“lethally Dangerous”
In northern France, a network of infrared cameras has been deployed along the border, funded by the UK to the tune of €1.3 million (approximately $1.33 million). These cameras are part of a broader effort to enhance border security, with French contributions described as “substantial and continuing,” though exact figures remain undisclosed.
A spokesperson from the UK Home Office labeled the English Channel crossings as “lethally dangerous and totally unnecessary.” They emphasized, “The UK’s investment in border security and technology enables tens of thousands of lives to be saved each year that woudl otherwise be in danger of being lost consequently of these criminally facilitated crossings.”
As European public opinion grows increasingly skeptical of immigration, the UK is not alone in adopting advanced technological solutions. A collaborative inquiry involving multiple media outlets revealed how Europe’s reliance on tech-heavy border measures has sparked concerns over privacy and human rights violations.
AI and Border Surveillance
Anduril, a leading tech company, has developed surveillance towers that utilize cutting-edge artificial intelligence, machine learning, and computer vision to detect border crossings. These towers can identify vessels up to 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) offshore,significantly enhancing border monitoring capabilities.
While the UK Home Office has not disclosed the number of Anduril towers in use, it confirmed that the data collected is not utilized in criminal proceedings. Questions about how the data is used or whether it contributes to training Anduril’s systems remain unanswered. Freedom of Data requests indicate that no formal assessments regarding data protection or human rights impacts have been conducted on these towers. The Home Office has neither confirmed nor denied these claims.
“Technological Testing ground”
From the southern coast of the UK to Greece’s borders, advanced surveillance systems are being implemented. A Greek official revealed that British authorities were especially impressed by the border technology in operation in Greece,which has become a testing ground for such innovations.
A police report from 2022 highlights the effectiveness of these systems. It details the apprehension of 12 migrants attempting to cross the Evros River on the Greek-Turkish border. The group was detected by an automated surveillance system before they even boarded their inflatable boat. The system, which extends 15 kilometers (9.3 miles) into Turkish territory, alerted authorities, leading to their arrest. Three individuals were later charged with smuggling.
At a 2024 EU law enforcement meeting in Warsaw, Greece’s success in managing migration at the Evros border was widely praised. Attendees highlighted the use of “technical barriers,” including a 5-metre-tall steel fence spanning 192 kilometers (119 miles), complemented by AI-powered drones, surveillance cameras, and rapid-response teams.
For the frist time, the extensive network of watchtowers and surveillance antennas along this border has been meticulously mapped by a research group, shedding light on the scale of these technological deployments.
Greece’s Border Surveillance and Migrant Phone confiscations
Table of Contents
- 1. Greece’s Border Surveillance and Migrant Phone confiscations
- 2. Sleepless Watchers: AI and Border Security
- 3. Confiscation of Phones: A Common Practice
- 4. A Technological Testing Ground
- 5. The Digitalization of Asylum Processes: Balancing Innovation and Human rights
- 6. Germany’s Tech-Driven Asylum System
- 7. Legal and Ethical Challenges
- 8. International Interest and Broader Implications
- 9. Privacy Concerns and Public Perception
- 10. Looking Ahead
- 11. The Unyielding Journey: Migrants’ Pursuit of Hope Amidst Challenges
- 12. What specific oversight mechanisms can be implemented to address concerns about bias and errors in AI-powered asylum processing systems?
- 13. Balancing Security and Human Rights
- 14. Conclusion
Greece has become a focal point in Europe’s efforts to manage irregular migration, employing advanced surveillance technologies and controversial practices at its borders. By the end of 2024,Turkey had apprehended over 225,000 migrants,according to official data, though the methods of apprehension remain undisclosed. Meanwhile, Greece’s use of AI-powered surveillance systems and the confiscation of migrants’ phones have sparked widespread debate.
Sleepless Watchers: AI and Border Security
Greek authorities have deployed cutting-edge surveillance tools along the Evros River, a key crossing point for migrants. These systems, described as “sleepless watchers,” utilize AI to analyze camera feeds, identifying potential threats such as weapons. A Greek official familiar with the technology explained, “The decision on how to act remains with officers,” emphasizing that while AI enhances efficiency, human judgment is still paramount.
This high-tech surveillance has real-world implications. Camera feeds are monitored in hubs near border cities, where officers track activity in real-time. When drones or cameras detect movement, alarms are triggered, and Turkish officials are notified to prevent crossings. Greek patrols intervene if no response is received. This collaboration, confirmed by officials from both countries, has made it increasingly challenging for migrants to cross the river or even reach it.
