• EU : One step closer to the establishment of the ’#permission-to-travel' scheme

    The Council and Parliament have reached provisional agreement on rules governing how the forthcoming #European_Travel_Information_and_Authorisation System (#ETIAS) will ’talk’ to other migration and policing databases, with the purpose of conducting automated searches on would-be travellers to the EU.

    The ETIAS will mirror systems such as the #ESTA scheme in the USA, and will require that citizens of countries who do not need a #visa to travel to the EU instead apply for a “travel authorisation”.

    As with visas, travel companies will be required to check an individual’s travel authorisation before they board a plane, coach or train, effectively creating a new ’permission-to-travel’ scheme.

    The ETIAS also includes a controversial #profiling and ’watchlist’ system, an aspect not mentioned in the Council’s press release (full-text below).

    The rules on which the Council and Parliament have reached provisional agreement - and which will thus almost certainly be the final text of the legislation - concern how and when the ETIAS can ’talk’ to other EU databases such as #Eurodac (asylum applications), the #Visa_Information_System, or the #Schengen_Information_System.

    Applicants will also be checked against #Europol and #Interpol databases.

    As the press release notes, the ETIAS will also serve as one of the key components of the “interoperability” scheme, which will interconnect numerous EU databases and lead to the creation of a new, biometric ’#Common_Identity_Repository' on up to 300 million non-EU nationals.

    You can find out more about the ETIAS, related changes to the Visa Information System, and the interoperability plans in the Statewatch report Automated Suspicion: https://www.statewatch.org/automated-suspicion-the-eu-s-new-travel-surveillance-initiatives

    –------

    The text below is a press release published by the Council of the EU on 18 March 2020: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/03/18/european-travel-information-and-authorisation-system-etias-council-

    European travel information and authorisation system (ETIAS): Council Presidency and European Parliament provisionally agree on rules for accessing relevant databases

    The Council presidency and European Parliament representatives today reached a provisional agreement on the rules connecting the ETIAS central system to the relevant EU databases. The agreed texts will next be submitted to the relevant bodies of the Council and the Parliament for political endorsement and, following this, for their formal adoption.

    The adoption of these rules will be the final legislative step required for the setting up of ETIAS, which is expected to be operational by 2022.

    The introduction of ETIAS aims to improve internal security, prevent illegal immigration, protect public health and reduce delays at the borders by identifying persons who may pose a risk in one of these areas before they arrive at the external borders. ETIAS is also a building bloc of the interoperability between JHA databases, an important political objective of the EU in this area, which is foreseen to be operational by the end of 2023.

    The provisionally agreed rules will allow the ETIAS central system to perform checks against the Schengen Information System (SIS), the Visa Information System (VIS), the Entry/Exit System (EES), Eurodac and the database on criminal records of third country nationals (ECRIS-TCN), as well as on Europol and Interpol data.

    They allow for the connection of the ETIAS central system to these databases and set out the data to be accessed for ETIAS purposes, as well as the conditions and access rights for the ETIAS central unit and the ETIAS national units. Access to the relevant data in these systems will allow authorities to assess the security or immigration risk of applicants and decide whether to issue or refuse a travel authorisation.
    Background

    ETIAS is the new EU travel information and authorisation system. It will apply to visa-exempt third country nationals, who will need to obtain a travel authorisation before their trip, via an online application.

    The information submitted in each application will be automatically processed against EU and relevant Interpol databases to determine whether there are grounds to refuse a travel authorisation. If no hits or elements requiring further analysis are identified, the travel authorisation will be issued automatically and quickly. This is expected to be the case for most applications. If there is a hit or an element requiring analysis, the application will be handled manually by the competent authorities.

    A travel authorisation will be valid for three years or until the end of validity of the travel document registered during application, whichever comes first. For each application, the applicant will be required to pay a travel authorisation fee of 7 euros.

    https://www.statewatch.org/news/2021/march/eu-one-step-closer-to-the-establishment-of-the-permission-to-travel-sche

    #interopérabilité #base_de_données #database #données_personnelles #migrations #mobilité #autorisations #visas #compagnies_de_voyage #VIS #SIS #EU #UE #union_européenne #biométrie

    ping @etraces @isskein @karine4

    • L’UE précise son futur système de contrôle des voyageurs exemptés de visas

      Les modalités du futur système de #contrôle_préalable, auquel devront se soumettre d’ici fin 2022 les ressortissants de pays tiers pouvant se rendre dans l’Union #sans_visa, a fait l’objet d’un #accord annoncé vendredi par l’exécutif européen.

      Ce dispositif, baptisé ETIAS et inspiré du système utilisé par les Etats-Unis, concernera les ressortissants de plus de 60 pays qui sont exemptés de visas pour leurs courts séjours dans l’Union, comme les ressortissants des Etats-Unis, du Brésil, ou encore de l’Albanie et des Emirats arabes unis.

      Ce système dit « d’information et d’autorisation », qui vise à repérer avant leur entrée dans l’#espace_Schengen des personnes jugées à #risques, doit permettre un contrôle de sécurité avant leur départ via une demande d’autorisation sur internet.

      Dans le cadre de l’ETIAS, les demandes en ligne coûteront 7 euros et chaque autorisation sera valable trois ans pour des entrées multiples, a indiqué un porte-parole de la Commission.

      Selon les prévisions, « probablement plus de 95% » des demandes « donneront lieu à une #autorisation_automatique », a-t-il ajouté.

