Smart and secure borders through automated border control systems in the EU? The views of political stakeholders in the Member States

Sma and secu e bo de s h ough au oma ed bo de con ol sys ems in he EU? The iews o poli ical s akeholde s in he Membe S a es Pinja Leh onen and Pami Aal o School o Managemen , Uni e si y o Tampe e, Tampe e, Finland ABSTRACT The Eu opean Commission launched he “Sma Bo de s”policy p ocess in 2011 o enhance bo de secu i y in he Eu opean Union (EU) using echnologisa ion and ha monisa ion. This includes he use o au oma ed bo de con ol (ABC) sys ems. The Membe S a es c ucially shape he p ocess, weighing secu i y echnologies and cos s, p i acy and igh s, and u he ins i u ional choices. We examine he iews o poli ical s akeholde s in ou Membe S a es by conduc ing a sys ema ic empi ical and compa a i e s udy unp eceden ed in he exis ing, poli ical- heo y-inspi ed esea ch. In ou Q me hodological expe imen s, poli ical s akeholde s in Finland, Romania, Spain and he UK ank-o de ed a sample o s a emen s on Sma Bo de s, ABC and ha monisa ion. The ac o analysis o he esul s yielded h ee main iews: he i s c i icising ABC as a secu i y echnology, he second welcoming he secu i y gains o au oma ion and he hi d opposing ha monised bo de con ol. While impeding ha monisa ion, he esul s o e a consensus acili a ing common policy. ARTICLE HISTORY Recei ed 8 Oc obe 2016 Accep ed 20 Decembe 2016 KEYWORDS Au oma ed bo de con ol; bo de secu i y; Eu opean Union; ha monisa ion; Q me hodology; Sma Bo de s In oduc ion Bo de secu i y has become a salien policy issue ac oss Eu ope. The unexpec ed in lux o “i egula ”mig an s in o se e al Eu opean Union (EU) Membe S a es om he neighbou - ing egions since 2015 adds o he secu i y conce ns ela ed o unau ho ised o e s ays, c oss-bo de e o ism and c ime. A he same ime, bo de -c ossings in and ou o he EU a e inc easing and may each 887 million by 2025 (Eu opean Commission 2016a, p. 2), while he bo de con ol esou ces canno keep pace. These ends d i e he echnologisa- ion and digi alisa ion o bo de secu i y. In addi ion o GPS and sa elli e-assis ed su eil- lance o “p e- on ie ”a eas, a he bo de echnologisa ion includes he use o passpo eade s, biome ics o iden i y e i ica ion, au oma ed p ocesses and moni o ing o lows o people h ough au oma ed bo de con ol (ABC). This shi unde pins he ongoing deba e on new bo de con ol policies, bo de -c ossing p ac ices and mo e widely he © 2017 The Au ho (s). Published by In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion-NonComme cial-NoDe i a i es License (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which pe mi s non-comme cial e-use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed, and is no al e ed, ans o med, o buil upon in any way. CONTACT Pinja Leh onen [email p o ec ed] School o Managemen , Uni e si y o Tampe e, 1 Kansle in inne, Tampe e 33014, Finland EUROPEAN SECURITY, 2017 VOL. 26, NO. 2, 207–225 h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1080/09662839.2016.1276057 ole o he secu i y indus y in Eu ope (Vaughan-Williams 2015, pp. 21–28). As a esul , bo de con ol has e ol ed om “na ow”p o ec ion o e i o y by he bo de gua d o a complex high- echnology p ocess, leading o a wide concep o bo de secu i y including la ge-scale da a managemen in cybe space (Heiskanen 2014, pp. 69–70). Meanwhile, he policy deba e on bo de con ol in Eu ope ea u es he e ec s o di e - en ia ed in eg a ion, whe eby EU-le el ha monisa ion e o s coexis wi h di e en iews among he Membe S a es (see Le u h 2015). Twen