Eurodollars are US dollar deposits at European banks. Originally these were used as a way to give the Soviet Union access to the dollar markets through French banks, but eventually it became a way for basically anyone to participate in dollar exchange who can't have a US bank account.
It is a bit anarcho-tyrannical in nature though. That is, the AML/FCA stuff then has the outcome of only effectively constraining the UK's own law-abiding citizens. Which is... something of a disadvantage?
Especially when half of what the FCA puts out in terms of regulations is pure time-wasting theater.
A good recent case is how TD Bank actively helped cartels launder money. An interesting scenario from the past was BCCI, a bank founded to lend legitimacy to criminals (I'm sure it wasn't the last of its kind).
It is a win and it’s not an illegal money laundering.
Having worked at FinTechs and in finance in general that doesn't ring true at all. The FCA definitely takes anti-money laundering checks quite seriously.
e.g. (off the top of my head) NatWest were fined £264 million for AML breaches.
I'm no expert by any means but if I wanted to flout the rules I'd definitely consider a few other juristictions before the City.
Eg. Most AML checks are done because someone wrote some triggering keyword in the payment reference field. Do we honestly think a criminal mastermind won't manage to come up with something else to write there?
I love the whole “unexplained wealth” concept the UK developed, curiously enough after Abramovich had been running around buying Chelsea etc. If you are friend to MI6 this week you are allowed to do anything, but if you get on their wrong side you will be Berezhovskied.
Is this the right characterization? Is Palantir being given access to the data(to do with what they like), or is Palantir software being deployed in the customer private cloud environment?
I am under the impression that Palantir is typically deployed on-premise, or in a private cloud, where the customer can ensure that the data remains sovereign.
Particularly in a military setting, it would be deployed in an airgapped or highly controlled network.
I'll believe that when I see a thorough audit report. But anyone competent to do that wouldn't be buying Palantir in the first place.
No hard evidence of this was provided or is readily available.
> helped UK police tackle domestic violence
And precisely how was this done?
> Palantir will have to destroy data after completion of the contract
Contractual obligations that are not practically enforceable will not be honored. I don't think these individual administrative agencies have the acumen necessary to correctly negotiate these contracts.
Can't find the article atm, but it was basically pre-crime from Minority Report (without the pre-cogs, obviously). They looked at large datasets and built a predictive model, correlating things like race and prior criminal history to infer who was more likely to re-offend. At scale, this works. Ethical issues abound, however.
We're going to need a definition of "works." The false positive rate seems to be notable since those stories readily percolate into media whenever these schemes are implemented and the damage done from those is absolutely massive.
The idea that criminals are likely to re-offend is not new. What to do about this has always been the challenge. Simply over policing this segment is not any type of solution. Unless, of course, you are invested in the "private prison" industry.
That's not their job, that's the governments' job. So much of this (the article and your comment) is putting so much on Palantir when they are just doing the job asked of them. They don't work for the people, the government does.
Regardless, it is ridiculous to absolve corporations and the people running them from all accountability, just because their aim is ever more money. In fact, that should make you criticize them more, not less.
During covid, palantir had to elbow its way to sell to the UK govt and replaced dilapidated “solutions” from the big four.
Even a middling technical understanding of things precludes getting seduced by Deloitte.
One world guv with the 5g brain-influencing towers already in place and the nano tech already inside of us.
How many of us emit a MAC address already?
To answer your question, more like the beginning of the end.
It's what we're not seeing...
"US to embed Palantir AI across military" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47471655
"The singularity".
But we frequently work with people from adjacent fields (military, law enforcement, aviation, other maritime, etc.), basically the usual suspects as far as Palantir clients go.
My observation has been that there's no strong push or even desire to become a customer. The people I've talked with have either been outright unimpressed, or have already similar systems they've rolled out themselves.
From the demos we've had, it seemed to me that Palantir can do well in countries where all the potential clients are isolated from each others (disorganized even), and do not have and good means of sharing data / communicating with each others.
There's a lot of hype, myth even, around what their tools do - and I can understand why many are just saying "no thanks" when they come knocking. It is sort of underwhelming.
It's beyond alarming seeing this company be allowed in the door.
And backed by In-Q-Tel, the CIA's venture capital (CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency of the US).
https://fortune.com/2025/07/29/in-q-tel-cia-venture-capital-...
- Lutnick, whose whole Cantor & Fitzgerald was obliterated, brought his son to school after a last minute "argument with his wife".
- Sarah Ferguson was "stuck in traffic" and late.
- Michael Jackson "overslept".
There is another one whom I don't remember. Maybe the Bayesians here can calculate the probability using a control group of all well connected people who miraculously survived. There aren't that many.
Epstein and Maxwell's other friends of course were connected to funding Palantir.
Also generally speaking e.g. in relation to chat control and so on. Do they think this is what the people actually want because of lobbying or are they aware and believe they know better? Is it literally just corruption? Or are there actual benefits and we are just in the HN bubble where most people think its a bad idea?
Now, most of our senior politicians go to the US after leaving office; so for consistency they adopt the belief that there is no downside to making the UK beholden to foreign companies, or becoming a nation where all the innovative professions end up building capital for foreign owners, instead of building strong UK companies. As a consequence of this, they almost compete to sell out the public. It's impossible for them to believe that what they were doing is a betrayal of their country, because that would go directly against their personal interest.
The public officials involved in signing off on these contracts with Palantir will almost certainly be offered non-executive, board, or consulting positions with one of its subsidiaries. These roles will likely net them £50k-£100k a year for four to five years and conveniently begin a fixed number of months/years after their terms in public office conclude.
This will all be strictly legal and well within the regulations those same officials voted on for themselves (without public consultation, and watered down further by the lobbying efforts of Palantir and similar companies looking for a cut of public funds).
This is an entirely legal and extremely common practice. If you choose to label it 'corruption', that's your call.
Even among tech-obsessed ideologues, both sides roll over and accept this because it's less flattering than arguing over CPU specs. Would we really break up with Big Tech over a gold trophy and a few backdoors?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/04/peter-mande...
I'm unsure why MI6, who is eminently familiar with the Maxwell spy family, allows this. So perhaps they are in on it.
Power is leverage.
Leverage is easily applied to corrupt people.
Politicians are corrupt.
Quod erat demonstrandum
I can't be convinced people go into politics twiddling their mustaches like a cartoon villain. I think that they go into it either to genuinely help, or because they like the attention. Then the system surrounds then with people who either take small bites of their ethics, or agree with anything for the chance to be powerful as well.
Is there a solution? I'm not sure there is.
Saying that Palantir is "reaching" into the British state, and then having the article image be "billionaire Donald Trump donor Peter Thiel" literally holding a wad of cash is... not exactly a high standard of reportage.
And that's the most believable thing in the image. From the banknotes, to the rather visible outline on Thiel himself, to what I can only describe as an out-of-focus picture of the supernatural entity from Still Wakes the Deep.
