Algorithmic Profiling and Facial Recognition in <scp>EU</scp> Border Control: Examining <scp>ETIAS</scp> Decision‐Making, Privacy and Law

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
Published
2025-04-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.70013
Citations
2
Primary Topic
European Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
17.04
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Algorithmic Profiling and Facial Recognition in EU Border Control: Examining ETIAS Decision‐Making, Privacy and Law

Varda Mone, Abhishek Thommandru, Fayzulloyev Shokhijakhon, Giyosbek Mirzayev
2 citations
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
European Criminal Justice and Data Protection
17.04
article

Algorithmic Profiling and Facial Recognition in EU Border Control: Examining ETIAS Decision‐Making, Privacy and Law

Varda Mone, Abhishek Thommandru, Fayzulloyev Shokhijakhon, Giyosbek Mirzayev
article en
2 citations

Abstract

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.

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge DiscoveryVol. 15(2)
Alliance University (IN), Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University (IN), Tashkent State University of Law (UZ), Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
European Criminal Justice and Data Protection
17.04
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.