Ethics and border control technologies

The paper establishes a framework for integrating ethics into the impact assessment of border control technologies, distinguishing ethics from legal compliance. It identifies recurring ethical arguments—such as technological determinism and function creep—and provides a list of logical fallacies to help assessors challenge weak reasoning in public and institutional discourses. The text also categorizes normative ethical positions (deontological, consequentialist, and distributive justice) and suggests multidisciplinary profiles for those performing these assessments.

• Ethics in border control is defined as a systematic reflection and philosophical critique of moral issues, serving as an argumentative support to, rather than a replacement for, legal assessments based on fundamental rights.
• The authors identify several recurring ethical challenges associated with 'smart border' solutions, including the reduction of a person's dynamic identity to static biological samples, the creation of 'technologies of power' for institutional control, and the risk of replicating racial prejudices against third-country nationals.
• The document outlines common ethical arguments used in border technology debates, such as 'technological determinism' (viewing technology as a panacea or a force of alienation), 'neutrality of technology' (the claim that technology is neither beneficial nor harmful per se), and 'function creep' (using technology for purposes not originally intended).
• The paper categorizes normative ethical positions into three types: deontological (based on fundamental principles and duties), consequentialist (based on outcomes and trade-offs, such as security versus privacy), and distributive justice (focused on the unequal distribution of benefits and burdens).
• To assist assessors, the document lists 'ethical fallacies'—logical errors in reasoning—such as the 'privacy fallacy' ('If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide'), the 'technocratic fallacy' (assuming engineers should decide moral acceptability), and the 'confusion of ethics and law'.
• The authors suggest that while no single profile is required for ethics assessment, those with backgrounds in philosophy (specifically philosophy of technology or applied ethics), social sciences (surveillance or critical security studies), or law and technology are well-suited for the task.

APA

Casiraghi, S., Burgess, J. P., & Lidén, K. (n.d.). Ethics and border control technologies. Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/65f274a9-e140-4a09-99f2-3f86137463b6/Casiraghi Burgess Lidn 2021 Ethics and border control technologies.pdf?inline=true

Chicago

Casiraghi, Simone, J. Peter Burgess, and Kristoffer Lidén. Ethics and border control technologies. Peace Research Institute Oslo, n.d. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/65f274a9-e140-4a09-99f2-3f86137463b6/Casiraghi Burgess Lidn 2021 Ethics and border control technologies.pdf?inline=true.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Casiraghi |first1=Simone |last2=Burgess |first2=J. Peter |last3=Lidén |first3=Kristoffer |title=Ethics and border control technologies |publisher=Peace Research Institute Oslo |url=https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/65f274a9-e140-4a09-99f2-3f86137463b6/Casiraghi Burgess Lidn 2021 Ethics and border control technologies.pdf?inline=true |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{casiraghindethics, author = {Casiraghi, Simone and Burgess, J. Peter and Lidén, Kristoffer}, title = {{Ethics and border control technologies}}, institution = {Peace Research Institute Oslo}, url = {https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/65f274a9-e140-4a09-99f2-3f86137463b6/Casiraghi Burgess Lidn 2021 Ethics and border control technologies.pdf?inline=true}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }