Introduction
The use of technology in migration and asylum processes is becoming increasingly common in European countries. European Union states apply and test new technologies to control their borders and identify people entering their lands.[1] With recent increases in migration to the European Union, many states are introducing technological applications in areas such as border security, decision making and data analysis to make “migration management”[2] more “effective.”[3] These applications range from Big Data analyses used to predict population movements in the Mediterranean, to automatic decision-making systems in migration applications, to lie detectors supported by artificial intelligence (AI), to risk-assessment tools.[4]
The increasing impact of technology on migration governance is a growing concern in the realm of migration studies.[5] On the one hand, the adoption of information technology by countries has become a response to growing technological and cybersecurity threats.[6] On the other, the securitization of migration by states has led to the use of technology as a tool for migration management, which ultimately aims to filter and prevent border crossing by migrants[7] deemed undesirable. Scholars have criticized border surveillance technology for its impact on migrants on the move, given its ability to cause physical, psychological and social harm.[8] New technologies deployed at borders not only aim to prevent migrants from entering EU countries, but also focus on predicting the routes they will take and the risks they will face from the decision-making stage to the conclusion of their migration journey. This paper examines the integration of advanced surveillance technologies in the European Union, the multiple uses of technologies, and their impact on migrants and migration management. In doing so, the paper observes that states have used border surveillance technologies to control and dehumanize migrants and human smugglers,[9] while migrant solidarity networks use the technology for tactical interventions to bypass state-imposed border restrictions.
Border Governance and Technology
Globalization has put migration and security into focus. Regional conflicts, civil wars and ethnic tensions, especially in the post-Cold War period, have compelled many people to migrate.[10] States have considered these movements threats to their stability. After the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York City, public discourses began to associate migration with terrorism.[11] However, this relationship is not grounded in objective reality; it is a socially and politically constructed connection. Migrants have become symbols of wider fears, allowing states to justify measures such as increased border control and surveillance.[12]
The securitization of migration as a trend that needs to be stopped, controlled and prevented has prompted the innovation and introduction of “effective” new technologies in this field.[13] This situation is the upshot of a dynamic of cooperation and competition among different public and private actors[14] involved in “border management.”[15] The belief that the border is a barrier to one’s enemies leads state and non-state actors to treat border security like warfare.[16] As such, borders are one of the areas where intense human rights violations are most evident. State and non-state actors turn the routes migrants take into objects of security policy using high-level surveillance mechanisms.[17] These policies affect the routes migrants can take, forcing them to rely on more difficult and dangerous paths,[18] and threatening their right to asylum.[19] Cross-country information- and intelligence-sharing programs enable the collection and sharing of large amounts of private data about people on the move. These systems can lead to discrimination and misidentification (for example, through facial recognition tools) due to biases in biometric data.[20]
Biometric technology processes and stores people’s information, creating large databases.[21] It uses biometric features, such as fingerprints, retinal scans, facial and voice recognition, blood vessels and vein patterns, ear shapes and gait to verify a person’s identity.[22] With biometric border mechanisms, human mobility is not only controlled, but also subject to risk assessment.[23] Thus, the intervention of the state into the private sphere increases dramatically.
