Naked Capitalism is in the midst of its fundraising week, with over 1,100 generous donors already supporting our mission to fight corruption and predatory practices, particularly in the financial sector. We invite you to contribute through our donation page, offering various payment methods including check, credit card, PayPal, and more. For more information on our fundraising efforts, read about the purpose behind our fundraiser, our achievements over the last year, and our ongoing goal, bonuses for our talented writers.
A Disturbing Warning from Silicon Valley’s Most Controversial Company
As readers of NC know, Palantir Technologies has a notorious reputation for its controversial practices. Aiming to be “inside every missile and every drone,” the company’s chairman, Peter Thiel, represents a type of financial surveillance capitalism that seeks to shape our collective future, often in a negative direction. He has formed a formidable network within the Trump administration to further these ambitions.
The firm’s CEO, Alex Karp, makes no secret of his involvement in lethal operations in the Gaza Strip, stating that enemies should “go to bed scared” and awaken in fear. In the video included below, his chilling rhetoric highlights the company’s disturbing worldview:
ALEX KARP CEO OF PALANTIR:
“They need to go to bed scared, they need to wake up scared… Safe means that the other person is scared.”
This man is a complete psychopath.
pic.twitter.com/GmJgIw9Epc— ADAM (@AdameMedia) July 29, 2025
Founded in 2003 with funding from the CIA, Palantir emerged from DARPA’s Total Information Awareness (TIA) Program—a surveillance initiative so invasive that even Congress attempted to shut it down. In a 2014 Reddit AMA, Thiel provocatively stated, “The CIA is a front for Palantir.”
The company has since diversified its operations, now offering AI-driven military targeting systems, creating kill lists for the Israeli Defense Forces, assisting ICE with immigration enforcement, and managing the National Health Service’s patient data in the UK.
Palantir’s Unexpected Caution Regarding Digital IDs
Yet even Palantir, known for its dark dealings, has voiced hesitancy about the UK government’s suggested digital ID system. In an interview with the Times of London, Louis Mosley, Palantir’s UK head, criticized the government’s ID plans, declaring that the firm would refrain from bidding for any related contracts:
“Palantir has long upheld a policy of assisting democratically elected governments in implementing the policies they were elected to enact, and this means we often engage in controversial measures,” he told Times Radio. “Digital ID was not tested at the last election nor was it in the manifesto. So we haven’t witnessed a clear mandate for its implementation at the ballot box.”
[NC: It’s ironic to hear a Palantir executive caution about democratic concerns surrounding the UK’s digital ID plans, given that Thiel himself argues that democracy and freedom are at odds and has often opposed government intervention — at least when it aligns with his interests.]
Mosley expressed “personal concerns” about digital IDs, noting their susceptibility to misuse. “We’ve all experienced engaging with governmental platforms that leave much to be desired,” he remarked. “There are numerous unique identifiers for citizens created by the government. We have passports, driving licenses, tax codes, and national insurance numbers; all of which exist in isolation without integration.”
This reluctance from Palantir, despite their dark reputation, raises questions. As we noted earlier this year, the company aspires to become a central operating system for the US and UK governments, aiming to expand its presence across various sectors, including defense and healthcare.
Despite its ambitious goal of monopolizing government operations in both the US and UK, Palantir’s founder, Peter Thiel, complicates the narrative by proudly identifying as a libertarian and simultaneously advocating the merits of monopoly capitalism while facilitating the expansion of the surveillance state.
As Iain Davis aptly describes in his insightful two-part series on the “Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate,” proponents of Technocracy and figures like Elon Musk and Thiel aim not to limit state power but to transition it from public to private sectors, thereby amplifying it.
They oppose “representative democracy,” labeling it as a flawed bureaucratic system while offering solutions that ultimately reinforce the very state power they profess to denounce. They promote hierarchical sociopolitical structures that closely resemble and in some instances, exceed authoritarianism. Regardless of whether they name their model a Technate or a gov-corp, the increase in state power remains.