y- wo ou o 28 EU Membe S a es belong o he Schengen a ea. They ollow he Schengen Bo de s Code, which has abol- ished in e nal bo de con ols and in oduced co-ope a ion on ex e nal bo de s and isas. While he Schengen Membe s ha e g an ed he F on ex agency ce ain sup ana- ional powe s o co-o dina e he echnical s anda ds o bo de con ol, hese s a es con- inue o ha e na ional policies (Boulanin and Bellais 2014, pp. 235–236). A he beginning o 2016, se e al Schengen Membe s s a ed o e-es ablish bo de con ols in esponse o immig a ion- ela ed h ea pe cep ions. By e oding us and common iden- i y, hese unila e al decisions may e en ually dissol e he secu i y communi y upon which he Schengen a ea s ands (Alkophe and Blanc 2016). Ha monisa ion, he e o e, hinges on he decisions o Membe S a es. A key p ocess in his is he “Sma Bo de s”policy he Eu opean Commission in oduced in 2011. I seeks o be e secu e he Union’s ex e nal bo de s and s eamline bo de -c ossing by elying inc easingly on au oma ed in o ma ion sha ing and sel -se ice. This includes he legisla- i e p oposal o Ap il 2016 on a common en y/exi sys em (EES) o hi d-coun y na ionals and co esponding amendmen s o he Schengen Bo de s Code, and concomi- an sugges ions o u he echnologisa ion (Eu opean Commission 2016a,2016b). The No embe 2016 p oposal o a Eu opean T a el In o ma ion and Au ho isa ion Sys em (ETIAS) ex e nalises bo de con ol owa ds “policing a a dis ance”(Sklepa is 2016, p. 107), by subjec ing isa- ee passenge s o digi alised ad ance checks o secu i y and i egula mig a ion. Fu he p oposals include a Passenge Name Reco d Di ec i e, enhanced secu i y ea u es in a el documen s, mo e sys ema ic checks on EU ex e nal bo de s and enhancemen o he Schengen In o ma ion Sys em (Eu opean Commission 2016c). A issue is a con en ious mix u e o policy issues in ol ing secu i y, cos s, mobili y, undamen al igh s and p i acy (e.g. Bigo e al. 2012). He e we add ess he complex nexus o ABC echnologies; he p i acy, igh s and legal issues in ol ed; and u he ins i u ional choices as subjec i ely pe cei ed by Membe S a es’poli ical s akeholde s. This is a no el line o enqui y in h ee majo espec s. Fi s , i esponds o Hills’(2006, p. 67) call a decade ago o mo e empi ical e idence: “Bo de secu i y is an empi ical mani es a ion o a s a e’s adap a ion in o i s poli ical en i onmen ”, while “ unc ional secu i y”is “neglec ed by he academy”, and hus esea ch on he empi i- cal dimensions o bo de secu i y is needed o “ ebalance he deba e”. Second, while many s udies concen a e on EU-le el policies, we conside he Membe S a es, as ye li le add essed in he li e a u e. They sha e he compe ence wi h he Union in bo de con ol, pa icipa e in he Sma Bo de s policy p ocess, and de elop and implemen policies a he na ional le el. Membe S a es also p oduce compe ing poli ical impe a i es on ac ual EU-le el policies. Fo example, a ecen single-case s udy highligh s how na ional-le el secu i isa ion o bo de -c ossing isks illibe al p ac ices a he EU bo de s (Sklepa is 2016). Thi d, while c i ical bo de s udies o en e ince a poli ical heo y-in o med c i ique o policies (see nex sec ion), we empowe some o he ac o s “in he ield”,examining 208 P. LEHTONEN AND P. AALTO and compa ing he subjec i e iews o poli ical s akeholde s is-à- is ABC in ou EU Membe S a es: Finland, Romania, Spain and he UK. We ocus mos ly on Membe s o Pa - liamen , because na ional pa liamen s deba e he EU ini ia i es, epo back o he EU ins i- u ions and make he espec i e na ional budge alloca ions. Ou e o is b oadly in o med by