“These tools not onyl appear to make it more challenging for migrants to cross the river but also allegedly prevent many from even reaching it.”
However, these measures have drawn criticism. Greek authorities have faced repeated allegations of violence and pushbacks against asylum seekers,claims the government denies. When asked for comment, the Greek migration ministry stated it does “not provide answers, especially in this phase of heightened immigration, for sensitive operational issues that concern the security of the country.”
Confiscation of Phones: A Common Practice
Another contentious issue is the frequent confiscation of asylum seekers’ phones upon arrival in Greece. Security sources confirmed this practice, which frequently enough occurs without court orders or proper documentation, violating Greek law and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Three Syrian asylum seekers on the island of Samos shared their experiences. “They kept mine for a week after asking me to unlock it,” one saeid. “Others were asked to write down their passwords alongside the phone model.” None were given explanations or asked to sign consent forms.
Data extracted from these phones is used in criminal proceedings, risk assessments, and reports by agencies like the Greek police, Frontex, and Interpol. For example, a Frontex report reviewed by investigators included social media photos and messages from migrants’ phones to map smuggling networks. Another report by Greek police detailed geolocation data, messages with facilitators, and travel itineraries. A third report claimed migrants had “voluntarily” provided their passwords.
Despite these practices, the Hellenic Coast guard maintains that it follows “strict legal procedures regarding the confiscation of mobile phones.” However, the lack of transparency and adherence to legal standards raises significant concerns about the rights and privacy of asylum seekers.
A Technological Testing Ground
The Evros region has been described as a “technological testing ground” for Europe, according to a report by the Border Violence Monitoring Network. Satellite imagery, public tenders, and open-source materials reveal the extent of surveillance infrastructure in the area.
While these technologies aim to enhance border security, their impact on human rights and migration patterns cannot be ignored. As Greece continues to refine its border strategies, the balance between security and humanitarian concerns remains a pressing issue.
The Digitalization of Asylum Processes: Balancing Innovation and Human rights
Asylum procedures across Europe are undergoing a technological transformation, with countries like Germany leading the charge in adopting advanced systems to streamline the process. However,these innovations are not without controversy,raising significant concerns about privacy,efficiency,and the ethical implications of using artificial intelligence (AI) in migration management.
Germany’s Tech-Driven Asylum System
The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), Germany’s primary agency for handling asylum claims, has positioned itself as a pioneer in the digitalization of asylum processes. The agency employs a range of cutting-edge technologies, including automated dialect recognition, AI-assisted application reviews, and extensive data extraction from mobile phones. According to BAMF, these tools are designed “exclusively to support the asylum procedure,” with final decisions remaining in the hands of human specialists.
Despite these assurances, critics argue that the use of such technologies infringes on the fundamental rights of asylum seekers. Stephan Scheel, a professor of Political Sociology at Leuphana University of Lüneburg, has extensively studied BAMF’s identification systems. He describes mobile phone data extraction as “the most invasive” of the agency’s practices, highlighting the potential for misuse and overreach.
Legal and Ethical Challenges
One of the most contentious aspects of BAMF’s approach is the extraction of personal data from asylum seekers’ mobile devices. while individuals can technically refuse this process,doing so may lead to the termination of their asylum application. The extracted data—ranging from call logs and photos to passwords—is analyzed by automated systems and often used to assess the credibility of asylum claims during interviews.
German law permits such data extraction only when asylum seekers lack valid identity documents. Though, a federal court ruled in early 2023 that the practice is unlawful unless less intrusive identification methods are employed. Despite this ruling, BAMF continues to sidestep the decision, raising questions about accountability and compliance with legal standards.
Moreover, the effectiveness of these systems has been called into question. In the first half of 2023, the technology failed to produce usable results in 73% of cases, casting doubt on its reliability and cost-efficiency.
International Interest and Broader Implications
Germany’s Dialect Recognition Assistant System (DIAS), which verifies the regional origins of asylum seekers, has attracted interest from other european nations, including Greece. A Greek official familiar with the country’s asylum system described the technology as “very useful,” signaling a potential expansion of such tools across the continent.
Though, experts caution against the unchecked adoption of AI and technology in migration management. Hanne Beirens, Director of Migration Policy Institute Europe, emphasizes that these advancements “raise critical issues of human rights, cost efficiency, and policymaker expertise.” She adds,“Technology is increasingly deployed for border control and deterrence,often at a high human cost while overlooking the broader socio-economic drivers of migration.”
