The Ukraine War's Seldom Discussed Tech Precedent

Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine over a year ago triggered an unprecedented wave of private sector tech support for Kyiv. Giants like 微软 , 谷歌 , 亚马逊 and SpaceX aided Ukraine's digital defenses and connectivity. Lesser known AI and drone startups flocked to the battlefields and safe havens like "Mil-Tech Valley" in Kyiv to test and refine autonomous weapons.

And Palantir Technologies , a data analytics firm known for supporting US spy agencies, embedded itself into various Ukrainian ministries. Its AI-powered targeting software, claims CEO Alex Karp, is now "responsible for most of the targeting in Ukraine." This public-private tech collaboration has undeniably assisted Ukraine's defiant stand against a larger foe. Yet it also sets an unsettling precedent of outsized corporate influence in conflict.

In the 21st century's first truly high-tech war, Silicon Valley and venture capital have supplied weapons and pivotal battlefield intelligence. Unlike past military innovations like radar or even the atom bomb, much of this new technology comes from commercial companies not beholden to democratic oversight. Their priority is shareholder returns, not human rights or international law.

Among the most controversial tech aids has been Clearview AI 's facial recognition software. Clearview claims its database of over 20 billion images scraped from social media and public websites enables unprecedented accuracy in identifying individuals. But critics argue it enables alarming mass surveillance devoid of consent.

Despite legal bans in several Western democracies for violating privacy laws, Clearview has given access to its tech to over 1500 Ukrainian law enforcement and military personnel. They’ve used the tools to identify over 230,000 Russian soldiers participating in the invasion - linking them to potential war crimes evidence.

“It’s a technology that shines and only really is appreciated in times of crisis,” contends Clearview CEO Hoan Ton-That. But rights groups counter that while assisting Ukraine, facial recognition at this scale severely erodes civil liberties protections once conflicts end.

And Ukraine's experience has already informed Repressive uses elsewhere: citing inspiration from Clearview’s deployment, the Myanmar military junta contracted with Viscount Systems, Inc. for AI-enabled surveillance technology to monitor anti-coup dissidents.

Clearview sees huge business potential in Ukraine and the publicity surrounding its systems' effectiveness there. But opaque use of powerful biometrics matching by security services, without audit or oversight, sets a frightening precedent should client interests shift after Russia’s guns fall silent.

There are several examples of weapons and drones that private tech companies have provided to Ukraine:

Drones:

• Turkish drone maker Baykar Technologies has invested nearly $100 million to build a research and manufacturing center for its Bayraktar drones in Ukraine. Bayraktars have been used extensively by Ukraine against Russian targets.
• Quantum Systems , a German drone maker, announced it would open an R&D center in Kyiv to work with Ukrainian developers on innovative drone tech.
• Ukraine's government has solicited proposals for new drone innovations through its Brave platform, receiving over 1,145 submissions, many of which are being tested by the military.

And autonomous drones powered by AI lack accountability when they fail and cause civilian casualties.

So while much of the focus has been on defensive cybersecurity assistance and connectivity efforts, tech companies big and small have also armed Ukraine's troops with next-generation drones and AI-enhanced weapons systems. The performance of these innovations under live combat conditions provides unique opportunities to improve lethal autonomous technologies. But it also further empowers corporate influence over battlefield outcomes going forward.

While supporting Ukraine's right to self-defense, we cannot ignore problematic aspects of private sector involvement. Corporate promises to "do no harm" offer cold comfort without enforceable safeguards on technology use. And when the battlefield LOC shifts, these commercial innovations may spread globally, sold to the highest bidder regardless of human rights records.

Perhaps regulations around arms exports provide a model - technology with military applications deserves special scrutiny. Or minimum safeguards should govern tech company partnerships with governments in conflict zones. The alternative is an ugly precedent. War and crisis drive rapid innovation, but private interests cannot direct its application alone. Ukraine's tech lifeline reveals gaps governance must address, lest Silicon Valley and its ilk gain worrying new influence over life and death on future battlefields.