      Le Parlement européen avait adopté dès juillet 2018 une législation établissant le système ETIAS, mais dans les négociations pour finaliser ses modalités opérationnelles, les eurodéputés réclamaient des garde-fous, en le rendant interopérable avec les autres systèmes d’information de l’UE.

      Eurodéputés et représentants des Etats, de concert avec la Commission, ont approuvé jeudi des modifications qui permettront la consultation de différentes #bases_de_données, dont celles d’#Europol et d’#Interpol, pour identifier les « menaces sécuritaires potentielles, dangers de migration illégale ou risques épidémiologiques élevés ».

      Il contribuera ainsi à « la mise en oeuvre du nouveau Pacte (européen) sur la migration et l’asile », a estimé le porte-parole.

      « Nous devons savoir qui franchit nos #frontières_extérieures. (ETIAS) fournira des #informations_préalables sur les voyageurs avant qu’ils n’atteignent les frontières de l’UE afin d’identifier les risques en matière de #sécurité ou de #santé », a souligné Ylva Johansson, commissaire aux affaires intérieures, citée dans un communiqué.

      Hors restrictions dues à la pandémie, « au moins 30 millions de voyageurs se rendent chaque année dans l’UE sans visa, et on ne sait pas grand chose à leur sujet. L’ETIAS comblera cette lacune, car il exigera un "#background_check" », selon l’eurodéputé Jeroen Lenaers (PPE, droite pro-UE), rapporteur du texte.

      L’accord doit recevoir un ultime feu vert du Parlement et des Vingt-Sept pour permettre au système d’entrer en vigueur.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/fil-dactualites/190321/l-ue-precise-son-futur-systeme-de-controle-des-voyageurs-exemptes-de-visas
      #smart_borders #frontières_intelligentes

  • Automated suspicion: The EU’s new travel surveillance initiatives

    This report examines how the EU is using new technologies to screen, profile and risk-assess travellers to the Schengen area, and the risks this poses to civil liberties and fundamental rights.

    By developing ‘interoperable’ biometric databases, introducing untested profiling tools, and using new ‘pre-crime’ watchlists, people visiting the EU from all over the world are being placed under a veil of suspicion in the name of enhancing security.

    Watch the animation below for an overview of the report. A laid-out version will be available shortly. You can read the press release here: https://www.statewatch.org/news/2020/july/eu-to-deploy-controversial-technologies-on-holidaymakers-and-business-tr

    –----

    Executive summary

    The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has raised the possibility of widespread surveillance and location tracking for the purpose of disease control, setting alarm bells ringing amongst privacy advocates and civil rights campaigners. However, EU institutions and governments have long been set on the path of more intensive personal data processing for the purpose of migration control, and these developments have in some cases passed almost entirely under the radar of the press and civil society organisations.

    This report examines, explains and critiques a number of large-scale EU information systems currently being planned or built that will significantly extend the collection and use of biometric and biographic data taken from visitors to the Schengen area, made up of 26 EU member states as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. In particular, it examines new systems being introduced to track, analyse and assess the potential security, immigration or public health risks posed by non-EU citizens who have to apply for either a short-stay visa or a travel authorisation – primarily the #Visa_Information_System (#VIS), which is being upgraded, and the #European_Travel_Information_and_Authorisation_System (#ETIAS), which is currently under construction.

    The visa obligation has existed for years. The forthcoming travel authorisation obligation, which will cover citizens of non-EU states who do not require a visa, is new and will massively expand the amount of data the EU holds on non-citizens. It is the EU’s equivalent of the USA’s ESTA, Canada’s eTA and Australia’s ETA.[1] These schemes represent a form of “government permission to travel,” to borrow the words of Edward Hasbrouck,[2] and they rely on the extensive processing of personal data.

    Data will be gathered on travellers themselves as well as their families, education, occupation and criminal convictions. Fingerprints and photographs will be taken from all travellers, including from millions of children from the age of six onwards. This data will not just be used to assess an individual’s application, but to feed data mining and profiling algorithms. It will be stored in large-scale databases accessible to hundreds of thousands of individuals working for hundreds of different public authorities.

    Much of this data will also be used to feed an enormous new database holding the ‘identity data’ – fingerprints, photographs, names, nationalities and travel document data – of non-EU citizens. This system, the #Common_Identity_Repository (#CIR), is being introduced as part of the EU’s complex ‘interoperability’ initiative and aims to facilitate an increase in police identity checks within the EU. It will only hold the data of non-EU citizens and, with only weak anti-discrimination safeguards in the legislation, raises the risk of further entrenching racial profiling in police work.

    The remote monitoring and control of travellers is also being extended through the VIS upgrade and the introduction of ETIAS. Travel companies are already obliged to check, prior to an individual boarding a plane, coach or train, whether they have the visa required to enter the Schengen area. This obligation will be extended to include travel authorisations, with travel companies able to use the central databases of the VIS and ETIAS to verify whether a person’s paperwork is in order or not. When people arrive at the Schengen border, when they are within the Schengen area and long after they leave, their personal data will remain stored in these systems and be available for a multitude of further uses.

    These new systems and tools have been presented by EU institutions as necessary to keep EU citizens safe. However, the idea that more personal data gathering will automatically lead to greater security is a highly questionable claim, given that the authorities already have problems dealing with the data they hold now.