he “p ac ice u n”in c i ical secu i y and bo de s udies in concen a ing on a g oup o ac o s s ee ing he de elopmen and deploymen o secu i y echnologies. This helps us o ocus on he meaning o policies “as unde s ood by he ac o s in hese ields”, and o s udy hese secu i y p ac ices h ough hei “sha ed unde s andings and dis- ag eemen s”which “make up bo de secu i y”(Cô é-Bouche e al. 2014, pp. 197–198). To gain an empi ical insigh in o he sha ed iews and con en ions o Membe S a es’ poli ical s akeholde s, we apply Q me hodology, he eby enabling pa icipan s o ques ion he secu i y echnologies om hei own subjec i e s andpoin s. Impo an ly his a o ds an empi ically g ounded idea o he poli ical conce ns and incen i es ega ding he echnologisa ion and ha monisa ion o bo de secu i y o complemen poli ical heo y- in o med c i ique. We unde s and he secu i y echnologies sc u inised as esul s o in e - ac ion among ac o s wi h di e en iews. Because he echnologies unc ion on behal o he use go e nmen s, he Membe S a es’s akeholde s can assign no ma i e and poli ical conside a ions o hem ha in u n dese e sys ema ic empi ical esea ch (see Amicelle e al. 2015, p. 297, Valkenbu g and an de Ploeg 2015, pp. 327–329). Hence ou con i- bu ion is d i en less by heo y and mo e by me hodology (see Cô é-Bouche e al. 2014), p io i ising he empi ical e idence in he subjec i e iews o poli ical s akeholde s. We he e o e ask he ollowing: (1) Wha iews do poli ical s akeholde s in Finland, Romania, Spain and he UK ha e on he de elopmen o ABC sys ems? (2) Can we iden i y any common g ound among hese iews on which o build Eu opean bo de con ol pol- icies? We i s in oduce ou me hodological choices and hen ou line ou esul s ea u ing h ee di e en iews on ABC and he common g ound among hem, along wi h policy ec- ommenda ions based on he consensus and he wide implica ions o Eu opean bo de con ol policies. Resea ch design: he Q me hodological app oach o iews o poli ical s akeholde s Case s udy coun ies Ou case s udy coun ies Finland, Romania, Spain and he UK display a wide a ia ion o bo de challenges and policies in e ms o membe ship o he Schengen ag eemen , ins i- u ionalisa ion o ABC and posi ions on he Sma Bo de s p ocess. While a ou -coun y compa ison is no ep esen a i e o all EU Membe S a es, i illus a es he po en ial ange o iews. Rega ding bo de challenges, all ou cases ha e signi ican ex e nal en y poin s o he EU (F on ex 2013). Finland and Romania ha e much a e sed land bo de s. The e is occasional conges ion on he Finnish–Russian bo de , likewise on he bo de be ween Romania and Molda ia, and also on ha wi h Uk aine. In he UK and Spain, he majo ex e nal en y poin s o he EU a e he ai po s, namely London Hea h ow, London Ga wick, Manches e and Mad id Ba ajas. The Spanish au onomous communi ies o Ceu a and Melilla in No h A ica a e also majo ga eways o he EU. The sou he n EUROPEAN SECURITY 209 bo de s o he EU, alongside he bo de s wi h he Middle Eas , mani es a complex in e - sec ion o bo de secu i y issues anging om immig a ion and e o ism o undamen al igh s (Del Sa o and S eindle 2015). Rega ding policy, hese coun ies we e no chosen o model he numbe o incoming asylum seeke s, which ose d ama ically in 2015 (F on ex 2015), bu a he he a ia ion in he de elopmen o bo de con ol policies including ABC. The UK has a Schengen op -ou , and will no pa icipa e in he Sma Bo de s policies. In June 2016, i also o ed o exi he EU. The coun y is ne e heless in e es ing, being pe haps he mos ins i u ionalised case o Eu opean ABC use, wi h au oma ed sys