Biometric Technology at the Borders of Citizenship: Identifying Technical Standards for Introducer-Based Remote Onboarding in Global Contexts of Statelessness, Nomadism, Displacement, and Refuge

Riccardo Vecellio Segate
{"title":"Biometric Technology at the Borders of Citizenship: Identifying Technical Standards for Introducer-Based Remote Onboarding in Global Contexts of Statelessness, Nomadism, Displacement, and Refuge","authors":"Riccardo Vecellio Segate","doi":"10.1515/ijdlg-2024-0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract All throughout the so-called “Global South”, hundreds of millions of individuals from entire communities in the rural, poorer, or most peripheral areas are not officially recorded by the States they are citizens of or they habitually reside in. This is why several of such States are resorting to extensive and purportedly “universal” digital remote onboarding programs, pioneered by India’s Aadhaar, whereby individuals are centrally recorded onto a public database with their identity (and possibly citizenship) confirmed. Whenever paper documents are obsolete, inaccurate, deteriorated, or inexistent, individuals may have their identity confirmed through an “introducer”, who mediates between marginalised communities and central authorities and is entrusted by both with this delicate task. Introducers, however, cannot by themselves grant someone the status as “citizen”: they may at best confirm his or her existence and identity. These onboarding programs are enabled by wide-covering sets of technical standards, ranging from data protection and cybersecurity to interoperability, safety, disaster recovery, and business continuity. Meanwhile, similar technologies, relying on analogous standards, and fundamentally aimed at a similar purpose (that is, registering all those who fall within the prescriptive jurisdiction of a State), are deployed by border officials in the context of migration management – especially in “developed” countries. The “unofficial” and “outside-the-scope-of-the-law” components of said migratory patterns are growing exponentially due to combined effects of climate, insecurity, and geopolitical factors, increasingly originating “borderline” situations whereby identity and citizenship are challenged and contested: statelessness, refuge, nomadism (both traditional and “digital”), and internal displacement. Strikingly enough, discussions around what technical standards to adopt, and who should select them, as well as on what the role of “introducers” could be, towards the digital onboarding of individuals experiencing “borderline” configurations of citizenship are entirely neglected in socio-legal and security scholarship alike. Complemented with concrete policy proposals, the present work accepts the ambition to start bridging this gap.","PeriodicalId":517562,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Digital Law and Governance","volume":" 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Digital Law and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdlg-2024-0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract All throughout the so-called “Global South”, hundreds of millions of individuals from entire communities in the rural, poorer, or most peripheral areas are not officially recorded by the States they are citizens of or they habitually reside in. This is why several of such States are resorting to extensive and purportedly “universal” digital remote onboarding programs, pioneered by India’s Aadhaar, whereby individuals are centrally recorded onto a public database with their identity (and possibly citizenship) confirmed. Whenever paper documents are obsolete, inaccurate, deteriorated, or inexistent, individuals may have their identity confirmed through an “introducer”, who mediates between marginalised communities and central authorities and is entrusted by both with this delicate task. Introducers, however, cannot by themselves grant someone the status as “citizen”: they may at best confirm his or her existence and identity. These onboarding programs are enabled by wide-covering sets of technical standards, ranging from data protection and cybersecurity to interoperability, safety, disaster recovery, and business continuity. Meanwhile, similar technologies, relying on analogous standards, and fundamentally aimed at a similar purpose (that is, registering all those who fall within the prescriptive jurisdiction of a State), are deployed by border officials in the context of migration management – especially in “developed” countries. The “unofficial” and “outside-the-scope-of-the-law” components of said migratory patterns are growing exponentially due to combined effects of climate, insecurity, and geopolitical factors, increasingly originating “borderline” situations whereby identity and citizenship are challenged and contested: statelessness, refuge, nomadism (both traditional and “digital”), and internal displacement. Strikingly enough, discussions around what technical standards to adopt, and who should select them, as well as on what the role of “introducers” could be, towards the digital onboarding of individuals experiencing “borderline” configurations of citizenship are entirely neglected in socio-legal and security scholarship alike. Complemented with concrete policy proposals, the present work accepts the ambition to start bridging this gap.
公民身份边界的生物识别技术:在全球无国籍、游牧、流离失所和难民的背景下,确定基于介绍人的远程入职技术标准
摘要 在整个所谓的 "全球南部",来自农村、贫困或最边缘地区整个社区的数以亿计的个人没有被他们作为公民或他们惯常居住的国家正式记录在案。这就是为什么这些国家中的一些国家正在采用广泛的、据称是 "通用的 "数字远程登录计划,印度的 "Aadhaar "是该计划的先驱,根据该计划,个人的身份(可能还有公民身份)将被集中记录到一个公共数据库中。每当纸质文件过时、不准确、变质或不存在时,个人可通过 "介绍人 "确认身份。"介绍人 "在边缘化社区和中央当局之间进行调解,并受双方委托执行这项棘手的任务。然而,介绍人本身并不能授予某人 "公民 "身份:他们最多只能确认其存在和身份。从数据保护和网络安全到互操作性、安全性、灾难恢复和业务连续性,这些入职计划都有一套涵盖广泛的技术标准。与此同时,边境官员在移民管理中也采用了类似的技术,这些技术依赖于类似的标准,从根本上说也是为了类似的目的(即登记所有属于一国规定管辖范围内的人)--尤其是在 "发达 "国家。由于气候、不安全和地缘政治因素的综合影响,上述移民模式中的 "非官方 "和 "法 律范围之外 "部分正在急剧增加,越来越多的 "边界线 "情况由此产生,身份和公 民身份受到挑战和争议:无国籍状态、避难、游牧(传统和 "数字")以及境内流离失 所。令人震惊的是,社会法律和安全学术界完全忽视了关于采用何种技术标准、由谁来选择这些标准以及 "介绍人 "可以扮演何种角色的讨论,这些讨论的目的是为经历 "边界 "公民身份配置的个人提供数字化入职服务。本著作以具体的政策建议为补充,立志开始弥合这一差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信