The use of technology in immigration detention and alternatives to immigration detention could lead to the erosion of migrants and refugees’ human rights, or it could enable greater freedom and dignity. This article explores the complexities of this issue.

Whether we like it or not, when it comes to migration governance, digital technology is here to stay. From customer service portals to collection of biometric data, forecasting models to face recognition tools, use of algorithms for decision making to use of technologies in border management, over the past two decades governments across the world have increasingly used such technologies in the conception and design of their migration systems and as a migration governance tool. The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated this trend.

Yet, these types of technology are never neutral. There is no such thing as a technical ‘fix’ to complex and multifaceted challenges, and efforts by some to portray digital technology as the solution to human bias are, at best naïve and at worst dangerous. Employing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and digital technology is a political choice. But the people making decisions over these technologies rarely experience their impacts themselves. People on the move, as well as their families and communities, often in vulnerable situations, are finding themselves at the ‘sharp edges’ of policies and practices over which they have no control and little to no agency in shaping.

Technology and (alternatives to) immigration detention

The use of technology in immigration detention and alternatives to immigration detention (ATD) has been less explored than the use of technologies in border management situations, but there are many examples of technologies being introduced. For instance, ‘Smart Prisons’ are now being adopted in the context of immigration detention in different regions of the world. Meanwhile, technologies such as electronic tagging and monitoring, and facial and voice recognition, are being used or explored by a growing number of governments, ostensibly as part of their efforts to move away from the widespread use of immigration detention. While this may seem like progress, these trends raise serious concerns for the International Detention Coalition (IDC) and other organisations advocating for an end to immigration detention.

Information surrounding the use of tech in ATD – and its impacts on people – is largely confined to data from a few key countries (namely Canada, the UK and the USA). However, we know that an increasing number of governments are contemplating employing such tech, if not already actively using it. In the European Union, for instance, Denmark, Hungary, Luxembourg and Portugal have all established the use of electronic tagging in law or administrative regulations. Türkiye, meanwhile, has included electronic monitoring on a list of authorised ATD included within amendments to the Law on Foreigners and International Protection made in 2019 (but yet to be implemented). At the end of 2023, Australia passed laws that will place strict curfews and ankle monitoring devices on dozens of people seeking asylum who were released from immigration detention following a High Court ruling that indefinite detention was unlawful.

IDC members across the world, working with communities and people affected by detention or at risk of detention, are increasingly expressing concerns about the use of such technologies in the immigration detention space. People at risk of immigration detention are particularly vulnerable to the misuse of digital technology, and they have little ability to assert their rights or to access justice if technology is abused.

In response to these growing concerns and trends, International Detention Coalition (IDC) has launched a new work stream focused specifically on the use of digital technology in immigration detention and ATD. Currently, we aim to examine the multifaceted impact of these technologies on individuals’ lives, well-being and futures to ensure our advocacy is driven by the experiences and insights of IDC members, particularly leaders with lived experience of detention and community organisers. Through this work stream, we aspire to identify how the indiscriminate use of technology can potentially harm people on the move, and to explore if and how it can contribute to positive and meaningful engagement. This article outlines the components of this work and the themes that have emerged.

Alternative forms of detention and de facto detention

Research to date has focused on how states have used digital technology to further restrict people’s liberties, undermine their human rights and increase surveillance and enforcement. This has been labelled ‘techno-carcerality’ in the context of the Canadian government’s ATD programme, and represents “the shift from traditional modes of confinement to less traditional ones, grounded in mobile, electronic, and digital technology.” A report on the Intensive Supervision Appearance Programme (ISAP) in the USA stated that its electronic monitoring components amount to “digital detention.”

IDC considers the use of electronic tagging and monitoring as an alternative form of detention rather than an alternative to detention (ATD). Alternative forms of detention – which are de facto deprivation of liberty, are simply detention by another name – there is potential for the term ATD to be co-opted and used as a smokescreen for such initiatives. Regarding electronic tagging, a recent IDC report states:

“[electronic tagging] substantially curtails (and sometimes completely denies) liberty and freedom of movement, leading to de facto detention. It is often used in the context of criminal law and has been shown to have considerable negative impacts on people’s mental and physical health, leading to discrimination and stigmatisation.”

More broadly, electronic monitoring devices pose a threat to personal liberty because of heightened surveillance and indiscriminate data collection. They have connotations of criminalisation, both for the individual mandated to wear the device and for the community that sees the device. We know, too, from research and accounts from our members, that voice and facial recognition technologies have questionable accuracy, especially for communities that experience racial discrimination. This can lead to mistakes that have serious and irreversible consequences – including detention, deportation, and the separation of families and loved ones.

The applications of new technologies are emerging at an alarming rate, with limited analysis available on the ethical, logistical and broader social and individual impacts. Questions around privacy, human rights, dignity, bias, and whether existing legal frameworks apply to decisions taken by AI need to be addressed to manage potential risks. Alongside risks, there may also be opportunities for migrants to use digital technology in a way that benefits them or to use digital technology to advance their rights.

