Automated decision-making and artificial intelligence at European borders and their risks for human rights

TL;DR

This paper analyzes the use of AI-driven automated decision-making systems at EU borders, highlighting their applications and associated human rights risks such as privacy, discrimination, and fairness concerns.

Contribution

It introduces a taxonomy of four ADM system types at EU borders and discusses their human rights implications based on interdisciplinary literature review.

Findings

Four types of ADM systems identified: biometric verification, risk assessment, border monitoring, polygraphs/emotion detectors.

Risks include violations of privacy, potential discrimination, and challenges to fair trial rights.

The paper provides a comprehensive interdisciplinary overview of AI use and human rights issues at EU borders.

Abstract

Many countries use automated decision-making (ADM) systems, often based on artificial intelligence (AI), to manage migration at their borders. This interdisciplinary paper explores two questions. What are the main ways that automated decision-making is used at EU borders? Does such automated decision-making bring risks related to human rights, and if so: which risks? The paper introduces a taxonomy of four types of ADM systems at EU borders. Three types are used at borders: systems for (1) identification and verification by checking biometrics, (2) risk assessment, and (3) border monitoring. In addition, (4) polygraphs and emotion detectors are being tested at EU borders. We discuss three categories of risks of such automated decision-making, namely risks related to the human rights to (1) privacy and data protection, (2) nondiscrimination, and (3) a fair trial and effective remedies. The paper is largely based on a literature review that we conducted about the use of automated decision-making at borders. The paper combines insights from several disciplines, including social sciences, law, computer science, and migration studies.