Consequently, one should approach Palantir’s criticisms of the UK’s digital identity proposal with caution. The company is eager to increase its influence in the UK’s governance, even if it means using public sentiment as a tool for public image management.
Palantir faces significant public scrutiny after being awarded a £330 million contract by the Sunak government in 2023 for managing the NHS’s federated data platform, a move met with widespread dissatisfaction within the healthcare sector.
Despite rising criticisms, Palantir’s influence continues to expand. For instance, in June, the UK Police partnered with Palantir to develop a surveillance network aimed at gathering data on citizens’ political opinions and personal beliefs. In September, a £1.5 billion deal with the UK Ministry of Defence was announced to leverage AI capabilities already utilized in Ukraine to facilitate military planning and decision-making.
Key Concerns Raised
In the interview, Mosley highlighted two significant concerns that resonate with certain British voters:
- Digital identity systems create a larger “surface area of risk” for data security. All digital identity systems, even the best-designed ones like Estonia’s, remain vulnerable to hacks, while poorer implementations, like India’s Aadhaar, continuously face breaches. As we warned earlier, the UK’s approach risks establishing an enticing target for cybercriminals.
- The government’s digital identity system lacks democratic legitimacy. As Mosley puts it, “It wasn’t tested at the last election nor was it included in the manifesto,” indicating a lack of public support at the ballot box.
Public figures such as Reform Party leader Nigel Farage and Green Party leader Zack Polanski have capitalized on these sentiments by criticizing Starmer’s digital ID initiatives vehemently. Jeremy Corbyn has also publicly opposed the policy.
I firmly oppose the government’s plans for compulsory digital ID cards.
This is an affront to our civil liberties and will pose additional challenges for minorities. It embodies excessive state interference — and must be resisted.
— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) September 25, 2025
Polanski has committed to defending the UK against a drift towards authoritarianism, asserting that “this country values civil liberties, yet a Labour government is once again infringing upon our rights.”
As these concerns begin to resonate with the public, Starmer’s popularity continues to plummet. His government appears increasingly authoritarian, with new measures unveiled by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood aimed at limiting “repeated” political protests. These policies are primarily directed at dissent against the government’s ongoing support for the conflict in Gaza.
“Just because you have a freedom doesn’t mean you have to exercise it every moment.”
This statement by UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood on BBC justifies new powers allowing police to shut down or relocate protests deemed “excessive.” These steps are especially targeted at mass protests against the ongoing geopolitical issues in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/872EbijkCp
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) October 5, 2025
As Silkie Carlo from Big Brother Watch noted, “repeated demonstrations have historically been catalysts for change in our nation, from suffrage to workers’ rights.”
👁️The Government is seeking to further restrict free speech in Britain by limiting the right to protest.
The freedom to protest should always be exercised without constraints dictated by those in power; this movement aims to silence that.
— Big Brother Watch (@BigBrotherWatch) October 6, 2025
Mahmood also mentioned that the proposed national digital identity system could be extended to address benefit fraud and various other issues, contradicting Starmer’s declaration that the ID would only be compulsory for individuals seeking to engage in the formal job market. This raises serious questions about the transparency of Starmer’s commitments:
The Government claimed: Digital ID is mandatory for work in the UK.
Now, they are saying: Digital ID could also link to taxpayer information…
— Big Brother Watch (@BigBrotherWatch)
The potential threats posed by government-imposed digital identity systems impact fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly when public trust in the government is already alarmingly low. Public confidence was at its lowest before Starmer took office, and his government now reportedly holds the title of the most unpopular administration in modern history. The imposition of mandatory digital identification, combined with low public confidence, could lead to widespread resistance.
Recent data shows over 2.8 million UK citizens have already signed a petition demanding the abandonment of digital identity legislation, far surpassing the required threshold for parliamentary review. This number almost matches the six million who sought to reverse the Brexit decision, and it continues to climb.
