Adapting Biometric Surveillance Research to Track Military Personnel with In-Service Convictions for Sexual Violence and Rape

The relationship between biometric surveillance and the reduction of violent crime has become increasingly central to debates around law enforcement, security, and human rights. Patricia Haley’s research on the impact of biometric surveillance focuses on balancing technological efficiency in apprehending criminals with the ethical imperative to protect the innocent. This discussion can be expanded into a new and particularly sensitive area: the tracking of military personnel who have been convicted of sexual assault or rape during their service. Military contexts present unique challenges for surveillance, accountability, and rehabilitation. They involve closed institutional cultures, strict hierarchies, and a distinctive balance between personal liberty and the demands of national security. Adapting biometric surveillance strategies for such a context would therefore require careful consideration of legal, ethical, and operational factors.

This blog explores how Haley’s framework could be applied to military systems, how biometric technologies might assist in monitoring convicted personnel, and how these methods could protect both victims and the wider public. It examines the potential benefits, risks, and human rights implications of such an approach, alongside possible safeguards that could ensure fairness and proportionality. The aim is not to advocate uncritical implementation, but to assess how the principles of biometric surveillance could be responsibly adapted to a UK military justice environment. Sexual assault and rape within military institutions present profound challenges to both justice and discipline. Unlike civilian society, the armed forces operate under a system of military law that combines judicial and command authority. In many cases, this structure can blur the lines between punishment, rehabilitation, and continued service. When service personnel are convicted of sexual offences, the military must balance its duty to maintain trust and morale with its responsibility to prevent reoffending and ensure public safety. This becomes even more complex in cases where individuals remain under military jurisdiction or are released back into civilian life. Historically, responses to sexual offences within armed forces have focused on disciplinary measures and dishonourable discharge. However, modern military institutions increasingly recognise that such offences can have long-term social and psychological impacts that extend beyond the barracks. Victims may be fellow service members or civilians, and the offences can undermine confidence in the institution itself. Tracking convicted personnel through biometric systems could therefore serve multiple purposes: maintaining oversight during rehabilitation, preventing unauthorised access to sensitive environments, and ensuring that individuals do not evade monitoring upon re-entry into civilian communities. Patricia Haley’s research emphasises two interrelated principles: the use of biometric surveillance to reduce violent crime through rapid identification and deterrence, and the protection of innocent individuals from unwarranted intrusion. In her approach, technology must serve justice without becoming an instrument of oppression. This dual focus aligns closely with the challenges faced in military justice, where surveillance must support discipline and security but not erode fundamental rights or trust in the institution. Haley’s discussion of “targeted proportionality” is especially relevant. This concept implies that biometric surveillance should be applied only to individuals or contexts where the potential threat justifies the level of intrusion. In adapting this to military sexual offence monitoring, the focus would fall on convicted individuals rather than on broad categories of personnel. Such an approach would prevent the normalisation of mass surveillance within the military while ensuring that those with proven records of harm are appropriately tracked. Her framework also acknowledges that technology must be transparent and accountable. Biometric systems that monitor convicted military personnel would therefore need clear governance structures, including oversight mechanisms, independent audits, and defined criteria for data retention and deletion. These safeguards would be crucial in maintaining public trust and preventing misuse. The adaptation of Haley’s principles to military contexts would likely involve a combination of biometric technologies already used in criminal justice and national security. These could include fingerprint recognition, iris scanning, facial recognition, voice identification, and behavioural biometrics such as gait analysis and each method presents different strengths and limitations. Fingerprint systems, long established in both military and civilian applications, provide a secure and widely accepted means of verifying identity. They could be integrated into military facilities to control access and ensure that convicted individuals do not enter restricted areas or unauthorised zones. Iris and facial recognition could offer continuous verification in dynamic environments such as bases, training grounds, or deployed units, where constant movement and personnel turnover make manual checks impractical. Behavioural biometrics, meanwhile, could allow monitoring without the need for constant physical contact, offering a less intrusive but still effective means of oversight. Adapting these technologies for the military would require robust data management systems. The armed forces maintain vast databases of personnel information, but linking these to biometric profiles of convicted offenders would raise new challenges. The data would need to be encrypted, compartmentalised, and accessible only to authorised officials under strict conditions. Military cybersecurity systems would also need reinforcement to prevent unauthorised access or misuse of personal data.Haley’s original research emphasises that biometric surveillance should not solely serve punitive purposes; it should also contribute to prevention and rehabilitation. In a military setting, this philosophy could be applied through systems that support reintegration rather than simply impose control. For instance, monitoring could ensure compliance with rehabilitation programmes, counselling, and restricted duties. It could also help identify patterns of behaviour that suggest a risk of reoffending, allowing intervention before further harm occurs. One potential model could involve phased monitoring. During the initial post-conviction period, biometric tracking might be intensive, including geolocation and access control. Over time, as the individual demonstrates compliance and progress, the level of monitoring could decrease. This graduated approach would reflect Haley’s insistence on proportionality, ensuring that surveillance diminishes as the risk does.

