Humanitarian and Human Rights Surveillance: The Challenge to Border Surveillance and Invisibility?

Abstract

The European border regime has traditionally rested on the hidden surveillance activities of border authorities, which have contributed to human rights violations (including “push-back” and “left-to-die” practices) and a rising migrant death toll. Recently a number of humanitarian and activist organizations, including Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS), Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Sea-Watch, and WatchTheMed, have organized to aid migrants in distress at sea using surveillance technologies, ranging from drones to GPS. By doing so, they presented a challenge to the European border surveillance regime. In dialogue with the concept of countersurveillance, this paper introduces the concepts of humanitarian surveillance and human rights surveillance and deploys them to examine and categorize the activities of MOAS, MSF, Sea-Watch, and WatchTheMed. Humanitarian surveillance narrowly focuses on aiding victims of surveillance without problematizing the logic and hierarchies of surveillance, while human rights surveillance operates as a form of countersurveillance; it aims to protect and advance the human rights of victims of surveillance and expose human rights violations committed by authorities through opposing the hierarchies of surveillance. The paper shows how civilian groups incorporate elements of humanitarian and human rights surveillance in their activities at varying levels and discusses the extent to which they challenge the European border surveillance regime.

Between surveillance and recognition: Rethinking digital identity in aid

“…An illuminating body of critical work has highlighted the risks of harm that digital innovations and data practices pose to already vulnerable populations (Hosein and Nyst, 2013; ICRC and Privacy International, 2018; Sandvik et al., 2017). Scholars have argued that aid organisations are normalising the use of invasive tracking technologies, thus further entrenching power asymmetries between international organisations, donor states and intended beneficiaries (Latonero, 2019; Madianou, 2019; Topak, 2019). The use of biometrics in refugee contexts has provoked particular concern among scholars and civil society groups alike, as has the limitations of ‘informed consent’ (Hayes and Marelli, 2020; Jacobsen, 2015; The Engine Room and Oxfam, 2018).…”

Исследования Надзора: Основные Направления И Теоретические Подходы

“…Быстрый скачок в развитии надзорных технологий привел к резкому увеличению возможностей не только государственной и корпоративной слежки, но также наблюдения за группами, обладающими большим объемом политического и экономического капитала: политиками, сотрудниками силовых структур, представителями крупного бизнеса и т. д. Прием переворачивания ролей, предполагающий наблюдение за наблюдателями, в научной литературе получил наименование sousveillance, т. е. надзор «снизу» [Mann, Nolan, Wellman, 2003] [Topak, 2019;Tréguer, 2015;Walsh, 2010], сетях контрнаблюдателей [Wilson, Serisier, 2010;Introna, Gibbons, 2009], расширении возможностей, а также потенциальных проблемах, которые несет в себе наблюдение «снизу» [Nunes de Sousa, Cervi, 2017;Meyer, Tanner 2017;Hermida, Hernández-Santaolalla, 2016;Dupont, 2008].…”

The Art of Screening: Reasonable Efforts and Measures at the Nexus of Aid Work and Counterterrorism

“…On the other hand, certain NGOs may also be engaged in countersurveillance activities (Monahan 2006). 2 Exploring the practices of organizations that provide assistance to migrants and refugees, Topak (2019) distinguished "humanitarian surveillance" from "human rights surveillance." While they share the ambition to "resist the spread of discriminatory and hierarchical surveillance and appropriate surveillance technologies to use them in oppositional ways" (Topak 2019: 388), human rights surveillance aims at advancing the well-being and rights of marginalized populations in ways similar to the practices of actors conducting countersurveillance.…”

“…The answer likely depends on what kind of information aid NGOs access, what they do with the data gathered (beyond documenting what is required in line with funding agreements), how they share it with authorities, if at all, and under what conditions. While further research would be needed to answer these questions, it is highly likely that some aid NGOs are simultaneously engaged in humanitarian and human rights surveillance(Topak 2019).…”