1. 11 Dominique KLEIN European Commission – Directorate-General HOME Unit C3 – TransEuropean Networks for Freedom and Security & relations with eu-LISA 2 nd Global Conference and Exhibition on Future Developments of Automated Border Control (ABC) Debate session IV: Societal implications of ABC 10-11 October Warsaw

2. Basic function of an ABC: = allow / forbid a person to cross a border (as swiftly as possible + with a minimum of human intervention) Two categories of checks 1. check document(s) (MRZ, boarding pass, e-passport chip …) that establish the 'right' of a traveller to cross the border 2.check whether the person in question is the genuine 'owner' of the above document(s) ["establish the identity"]:  typically : -biometric identifier (fingerprint, picture, iris …) -check performed against either a database, or the content of a chip associated to the document  most / all required 'actions' are expected to be performed by the person 2

3. ABCs raise two categories of potential issues: 1. Data protection / privacy concerns Not per se an 'ABC specific issue', but rather an issue related to the process piloting the gates (and indirectly the policy 'behind' the border crossing, regardless of ABC or not) Is data stored (or not)? Where ? Who has access ? How data security is ensured ? On which basis is the decision taken ('profiling') ? etc… = very relevant questions, but outside the scope of today's discussions 2. Ethical / societal concerns Quid if a person, for whatever reason, cannot use an ABC and has to be directed towards a manual check lane ?  Disability (wheelchair, visually impaired person, person of short stature, amputated person, …)  Family (main difficulty: kids)  Elderly persons  Linguistic constraints  Cultural / religious reluctance How discriminatory this could be ? How stigmatising this could be perceived to be? Up to what extent could the person's fundamental rights be affected ? 3

4. 4 Challenge: Access to ABC limited to businessmen in a healthy condition travelling alone fluent in English ABC available to 100% of the travellers Unrealistic Inefficient Discriminatory ? Inefficient Discriminatory ? Need to implement processes and technologies that allow a maximum of travellers to use the ABC

5. Some further considerations relevant to the debate:  ABC will never fully substitute border guards  second line checks in case of an 'anomaly'  a manual check lane must necessarily remain in parallel to ABCs  Appropriate procedures should be in place to handle most 'special cases' swiftly, tactfully and with due respect for human dignity.  ABC is not just about societal issues and risks  ABC are very 'egalitarian' they have no 'feelings', no preconceived negative perceptions  Technical solutions are often available to broaden the spectrum of persons that can make use of ABC. Sometimes, these solutions are simple & cheap. 5

6. Technical solutions (! this slide should be kept for the discussion ! ) Simple solutions Broader gates (for wheelchairs) Longer gates (for trolleys) Implement user-friendly interfaces Multilingual facilities Short movies to provide the user with clear indications "Family" gates Expedite this category of low-risk travellers BUT should not facilitate kid abduction ! Standardisation of ABC process Standardisation of pictograms / symbols Gates combining several possible biometric identifiers BUT costs  Might imply the storage of redundant data (e.g. photograph + fp + iris)  compliance with data protection rules ??? 6