Beirens advocates for a more balanced approach, calling for transparent reporting, self-reliant monitoring, and investments in regional partnerships that address the root causes of migration.“Effective solutions require a shift toward cost-effective, root-cause-focused strategies,” she explains.
Privacy Concerns and Public Perception
The invasive nature of mobile phone data extraction has sparked widespread criticism, particularly in light of Europe’s stringent data protection laws.In some cases, even deleted photos and files stored in cloud systems have been accessed, raising alarms about the extent of privacy violations. While officials claim that private data is not the primary focus, the casual handling of such sensitive information stands in stark contrast to the high value Europeans place on personal data protection.
Looking Ahead
As technology continues to play a central role in asylum processes, striking a balance between innovation and human rights remains a pressing challenge. While tools like DIAS and AI-assisted reviews offer potential benefits, their implementation must be carefully regulated to prevent abuses and ensure compliance with legal and ethical standards.
For now, the debate over the use of technology in migration management shows no signs of abating. As countries like Germany and Greece forge ahead with digital solutions, the need for transparency, accountability, and a human-centered approach has never been more critical.
The Unyielding Journey: Migrants’ Pursuit of Hope Amidst Challenges
In the heart of northern France, a group of twelve men shared their stories of resilience and determination. Despite the hardships they faced, their resolve to reach the United kingdom remained unshaken. For many, the decision to continue their journey was driven by personal connections, linguistic familiarity, or the lingering effects of ancient ties. As one man put it, “We are pushed to Britain’s doorstep by forces beyond our control.”
Among them was a Kurdish Turk who recounted his harrowing experiences. “I was bitten by police dogs in Bulgaria, abused by officers in Serbia, and chased by drones in Hungary,” he said. Yet, his hope for a better life in the UK kept him moving forward. His story is a testament to the lengths peopel will go to seek safety and chance.
Another young man, Mustafa*, gazed out from his makeshift tent, his curiosity piqued by discussions of drones and perilous crossings. “Is there any other way?” he asked, his voice tinged with both desperation and hope. The silence that followed spoke volumes about the harsh realities faced by those on this journey.
these narratives highlight the complexities of migration and the limitations of current technologies in addressing the issue. Officials and NGO workers alike expressed skepticism about the ability of artificial intelligence to significantly reduce arrivals in the near future. The human element—hope, determination, and the search for a better life—remains a powerful force that cannot be easily deterred.
*All migrants’ names have been changed to protect their identities.
Note: This investigation was supported by grants from the Investigative Journalism for Europe Fund, Journalism Fund Europe, and Netzwerk Recherche.
What specific oversight mechanisms can be implemented to address concerns about bias and errors in AI-powered asylum processing systems?
He lack of openness and oversight has fueled skepticism among human rights advocates and teh public.
Critics argue that the use of such invasive technologies not only undermines the privacy rights of asylum seekers but also risks perpetuating biases and errors inherent in automated systems. For instance, dialect recognition systems may misidentify individuals based on linguistic nuances, leading to wrongful rejections of asylum claims. Similarly, the reliance on AI for credibility assessments can result in decisions that lack the necessary human empathy and understanding of complex migration contexts.
Balancing Security and Human Rights
As European countries continue to adopt advanced technologies for border control and asylum processing, the challenge lies in striking a balance between enhancing security and upholding human rights. While these tools may offer efficiency and deterrence benefits, their potential to infringe on individual freedoms and exacerbate existing inequalities cannot be overlooked.
Experts emphasize the need for robust legal frameworks, independant oversight mechanisms, and ethical guidelines to govern the use of technology in migration management. Transparency in how data is collected, analyzed, and used is crucial to building trust and ensuring accountability. Additionally, investments in choice approaches that address the root causes of migration—such as poverty, conflict, and climate change—are essential for creating sustainable and humane solutions.
Conclusion
The digitalization of asylum processes and the deployment of surveillance technologies at borders represent a important shift in how europe manages migration. While these innovations aim to enhance security and streamline procedures, they also raise profound ethical and legal questions. As the debate continues, it is imperative for policymakers, technologists, and human rights advocates to work collaboratively to ensure that technological advancements do not come at the expense of basic rights and dignity.
Ultimately, the goal should be to create a migration system that is both secure and compassionate, leveraging technology to support—not undermine—the principles of fairness, justice, and human rights.
