ABSTRACT The growing use of algorithmic and biometric technologies in border control is part of a larger trend in global security governance that has significant legal and ethical implications for their effect on individual rights and procedural justice. As central features in the EU's shifting security regime, ETIAS and facial recognition technologies deploy algorithmic profiling and biometric risk assessment to screen visa‐exempt third‐country nationals. The research systematically examines the decision‐making processes of ETIAS and the overall facial recognition system, demonstrating the interplay between algorithmic risk assessments and discretionary human discretion by national authorities. It contends that the algorithmic profiling lack of transparency, combined with sweeping national security exceptions, produces a procedural void, in which the right to reasoned decisions and effective remedies is compromised. Second, the use of interoperable databases and risk indicators puts core data protection principles into jeopardy, notably purpose limitation and the right to be forgotten. This paper also argues that ETIAS and the application of facial recognition technologies represent a larger trend toward “techno‐regulatory assemblages” in EU governance, where technological infrastructures increasingly influence legal and administrative decisions. It critically assesses whether the human oversight mechanisms incorporated within ETIAS National Units are adequate to prevent the risks involved in automated decision‐making, especially in the face of strict time pressures and security requirements. The study detects a latent paradox: though these systems aim to strengthen a “Security Union,” they might inadvertently lead to an “Insecurity Union” by undermining transparency, procedural protections, and citizen rights.
Thommandru et al. (Fri,) studied this question.