Tech as a way to improve engagement?

IDC has noted anecdotal reports that the use of digital technology in ATD can have some benefits for people on the move. One example is the shift in the UK from in-person reporting to telephone reporting. This approach was originally tested during the COVID 19 pandemic and then adopted on a more permanent basis following sustained advocacy from campaign groups. Those affected have told IDC that this shift has helped ease in-person reporting requirements that were onerous, expensive and disruptive to their livelihoods and schooling. Moreover, places such as police stations and reporting centres often cause people increased anxiety that they will be re-detained. Limited physical contact with such places is likely to have a positive impact on mental health and wellbeing.

Of course, as one of the groups campaigning for this change stated, “Telephone reporting itself could be equally burdensome if implemented without care.” It is essential that people are provided with the means to report in this way (for instance, with support to buy a telephone and credit), and that the consequences for missing a call are not harsh. Otherwise, this type of reporting can have negative impacts on people. Moreover, whilst the use of phones is a relatively rudimentary form of technology, it is important that tools such as voice or face recognition are avoided for the reliability reasons mentioned above.

Lived experience of tech-based ‘ATD’

IDC’s main impetus for launching its new work stream on technology, immigration detention and ATD has come from our members across the world and, in particular, the experiences and insights of leaders with lived experience of displacement and community organisers on the ground. Through this work stream, we hope to explore the impact that this technology is having on people’s lives, wellbeing and futures. Since our founding almost 15 years ago, IDC has been advocating for rights-based alternatives to detention. Crucially, we want to ensure that people on the move have the agency and the ability to meaningfully engage with migration governance systems and that their rights and dignity are upheld.

We hope to understand not only how tech can be harmful to people on the move, but also if and how it can help to increase positive, dignified and meaningful engagement. This will help IDC to better assess how to partner with others to push back on certain types of technologies and also where innovations might open up opportunities for people with lived experience of detention, or at risk of detention, in terms of improvements to services, information provision, communication and more effective implementation of community-based ATD. This will include looking at the impact of digital technology through an intersectional lens and in a gender responsive manner, understanding that people’s diverse and intersecting identities mean that their experiences of such technologies vary greatly.

Accountability and due process

The question of accountability – and the distinct but related issue of due process – is one that we are hoping to explore through this programme of work. Where restrictions are imposed, including those linked to digital technology, these should be subject to rigorous review and include the right to appeal.

When technology is used to increase people’s freedom of movement and ability to access information, as well as to increase their agency and support their empowerment, it has the potential to uphold key human rights and standards and to increase wellbeing. However, when the primary purpose of digital technology is to expand surveillance and enforcement-based monitoring, it has the opposite effect and leads to the curtailment of rights and freedoms. Unfortunately, given the increasing tendency of many states across the world to adopt migration governance systems based on criminalisation, coercion, control and deterrence, their growing use of technologies without a rights-based risk assessment could exacerbate the already restrictive, harmful and opaque nature of these systems.

Conclusion and next steps

As we navigate the intricate landscape of technology’s role in immigration detention and Alternatives to Detention (ATD), the opportunities for positive change and informed decision-making are both evident and pressing. We are exploring the possibility of conducting further collaborative research with partners like the University of New South Wales Kaldor Center. Opportunities like this will allow for further insights and case studies to be examined, ensuring an evidence base of promising best practice policy recommendations.  Our ambition is that, by getting to grips with this issue, we can support the growing movement to ensure that the use of technology in the immigration detention and ATD space does not lead to further criminalisation and the erosion of human rights and dignity for communities of migrants, refugees and people seeking asylum.

More research is needed to build a comprehensive understanding of the impact of digital technology in immigration governance. By exploring the experiences and perspectives of individuals across different regions, we can ensure that our insights are nuanced and reflective of the diverse intersections of identity that shape these experiences.

While international and regional legal frameworks and safeguards are imperative, the most meaningful and impactful change often takes place at the national level. Establishing robust national legal frameworks is therefore essential to safeguard the rights of those affected and at risk of detention and ensure accountability in the implementation of technology in immigration detention and ATD.

Looking forward, the potential positive outcomes of digital technology in ATD can be realised through a conscientious and rights-focused approach. By incorporating technology into migration governance systems with a steadfast commitment to justice, fairness, intersectional approaches and the protection of human rights, we can pave the way for more compassionate and effective practices.^[1]

 

Carolina Gottardo
IDC Executive Director
cgottardo@idcoalition.org  X: @idcmonitor  linkedin.com/company/international-detention-coalition/

Celia Finch
IDC Asia Pacific Regional Manager
cfinch@idcoalition.org

Hannah Cooper
former IDC Europe Regional Manager.

READ THE FULL ISSUE

^[1] IDC would encourage anyone interested in collaborating on this work stream to get in touch with us; we look forward to connecting with others on this crucial issue.