Fingerprints and photos of non-citizens who travel into the EU for shorter stays are now registered electronically. EES, the new Entry/Exit System that was launched on October 12, becomes yet another database in a growing control system where technology, migration policy and criminality are increasingly linked together.
Anna Bredström and her colleagues Karin Krifors and Nedžad Mešić have followed the gradual steps since Eurodac started collecting information about asylum seekers in the beginning of the 90’s, after the Dublin convention was signed.
”These systems were supposed to be like silos, side by side, which would be quite difficult for a police officer to get permission to access. It has been revised a few times since then, but the early policy emphazised strongly that real reasons, connected to legislation, were required. Eurodac was not intended to allow use for any other purpose. Yet these technologies were built to sync with others, she states.”
The report Under watchful eyes describes how biometry is already used in border controls and migration cases. Anna Bredström coordinated the study behind the report on behalf of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in 2018 and Krifors and Mešić contributed with fieldwork.
”We interviewed a wide range of people, from undocumented migrants to high-ranking government officials, police officers, politicians and migration adminstrators. We conducted participant observations at Arlanda airport and saw the complexity when information is linked to individuals, and how difficult it is to change that information, says Bredström.”
”If Eurodac shows that you have been in another EU country in a Dublin case, then you must return there. There is no use even trying to argue that you have not been there, even if you have not. Something may have gone wrong, but somehow it is stored. The evidence is strong because the system is considered objective.”
Digitally generated suspicion
There is an accelerating political interest to use biometric methods as well as artificial intelligence in border controls with reference mainly to security and terrorist threats. What is new now, is that the information gathered also will be merged, according to the Interoperable Europe Act, that came into effect in July 2024. This means all information about an individual in the EU’s large scale IT systems (see facts box) is on the way to be interconnected.
The suspicion that gave access to privacy-sensitive information used to be created in the event that someone was suspected for. When interoperability between systems is in full use the idea is – for example in connection to an application for a visa to Schengen – that you should look into a european database where you can use both biographic and biometric (fingerprints and face recognition) data to search a number of different databases that have no connection to the visa case itself.
”Suspicion can thus be generated by the system, instead of the event itself. In Sweden the police will be responsible for the interoperability motivated by increased security, but critics suggest it also gives police increased legitimacy to search for information broadly.”
Awareness of risks
An important conclusion from the research is that those concerned seldom are fully aware of the consequences of being registered. Very few appeal wrongdoing. This is especially true for the most vulnerable persons, Anna Bredström explains:
”Instead they go underground and simply live in a more and more unsafe and insecure way. When we interviewed the migrants it was very clear that this is such a small part of their worlds. What is important to them is their residence permit. The fact that their fingerprints were taken as well is not such a big thing: Whatever, I have survived this boat ride and now I am in Europe.”
According to Bredström there is an awareness about the great risks involved among those who develop the technology. This is evident both from policy documents and the legislation itself. Instead, as motives for interoperability, they highlight the possibility of finding children who have been kidnapped and migrants in trouble or identifying dead people.
Every system will have a designated authority to prevent wrongdoing, but even if there are protective elements Anna Bredström emphazises the far-reaching implications when it comes to fundamental human rights. She notes that the inherent inertia of EU bureaucracy that used to slow down the progress can no longer be counted on:
”Since the new migration pact was approved things are moving very quickly. Well everything is prepared for that.”
