Contesting border artificial intelligence: Applying the guidance-ethics approach as a responsible design lens

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Data & policy Pub Date : 2022-10-24 DOI:10.1017/dap.2022.28
Karolina La Fors, F. Meissner
{"title":"Contesting border artificial intelligence: Applying the guidance-ethics approach as a responsible design lens","authors":"Karolina La Fors, F. Meissner","doi":"10.1017/dap.2022.28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Border artificial intelligence (AI)—biometrics-based AI systems used in border control contexts—proliferates as common tools in border securitization projects. Such systems classify some migrants as posing risks like identity fraud, other forms of criminality, or terrorism. From a human rights perspective, using such risk framings for algorithmically facilitated evaluations of migrants’ biometrics systematically calls into question whether these kinds of systems can be built to be trustworthy for migrants. This article provides a thought experiment; we use a bottom-up responsible design lens—the guidance-ethics approach—to evaluate if responsible, trustworthy Border AI might constitute an oxymoron. The proposed European AI Act only limits the use of Border AI systems by classifying such systems as high risk. In parallel with these AI regulatory developments, large-scale civic movements have emerged throughout Europe to ban the use of facial recognition technologies in public spaces to defend EU citizens’ privacy. The fact that such systems remain acceptable for states’ usage to evaluate migrants, we argue, insufficiently protects migrants’ lives. In part, we argue that this is due to regulations and ethical frameworks being top-down and technology driven by focusing more on the safety of AI systems than on the safety of migrants. We conclude that bordering technologies developed from a responsible design angle would entail the development of entirely different technologies. These would refrain from harmful sorting based on biometric identifications but would start from the premise that migration is not a societal problem.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data & policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2022.28","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Border artificial intelligence (AI)—biometrics-based AI systems used in border control contexts—proliferates as common tools in border securitization projects. Such systems classify some migrants as posing risks like identity fraud, other forms of criminality, or terrorism. From a human rights perspective, using such risk framings for algorithmically facilitated evaluations of migrants’ biometrics systematically calls into question whether these kinds of systems can be built to be trustworthy for migrants. This article provides a thought experiment; we use a bottom-up responsible design lens—the guidance-ethics approach—to evaluate if responsible, trustworthy Border AI might constitute an oxymoron. The proposed European AI Act only limits the use of Border AI systems by classifying such systems as high risk. In parallel with these AI regulatory developments, large-scale civic movements have emerged throughout Europe to ban the use of facial recognition technologies in public spaces to defend EU citizens’ privacy. The fact that such systems remain acceptable for states’ usage to evaluate migrants, we argue, insufficiently protects migrants’ lives. In part, we argue that this is due to regulations and ethical frameworks being top-down and technology driven by focusing more on the safety of AI systems than on the safety of migrants. We conclude that bordering technologies developed from a responsible design angle would entail the development of entirely different technologies. These would refrain from harmful sorting based on biometric identifications but would start from the premise that migration is not a societal problem.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
竞争边界人工智能:应用指导伦理方法作为负责任的设计视角
摘要边境人工智能(AI)——用于边境控制环境的基于生物特征的人工智能系统——作为边境证券化项目中的常见工具激增。这些系统将一些移民归类为具有身份欺诈、其他形式的犯罪或恐怖主义等风险。从人权的角度来看,使用这种风险框架对移民的生物特征进行算法化的评估,系统地让人怀疑这些系统是否能够为移民建立值得信赖的系统。本文提供了一个思想实验;我们使用自下而上的负责任设计视角——指导伦理方法——来评估负责任、值得信赖的Border AI是否可能构成矛盾修辞法。拟议中的《欧洲人工智能法案》只是通过将边境人工智能系统归类为高风险来限制这些系统的使用。在这些人工智能监管发展的同时,欧洲各地也出现了大规模的公民运动,禁止在公共场所使用面部识别技术,以保护欧盟公民的隐私。我们认为,这样的系统仍然可以被各州用来评估移民,这一事实并不能充分保护移民的生命。在某种程度上,我们认为这是由于法规和道德框架是自上而下的,技术驱动的原因是更多地关注人工智能系统的安全,而不是移民的安全。我们得出的结论是,从负责任的设计角度开发的边缘技术将需要开发完全不同的技术。这些措施将避免基于生物特征识别的有害分类,但将从移民不是社会问题的前提出发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Determinants for university students’ location data sharing with public institutions during COVID-19: The Italian case Bus Rapid Transit: End of trend in Latin America? Accelerating and enhancing the generation of socioeconomic data to inform forced displacement policy and response “That is why users do not understand the maps we make for them”: Cartographic gaps between experts and domestic workers and the Right to the City Analysis of spatial–temporal validation patterns in Fortaleza’s public transport systems: a data mining approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1