Another consideration is the psychological impact of surveillance. While victims may find reassurance in knowing that convicted offenders are being tracked, the offenders themselves may experience heightened stress or stigma. If poorly managed, such effects could hinder rehabilitation. Military authorities would therefore need to balance deterrence with the need to reintegrate individuals who have served their sentences. Counselling, transparency about the purpose of monitoring, and clear communication about time limits would help ensure that surveillance supports behavioural change rather than reinforcing alienation. One of the practical challenges in tracking military personnel with sexual offence convictions lies in the transition between military and civilian jurisdictions. Many individuals leave service after conviction, either through discharge or retirement. Ensuring continuity of monitoring would require coordination between the Ministry of Defence, civilian law enforcement, and probation services. Biometric data could serve as a bridge between these systems, allowing accurate identification across institutional boundaries. Haley’s framework would suggest that data sharing should be guided by strict principles of necessity and consent. Only the minimum data required for public protection should be shared, and the rights of the individual should remain central. Establishing standardised protocols for biometric data transfer would reduce administrative confusion and protect against duplication or loss. Moreover, it would allow a unified approach to risk assessment, enabling both military and civilian agencies to make informed decisions about supervision and reintegration.

The adaptation of biometric surveillance for tracking convicted military personnel raises profound ethical and legal questions. Central among these is the balance between security and privacy. While convicted offenders have reduced expectations of privacy, they do not forfeit all rights. Military institutions are bound by both domestic law and international human rights standards, including the right to privacy, dignity, and fair treatment. Any surveillance programme must therefore be justified, proportionate, and subject to oversight.

Haley’s research highlights the importance of informed consent and transparency. In a military context, obtaining genuine consent may be complicated by the hierarchical nature of the institution. Personnel may feel compelled to comply with monitoring even if they have concerns. To address this, independent bodies should oversee the implementation of biometric tracking, ensuring that participation and data handling are governed by clear legal frameworks rather than command pressure. Another ethical issue concerns data retention. Once an individual has completed their sentence or rehabilitation, continued retention of biometric data could amount to ongoing punishment. Therefore, data should be subject to automatic review and deletion after a defined period, unless there is a compelling public safety reason for retention. This would align with Haley’s view that surveillance should be temporary and purpose-bound, not indefinite or indiscriminate. The question of fairness also arises. Critics might argue that focusing surveillance on convicted individuals within the military risks reinforcing stigma, especially if monitoring practices are not equally applied to civilian offenders. However, proponents could respond that the military has unique responsibilities and powers that justify heightened oversight. Maintaining a balance between institutional security and equal treatment under the law would be essential.Haley’s work also explores the potential for biometric systems to generate errors, particularly through algorithmic bias or technical malfunction. When applied in military contexts, these risks could have serious consequences. A false match could wrongly implicate an individual in misconduct or restrict their access to facilities, while a false negative could allow a genuine threat to go undetected. Military systems must therefore prioritise accuracy and fairness. Regular testing and calibration of biometric tools would be necessary, alongside transparent procedures for contesting or correcting errors. Individuals subject to monitoring should have clear channels for appeal, supported by independent technical audits. Furthermore, as the military employs personnel from diverse ethnic and physical backgrounds, biometric algorithms must be tested for bias across demographics. Haley’s emphasis on protecting the innocent applies strongly here: surveillance should never perpetuate inequality or injustice.