    Furthermore, a key part of the ‘interoperability’ agenda is the cross-matching and combination of data on tens of millions of people from a host of different databases. Given that the EU’s databases are already-known to be strewn with errors, this massively increases the risks of mistakes in decision making in a policy field – immigration – that already involves a high degree of discretion and which has profound implications for peoples’ lives.

    These new systems have been presented by their proponents as almost-inevitable technological developments. This is a misleading idea which masks the political and ethical judgments that lie behind the introduction of any new technology. It would be fairer to say that EU lawmakers have chosen to introduce unproven, experimental technologies – in particular, automated profiling – for use on non-EU citizens, who have no choice in the matter and are likely to face difficulties in exercising their rights.

    Finally, the introduction of new databases designed to hold data on tens of millions of non-citizens rests on the idea that our public authorities can be trusted to comply with the rules and will not abuse the new troves of data to which they are being given access. Granting access to more data to more people inevitably increases the risk of individual abuses. Furthermore, the last decade has seen numerous states across the EU turn their back on fundamental rights and democratic standards, with migrants frequently used as scapegoats for society’s ills. In a climate of increased xenophobia and social hostility to foreigners, it is extremely dangerous to assert that intrusive data-gathering will counterbalance a supposed threat posed by non-citizens.

    Almost all the legislation governing these systems has now been put in place. What remains is for them to be upgraded or constructed and put into use. Close attention should be paid by lawmakers, journalists, civil society organisations and others to see exactly how this is done. If all non-citizens are to be treated as potential risks and assessed, analysed, monitored and tracked accordingly, it may not be long before citizens come under the same veil of suspicion.

    https://www.statewatch.org/automated-suspicion-the-eu-s-new-travel-surveillance-initiatives

    #vidéo:
    https://vimeo.com/437830786

    #suspects #suspicion #frontières #rapport #StateWatch #migrations #asile #réfugiés #EU #UE #Union_européenne
    #surveillance #profiling #database #base_de_données #données_personnelles #empreintes_digitales #enfants #agences_de_voyage #privatisation #interopérabilité

    ping @mobileborders @isskein @etraces @reka

  • Le fichage. Note d’analyse ANAFE
    Un outil sans limites au service du contrôle des frontières ?

    La traversée des frontières par des personnes étrangères est un « outil » politique et médiatique, utilisé pour faire accepter à la population toutes les mesures toujours plus attentatoires aux libertés individuelles, au nom par exemple de la lutte contre le terrorisme. Le prétexte sécuritaire est érigé en étendard et il est systématiquement brandi dans les discours politiques, assimilant ainsi migration et criminalité, non seulement pour des effets d’annonce mais de plus en plus dans les législations.
    Les personnes étrangères font depuis longtemps l’objet de mesures de contrôle et de surveillance. Pourtant, un changement de perspective s’est opéré pour s’adapter aux grands changements des politiques européennes vers une criminalisation croissante de ces personnes, en lien avec le développement constant des nouvelles technologies. L’utilisation exponentielle des fichiers est destinée à identifier, catégoriser, contrôler, éloigner et exclure. Et si le fichage est utilisé pour bloquer les personnes sur leurs parcours migratoires, il est aussi de plus en plus utilisé pour entraver les déplacements à l’intérieur de l’Union et l’action de militants européens qui entendent apporter leur soutien aux personnes exilées.
    Quelles sont les limites à ce développement ? Les possibilités techniques et numériques semblent illimitées et favorisent alors un véritable « business » du fichage.

    Concrètement, il existe pléthore de fichiers. Leur complexité tient au fait qu’ils sont nombreux, mais également à leur superposition. De ce maillage opaque naît une certaine insécurité juridique pour les personnes visées.
    Parallèlement à la multiplication des fichiers de tout type et de toute nature, ce sont désormais des questions liées à leur interconnexion[1], à leurs failles qui sont soulevées et aux abus dans leur utilisation, notamment aux risques d’atteintes aux droits fondamentaux et aux libertés publiques.

    Le 5 février 2019, un accord provisoire a été signé entre la présidence du Conseil européen et le Parlement européen sur l’interopérabilité[2] des systèmes d’information au niveau du continent pour renforcer les contrôles aux frontières de l’Union.

    http://www.anafe.org/IMG/pdf/note_-_le_fichage_un_outil_sans_limites_au_service_du_controle_des_frontieres

    #frontières #contrôle #surveillance #migration #réfugiés #fichage #interconnexion #interopérabilité

  • Un projet de #fichage géant des citoyens non membres de l’#UE prend forme en #Europe

    Un accord provisoire a été signé le 5 février entre la présidence du Conseil européen et le Parlement européen pour renforcer les contrôles aux frontières de l’Union. Il va consolider la mise en commun de fichiers de données personnelles. Les défenseurs des libertés individuelles s’alarment.

    Des appareils portables équipés de lecteurs d’#empreintes_digitales et d’#images_faciales, pour permettre aux policiers de traquer des terroristes : ce n’est plus de la science-fiction, mais un projet européen en train de devenir réalité. Le 5 février 2019, un accord préliminaire sur l’#interopérabilité des #systèmes_d'information au niveau du continent a ainsi été signé.

    Il doit permettre l’unification de six #registres avec des données d’#identification_alphanumériques et biométriques (empreintes digitales et images faciales) de citoyens non membres de l’UE. En dépit des nombreuses réserves émises par les Cnil européennes.

