in collaboration with a team of colleagues,” stated Friedrike Otto, a physicist aiding in attributing global weather.
Dr. Callahan and Dr. Mankin utilized open-source tools in their models, developing code and data resources they deployed to publish the global costs of climate change on their website.
“We advocate for transparent and open science, particularly since the research was funded by U.S. taxpayers,” Dr. Mankin emphasized, highlighting a significant portion of the research support originating from NOAA, the nation’s leading climate science agency facing funding cuts during the Trump administration.
Extreme weather events have disrupted communities and continue to exacerbate tensions. According to Vermont Senator Anne Watson, the 2023 flood cost Vermont hundreds of millions of dollars, prompting her to sponsor a bill quantifying state damages between 1995 and 2024.
Julie Moore, the secretary at the Vermont Natural Resources Agency, assisted states in organizing their inquiries for more information to better grasp the various approaches in attribution science and comprehend how to assign damages caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
“The charge against us is to establish guidelines on applying attribution science and ultimately send out a cost recovery notice,” Moore explained. According to state laws, oil and gas companies will receive this notice in early 2027.
“The expectation is that it will aid Vermont in securing a substantial amount to cover damages and adapt to a hotter, more humid climate resulting from carbon in the atmosphere,” Watson expressed. “We need a source to determine accountability for this.”
An important California bill, aimed at establishing safeguards for the nation’s largest artificial intelligence systems, passed a key vote on Wednesday. The proposal is designed to address potential risks associated with AI by requiring companies to test models and publicly disclose safety protocols to prevent misuse, such as taking down the state’s power grid or creating chemical weapons. Experts warn that the rapid advancements in the industry could lead to such scenarios in the future.
The bill narrowly passed the state Assembly and is now awaiting a final vote in the state Senate. If approved, it will be sent to the governor for signing, although his position on the bill remains unclear. Governor Gavin Newsom will have until the end of September to make a decision on whether to sign, veto, or let the bill become law without his signature. While the governor previously expressed concerns about overregulation of AI, the bill has garnered support from advocates who see it as a step towards establishing safety standards for large-scale AI models in the U.S.
Authored by Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener, the bill targets AI systems that require over $100 million in data for training, a threshold that no current model meets. Despite facing opposition from venture capital firms and tech companies like Open AI, Google, and Meta, Wiener insists that his bill takes a “light touch” approach to regulation while promoting innovation and safety hand in hand.
As AI continues to impact daily life, California legislators have introduced numerous bills this year to establish trust, combat algorithmic discrimination, and regulate deep fakes related to elections and pornography. With the state home to some of the world’s leading AI companies, lawmakers are striving to strike a delicate balance between harnessing the technology’s potential and mitigating its risks without hindering local innovation.
Elon Musk, a vocal supporter of AI regulation, expressed cautious support for Wiener’s bill despite running AI tools with lesser safeguards than other models. While the proposal has garnered backing from AI startup Anthropik, critics, including some California congresswomen and tech trade groups, have raised concerns about the bill’s impact on the state’s economic sector.
The bill, with amendments from Wiener to address concerns and limitations, is seen as a crucial step in preventing the misuse of powerful AI systems. Antropic, an AI startup supported by major tech companies, emphasized the importance of the bill in averting potential catastrophic risks associated with AI models while challenging critics who downplay the dangers posed by such technologies.
“Fortnite” is making a comeback on mobile phones after four years of being absent from Apple and Google app stores. Android users worldwide can now download the new app store from the company to access the game along with two other titles from Epic Games.
In the EU, only iPhone users can enjoy the relaunch, as Epic Games embraces the looser regulations imposed on Apple by the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
Founder Tim Sweeney expressed gratitude to the European Commission for enabling competition between app stores and preventing Apple and Google from hindering it. The three games will also be available in Alt Store PAL, the largest independent app store in the EU under Apple’s new terms.
This marks the end of a long-standing battle between Sweeney and mobile platforms regarding revenue sharing. In 2020, Epic took action by allowing users to make in-game purchases directly from the company to avoid the 30% fees charged by Apple and Google, leading to the game being blocked from their App Stores.
Despite the relaunch, Sweeney mentioned that the battle is not over, as both companies still impose hurdles for users to install alternative app stores. Epic is also working towards making Fortnite available to mobile users in the UK following similar legislation to the EU’s DMA.
Apple’s control over user activities on iPhones has been loosened by regulations, but the company continues to tighten restrictions in other areas. Patreon, a creator economy service, was recently instructed by Apple to end a longstanding exception to the 30% commission rule.
By November 2024, Patreon will phase out its in-app purchase system and implement a 30% fee on new memberships purchased through the App Store. Patreon creators can either increase subscription fees by 30% or absorb the loss from the additional fee.
BRetain wants to lead the world in AI regulation. However, AI regulation is a rapidly evolving and contested policy area, with little agreement on what a good outcome looks like, let alone the best way to get there. And the fact that he is the third most important AI research center in the world does not give him so much power if the first two are the United States and China.
How do we cut this Gordian knot? Simple: Act quickly and decisively and do nothing.
The UK Government has today taken the next step towards legislation to regulate AI. From our story:
The government will admit on Tuesday that binding measures to oversee
cutting-edge AI development will be needed at some point, but not immediately. Instead, ministers will set out “initial thoughts on future binding requirements” for advanced systems and discuss them with technical, legal and civil society experts.
The Government will also give regulators £10m to help tackle AI risks and require them to develop their approach to the technology by April 30th.
When the first draft of the AI whitepaper was published in March 2023, the reaction was negative. The government’s proposal was withdrawn on the same day as the now-infamous call for a six-month “pause” on AI research to control the risks of an out-of-control system. Against this background, this white paper seemed pathetic.