ems a mos ai po s and plans o acqui e elec- onic ga es o seapo s and ailway s a ions. Finland, a Schengen membe , conside s Sma Bo de s o enable mo e ex ensi e ABC use, which could expedi e he Fenno- Russian bo de a ic, which since 2014 has su e ed om he sanc ions imposed by he EU and Russia. Finland u ilises ABC sys ems a he main a ic hubs a ai bo de s, and some land and sea bo de s. Spain and Romania ha e endo sed he Sma Bo de s EES, which would help hem o de ec possible o e s ays. Spain, a Schengen membe , has ecen ly expanded ABC o co e he mos impo an ai po s, along wi h one land bo de and one seapo . Romania is only pu suing Schengen membe ship and plans o pilo ABC sys ems a he land bo de wi h Se bia and a Bucha es Ai po . Modelling he ABC deba e We modelled he ABC deba e on he all-Eu opean le el by i s exhaus i ely e iewing he exis ing li e a u e and policy documen s. We hen o ma ed he eme ging iews in o 230 sho s a emen s. To disce n he c ucial echnological app oaches in he ABC deba e, we d ew on guideline documen s (e.g. hose p oduced by F on ex and he In e na ional Ci il A ia ion O ganisa ion) and academic a icles mos ly discussing biome ic au hen ica ion (e.g. Kwon and Moon 2008, Jain and Kuma 2012). We ex ac ed EU-le el policy p e e - ences om publica ions by he Eu opean Commission, he Eu opean Da a P o ec ion Supe iso and he Biome ic Eu opean S akeholde s Ne wo k, among o he s. To comp e- hend he public poli ical deba e, we used Sma Bo de s e alua ions (e.g. Bigo e al. 2012, Hayes and Ve meulen 2012) and consul ed na ional and EU newspape a icles along wi h p ess eleases by a ious Eu opean Pa liamen g oups and independen ad ocacy g oups. Fo he wide expe deba e on bo de policy, we e iewed he exis ing esea ch, which o en d aws upon poli ical heo y and is qui e c i ical o ABC and ela ed echnologies. Fo example, some au ho s we e ala med by mode n s a es’p oac i e use o isk managemen echnologies (Ceyhan 2008, Sklepa is 2016). These obse e s associa e such echnologies wi h secu i isa ion, ha is, p ocesses in which issues a e b ough unde he secu i y logic o eme gency measu es, delimi ing public deba e and in ol emen (Lodge 2004, Mulle 2011). Schola s c i icise he secu i isa ion o mig a ion, especially in he pos -9/11 con ex (Alkophe and Blanc 2016), and he ensuing en anglemen o secu i y and immi- g a ion policies (Mulle 2004, Dijs elbloem e al. 2011), po en ially unde mining, o example, asylum seeke s’ igh s (Palm 2013). The esea ch also iden i ies h ea s o use s’p i acy due o biome ic iden i ica ion and Eu opean da abases (B oede s 2007, Ha el 2009, an de Ploeg 2009, F iedewald e al. 2010, Mo dini and Rebe a 2012). We di ided his deba e in o h ee hemes. The i s , “ echnological op ions”(A), includes s a emen s on ABC echnology, including i s cos s. The second heme, 210 P. LEHTONEN AND P. AALTO “p i acy, igh s and legal issues”(B), includes s a emen s on p o ec ing p i acy, human igh s and he law ul use o ABC. The hi d heme, “ins i u ional p ocesses”(C), conce ns he wide ins i u ional choices in ol ed and some poli ical economy issues. Each o he hemes con ained h ee ypes o s a emen s: ep esen a i e (as in decla a i e, desc ibing he s a us quo) (a), explici ly no ma i e (b) and a policy ecommenda ion (c). We c oss- abula ed he deba e hemes and s a emen ypes o c ea e a heu is ic model o he policy deba e (Table 1). The pu pose o he model is p ac ical: o help loca e as di e se s a emen s as possible and selec om hese a balanced, ele an sample (see B own 1986). We placed he 230 s a emen s in o he