    Giovanni Buttarelli, contrôleur européen de la protection des données, a qualifié cette proposition de « point de non-retour » dans le système de base de données européen. En substance, les registres des demandeurs d’asile (#Eurodac), des demandeurs de visa pour l’Union européenne (#Visa) et des demandeurs (système d’information #Schengen) seront joints à trois nouvelles bases de données mises en place ces derniers mois, toutes concernant des citoyens non membres de l’UE.

    Pourront ainsi accéder à la nouvelle base de données les forces de police des États membres, mais aussi les responsables d’#Interpol, d’#Europol et, dans de nombreux cas, même les #gardes-frontières de l’agence européenne #Frontex. Ils pourront rechercher des personnes par nom, mais également par empreinte digitale ou faciale, et croiser les informations de plusieurs bases de données sur une personne.

    « L’interopérabilité peut consister en un seul registre avec des données isolées les unes des autres ou dans une base de données centralisée. Cette dernière hypothèse peut comporter des risques graves de perte d’informations sensibles, explique Buttarelli. Le choix entre les deux options est un détail fondamental qui sera clarifié au moment de la mise en œuvre. »

    Le Parlement européen et le Conseil doivent encore approuver officiellement l’accord, avant qu’il ne devienne législation.

    Les #risques de la méga base de données

    « J’ai voté contre l’interopérabilité parce que c’est une usine à gaz qui n’est pas conforme aux principes de proportionnalité, de nécessité et de finalité que l’on met en avant dès lors qu’il peut être question d’atteintes aux droits fondamentaux et aux libertés publiques, assure Marie-Christine Vergiat, députée européenne, membre de la commission des libertés civiles. On mélange tout : les autorités de contrôle aux #frontières et les autorités répressives par exemple, alors que ce ne sont pas les mêmes finalités. »

    La proposition de règlement, élaborée par un groupe d’experts de haut niveau d’institutions européennes et d’États membres, dont les noms n’ont pas été révélés, avait été présentée par la Commission en décembre 2017, dans le but de prévenir les attaques terroristes et de promouvoir le contrôle aux frontières.

    Les institutions de l’UE sont pourtant divisées quant à son impact sur la sécurité des citoyens : d’un côté, Krum Garkov, directeur de #Eu-Lisa – l’agence européenne chargée de la gestion de l’immense registre de données –, estime qu’elle va aider à prévenir les attaques et les terroristes en identifiant des criminels sous de fausses identités. De l’autre côté, Giovanni Buttarelli met en garde contre une base de données centralisée, qui risque davantage d’être visée par des cyberattaques. « Nous ne devons pas penser aux simples pirates, a-t-il déclaré. Il y a des puissances étrangères très intéressées par la vulnérabilité de ces systèmes. »

    L’utilité pour l’antiterrorisme : les doutes des experts

    L’idée de l’interopérabilité des systèmes d’information est née après le 11-Septembre. Elle s’est développée en Europe dans le contexte de la crise migratoire et des attentats de 2015, et a été élaborée dans le cadre d’une relation de collaboration étroite entre les institutions européennes chargées du contrôle des frontières et l’industrie qui développe les technologies pour le mettre en œuvre.

    « L’objectif de lutte contre le terrorisme a disparu : on parle maintenant de “#fraude_à_l'identité”, et l’on mélange de plus en plus lutte contre la #criminalité et lutte contre l’immigration dite irrégulière, ajoute Vergiat. J’ai participé à la commission spéciale du Parlement européen sur la #lutte_contre_le_terrorisme ; je sais donc que le lien entre #terrorisme et #immigration dite irrégulière est infinitésimal. On compte les cas de ressortissants de pays tiers arrêtés pour faits de terrorisme sur les doigts d’une main. »

    Dans la future base de données, « un référentiel d’identité unique collectera les données personnelles des systèmes d’information des différents pays, tandis qu’un détecteur d’identités multiples reliera les différentes identités d’un même individu », a déclaré le directeur d’Eu-Lisa, lors de la conférence annuelle de l’#Association_européenne_de_biométrie (#European_Association_for_Biometrics#EAB) qui réunit des représentants des fabricants des technologies de #reconnaissance_numérique nécessaires à la mise en œuvre du système.

    « Lors de l’attaque de Berlin, perpétrée par le terroriste Anis Amri, nous avons constaté que cet individu avait 14 identités dans l’Union européenne, a-t-il expliqué. Il est possible que, s’il y avait eu une base de données interopérable, il aurait été arrêté auparavant. »

    Cependant, Reinhard Kreissl, directeur du Vienna Centre for Societal Security (Vicesse) et expert en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme, souligne que, dans les attentats terroristes perpétrés en Europe ces dix dernières années, « les auteurs étaient souvent des citoyens européens, et ne figuraient donc pas dans des bases de données qui devaient être unifiées. Et tous étaient déjà dans les radars des forces de police ».

