The Algorithmic Border: how AI Surveillance is Impacting Migrants and Eroding Human Rights
The promise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) often centers on efficiency and progress. However,a growing body of evidence reveals a darker side: the deployment of AI-powered surveillance technologies at borders is increasingly impacting migrants,raising serious human rights concerns,and creating a “digital opposed environment.” From the United states to the united Kingdom, governments are relying on private tech companies to automate border control, frequently enough with limited clarity and accountability. This article delves into the emerging trends, the ethical dilemmas, and the urgent need for a more human-centered approach to technology progress and deployment.
The US Experience: Palantir, Babel Street, and the erosion of Due Process
Recent investigations, notably a report by Amnesty International, have brought to light the concerning role of companies like Palantir and Babel Street in providing AI-driven tools to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). These tools aren’t simply about identifying potential threats; they’re fundamentally altering the way immigration enforcement operates.
Amnesty’s report details how Palantir’s “Falcon” system, and Babel Street’s analytical software, are used to collect, analyze, and act upon vast amounts of data – including social media posts, location data, and even publicly available information – to build profiles of migrants. This data is then used to predict migrant movements, identify potential “threats,” and ultimately inform enforcement actions.
The core issue isn’t necessarily the use of data,but how it’s used and the lack of due process afforded to those impacted. As dr. Aisha Molnar, a researcher specializing in technology and human rights, explains, the problem lies in the absence of a “robust human-rights respecting framework.” She advocates for comprehensive human rights and data impact assessments throughout the entire lifecycle of these projects,ensuring potential harms are identified and mitigated before deployment.
Though, Molnar stresses that technical solutions alone aren’t enough. “There needs to be public awareness of what these companies are doing,” she argues, and a critical examination of our investment in these technologies. “A divestment from certain companies” may be necessary to signal a shift towards ethical practices.
Crucially, Molnar highlights a dangerous disconnect: “There needs to be an open dialogue between people who actually develop the technology and the affected community, as there is this wall right now between people who develop the tech and the people who the tech is hurting.” This lack of engagement perpetuates bias and reinforces systems that disproportionately harm vulnerable populations. These trends aren’t isolated to the US; they represent a global pattern, with the United States currently serving as a prominent example.
Notably, both Palantir and Babel Street declined to respond to specific questions from Computer Weekly regarding algorithmic bias, human rights impacts, and consultation with affected communities, raising further concerns about transparency and accountability.
UK parallels: A “Digital Hostile Environment” Takes Shape
The concerns aren’t confined to the US. Across the Atlantic, similar patterns are emerging in the United Kingdom, where AI is increasingly integrated into border surveillance. The Migrants’ Rights Network (MRN) has been actively investigating the use of AI at the border, focusing on technologies like facial recognition and automated surveillance systems.
“AI technologies are used under the guise of efficiency,” explains a representative from MRN. “It allows border immigration systems to become automated. It reduces the need for human intervention, for borders to be reliant on patrols or physical walls.”
Though, this pursuit of efficiency comes at a cost. MRN argues that the government’s reliance on private contractors is exacerbating an already “digital hostile environment” - a system designed to make life increasingly difficult for migrants. The challenge, they point out, is obtaining information about how these technologies are actually being used.
Recent investigations illustrate this difficulty. Researcher Samuel Storey filed 27 Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to investigate the Home Office’s deployment of Anduril Maritime Sentry Towers on the south-east coast of England. While the Home Office claimed the towers were for “environmental protection,” Storey argues they are primarily used for surveillance of migrant crossings.
“The FOI system is an extension of state secrecy,” Storey contends. “It’s not really a tool for the freedom of information, but an extension of the state’s capacity to not divulge or disclose.”
data Privacy and the Role of Big Tech
Beyond surveillance, data privacy is a major concern. MRN raises questions about where the data collected by these systems
![Nigeria Mosque Blast: Deaths & Latest Updates | [Year]](https://i0.wp.com/s.france24.com/media/display/edad9848-e0fb-11f0-aa07-005056bf30b7/w%3A1280/p%3A16x9/AP25077805366921.jpg?resize=150%2C100&ssl=1 "Nigeria Mosque Blast: Deaths & Latest Updates | [Year]")
