1. Biometric border control in the European Union
Beatrix Vas
April 7, 2015

2. What are biometrics?
biological properties, behavioural aspects, physiological characteristics, living traits or repeatable actions that are both unique to that individual and measurable
usable for automatic recognition or to the automated process of recognizing individuals based on such characteristics
Fingerprints voice detection
facial structures handwriting identification
iris or retinal patterns
DNA

3. + PRIVACY, DATA COLLECTION/STORAGE CONCERNS!
used increasingly across the world to boost security and clamp down on identity fraud
Personal accounts, online transactions
Identity tracking for entrance to high security places
Increased security not undefeatable
Ease of access intrusion can’t be traced
+ PRIVACY, DATA COLLECTION/STORAGE CONCERNS!
confidentiality of data lacks assurance

4. Concerns ‘search’ process Badge of criminality Confidentiality of data
Duration of storage of data
May reveal personal and medical information
Drug use
Genetic diseases – genetic discrimination

6. Application of biometrics to border control in the EU
Biometric passport /ePassport /digital passport
combined paper and electronic passport that contains biometric information that can be used to authenticate the identity of travelers. 
Schengen agreement parties are obliged to implement machine readable facial images in the passports by 28 August 2006, and fingerprints by 29 June 2009.

7. databases of biometric information, which enables states to compare biometric data collected at a later date
SIS – alerts on wanted or missing persons/objects
VIS – visa application data
EURODAC – comparing the fingerprints of asylum seekers and irregular border-crossers
FRONTEX – manages the cooperation to secure external borders
EULISA – manages the IT systems of the EU (SIS II, VIS, EURODAC)

8. Application of biometrics to refugees in the EU
EURODAC
the EU’s common fingerprinting and data comparison system
aim of identifying asylum seekers who have entered the territory of its Member States unlawfully or have previously lodged asylum applications in more than one Member State.
Data collection method depends on state legislation
Efforts are being made to increase Eurodac’s interoperability with other biometric databases, including the developmental Schengen Information System, the Visa Information System, and Europol Information System.

9. Advantages
Credible means of establishing identity even without having paper documentation
Could ensure right of refugees to travel in order to seek oppurtunities for education, training, employment- freedom of movement
Preveting fraud – applying for aid multiple times under different names, exploiting UNHCR resources
Prevents ‘asylum shopping’
Lower incidence of detention by national authorities

10. Concerns Confidentiality of data
Duration of storage of data – unnecessarily long (up to 10 years in EURODAC)
Links them to previous asylum applications
Increasing illegal migration
Self-mutilation to avoid giving biometric data
Misidentification is possible
the stigma of criminality and perceived punitive intent fleeing from well-founded fear of persecution

11. Future
Smart Borders: to speed-up, facilitate and reinforce border check procedures for foreigners travelling to the EU.
The package consists of:
A Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) to allow certain groups of frequent travellers from third countries to enter the EU using simplified border checks.
+automated border gates
An Entry/Exit System (EES) to record the time and place of entry and exit of third country nationals travelling to the EU.
15 March Smart Borders execution phase started in Lisbon Airport, Portugal

12. Main issues Undiscriminate mass collection of data of non-EU citizens
Data retention is up to 6 months, for overstayers 5 years
not yet clear which authorities could have a right of access to it
Type of data (facial+fingerprint=too costly, iris scans even more expensive)
Tool for Law Enforcement Authorities -  it would require a consistent and common EU approach 
most of the recent terrorists attacks have been done by either European citizens or third country nationals that were already present within the EU area 

13. Conclusion – no conclusion
TREND: a shift from national border controls to a European centralised control as traveller identification moves from a ‘country-centric’ to a ‘person-centric’ approach.
a consistent and common EU approach is required which is still far from being agreed
even the Schengen system is still a collection of “national” alerts and lacks a European approach to this operational mechanism
Trade-off between privacy concerns and security concerns
General public willing to accept it

14. Goals
legislators should ensure a proper legal basis for ABC, while the responsible authorities for border checks should, as data controllers, ensure compliance with privacy and data protection principles and rules.
The security of data processed by ABC should be ensured against attacks such as hacking, eavesdropping, skimming.
Clear information should be provided to all users about the processing of their data, including at least the identity of the controller, the purposes of the processing, categories of data, and how travellers can exercise their rights.
The live biometrics presented for verification at the e-Gate should not be stored on a central database, as this might lead to function creep

15. Sources
Zureik: Governance, Security and Technology: The case of biometrics (2004)
Farraj: Refugees and the biometric future (2011)
parliamentarians-divided-on-the-eu-smart-borders-package- february-23/
do/policies/borders-and-visas/index_en.htm
cooperation-plan-for zx4yy
cs-please-automated-border-controls-data-protection- obligations/

16. Thank you for your attention!