    « Tout agent des services de renseignement sérieux admettra qu’il dispose d’une liste de 1 000 à 1 500 individus dangereux, mais qu’il ne peut pas les suivre tous, ajoute Kreissl. Un trop-plein de données n’aide pas la police. »

    « L’interopérabilité coûte des milliards de dollars et l’intégration de différents systèmes n’est pas aussi facile qu’il y paraît », déclare Sandro Gaycken, directeur du Digital Society Institute à l’Esmt de Berlin. « Il est préférable d’investir dans l’intelligence des gens, dit l’expert en cyberintelligence, afin d’assurer plus de #sécurité de manière moins intrusive pour la vie privée. »

    Le #budget frontière de l’UE augmente de 197 %

    La course aux marchés publics pour la mise en place de la nouvelle base de données est sur le point de commencer : dans le chapitre consacré aux dépenses « Migration et contrôle des frontières » du budget proposé par la Commission pour la période 2021-2027, le fonds de gestion des frontières a connu une augmentation de 197 %, tandis que la part consacrée aux politiques de migration et d’asile n’a augmenté, en comparaison, que de 36 %.

    En 2020, le système #Entry_Exit (#Ees, ou #SEE, l’une des trois nouvelles bases de données centralisées avec interopérabilité) entrera en vigueur. Il oblige chaque État membre à collecter les empreintes digitales et les images de visages de tous les citoyens non européens entrant et sortant de l’Union, et d’alerter lorsque les permis de résidence expirent.

    Cela signifie que chaque frontière, aéroportuaire, portuaire ou terrestre, doit être équipée de lecteurs d’empreintes digitales et d’images faciales. La Commission a estimé que ce SEE coûterait 480 millions d’euros pour les quatre premières années. Malgré l’énorme investissement de l’Union, de nombreuses dépenses resteront à la charge des États membres.

    Ce sera ensuite au tour d’#Etias (#Système_européen_d’information_de_voyage_et_d’autorisation), le nouveau registre qui établit un examen préventif des demandes d’entrée, même pour les citoyens de pays étrangers qui n’ont pas besoin de visa pour entrer dans l’UE. Cette dernière a estimé son coût à 212,1 millions d’euros, mais le règlement, en plus de prévoir des coûts supplémentaires pour les États, mentionne des « ressources supplémentaires » à garantir aux agences de l’UE responsables de son fonctionnement, en particulier pour les gardes-côtes et les gardes-frontières de Frontex.

    C’est probablement la raison pour laquelle le #budget proposé pour Frontex a plus que triplé pour les sept prochaines années, pour atteindre 12 milliards d’euros. Le tout dans une ambiance de conflits d’intérêts entre l’agence européenne et l’industrie de la biométrie.

    Un membre de l’unité recherche et innovation de Frontex siège ainsi au conseil d’administration de l’#Association_européenne_de_biométrie (#EAB), qui regroupe les principales organisations de recherche et industrielles du secteur de l’identification numérique, et fait aussi du lobbying. La conférence annuelle de l’association a été parrainée par le géant biométrique français #Idemia et la #Security_Identity_Alliance.

    L’agente de recherche de Frontex et membre du conseil d’EAB Rasa Karbauskaite a ainsi suggéré à l’auditoire de représentants de l’industrie de participer à la conférence organisée par Frontex avec les États membres : « L’occasion de montrer les dernières technologies développées. » Un représentant de l’industrie a également demandé à Karbauskaite d’utiliser son rôle institutionnel pour faire pression sur l’Icao, l’agence des Nations unies chargée de la législation des passeports, afin de rendre les technologies de sécurité des données biométriques obligatoires pour le monde entier.

    La justification est toujours de « protéger les citoyens européens du terrorisme international », mais il n’existe toujours aucune donnée ou étude sur la manière dont les nouveaux registres de données biométriques et leur interconnexion peuvent contribuer à cet objectif.

    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/250219/un-projet-de-fichage-geant-de-citoyens-prend-forme-en-europe
    #surveillance_de_masse #surveillance #étrangers #EU #anti-terrorisme #big-data #biométrie #complexe_militaro-industriel #business

    • Règlement (UE) 2019/817 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 20 mai 2019 portant établissement d’un cadre pour l’interopérabilité des systèmes d’information de l’UE dans le domaine des frontières et des visas

      Point 9 du préambule du règlement UE 2019/817

      "Dans le but d’améliorer l’efficacité et l’efficience des vérifications aux frontières extérieures, de contribuer à prévenir et combattre l’immigration illégale et de favoriser un niveau élevé de sécurité au sein de l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice de l’Union, y compris la préservation de la sécurité publique et de l’ordre public et la sauvegarde de la sécurité sur les territoires des États membres, d’améliorer la mise en œuvre de la politique commune des visas, d’aider dans l’examen des demandes de protection internationale, de contribuer à la prévention et à la détection des infractions terroristes et d’autres infractions pénales graves et aux enquêtes en la matière, de faciliter l’identification de personnes inconnues qui ne sont pas en mesure de s’identifier elles-mêmes ou des restes humains non identifiés en cas de catastrophe naturelle, d’accident ou d’attaque terroriste, afin de préserver la confiance des citoyens à l’égard du régime d’asile et de migration de l’Union, des mesures de sécurité de l’Union et de la capacité de l’Union à gérer les frontières extérieures, il convient d’établir l’interopérabilité des systèmes d’information de l’UE, à savoir le système d’entrée/de sortie (EES), le système d’information sur les visas (VIS), le système européen d’information et d’autorisation concernant les voyages (ETIAS), Eurodac, le système d’information Schengen (SIS) et le système européen d’information sur les casiers judiciaires pour les ressortissants de pays tiers (ECRIS-TCN), afin que lesdits systèmes d’information de l’UE et leurs données se complètent mutuellement, tout en respectant les droits fondamentaux des personnes, en particulier le droit à la protection des données à caractère personnel. À cet effet, il convient de créer un portail de recherche européen (ESP), un service partagé d’établissement de correspondances biométriques (#BMS partagé), un répertoire commun de données d’identité (#CIR) et un détecteur d’identités multiples (#MID) en tant qu’éléments d’interopérabilité.

