Data Collection on Refugees: More Harm than Good?

How many of us have heard of this new ‘Techfugee’ movement? And how aware are we of the rising calls for action to prevent the continued exploitation of refugee surveillance? In a world where the very value of data is more pronounced than ever before, the intersection between technology and refugees has been heralded as a new tool to support people who are displaced. But new technologies bring new risks, and with little awareness of this growing use of data, there are more chances for these tools to be misused. 

In theory, collecting data on refugees would appear to bring much-needed clarity around distributing resources, understanding demographics, and controlling the spread of infectious diseases. However, the use of this information also begets the question of whether these new tools are unintentionally causing more harm than good. 

The UN’s Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, Prof Tendayi Achiume, criticised the use of data surveillance technologies in a 2020 UN Report, which outlined the associated risks of humanitarian organizations collecting data on refugees and its “chilling effects” on accessing services compared to citizens of their host countries. If, in comparison, the data of citizens is protected, what does that imply about potential discriminatory practices in the future? 

“Data collection is not an apolitical exercise,” notes Achiume’s report, “especially when powerful global north actors collect information on vulnerable populations with no regulated methods of oversights and accountability.” Technology often outpaces the legal framework regulating their operations. In this case, a lack of regulation and accountability around data usage is a clear failing of the systems currently in place. 

The power dynamics are key here. Asylum seekers and migrants are up against authorities who have far greater access to resources that enables them to obtain any information about the asylum seekers as is deemed necessary. Privacy International’s report to the UN Special Rapporteur presented evidence of the tools countries use, including in Austria, Germany, Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Belgium, where laws allow for the seizure of mobile phones from asylum or migration applicants from which data is then extracted and used as part of asylum procedures. The UNHCR has also justified biometric data collection for the purposes of detecting fraud by ensuring the individual is entitled to humanitarian aid. Thus, the practice of storing refugees’ iris images in places such as Afghanistan and Jordan has continued under this principle by making it a prerequisite for receiving aid. 

These are only some of many practices that exist, and all are tinged with the justifications of ensuring security or assisting the provision of aid. But they skirt over the consequences of possessing such sensitive data when systems are flawed or abused. In these cases, some (including this author) could argue that the discriminatory impact outweighs any potential benefit. It has been well documented that biometric surveillance tools lead to a loss of access to resources for survival and a distrust of the system. Achiume’s report, for example, noted the failure of technology in Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh that caused the denial of food rations to the refugees it was intended to serve. 

Through these examples, the ability to harness data is capable of being weaponized against the very people who have provided this information. What’s more, today’s pandemic has caused states to respond with the rapid adoption of biosurveillance, which will only increase opportunity for digital rights violations. The dehumanizing and harmful impacts of data collection of refugee communities can no longer be swept under the rug. If these technologies are expected to be justified as serving humanitarian needs, greater accountability and transparency is needed to ensure these tools do not get abused. 

In this rather bleak picture of data collection and the refugee crisis, Colombia’s announcement in 2021 to provide ten-year temporary protection status to Venezuelans in the country represents a welcome act of fraternity and humanitarianism. This status provides Venezuelan migrants with legal access to the labor market, education, and health care systems, as well as other government services. Regularizing the additional Venezuelan migrant population will enable the Colombian government to provide services best suited to the migrant population. At the moment, the vast majority of Venezuelan migrants are ghosts in the system, with their socioeconomic conditions, health, and demographics unknown. Their very invisibility is open to abuse when you consider that they cannot even open a bank account. 

In the context of Colombia’s recent commitment to the intake of Venezuelan refugees and migrants, data collection has the benefit of informing decision-makers on resource needs and protection responses for this more vulnerable community. It is comparable to the reliance on data in preventing the spread of COVID-19. Despite these important benefits, the extent to which this information is used is where ethical concerns arise. 

There are two sides to the dialogue on biosurveillance and data collection in migrant and refugee populations: information is intended to provide aid and bring sustained benefits for refugees and asylum seekers, but at the same time bodies of authority can violate this surveillance. Each is equally important. With the knowledge that information can dictate humanitarian action but also allow discimination and xenophobia to fester, processes must be in place that prevent any exploitation of the data gathered. 

As the Privacy International report recommended, to overcome issues relating to “surveillance humanitarianism,” authorities need to “adopt and implement mechanisms for sustained and meaningful participation and decision-making of migrants, refugees and stateless persons in the adoption, use and review of digital border technologies”. Only then can the aid promised by this surveillance actually provide the help that migrant and refugee populations need. 

These are people who are facing daily threats, of which inhumane data collection should not be one. By opening up dialogue between those collecting the data and those whose data is being collected, we can stop the abuses facilitated by extensive data collection.