The proposal would give regulators no new powers and would not give responsibility for guiding AI development to any private group. Instead, the government planned to align existing regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority and the Health and Safety Executive, and set out five principles to guide the regulatory framework when considering AI.
This approach has been criticized by the UK’s leading AI research group, the Ada Lovelace Institute, as having “significant gaps”, and even the fact that a multi-year legislative process will leave AI unregulated during the interim period. Ignored.
So what has changed?Well, the government Really awesome £10 million
Asking regulators to “upskill”, has set an April 30 deadline for the largest companies to publish their AI plans. A Department for Science, Innovation and Technology spokesperson said: “The UK Government is in no hurry to legislate and will not risk introducing ‘ready-to-read’ rules that quickly become outdated or ineffective.” Ta.
This is a strange definition of “global AI leadership” and it’s important to immediately say “we’re not doing anything.” The government is also “considering” actual regulations, envisioning “future binding requirements that may be introduced for developers building cutting-edge AI systems.”
The second, slightly larger fund will cost “almost” £90m to launch “nine new centers of excellence across the UK”. The government also announced £2 million in funding to support “new research projects that help define what responsible AI looks like”.
There is an element of tragedy when reading the government press release that triumphantly revealed £2 million in funding from Yoshua Bengio, one of the three “godfathers” of AI, just a week later. Asks Canada to spend $1 billion We are building publicly owned supercomputers to keep up with the big tech companies. It’s like bringing a spoon to a knife fight.
You can say you’re agile in the face of conflicting demands, but after more than 11 months, it just seems impossible to commit. The day before the latest update to the AI White Paper was published, the Financial Times broke the news that another pillar of AI regulation had collapsed. from that story (lb):
The Intellectual Property Office, the UK government’s agency that oversees copyright law, is working with AI companies and rights holders to produce guidance on text and data mining, where AI models are trained on existing materials such as books and music. We are discussing with.
But a group of industry executives convened by the IPO to oversee the work was unable to agree on a voluntary code of conduct, handing responsibility back to officials at the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology.
Unlike broader AI regulation, which has a quagmire of conflicting opinions and very vague long-term goals, copyright reform is a very clear trade-off. On the one hand, creative and media companies that own valuable intellectual property. On the other side are technology companies that can use their intellectual property to build valuable AI tools. One group or the other will be frustrated by the outcome. A perfect compromise simply means that both are true.
Last month, the head of Getty Images was one of many to call on the UK to support its creative industries, which make up a tenth of the UK economy, citing the theoretical benefits that AI could bring in the future. And, faced with difficult choices with no right answers, the government chose to do nothing. Then you cannot lead the world in the wrong direction. And isn’t that what leadership is all about?
completely fake
Joe Biden poses with his smartphone while on the campaign trail. The President of the United States was the subject of a fake video posted on Facebook. Photo: Evan Vucci/AP
To be fair to the government, there are obvious problems with moving too quickly. Let’s take a look at social media to see some of them. Facebook’s rules do not prohibit deepfake videos of Joe Biden, the company’s Oversight Board (also known as the “Supreme Court”) has found.But honestly, it’s not clear what they are do Prohibition will become increasingly problematic. From our story:
Meta’s oversight board found that a Facebook video that falsely suggested that U.S. President Joe Biden is a pedophile did not violate the company’s current rules, but said the rules were “disjointed”. Yes, we believe that the focus is too narrow on AI-generated content.
The board, which is funded by Facebook’s parent company Meta but operates independently, took over the Biden video case in October in response to user complaints about a doctored seven-second video of the president.
Facebook rushed out a “manipulated media” policy several years ago, before ChatGPT and large-scale language models became AI trends, and amid growing interest in deepfakes. The rule
s prohibited misleading and altered videos created by AI.
The problem, the oversight committee said, is that the policy is impossible to apply because it has little clear rationale behind it and no clear theory of the harm it seeks to prevent. How can moderators differentiate between videos created by AI (which is prohibited) and videos created by skilled video editors (which are allowed)? Even if they could, Why is only the former problematic enough to be removed from the site?
The Oversight Committee proposed updating the rules to remove the temporary reference to AI altogether and instead require labels to identify manipulated audio and video content, regardless of the manipulation method. Mehta said it would update its policy.
Brianna Gee’s mother is calling for stricter restrictions on smartphones and social media. Photo: Handout to families/Cheshire Police/PA
Brianna Gee’s mother is calling for a revolution in how teens approach social media after her daughter was murdered by two of her classmates. Under-16s, she says, should be limited to devices made for teenagers that allow parents to easily monitor their technological lives, which are age-restricted by governments and tech companies.
I spoke to Archie Brand, editor of the daily newsletter First Edition, about her plea:
This lament will resonate with many parents, but in Brianna’s case it has special power. She was “secretly accessing sites on her smartphone that promoted anorexia and self-harm.” Petition created by Esther Say. And prosecutors
said her killers used Google to search for poisons, “serial killer facts” and ways to combat anxiety, and searched Amazon for rope.
“We don’t need new software to do everything Esther Gee wants us to do,” says Alex Hahn. “But there’s a broader problem here. Just as this sector has historically moved faster than governments can keep up, it’s also moving faster than parents can keep up. This varies from app to app and changes regularly, so it’s a large and difficult job to keep track of.”
You can read Archie's full email here (and sign up here to get the first edition every weekday morning).
Wider TechScape
Taylor Swift is one of the Universal Music artists whose work has been stripped from TikTok. Photo: Natasha Pisarenko/AP
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