      http://www.europeanmigrationlaw.eu/fr/articles/actualites/bases-de-donnees-interoperabilite-reglement-ue-2019817-frontier

  • Security Union: A stronger EU Agency for the management of information systems for security and borders

    Today, the European Parliament (LIBE Committee) and the Council (COREPER) reached a political compromise on the Commission’s proposal to strengthen the mandate of the eu-LISA, the EU Agency for the operational management of large scale IT systems for migration, security and border management. Welcoming the compromise agreement, Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship Dimitris Avramopoulos and Commissioner for the Security Union Julian King said:

    Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos: “Today’s agreement represents another crucial building block towards a more secure and resilient European Union. A strengthened eu-LISA will be the nerve centre for the development and maintenance of all our information systems on migration, border management and security, and crucially, their interoperability. We want to connect all the dots, not just legally but also operationally – and a stronger and more efficient eu-LISA will precisely help us do this.”

    Commissioner Julian King: “In the future, eu-LISA will play a pivotal role in helping keep Europe safe. Today’s agreement means that the Agency will have the resources it needs to manage the EU’s information systems for security and border management, help them to interact more efficient and improve the quality of the data they hold – an important step forward.”

    The upgrade, proposed by the Commission in June 2017, will enable eu-LISA to roll-out the technical solutions to achieve the full interoperability of EU information systems for migration, security and border management. The Agency will now also have the right tools to develop and manage future large-scale EU information systems, such as the Entry Exit System (EES) and the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS). This comes in addition to the management of the existing system, such as the Schengen Information System (SIS), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurodac, which the Agency is already responsible for.
    Next steps

    The compromised text agreed in today’s final trilogue will now have to be formally adopted by the European Parliament and the Council.
    Background

    In April 2016Search for available translations of the preceding linkEN••• the Commission presented a Communication on stronger and smarter information systems for borders and security, initiating a discussion on how information systems in the European Union can better enhance border management and internal security. Since then the Commission tabled a number of legal proposals to ensure that the outstanding information gaps are closed and the EU information systems work together more intelligently and effectively and that borders guards and law enforcement officials have the information they need to do their jobs. This includes strengthening the mandate of eu-LISA proposed by the Commission in June 2017 and upgrading the EU information systems to make them interoperable in December 2017.

    The EU Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems, eu-LISA, successfully started operations in December 2012. It is responsible for the management and maintenance of the SIS II, VIS and EURODAC. The main operational task is to ensure that these systems are kept functioning 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Agency is also tasked with ensuring the necessary security measures, data security and integrity as well as compliance with data protection rules.

    https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/security-union-stronger-eu-lisa-agency-management-information-systems-secu

    #sécurité #surveillance #migrations #asile #réfugiés #VIS #SIS #Eurodac #eu-LISA #frontières #surveillance_des_frontières #big_data #Schengen #Europe #EU #UE
    cc @marty @daphne @isskein

    • SECURITY UNION. Closing the information gap

      The current EU information systems for security, border and migration management do not work together – they are fragmented, complex and difficult to operate. This risks pieces of information slipping through the net and terrorists and criminals escaping detection by using multiple or fraudulent identities, endangering the EU’s internal security and the safety of European citizens. Over the past year, the EU has been working to make the various information systems at EU level interoperable — that is, able to exchange data and share information so that authorities and responsible officials have the information they need, when and where they need it. Today, the Commission is completing this work by proposing new tools to make EU information systems stronger and smarter, and to ensure that they work better together. The tools will make it easier for border guards and police officers to have complete, reliable and accurate information needed for their duties, and to detect people who are possibly hiding criminal or terrorist activities behind false identities.

      https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-security/20171212_security_union_closing_the_information_gap_en.pdf
      #interopérabilité #biométrie #ETIAS #Entry/Exit_System #EES #ECRIS-TCN_system

  • Un moteur de recherche pour contourner l’interdiction du fichier unique
    https://reflets.info/un-moteur-de-recherche-pour-contourner-linterdiction-du-fichier-unique

    SIS (entrée – sortie de l’UE, système Shengen) #Eurodac (demandeur d’asile), #Europol… création d’Etias (sorte de sous-visa pour les pays dispensés de visa), création du fichier #PNR (passenger name record), projet de base biométrique commune […]

    #Breves #Etias #Europe #SIS

    • The EU has built #1000_km of border walls since fall of Berlin Wall

      European Union states have built over 1,000km of border walls since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, a new study into Fortress Europe has found.

      Migration researchers have quantified the continent’s anti-immigrant infrastructure and found that the EU has gone from just two walls in the 1990s to 15 by 2017.

      Ten out of 28 member states stretching from Spain to Latvia have now built such border walls, with a sharp increase during the 2015 migration panic, when seven new barriers were erected.

      Despite celebrations this year that the Berlin Wall had now been down for longer than it was ever up, Europe has now completed the equivalent length of six Berlin walls during the same period. The barriers are mostly focused on keeping out undocumented migrants and would-be refugees.

      The erection of the barriers has also coincided with the rise of xenophobic parties across the continent, with 10 out of 28 seeing such parties win more than half a million votes in elections since 2010.