Complex data-sharing and surveillance mechanisms also help the European Union to externalize[24] its border controls with greater accuracy, allowing it to monitor migrants on routes in third countries long before they reach EU borders, and to categorize migrants and their movement paths using automated security assessments.[25] The alignment between EU border policies and the advanced capabilities of surveillance and biometric technologies underscores a much broader and more concerning narrative. Border technologies are no longer isolated tools to be used at checkpoint entries; they extend through space and time beyond the point of entry.[26]
The EU Context
The portrayal of migrants as a threat, the increase in border controls and the fact that migration has become a security discourse, dehumanizes migrants. After 9/11, EU countries followed increased security-oriented policies to protect EU borders from people they perceived as security threats.[27] In alignment with the EU Declaration on the Fight Against Terrorism,[28] these countries aimed to ensure the security of the borders in an integrated manner by sharing the data of persons whose biometric information is obtained across EU countries.[29] Although the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), an EU regulation on information privacy in the European Union and the European Economic Area, guarantees certain protections regarding the use of automated individual decision-making processes and the protection of personal data, and shows promise as a starting point for broader global standards in this area, it is not sufficient to protect the rights of migrants.[30] The protections provided by the GDPR — of which the European Union often boasts — apply to EU citizens only; migrants are excluded.[31]
The European Union’s borders are enforced not only by barbed wire, various security actors and biometric surveillance bureaucracy, but also by violence. Although physical violence is quite common at the borders, it is not the only type of violence there.[32] Silencing the voices of migrants and human rights defenders, whose experiences and perspectives reveal the injustice that borders can create, are examples of epistemic violence.[33] For example, Croatia illegally deported an Afghan minor from the European Union by giving him an electric shock.[34] A report on this incident, based on medical documents, photographs of injuries and statements from the 16-year-old child migrant involved, was published by the Serbian Commissioner for Refugees and Migration in September 2019; the Croatian Ministry of the Interior stated that the report was “not supported by facts” and “has no basis in reality.”[35] Similarly, the Croatian state rejected a report published by Human Rights Watch based on multiple testimonies from pushback victims, and even video footage of an illegal pushing incident, because it did not provide “concrete evidence.” As seen in these two examples, such epistemic violence invalidates the testimony and evidence of those directly affected, undermines their credibility and dismisses evidence of border violence.[36]
The technological advancements made in EU border governance enhance security functions by “efficiently” monitoring border movements and migration journeys, and identifying potential security threats.[37] They also raise concerns about their impact on human rights, in particular the privacy and fundamental rights of migrants.[38] Data, technology and AI in border governance are used to undermine and discriminate against the rights of migrants, leading to ethical and legal challenges.[39] For example, facial recognition surveillance technology — a technology in which people’s faces are scanned, identified and profiled en masse — is not compatible with international human rights law because it amounts to mass surveillance.[40] Yet facial recognition surveillance technology is increasingly used by governments to target people based on their ethnicity. Like many technologies, it deepens existing structural inequalities and affects marginalized and vulnerable groups, including migrants, the most.[41] The uncertainty around the uses of technology, including AI, in border regions is thus deeply concerning. The implementation of these advanced technologies in EU border governance throws into sharp relief the challenge of balancing security with safeguarding the fundamental rights and privacy of migrants.[42]
As Europe privatizes and securitizes its borders, it continues to benefit from technological developments and cooperation with the private sector, as member states collaborate with private tech-driven corporations to develop advanced surveillance technologies. Their use of surveillance technologies and biometrics raises questions about accountability and compliance with regional and international law. Private companies (such as Thales Group, SITA and Palantir) significantly influence security narratives and solutions by shaping security issues to align with their services and profit motives. These companies have the power to shape the understanding of and response to security threats, often defining problems in ways that match their ability to provide solutions, thus maintaining a cycle of profit-driven security measures.[43] The Schengen Information System, the Eurodac biometric fingerprint database and the Visa Information System constitute other control-and-audit mechanisms. The European Commission’s Smart Borders Initiative, the European Border Surveillance System (Eurostar) and its “mobility partnerships” with third countries — from Azerbaijan to North African countries to Cape Verde — work in lockstep with these corporations.[44]
