Rethinking participatory technology assessment in security governance

Dana Mahr

doi:10.14512/tatup.7231

Authors

Dana Mahr Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe (DE) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7482-465X dana.mahr@kit.edu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.7231

Keywords:

technology assessment, military research, public participation, arms control, artificial intelligence

Abstract

This article explores participatory technology assessment (pTA) in security contexts and asks whether it has a purely symbolic function or whether it can enable real democratic influence. Googles’ involvement in the U.S. military’s Project Maven serves as an example. At the time, Google employees publicly protested against their company’s involvement in the military use of its AI, leading Google to drop its contract with the Pentagon. However, a literature review has shown that secrecy and power asymmetries are typical characteristics of security innovations, so formal pTA rarely goes beyond symbolic politics. Nonetheless, conflicts such as these can open up opportunities for public scrutiny and democratic influence.

References

Albon, Courtney (2024): Palantir wins contract to expand access to Project Maven AI tools. In: C4ISRNET, 30.05.2024. Available online at https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2024/05/30/palantir-wins-contract-to-expand-access-to-project-maven-ai-tools/, last accessed on 04.11.2025.

Born, Hans; Leigh, Ian (2007): Democratic accountability of intelligence services. Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.

Crofts, Penny; van Rijswijk, Honni (2020): Negotiating ‘evil’. Google, Project Maven and the corporate form. In: Law, Technology and Humans 2 (1), pp. 75–90. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.v2i1.1313

Dryzek, John (2002): Deliberative democracy and beyond. Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/019925043X.001.0001

Felt, Ulrike; Fochler, Maximilian (2008): The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. In: Science and Public Policy 35 (7), pp. 489–499. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329086

Google (n.d.): Our approach to information. How search works. Available online at https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/search/howsearchworks/our-approach/, last accessed on 04.11.2025.

Google Employees (2018): Open letter to Sundar Pichai. Available online at https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/technology/googleletter.pdf, last accessed on 04.11.2025.

Guerrero, Alexander (2018): Defense and ignorance. War, secrecy, and the possibility of popular sovereignty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190922542.003.0016

Habermas, Jürgen; Rehg, William (2001): Between facts and norms. Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Heide, Marlen; Villeneuve, Jean-Patrick (2021): Framing national security secrecy. A conceptual review. In: International Journal: Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis 76 (2), pp. 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/00207020211016475

Hennen, Leonhard (2012): Why do we still need participatory technology assessment? In: Poiesis & Praxis 9 (1–2), pp. 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-012-0122-5

Hennen, Leonhard; Peissl, Walter; Hahn, Julia; Ladikas, Miltos; van Est, Rinie; Lindner, Ralf (2023): Introduction. Technology assessment beyond national boundaries. In: Leonhard Hennen, Julia Hahn, Miltos Ladikas, Ralf Lindner, Walter Peissl and Rinie van Est (eds.): Technology assessment in a globalized world. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10617-0_1

Hogue, Simon (2021): Project Maven, big data, and ubiquitous knowledge. The impossible promises and hidden politics of algorithmic security vision. In: Aleš Završnik and Vasja Badalič (eds.): Automating crime prevention, surveillance, and military operations. Cham: Springer, pp. 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73276-9_10

Horwitz, Josh (2022): Google is losing ‘Don’t be evil’ in its code of conduct, and what’s left is corporate jargon. In: Quartz, 20.07.2022. Available online at https://qz.com/1282892/google-is-losing-dont-be-evil-in-its-code-of-conduct-and-whats-left-is-corporate-jargon, last accessed on 31.10.2025.

Jones, Felicity (2018): Project Maven. Machine learning in the military target selection process. In: Technology and Operations Management, 13.11.2018. Available online at https://d3.harvard.edu/platform-rctom/submission/project-maven-machine-learning-in-the-military-target-selection-process/, last accessed on 04.11.2025.

Ladikas, Miltos; Hahn, Julia; Hennen, Leonhard; van Est, Rinie; Peissl, Walter; Lindner, Ralf (2023): The shape of global technology assessment. In: Leonhard Hennen, Julia Hahn, Miltos Ladikas, Ralf Lindner, Walter Peissl and Rinie van Est (eds.): Technology assessment in a globalized world. Cham: Springer, pp. 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10617-0_11

Lindelauf, Roy; Meerveld, Herwin (2025): Building trust in military AI starts with opening the black box. In: War on the Rocks, 12.08.2025. Available online at https://warontherocks.com/2025/08/building-trust-in-military-ai-starts-with-opening-the-black-box/, last accessed on 31.10.2025.