However, the government responded predictably by dismissing the petition and reiterating its commitment to implement a mandatory digital identity system, not just for workers but for anyone seeking to own a business. As outlined by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, this ID system aims to modernize public services:
“We intend to introduce a digital ID within this parliamentary term to address illegal migration, improve access to government services, and enhance efficiency. Further details will emerge soon.”
This system is projected to unify access to government services, replacing the need for various physical documents and multiple accounts.
This initiative is being launched amidst the backdrop of the recently enacted Online Safety Act, which has already paved the way for extensive identity checks across the internet. Marketed as a safeguard for children, it grants regulators additional power to implement age verification for various online services.
The result is the emergence of a framework where demonstrating one’s identity is increasingly becoming a prerequisite for accessing online platforms.
Opposition is gaining momentum. Peter Hyman, a former communications adviser to Starmer, acknowledged that while digital ID is a consequential policy, “no one is actively communicating its intricacies,” allowing opponents to gain traction.
In my 2022 publication, *Scanned*, I address the urgent need for society to interrogate emerging digital identity systems, not only from a governance and financial perspective but also from an ethical one. These systems pose a significant threat, capable of reconfiguring societal interactions, enhancing government and corporate control.
With growing concerns regarding online age verification systems in Western countries, the potential ramifications of digital identity are just beginning to unfold. This issue warrants discussion at every level, from government chambers to homes across the globe.
In stark contrast, countries that have rolled out digital identity measures in the past year—including those in the European Union, Australia, Mexico, Canada, Vietnam, and China—have not experienced similar debates. Switzerland serves as a notable exception, where a 2021 referendum against digital ID was disregarded, followed by a narrowly-passed vote in favor.
A Global Agenda
At a time when global dynamics appear to be shifting dramatically, numerous nations are adopting digital identity policies simultaneously, as if orchestrated. Both Taiwan and China are progressing, and so are Ukraine and Russia. This wave of digital ID adoption aligns with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16.9, which aims to “provide legal identity for all, including birth registration, by 2030.”
These legal identities are anticipated to be in digital format, as organizations like ID2020 pursue the goal of ensuring every individual possesses a digital identity by 2030.
As countries forge ahead with digital IDs simultaneously, they also explore or implement central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). The Bank for International Settlements noted this in 2021, indicating that identification plays a crucial role in CBDC design, necessitating an account-based system tied to digital identities while prioritizing data privacy protections.
These emerging CBDCs are likely to be programmable, granting governments and central banks the ability to influence spending habits through targeted monetary policies. In extreme cases, governments could even exclude certain populations from economic participation.
When digital identity and programmable currency converge, it leads to unprecedented levels of control, as emphasized by Catherine Austin Fitts, a former assistant HUD secretary:
The mechanisms of divide and conquer offer insights into the struggle for control between the ultra-wealthy and the broader population. Programmable money requires a connected populace to track and influence behavior, thereby establishing comprehensive control.
That level of surveillance extends far beyond mere technological enhancements; it represents a fundamental shift in the nature of freedom.
In closing, an article published by Open Democracy paints a grim picture for those in the UK and beyond, with the impending adoption of digital identity systems. Aman Sethi, editor-in-chief of HuffPost India, outlines the significant flaws, security vulnerabilities, and inevitable mission creep associated with India’s Aadhaar system—the world’s largest digital identity initiative:
Our investigations revealed how Aadhaar was compromised by hackers, disenfranchising millions through botched attempts to connect identities to voting and exposing sensitive personal data. Such issues are routinely dismissed as isolated incidents but when scaled to a population of 1.4 billion, they trigger systemic injustices.
As we reported in 2020, the Indian government is leveraging Aadhaar to build an extensive, auto-updating database that offers a startlingly comprehensive view of every citizen’s life—raising legitimate fears about government misuse.
This scenario might be replicated with the UK’s Brit Card initiative. Once operational, pressure will likely arise to link this ID with other personal identifiers, potentially leading to punitive inquiries as mere technical malfunctions could flag individuals for investigation.
Given the UK government’s track record of IT failures, this potential for misuse is alarming.