Eurosur, managed by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), is an EU initiative that started as a pilot project in 2011. Its aim was to make border surveillance more effective by improving the “interoperability” of border surveillance initiatives between Frontex and EU countries with southern or eastern European external borders.[45] It has been described as a computerized “system of systems.”[46] It identifies areas of future intervention,[47] detects cases of irregular migration and maps border crimes.[48] However, Eurosur’s system is not designed for real-time intervention. It produces risk analyses and provides a constantly updated map.[49] Eurosur consists of three main “layers”: an events layer that monitors events and identifies potential risks; an operations layer containing information on assets available for intervention; and an analysis layer that includes intelligence reports and risk assessments.[50]
Although humanitarian aims were added to Eurosur’s mandate at a relatively late stage in its development, Eurosur is fundamentally a control-oriented initiative, not one that privileges respect for the human rights of migrants.[51] Problems have emerged with the system, including its limited capacity to rescue people, especially in emergencies.[52] The suffering and deaths experienced by migrants at sea are partly attributable to the inadequacy of combined surveillance and rescue operations, and the lack of sufficient legal migration routes, which forces many migrants to undertake dangerous journeys.[53] In other words, Eurosur responds with mere surveillance to the socio-political and humanitarian problems associated with migration. Evaluating migrant deaths and ship accidents, senior Frontex official Gil Arias-Fernández admitted that Eurosur’s capacity to save people in emergencies is quite limited.[54]
Given all these international cooperation and control mechanisms, determining where the EU border begins and ends becomes increasingly hard to define. In examining Frontex operations and surveillance technologies, EU states’ desire to control and manage situations in other countries emerges as the norm rather than the exception.[55] Another reason these border operations are carried out far beyond EU borders is to “offshore” the violence, ensuring that it takes place outside EU borders as much as possible.[56]
From the Smart Border Package to the European e-Justice Portal, technological advancements are transforming EU border governance at an accelerated rate. Due to these high-tech transformations, the European Union’s border regime is evolving into a digital and selective border machine. For instance, the European agency eu-LISA, the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice,[57] pushes for developing and managing large-scale information technology (IT) systems in border security.[58] This transformation has extended the scope of EU rules to further control the external governance of borders and migration.[59] These practices involve several securitization methods, including military/navy, border guards/police and database analysts, reflecting the European Union’s aggressive investment in security technology.[60] Furthermore, the European Union’s governance includes remote control, surveillance, monitoring and screening at the source, as exemplified by the establishment of Frontex in 2004 for integrated border security.[61]
While technological developments contribute to Frontex’s dominance in the field, other adjunct mechanisms reinforce Frontex. The European Asylum Dactyloscopy Database (Eurodac) is an information, communication and control technology that serves in this field, and it works as an Automated Fingerprint Identification System. It is implemented in areas where the rules of the Dublin III regulation — the foundational legal framework regulating asylum applications made in European Union member states — apply.[62] Designed for crisis response, with European states treating the arrival of refugees as a “crisis,” the primary purpose of the Eurodac program is to prevent migrants from applying for asylum in different European countries simultaneously, thereby reducing the workload of actors involved in border policing.[63] This system prevents a migrant from applying for asylum in one country after fingerprinting in another EU country. According to the EU regulation of Eurodac, the data of migrants whose fingerprints have been taken is deleted after two years. Thus, if a migrant manages to evade migration control for two years, they can apply for asylum in another country at the end of those two years.[64] Although this is presented as a system that allows migrants to be registered, it restricts the mobility of migrants and forces them to use “illegal” ways to seek asylum.
EU countries practise close cooperation as they aim to fill the gap between jurisdictions and manage migration. These collaborations initially started among EU countries, but expanded in scope to keep pace with technological development and to incorporate more countries. With the increase in the number of people migrating in the last 10 years, EU countries have begun to strengthen their borders and make serious investments in this area. Frontex is one of the most critical actors in this field. In this context, borders have been externalized through agreements with third countries. As a result, the surveillance and control of people who want to migrate starts far beyond the borders of the European Union.