      “Europe’s own history shows that building walls to resolve political or social issues comes at an unacceptable cost for liberty and human rights,” Nick Buxton, researcher at the Transnational Institute and editor of the report said.

      “Ultimately it will also harm those who build them as it creates a fortress that no one wants to live in. Rather than building walls, Europe should be investing in stopping the wars and poverty that fuels migration.”

      Tens of thousands of people have died trying to migrate into Europe, with one estimate from June this year putting the figure at over 34,000 since the EU’s foundation in 1993. A total of 3,915 fatalities were recorded in 2017.

      The report also looked at eight EU maritime rescue operations launched by the bloc, seven of which were carried out specifically by the EU’s border agency Frontex.

      The researchers found that none of the operations, all conducted in the Mediterranean, had the rescue of people as their principal goal – with all of them focused on “eliminating criminality in border areas and slowing down the arrival of displaced peoples”.

      Just one, Operation Mare Nostrum, which was carried out by the Italian government, included humanitarian organisations in its fleets. It has since been scrapped and replaced by Frontex’s Operation Triton, which has a smaller budget.

      “These measures lead to refugees and displaced peoples being treated like criminals,” Ainhoa Ruiz Benedicto, researcher for Delàs Center and co-author of the report said.

      At the June European Council, EU leaders were accused by NGOs of “deliberately condemning vulnerable people to be trapped in Libya, or die at sea”, after they backed the stance of Italy’s populist government and condemned rescue boats operating in the sea.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-border-wall-berlin-migration-human-rights-immigration-borders-a862

    • Building walls. Fear and securitization in the European Union

      This report reveals that member states of the European Union and Schengen Area have constructed almost 1000 km of walls, the equivalent of more than six times the total length of the Berlin Walls, since the nineties to prevent displaced people migrating into Europe. These physical walls are accompanied by even longer ‘maritime walls’, naval operations patrolling the Mediterranean, as well as ‘virtual walls’, border control systems that seek to stop people entering or even traveling within Europe, and control movement of population.
      Authors
      Ainhoa Ruiz Benedicto, Pere Brunet
      In collaboration with
      Stop Wapenhandel, Centre Delàs d’Estudis per la Pau
      Programmes
      War & Pacification

      On November 9th 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, marking what many hoped would be a new era of cooperation and openness across borders. German President Horst Koehler celebrating its demise some years later spoke of an ‘edifice of fear’ replaced by a ‘place of joy’, opening up the possibility of a ‘cooperative global governance which benefits everyone’. 30 years later, the opposite seems to have happened. Edifices of fear, both real and imaginary, are being constructed everywhere fuelling a rise in xenophobia and creating a far more dangerous walled world for refugees fleeing for safety.

      This report reveals that member states of the European Union and Schengen Area have constructed almost 1000 km of walls, the equivalent of more than six times the total length of the Berlin Walls, since the nineties to prevent displaced people migrating into Europe. These physical walls are accompanied by even longer ‘maritime walls’, naval operations patrolling the Mediterranean, as well as ‘virtual walls’, border control systems that seek to stop people entering or even traveling within Europe, and control movement of population. Europe has turned itself in the process into a fortress excluding those outside– and in the process also increased its use of surveillance and militarised technologies that has implications for its citizens within the walls.

      This report seeks to study and analyse the scope of the fortification of Europe as well as the ideas and narratives upon which it is built. This report examines the walls of fear stoked by xenophobic parties that have grown in popularity and exercise an undue influence on European policy. It also examines how the European response has been shaped in the context of post-9/11 by an expanded security paradigm, based on the securitization of social issues. This has transformed Europe’s policies from a more social agenda to one centred on security, in which migrations and the movements of people are considered as threats to state security. As a consequence, they are approached with the traditional security tools: militarism, control, and surveillance.

      Europe’s response is unfortunately not an isolated one. States around the world are answering the biggest global security problems through walls, militarisation, and isolation from other states and the rest of the world. This has created an increasingly hostile world for people fleeing from war and political prosecution.

      The foundations of “Fortress Europe” go back to the Schengen Agreement in 1985, that while establishing freedom of movement within EU borders, demanded more control of its external borders. This model established the idea of a safe interior and an unsafe exterior.

      Successive European security strategies after 2003, based on America’s “Homeland Security” model, turned the border into an element that connects local and global security. As a result, the European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) became increasingly militarised, and migration was increasingly viewed as a threat.

      Fortress Europe was further expanded with policy of externalization of the border management to third countries in which agreements have been signed with neighbouring countries to boost border control and accept deported migrants. The border has thus been transformed into a bigger and wider geographical concept.
      The walls and barriers to movement

      The investigation estimates that the member states of the European Union and the Schengen area have constructed almost 1000 km of walls on their borders since nineties, to prevent the entrance of displaced people and migration into their territory.


      The practice of building walls has grown immensely, from 2 walls in the decade of the 1990s to 15 in 2017. 2015 saw the largest increase, the number of walls grew from 5 to 12.

      Ten out of 28 member states (Spain, Greece, Hungary, Bulgaria, Austria, Slovenia, United Kingdom, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) have built walls on their borders to prevent immigration, all of them belonging to the Schengen area except for Bulgaria and the United Kingdom.

      One country that is not a member of the European Union but belongs to the Schengen area has built a wall to prevent migration (Norway). Another (Slovakia) has built internal walls for racial segregation. A total of 13 walls have been built on EU borders or inside the Schengen area.