Malmio, Irja (2023): Ethics as an enabler and a constraint. Narratives on technology development and artificial intelligence in military affairs through the case of Project Maven. In: Technology in Society 72, p. 102193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102193

Marres, Noortje (2007): The issues deserve more credit. Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. In: Social Studies of Science 37 (5), pp. 759–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706077367

Mickan, Thomas (2013): Kommentar. Geheimhaltung, Demokratie und Militär. In: IMI-Standpunkt 34, 18.07.2013. Available online at https://www.imi-online.de/2013/07/18/kommentar-geheimhaltung-demokratie-und-militar, last accessed on 31.10.2025.

Mokrosinska, Dorota (2023): Necessary but illegitimate. On democracy’s secrets. In: The Review of Politics 85 (1), pp. 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670522000936

Pellerin, Cheryl (2017): Project Maven industry day pursues artificial intelligence for DoD challenges. In: U.S. Department of Defense News, 27.10.2017. Available online at https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1356172/project-maven-industry-day-pursues-artificial-intelligence-for-dod-challenges/, last accessed on 31.10.2025.

Perthes, Volker (2011): Wikileaks und warum Diskretion in der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik wichtig ist. In: Eva Gilmer and Heinrich Geiselberger (eds.): Wikileaks und die Folgen. Netz – Medien – Politik. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 164–174.

Pesch, Udo; Huijts, Nicole; Bombaerts, Gunter; Doorn, Neelke; Hunka, Agnieszka (2020): Creating ‘local publics’. Responsibility and involvement in decision-making on technologies with local impacts. In: Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (4), pp. 2215–2234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00199-0

Peterson, Becky (2019): Palantir grabbed Project Maven defense contract after Google left the program. Sources. In: Business Insider, 10.12.2019. Available online at https://www.businessinsider.com/palantir-took-over-from-google-on-project-maven-2019-12, last accessed on 04.11.2025.

Pichai, Sundar (2018): AI at Google. Our principles. In: The Keyword (Google Blog), 07.06.2018. Available online at https://blog.google/technology/ai/ai-principles/, last accessed on 31.10.2025.

Reuters (2024): Pentagon awards $480 million deal to Palantir for ‘Maven’ prototype. In: Reuters, 30.05.2024. Available online at https://www.reuters.com/technology/palantir-wins-480-million-us-army-deal-maven-prototype-2024-05-29/, last accessed on 31.10.2025.

Scheiber, Noam; Conger, Kate (2020): The great Google revolt. In: The New York Times, 18.02.2020. Available online at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/18/magazine/google-revolt.html, last accessed on 31.10.2025.

Shane, Scott; Wakabayashi, Daisuke (2018): ‘The business of war’. Google employees protest work for the Pentagon. In: The New York Times, 04.04.2018. Available online at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-ceo-pentagon-project.html, last accessed on 04.11.2025.

Statt, Nick (2018): Google reportedly leaving Project Maven military AI program after 2019. In: The Verge, 01.06.2018. Available online at https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/1/17418406/google-maven-drone-imagery-ai-contract-expire, last accessed on 04.11.2025.

Taylor, Bryan; Bean, Hamilton; O’Gorman, Ned; Rice, Rebecca (2017): A fearful engine of power. Conceptualizing the communication–security relationship. In: Annals of the International Communication Association 41 (2), pp. 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1312482

U.S. DoD – United States Department of Defense (2017): Establishment of an algorithmic warfare cross-functional team (Project Maven). Washington, DC: United States Department of Defense. Available online at https://www.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/establishment_of_the_awcft_project_maven.pdf, last accessed on 04.11.2025.

Vicente-Oliva, Silvia (2025): Participation of civil society in security and defense foresight exercises. In: Futures & Foresight Science 7 (1), p. e206. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.206

Warner, Michael (2002): Publics and counterpublics. In: Public Culture 14 (1), pp. 49–90. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-14-1-49

Wesselink, Anna; Paavola, Jouni; Fritsch, Oliver; Renn, Ortwin (2011): Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance. Practitioners’ perspectives. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 43 (11), pp. 2688–2704. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44161

Witjes, Nina (2017): The co-production of science, technology and global politics. Exploring emergent fields of knowledge and policy. Munich: Technische Universität München. Available online at https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/1350479/document.pdf, last accessed on 04.11.2025.

Xue, Jonathan; Guo, Lifu (2024): AI Cold War with China? The advantage of public conversations about ethics. In: GRACE: Global Review of AI Community Ethics 2 (1), p. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.60690/vdnrw404