Border technologies largely fail to respect human rights

EU knowledge of migrant boats

In his book Violent borders: Refugees and the right to move, Reece Jones, professor of geography at the University of Hawaii, said these kinds of operations and data-gathering practices “suggest that the European Union monitors the sea very carefully for vessels and is aware of most migrant boats travelling from the coast of Africa”.

He added: “However, because officials do not want to encourage additional migration by rescuing people outside of the territorial waters of EU states, they often do not intervene until the boats reach shore or are very clearly in distress.”

Jones further noted that globally, more than half of deaths at borders in the past decade have occurred at the edges of the EU, making it “by far the most dangerous border crossing in the world”.

According to the report, the wider societal effect of these technology use cases is that people on the move are presupposed to be criminals unless proven otherwise, leading to a massive militarisation of border management and enforcement.

“The opacity of border zones and transnational surveillance transform migration into a site of potential criminality that must be surveilled and managed to root out the ever-present spectre of terrorism and irregular migration,” it said.

Increasing use of public-private partnerships

The paper further found that although all of these innovations in migration technology are often justified under the guise of needing novel ways to manage migration, those in charge of their development often fail to consider the profoundly detrimental impact these technologies can have on human rights and lives.

“The primary purpose of the technologies used in migration management is to track, identify and control those crossing borders,” it said. “The issues around emerging technologies in the management of migration are not just about the inherent use of technology, but rather about how it is used and by whom.”

The paper added that nation states and private companies are calling the shots and deciding which priorities matter, while the migrants most affected are routinely excluded from discussions about how technology should be used.

“The development and deployment of migration management is ultimately about decision-making by powerful actors on communities with few resources and mechanisms of redress,” it said.

“The unequal distribution of benefits from technological development privileges the private sector as the primary actor in charge of development, with states and governments wishing to control the flows of migrant populations benefiting from these technological experiments. Governments and large organisations are the primary agents that benefit from data collection and affected groups remain the subject, relegated to the margins.”

In particular, it noted that these partnerships have created a dual lack of accountability, pointing to how governments – often lacking the necessary technical skills in-house – are happy to relinquish their own liability and accountability for people on the move to the private sector, “where the legally enforceable rights that allow individuals to challenge governments may not exist” and where “powerful actors can easily hide behind intellectual property legislation or various other corporate shields to ‘launder’ their responsibility and create a vacuum of accountability”.

The paper added that technology and technological development “occurs in specific spaces that are not open to everyone and its benefits do not accrue equally”, which means it has clear potential to replicate existing power structures and, in the case of migration technology, “render certain communities as testing grounds for innovation” without their consent.

“The development of technology also reinforces power asymmetries between countries and influences our thinking around which countries can push for innovation, while other spaces like conflict zones and refugee camps become sites of experimentation,” it said. “The development of technology is not inherently democratic and issues of informed consent and right of refusal are particularly important to think about in humanitarian and forced migration contexts.”

To rein in the harmful effects of a range of such border technologies, the report recommends that governments should commit to the abolition of automated migration management technologies unless and until independent and impartial human rights impact assessments are carried out, which would ensure that the burden of proof lies squarely with the nation states and developers.

It further recommended freezing all efforts to procure, develop or adopt any new automated border technologies until existing systems fully comply with internationally protected fundamental human rights frameworks.

Governments should also commit to transparency and report publicly on what technology is being developed and used, for example in the form a public registry, as well as create an independent body to oversee and review all use of existing and proposed automated technologies in migration management, it said.

“Civil society organisations, NGOs and international organisations working with people on the move must also examine their use of and participation in the development and deployment of migration management technology and must ensure that human rights, dignity and freedom from harms as a result of technological experimentation remain at the centre of discussion,” it said.

The research paper was authored by Petra Molnar, Mozilla fellow and associate director of the Refugee Law Lab, who conducted the research over the course of a year and spoke to more than 40 refugees, asylum seekers, migrants without status, and people on the move.

The publication coincides with the launch of Migration and Technology Monitor, a collective of journalists, filmmakers, academics, and communities working to interrogate technological experiments conducted on people crossing borders.