Multiple Uses of Technologies
States do not have a monopoly on technology. Migrants, smugglers and solidarity networks effectively use communication applications such as WhatsApp and Facebook to facilitate travel across borders.[65] For this reason, the most crucial possession of migrants during a journey is their smartphone.[66]
Smartphones play a vital decision-making role for migrants during their journeys. Migrants communicate with their relatives and other migrants through communication networks and benefit from the information exchanged.[67] Before setting out, migrants learn about the experiences of people who have gone before them by joining online groups, especially those on Facebook, and often decide which country to go to and a particular route to follow in light of the information they receive from these groups.[68] The frequent sharing of updated information in these Facebook groups can play a life-saving role in migrants’ journeys,[69] as they inform one another about which routes are closed and which are patrolled.[70] In these situations, migrants have no one but each other to assist them, and they show their support for each other by sharing information through communication.[71]
Human smugglers also use smartphones. In contrast to migrants, they primarily use them to advertise their services, to provide information about who they are and the routes they will take, and to where they will rendezvous with migrants.[72] However, the information smugglers share about themselves can be false, which can cause migrants to be deceived and subject to extortion.[73] On the other hand, migrants learn which smugglers they should work with and those they should avoid through the information they share with each other.[74] The effective use of smartphones enables many migrants to collectively participate in the migration journey with other migrants, without needing a smuggler.[75] Migrants escorted by smugglers can also follow their migration route and communicate with other migrants and their relatives using smartphones, significantly reducing the possibility of smugglers deceiving them.[76] Thanks to smartphones and communication networks, migrants are active participants who can change their route when necessary and decide for themselves what is in their best interest.[77]
Migrant solidarity networks also actively use communication networks. Sometimes these networks aim to facilitate the journey of migrants by sharing information about last-minute border closures on their Facebook pages.[78] Other times, they contact migrants during their journey, offering them support such as food, water and hygiene kits.[79] Solidarity networks are also known to contact migrants and, in the case of the Border Violence Monitoring Network, to document human rights violations at the border. The way solidarity networks use communication networks is closely related to the scope of their respective mandates in the field. Some solidarity networks have adopted pressure tactics on states by focusing on saving the lives of migrants. Alarm Phone is an initiative that carries out vital work in this domain. When seafaring migrants realize their boat will sink, they reach out to the volunteers on Alarm Phone via an emergency alarm number.[80] Alarm Phone decides which country is responsible for the waters where the boat in peril is located and informs the coast guard of that state, putting pressure on it to mount rescue efforts.[81] Forensic Architecture, a research agency at the University of London, also stands in solidarity with migrants by documenting human rights violations, especially at sea, ensuring that states accept their maritime responsibilities.[82]
While states try to prevent migrants from crossing their borders by using the latest technologies, migrants, smugglers and solidarity networks find ways to cross borders using technology, communication networks and smartphones.[83] While states cooperate, share information and produce anti-migrant policies, migrants and solidarity networks support each other by constructing resistance to these anti-migration policies through their communication networks.[84] For this reason, although states use technology and make serious investments to increase border security, migration cannot be entirely prevented. Anti-migration policies only serve to force migrants to choose more difficult routes and can lead to violations of human rights.[85]
Conclusion
The “effective” use of technology in migration management, and the fact that private-sector actors play an important role in governance, raises grave concerns regarding ethics and international human rights, even though states have the impression that they manage migration quickly and “effectively”. In particular, the externalization of EU border policies and the agreements made with third countries, many of which have abysmal human rights records, cause serious human rights violations. For this reason, states need to consider the following migration management suggestions regarding human rights:
- States and private actors should be transparent about migration management technology development and implementation processes. Public reports should be published about how technologies work, what data is collected, how it is used and to whom it is provided. Companies and governments that develop and use technology must be held accountable for its use.
- The GDPR should extend its protections to migrants through automated individual decision-making processes and personal data protection. It should go beyond covering only EU citizens. Rights should apply to all individuals, regardless of their citizenship status. The highly regarded GDPR should therefore also include provisions to protect all migrants.[86]
- Including human rights assessments at every stage of AI technology should be an ongoing, mandatory task. It is essential to create a reliable system to respect human dignity and to detect and prevent harm such as prejudice and discrimination. It is necessary for actors in the AI value chain to work with suppliers and customers to recognize these harms and strive to reduce them in a transparent manner.[87]
- It is necessary to make technological development processes more transparent, especially regarding how technologies developed by the private sector work. Intellectual property laws should allow the public to learn about the technology being used for migration management. Additionally, governments and the public sector must develop the internal capacity to understand and manage technology. This will help prevent an overreliance on the private sector and ensure responsible technology application at borders.[88]
