Governments everywhere are rapidly militarising our societies. They are increasing military spending, undermining civil rights protections, and reducing social protection programmes. They are using data-intensive systems for monitoring and targeting in military operations, leading to the mass killing of civilians.

Non-defence companies - both Big Tech and smaller companies - are becoming defence contractors by developing tools like drones and cloud storage used for military ends. As a result, their “battle-tested” technologies are seeping into our town squares and public services, enabling surveillance and bias amplification.

Data is driving the militarisation of tech

Data plays a key role in war and conflict, which is a great challenge for the protection of our privacy.

With the rush to develop AI models, tech companies are keen to sell services to the military, findings ways to help the defence sector in the management of its data. Using Big Tech’s cloud services, governments can process data on a large scale. This creates dependencies by governments on tech companies to manage functions of the state.

Data is being used to train and test military systems, and these systems are fed data to target operations, communities, and individuals.

But why is this fusion of civilian and military data a problem? Data-intensive systems can’t function without the surveillance infrastructures that support them - inciting mass surveillance practices. As military systems seep into law enforcement, border control, public health, and even education, the distinction between national defence and domestic governance is collapsing. What begins as defence quickly becomes a model of governance, treating entire populations as data sources and potential threats.

Militarisation of tech is reshaping our town squares

Big Tech and defence tech industries are building a new generation of tech for military and civil uses alike. As defence-driven systems are seeping into our everyday lives, our town squares are being reshaped.

Waging war involves immense innovations in data collection and analysis. AI-powered surveillance and targeting systems go beyond simply classifying objects or individuals: they are designed to identify, generate, and sometimes counter new threats. By analysing vast datasets for behavioural patterns or other indicators deemed suspicious, these systems designate individuals as potential threats and enable responses to counter them.

This means that, by design, such systems cannot function without extensive surveillance infrastructures that continuously monitor entire populations. Only through this constant surveillance can they identify deviations from what is labelled “normal” behaviour. But normal is not a neutral benchmark — it is defined by those in power, and can be changed rapidly according to the motives of those in power. These systems, trained to enforce shifting definitions of order, operate without ethical brakes, turning our daily civilian lives into targets of suspicion. They subject entire societies to scrutiny and control.

Privacy gaps in armed conflict

The entanglement of civilian and military data ecosystems blurs the boundaries between conflict and peace situations. This risks creating critical gaps in privacy and accountability protections.

The intersection of data, technology, and armed conflict presents significant legal and ethical challenges, particularly when it comes to privacy and data protection. While these rights are more crucial than ever, especially in regulating data-intensive military systems, they are largely ignored by the legal frameworks governing armed conflict. Meanwhile, data collection has become central to modern warfare, not just for targeting of adversaries but as a driver of both military and civilian technological development, often without clear legal oversight.

As civilian tech companies, defence-tech companies and militaries invest in national security and defence - often at the expense of transparency, oversight, and accountability - it becomes more challenging to determine which actor’s conduct is regulated by the laws of armed conflict. We no longer know where the battlefield starts and where it ends.

Governing data-intensive systems

As military contractors offer governments data-intensive tech to support wars, provide humanitarian aid and oversee public healthcare data all at the same time - we must ask if existing frameworks governing the deployment of this tech are fit for purpose. The answer is no. The separation of military and civil powers underpins military oversight, and current governance frameworks rely on this distinction.

There are currently no comprehensive regulations governing the transfer of tech or sensitive data collected from conflict zones. Essential protections are lacking - enabling governments and companies to exploit data during armed conflict, with little accountability. Governments, regulators, tech companies and civil society need to work together to ensure the effective and holistic governance of data-intensive systems used in war and in peace.

Read more about the work we are doing to challenge the militarisation of tech.

Illustrations by Ann Macleod.