算法分析和面部识别在欧盟边境控制:检查ETIAS决策,隐私和法律

Abhishek Thommandru, Varda Mone, Fayzulloyev Shokhijakhon, Giyosbek Mirzayev
{"title":"算法分析和面部识别在欧盟边境控制:检查ETIAS决策,隐私和法律","authors":"Abhishek Thommandru, Varda Mone, Fayzulloyev Shokhijakhon, Giyosbek Mirzayev","doi":"10.1002/widm.70013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The growing use of algorithmic and biometric technologies in border control is part of a larger trend in global security governance that has significant legal and ethical implications for their effect on individual rights and procedural justice. As central features in the EU's shifting security regime, ETIAS and facial recognition technologies deploy algorithmic profiling and biometric risk assessment to screen visa‐exempt third‐country nationals. The research systematically examines the decision‐making processes of ETIAS and the overall facial recognition system, demonstrating the interplay between algorithmic risk assessments and discretionary human discretion by national authorities. It contends that the algorithmic profiling lack of transparency, combined with sweeping national security exceptions, produces a procedural void, in which the right to reasoned decisions and effective remedies is compromised. Second, the use of interoperable databases and risk indicators puts core data protection principles into jeopardy, notably purpose limitation and the right to be forgotten. This paper also argues that ETIAS and the application of facial recognition technologies represent a larger trend toward “techno‐regulatory assemblages” in EU governance, where technological infrastructures increasingly influence legal and administrative decisions. It critically assesses whether the human oversight mechanisms incorporated within ETIAS National Units are adequate to prevent the risks involved in automated decision‐making, especially in the face of strict time pressures and security requirements. The study detects a latent paradox: though these systems aim to strengthen a “Security Union,” they might inadvertently lead to an “Insecurity Union” by undermining transparency, procedural protections, and citizen rights.","PeriodicalId":501013,"journal":{"name":"WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery","volume":"31 10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Algorithmic Profiling and Facial Recognition in EU Border Control: Examining ETIAS Decision‐Making, Privacy and Law\",\"authors\":\"Abhishek Thommandru, Varda Mone, Fayzulloyev Shokhijakhon, Giyosbek Mirzayev\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/widm.70013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The growing use of algorithmic and biometric technologies in border control is part of a larger trend in global security governance that has significant legal and ethical implications for their effect on individual rights and procedural justice. As central features in the EU's shifting security regime, ETIAS and facial recognition technologies deploy algorithmic profiling and biometric risk assessment to screen visa‐exempt third‐country nationals. The research systematically examines the decision‐making processes of ETIAS and the overall facial recognition system, demonstrating the interplay between algorithmic risk assessments and discretionary human discretion by national authorities. It contends that the algorithmic profiling lack of transparency, combined with sweeping national security exceptions, produces a procedural void, in which the right to reasoned decisions and effective remedies is compromised. Second, the use of interoperable databases and risk indicators puts core data protection principles into jeopardy, notably purpose limitation and the right to be forgotten. This paper also argues that ETIAS and the application of facial recognition technologies represent a larger trend toward “techno‐regulatory assemblages” in EU governance, where technological infrastructures increasingly influence legal and administrative decisions. It critically assesses whether the human oversight mechanisms incorporated within ETIAS National Units are adequate to prevent the risks involved in automated decision‐making, especially in the face of strict time pressures and security requirements. The study detects a latent paradox: though these systems aim to strengthen a “Security Union,” they might inadvertently lead to an “Insecurity Union” by undermining transparency, procedural protections, and citizen rights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery\",\"volume\":\"31 10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.70013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.70013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在边境管制中越来越多地使用算法和生物识别技术,是全球安全治理的一个更大趋势的一部分,对其对个人权利和程序正义的影响具有重大的法律和伦理影响。作为欧盟不断变化的安全制度的核心特征,ETIAS和面部识别技术采用算法分析和生物识别风险评估来筛选免签证的第三国国民。该研究系统地考察了ETIAS和整个面部识别系统的决策过程,展示了算法风险评估与国家当局的自由裁量权之间的相互作用。它认为,算法分析缺乏透明度,再加上广泛的国家安全例外情况,造成了程序空白,从而损害了合理决定和有效补救的权利。其次,互操作数据库和风险指标的使用危及核心数据保护原则,特别是目的限制和被遗忘权。本文还认为,ETIAS和面部识别技术的应用代表了欧盟治理中“技术-监管组合”的更大趋势,其中技术基础设施越来越多地影响法律和行政决策。它批判性地评估了ETIAS国家单位中纳入的人力监督机制是否足以防止自动化决策所涉及的风险,特别是在面临严格的时间压力和安全要求时。该研究发现了一个潜在的悖论:尽管这些系统旨在加强“安全联盟”,但它们可能会因破坏透明度、程序保护和公民权利而无意中导致“不安全联盟”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Algorithmic Profiling and Facial Recognition in EU Border Control: Examining ETIAS Decision‐Making, Privacy and Law
The growing use of algorithmic and biometric technologies in border control is part of a larger trend in global security governance that has significant legal and ethical implications for their effect on individual rights and procedural justice. As central features in the EU's shifting security regime, ETIAS and facial recognition technologies deploy algorithmic profiling and biometric risk assessment to screen visa‐exempt third‐country nationals. The research systematically examines the decision‐making processes of ETIAS and the overall facial recognition system, demonstrating the interplay between algorithmic risk assessments and discretionary human discretion by national authorities. It contends that the algorithmic profiling lack of transparency, combined with sweeping national security exceptions, produces a procedural void, in which the right to reasoned decisions and effective remedies is compromised. Second, the use of interoperable databases and risk indicators puts core data protection principles into jeopardy, notably purpose limitation and the right to be forgotten. This paper also argues that ETIAS and the application of facial recognition technologies represent a larger trend toward “techno‐regulatory assemblages” in EU governance, where technological infrastructures increasingly influence legal and administrative decisions. It critically assesses whether the human oversight mechanisms incorporated within ETIAS National Units are adequate to prevent the risks involved in automated decision‐making, especially in the face of strict time pressures and security requirements. The study detects a latent paradox: though these systems aim to strengthen a “Security Union,” they might inadvertently lead to an “Insecurity Union” by undermining transparency, procedural protections, and citizen rights.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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