Implementing biometric tracking within a military organisation would not be purely a technical exercise; it would also require cultural adaptation. Military institutions value loyalty, discipline, and cohesion, and introducing surveillance measures could challenge these dynamics. Personnel might perceive monitoring as a sign of mistrust or as a betrayal of the camaraderie that underpins military life. Commanders would therefore need to communicate the rationale clearly, emphasising that the aim is not general suspicion but targeted accountability for serious offences. Equally, such measures could strengthen trust among victims and potential victims, who may otherwise fear that the system prioritises institutional reputation over justice. Transparent and fair use of surveillance could signal a commitment to accountability and safety, improving morale and confidence in military justice. Haley’s notion of protecting the innocent resonates strongly here: the goal of technology should be to safeguard those who serve honourably, not to erode collective integrity. Practical adaptation of Haley’s research to military contexts would require a phased, carefully managed process. Initially, pilot programmes could be established within selected units or branches, focusing on individuals already convicted of sexual offences. These pilots would test the effectiveness, acceptability, and ethical implications of biometric monitoring before wider adoption. Lessons learned could then inform a comprehensive policy framework. Implementation would involve coordination across several domains. Legal departments would define the scope of authority; technological teams would design secure systems; and medical and psychological services would monitor the impact on individuals. Training for commanders and administrators would be essential to ensure consistent application and to prevent misuse. Oversight committees, including external members, could provide transparency and accountability. Cost is another consideration. Biometric systems require significant investment in hardware, software, maintenance, and training. The military would need to justify these costs by demonstrating measurable benefits, such as reduced reoffending rates, improved victim confidence, or enhanced institutional reputation. Haley’s approach to balancing efficiency with ethics would suggest that financial efficiency cannot override human rights considerations. Therefore, resource allocation should prioritise systems that combine reliability, transparency, and proportionality.

If implemented responsibly, the adaptation of biometric surveillance to monitor convicted military personnel could bring substantial benefits. It could enhance deterrence, ensuring that convicted individuals understand that any breach of restrictions will be swiftly detected. It could also streamline coordination between military and civilian justice systems, closing gaps that might otherwise allow offenders to evade monitoring. For victims, such systems could offer reassurance that justice extends beyond conviction, contributing to healing and institutional trust.

Furthermore, biometric surveillance could improve the accuracy of record-keeping and reduce administrative errors. By linking biometric data to service records, authorities could ensure that individuals subject to restrictions are correctly identified and managed. Over time, aggregated data could also inform prevention strategies, revealing patterns that point to systemic issues within the institution. Despite these potential advantages, several risks warrant attention. Overreliance on surveillance technology could lead to complacency in other areas, such as education, leadership, and cultural reform. Technology can track individuals but cannot address the root causes of sexual violence, which often lie in attitudes, power dynamics, and institutional culture. Therefore, biometric monitoring must form part of a broader strategy that includes training, support for victims, and robust disciplinary processes. There is also the danger of mission creep. Systems introduced to monitor convicted offenders could gradually expand to cover suspects, high-risk categories, or even all personnel. Such expansion would undermine the principle of targeted proportionality and risk normalising intrusive surveillance within the military. To prevent this, strict limits on scope and duration would need to be enshrined in policy and law. Data security presents another vulnerability. Military systems are attractive targets for cyberattacks, and breaches involving biometric data could have severe consequences, including identity theft or blackmail. Comprehensive encryption, access controls, and incident response plans would be essential. Haley’s emphasis on protecting the innocent underscores the importance of preventing harm not only from state misuse but also from external threats. Adapting Haley’s research opens new avenues for investigation. Future studies could explore how biometric data might be integrated with behavioural analytics to predict and prevent misconduct, or how machine learning could identify early warning signs of risk. However, these developments must proceed cautiously, with continuous ethical oversight. The goal should be to enhance human decision-making, not replace it with opaque algorithms.

Comparative research across military forces of different nations could also provide valuable insights. Cultural attitudes toward privacy, discipline, and rehabilitation vary widely, influencing how biometric surveillance is perceived and implemented. International collaboration could help establish best practices and shared standards, reducing the risk of abuse while promoting accountability.

In conclusion, Patricia Haley’s research on the impact of biometric surveillance offers a balanced and principled framework for reducing violent crime while safeguarding individual rights. When adapted to the military context, her ideas could inform a system for tracking personnel convicted of sexual assault and rape that is effective, ethical, and proportionate. Such a system would rely on targeted application, transparency, and oversight, ensuring that surveillance serves justice rather than undermining it. The unique structure of military life, its hierarchy, cohesion, and dual obligations to discipline and liberty, demands particular care in implementing such measures. Biometric tracking could enhance accountability and public trust, but it could also risk overreach and cultural tension if not handled sensitively. Ultimately, the success of any adaptation will depend not only on technology but also on the values guiding its use. Surveillance must remain a tool of justice, not a substitute for it. The challenge lies in ensuring that in protecting society and its servicemen and women, the military continues to uphold the principles of fairness, dignity, and humanity that define its purpose.

Tony Wright