Digital Borders and Real Rights

AB Göç Politikalarının ve Sınır Yönetiminin Güvenlikleştirilmesinde Gözetim Teknolojilerinin Rolü

“…Furthermore, legal and political implementations of these databases, their expected efficiency, and their consequences for human rights were not taken into consideration properly in the decisions developing these databases. 34 Thus, it can be said that SIS II, VIS, and Eurodac were devised as solutions waiting for problems which would be determined by professional managers of unease, such as customs, intelligence services, or police, who target immigrants as new experimental objects for their technologies and projects and thus define immigration as a threat to internal security. Regarding the European level of cooperation on migration in the 1990s, Guiraudon stresses that "solutions had been devised before problems had been defined" and "the solution was police cooperation and reinforced controls. "…”

“…37 Initially established as administrative files, databases started to function as intelligence tools, which collect as much data as possible, with the extension of their purposes and additional authorities given access to these systems. 38 For instance, while the initial purpose of SIS was to compensate for the abolition of internal borders by assisting border, police, and customs control and preventing illegal immigration on a hit or no-hit basis, 39 SIS II assumed more security-oriented and intelligence purposes like ensuring a high level of security in AFSJ and granting access to Europol and Eurojust. Similarly, Eurodac and VIS were designed as reporting tools managing migration and asylum-the former reporting asylum seekers making multiple applications and the latter reporting the ones whose visa expired-but the recent revisions on their use and extension of the authorities having access to them rendered them investigative and intelligence tools.…”

The Post-2015 European Border Regime. New Approaches in a Shifting Field

“…There is no -however abstract -commitment to a global freedom of movement for people. Rather, many authors of border studies or studies of European integration have pointed to the fact that the creation of the Single Market in conjunction with necessary abolition of internal border controls opened the door to a wide field of security actors (Bigo, Guild 2005) and led to an intensified securitisation of questions of mobility (Huysmans 2000;Brouwer 2008). Or, to quote Walters and Haahr: «Schengenland can be seen as having certain acts of securitisation as its conditions of possibility» (Walters, Haahr 2005: 95).…”