Background

As predictions that the number of travellers entering the EU is set to dramatically increase over the coming years, the effects this will have on the European Union’s external borders is under

increasing scrutiny. An official memo from the European Commission notes that border crossings

are expected to increase dramatically by 2030 (European Commission 2013). Add to this current economic troubles, security concerns and a push towards greater efficiency and it is no wonder certain security technology industries are expecting large revenue increases over the next 15 years (European Commission 2014b, p. 31). Due to this expected increase in travellers, and in an effort to manage border crossings in a more efficient manner, there has been a push towards automated border control (ABC) systems. These systems and the policy behind them are discussed in more detail below, for now it is simply worth noting this move towards automation.

This research is based on concepts developed in previous European Union-funded projects such as ValueSec (2013) and DESSI (Čas & Kaufmann 2012) which sought to develop decision-support tools for security, and policy decision-makers respectively. The ValueSec toolset consisted of three main parts, a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), Risk Reduction Assessment (RRA) and a Qualitative Criteria Assessment (QCA). The latter is what this research concerns itself with, but nevertheless a brief introduction of the other two will help form a sound understanding of the task at hand.

CBA in essence, compares the costs of implementing (or not implementing) technology change with the benefits that that implementation may bring. In summary it “enables the decision maker to compare all direct and indirect positive and negative effects of the proposed decisions on an

objective basis” (Pérez & Machnicki 2013a, p. 115). RRA on the other hand, looks at current risks and how these could be mitigated through technology implementation: “a level of risk is analysed for a situation as-is, i.e. without the implementation of a …measure, and compared to a

situation/alternative situations, in which [the] measure was implemented” (Pérez & Machnicki 2013a, p. 28).

What is also needed here is a qualitative perspective. For example, neither a CBA nor RRA usually contain an analysis of whether the technology is ethically and socially acceptable, nor would they answer the question about what the end users of the technology actually think about using it. For example they could not necessarily answer what end user’s concerns are, whether they think it is safe, respects dignity, or could potentially be used for purposes other than for which it was designed. In essence, the questions that QCA aims to address are the “soft criteria”, that is, the human or ethical aspects of the technology: how we feel about it, how it makes us feel, and how that might change the way we interact with each other.

Figure 1: Illustration of the three components of the decision-support toolset. The QCA component is examined in this research.

These three tools (CBA, RRA, QCA) together make up the toolset for a decision-support tool (see Figure 1 above). This research focuses only on the QCA component of the toolset. While the overarching aims of the ValueSec project were to provide transparency and support in the decision-making process of security policy, this current research will focus on creating a criteria set which will contribute towards a decision-support tool fortechnology decisions, specifically ABC technology.

The ValueSec project developed a tool which combined the inputs from CBA, RRA and QCA in order to support policy decisions. The DESSI criteria set was developed for similar purposes, although without the input from CBA and RRA, and the main focus was security investment decisions. The former criteria numbered close to 100, while the latter numbered 46.

The current research therefore utilises the previous findings of these projects to develop a set of criteria to use in QCA aimed specifically at assessing ABC technology. Thus this research does not specifically take into account issues of risk assessment or analysing cost-benefits which are deemed outside of the focus of QCA, although as will be shown, there are a number of potential overlaps identified.

A security-related example of the importance of assessing technology for public use is the implementation of airport security scanners. The scanners in question utilized backscatter or millimetre wave technology and displayed a real-time image of the individual inside the device that was so life-like that the devices came to be known as “nude” or “naked” body scanners (Hempel et

Cost-Benefit Analysis

al. 2013, p. 741; Kravets 2011). Indeed traveller backlash in America against the idea of airport security screeners being able to view these ‘invasive’ images of travellers ultimately led to some machines being removed and procurement contracts being cancelled. However, other versions of the same technology were able to remain in use as the passenger was represented on the security screener’s display by an avatar rather than a live image (Nixon 2013). Furthermore, researchers have claimed that such scanners are not as effective at identifying security threats as previously thought (Mowery et al. 2014).

Image 1: Before (left) and after passenger representation was changed on backscatter scanner⁵

This brief example demonstrates the costs involved in not assessing the social impacts of

technology implementation. While the implementation of such devices may technically be legal, as noted by Hempel and Lammerant (2015, p. 37) “an impact on a freedom which is considered legal can still be considered annoying by a traveller and therefore minimizing it can be important in order to improve acceptance.” In this case, a much smoother implementation may have occurred had stakeholders such as travellers and their representatives, as well as external experts been more thoroughly consulted in the design and implementation process of this technology.

5 Image source:(AP Photo/Transportation Security Administration) http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Some-airport-scanners-out-3982805.php