A/75/590 1. Surveillance humanitarianism and surveillance asylum 32. Commentators have cautioned against the rise of “surveillanc e humanitarianism”, 86 whereby increased reliance on digital technologies in service provision and other bureaucratic processes perversely results in the exclusion of refugees and asylum seekers from essential basic necessities such as access to food. 87 Surveillance humanitarianism refers to “enormous data collection systems deployed by aid organizations that inadvertently increase the vulnerability of people in urgent need”. 88 Even a misspelled name can result in “bureaucratic chaos” and accusations of providing false information, slowing down what is already a slow asylum process. 89 Potential harms around data privacy are often latent and violent in conflict zones, where data compromised or leaked to a warring faction could result in retribution for those perceived to be on the wrong side of the conflict. 90 33. In this regard, one submission highlights the dangers associated with the growing use by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) of digital technologies to manage aid distribution. 91 In refugee camps in Afghanistan, UNHCR mandated iris registration for returning Afghan refugees as a prerequisite for receiving assistance. 92 Though UNHCR justifies collecting, digitizing and storing refugees’ iris images in the Biometric I dentity Management System as a means of detecting and preventing fraud, 93 the impact of processing such sensitive data can be grave when systems are flawed or abused. 94 It has also been documented that such biometric surveillance tools have led to system aversion and loss of access to goods and services for survival. 95 This submission noted, for example, the failure of technology in Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh, which resulted in the denial of food rations to refugees. 96 34. Collection of vast amounts of data on migrants and refugees creates serious issues and possible human rights violations related to data sharing and access, particularly in settings such as refugee camps where power differentials between United Nations agencies, international non-governmental organizations and the affected communities are already stark. Although exchanging data on humanitarian crises or biometric identification is often presented as a way to increase efficiency and inter-agency and inter-State cooperation, benefits from the collection do not accrue equally. Data collection and the use of new technologies, particularly in contexts characterized by steep power differentials, raise issues of informed consent and the ability to opt out. In various forced migration and humanitarian aid settings, such as Mafraq, Jordan, biometric technologies are being used in the form of iris scanning in lieu of identity cards in exchange for food rations. 97 However, conditioning food access on data collection removes any semblance o f choice or autonomy on the part of refugees – consent cannot freely be given where the __________________ 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 20-14872 See www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/opinion/data-humanitarian-aid.html. Submission by Ana Beduschi. See www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/opinion/data-humanitarian-aid.html. Mark Latonero et al., “Digital identity in the migration and refugee context: Italy case study” (Data & Society, April 2019). See www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/opinion/data-humanitarian-aid.html. Submission by Amnesty International. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., citing A/HRC/39/29. Submission by Amnesty International. Ibid. Fleur Johns, “Data, detection, and the redistribution of the sensible in international law”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 111, No. 1 (2017). See also https://medium.com/ unhcr-innovation-service/managing-risk-to-innovate-in-unhcr-91fe9294755b. 15/25