      Two countries, both members of the European Union and the Schengen area, (Spain and Hungary) have built two walls on their borders for controlling migration. Another two (Austria and the United Kingdom) have built walls on their shared borders with Schengen countries (Slovenia and France respectively). A country outside of the European Union, but part of of the so-called Balkan route (Macedonia), has built a wall to prevent migration.


      Internal controls of the Schengen area, regulated and normalized by the Schengen Borders Code of 2006, have been gone from being an exception to be the political norm, justified on the grounds of migration control and political events (such as political summit, large demonstrations or high profile visitors to a country). From only 3 internal controls in 2006, there were 20 in 2017, which indicates the expansion in restrictions and monitoring of peoples’ movements.


      The maritime environment, particularly the Mediterranean, provides more barriers. The analysis shows that of the 8 main EU maritime operations (Mare Nostrum, Poseidon, Hera, Andale, Minerva, Hermes, Triton and Sophia) none have an exclusive mandate of rescuing people. All of them have had, or have, the general objective of fighting crime in border areas. Only one of them (Mare Nostrum) included humanitarian organisations in its fleet, but was replaced by Frontex’s “Triton” Operation (2013-2015) which had an increased focus on prosecuting border-related crimes. Another operation (Sophia) included direct collaboration with a military organisation (NATO) with a mandate focused on the persecution of persons that transport people on migratory routes. Analysis of these operations show that their treatment of crimes is sometimes similar to their treatment of refugees, framed as issues of security and treating refugees as threats.

      There are also growing numbers of ‘virtual walls’ which seek to control, monitor and surveil people’s movements. This has resulted in the expansion, especially since 2013, of various programs to restrict people’s movement (VIS, SIS II, RTP, ETIAS, SLTD and I-Checkit) and collect biometric data. The collected data of these systems are stored in the EURODAC database, which allows analysis to establish guidelines and patterns on our movements. EUROSUR is deployed as the surveillance system for border areas.

      Frontex: the walls’ borderguards

      The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) plays an important role in this whole process of fortress expansion and also acts and establishes coordination with third countries by its joint operation Coordination Points. Its budgets have soared in this period, growing from 6.2 million in 2005 to 302 million in 2017.


      An analysis of Frontex budget data shows a growing involvement in deportation operations, whose budgets have grown from 80,000 euros in 2005 to 53 million euros in 2017.

      The European Agency for the Border and Coast Guard (Frontex) deportations often violate the rights of asylum-seeking persons. Through Frontex’s agreements with third countries, asylum-seekers end up in states that violate human rights, have weak democracies, or score badly in terms of human development (HDI).


      Walls of fear and the influence of the far-right

      The far-right have manipulated public opinion to create irrational fears of refugees. This xenophobia sets up mental walls in people, who then demand physical walls. The analysed data shows a worrying rise in racist opinions in recent years, which has increased the percentage of votes to European parties with a xenophobic ideology, and facilitated their growing political influence.

      In 28 EU member states, there are 39 political parties classified as extreme right populists that at some point of their history have had at least one parliamentary seat (in the national Parliament or in the European Parliament). At the completion of this report (July 2018), 10 member states (Germany, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Netherlands, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Sweden) have xenophobic parties with a strong presence, which have obtained more than half a million votes in elections since 2010. With the exception of Finland, these parties have increased their representation. In some cases, like those in Germany, Italy, Poland and Sweden, there has been an alarming increase, such as Alternative for Germany (AfD) winning 94 seats in the 2017 elections (a party that did not have parliamentary representation in the 2013 elections), the Law and Justice party (PiS) in Poland winning 235 seats after the 2015 elections (an increase of 49%), and Lega Nord’s (LN) strong growth in Italy, which went from 18 seats in 2013 to 124 seats in 2018.

      Our study concludes that, in 9 of these 10 states, extreme right-wing parties have a high degree of influence on the government’s migration policies, even when they are a minority party. In 4 of them (Austria, Finland, Italy and Poland) these parties have ministers in the government. In 5 of the remaining 6 countries (Germany, Denmark, Holland, Hungary, and Sweden), there has been an increase of xenophobic discourse and influence. Even centrist parties seem happy to deploy the discourse of xenophobic parties to capture a sector of their voters rather than confront their ideology and advance an alternative discourse based on people’s rights. In this way, the positions of the most radical and racist parties are amplified with hardly any effort. In short, our study confirms the rise and influence of the extreme-right in European migration policy which has resulted in the securitization and criminalization of migration and the movements of people.

      The mental walls of fear are inextricably connected to the physical walls. Racism and xenophobia legitimise violence in the border area Europe. These ideas reinforce the collective imagination of a safe “interior” and an insecure “outside”, going back to the medieval concept of the fortress. They also strengthen territorial power dynamics, where the origin of a person, among other factors, determines her freedom of movement.

      In this way, in Europe, structures and discourses of violence have been built up, diverting us from policies that defend human rights, coexistence and equality, or more equal relationships between territories.

      https://www.tni.org/en/publication/building-walls
      #rapport

      Pour télécharger le rapport:
      https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/building_walls_-_full_report_-_english.pdf

      #murs_virtuelles #surveillance #murs_maritimes #murs_terrestres #EUROSUR #militarisation_des_frontières #frontières #racisme #xénophobie #VIS #SIS #ETIAS #SLTD