cells o he model (Aa, Ab, e c.) and hen selec ed an equal numbe o s a emen s om each cell. To es ablish which s a emen s we e o he g ea es p ac ical ele ance, we es ed a sample o 43 s a emen s empi ically wi h 19 Finnish poli ical s akeholde s, who ank-o de ed he s a emen s and commen ed on hem in in e iews (Leh onen and Aal o 2015). We hen ine- uned he s a emen s and educed hei numbe o 34 in o de o “ligh en he cogni i e bu den” o he pa icipan s (see D yzek e al. 1989, p. 484). The comple e Q sample is lis ed in he Appendix, wi h indica ions as o which cell o he model each s a emen belongs. Pa icipan s The impo ance o he iews o poli ical s akeholde s on ABC s ems om he inc easing salience o bo de secu i y. While he EU le el ea u es policy co-o dina ion e o s, decisions o commission and in oduce ABC sys ems a e aken by na ional go e nmen s and hei agencies. Na ional pa liamen s discuss bo h EU-le el and na ional policies and alloca e he unds; decisions ega ding ABC and Sma Bo de s a e mos o en delibe a ed in commi ees on jus ice and home a ai s. We selec ed he pa icipan s, p ima ily Membe s o Pa liamen , acco ding o hei commi ee membe ships, poli ical a ilia ions and backg ounds. The aim was o include well-in o med pa icipan s able o eac o ou s a emen s and ep esen ing he mos impo an poli ical pa ies in he case coun ies. We included 44 pa icipan s, which sui s he small-N Q me hodology well: i is essen ial o include ep esen a i es o all pe inen ca ego ies o pe spec i es, ins ead o a quan i a - i ely ep esen a i e sample o indi iduals (D yzek e al. 1989). Typically Q s udies ea u e 20–40 ca e ully selec ed pa icipan s. Ou s udy co e ed he poli ical spec um and cu en ends such as he ise o he igh -wing and populis , immig a ion and EU-c i ical pa ies in he UK and Finland 1 (Auel and Raunio 2014, Le u h 2015). Twen y o he 44 pa icipan s we e membe s o na ional pa liamen s (MPs), one sena o and h ee Membe s o he Eu opean Pa liamen (MEPs). Twel e we e senio o icials o hei espec i e poli ical pa ies and in ol ed in commi ee wo k on issues ele an o he s udy. The emaining eigh we e non-pa isan, high-le el expe s in bo de con ol, da a p o ec ion, echnology policy and public as well as immig a ion law con ibu ing Table 1. The heu is ic model o he policy deba e. Technological possibili ies (A) P i acy, igh s and legal issues (B) Ins i u ional p ocesses (C) Rep esen a i e (a) Aa Ba Ca No ma i e (b) Ab Bb Cb Policy ecommenda ion (c) Ac Bc Cc EUROPEAN SECURITY 211 o he deba e. In he case o he UK, we included h ee expe s wo king o hink anks conside ed o be Conse a i e and Unionis Pa y-inclined, al hough o icially non-pa i- san, because he Conse a i e MPs and poli ical s a declined o pa icipa e. Al oge he 18 poli ical pa ies we e ep esen ed h ough hei elec ed and employed agen s, co e ing he majo pa ies in each case coun y. Rega ding na ionali y, he e we e 16 pa icipan s om Finland, 10 om he UK, 8 om Romania and 7 om Spain. As con ol cases is-à- is he conse a i e, Eu oscep ic pa ies and co espondingly he Eu opean Pa liamen g oup he G eens/ he Eu opean F ee Alliance o moni o s andpoin s agains da a collec ion and Sma Bo de s, we u he included one Du ch, one Danish and one La ian pa icipan (Table 2). The Q so ing expe imen s All pa icipa ing poli ical s akeholde s conduc ed indi idual, online Q so ing expe imen s, whe e hey anked he inal 34 s a emen s o he Q sample. The expe imen s ook place be ween Feb ua y and No embe 2014, when he Membe S a es deba ed he Commis- sion’s 2011 Sma Bo de s p oposal, as an inpu in o he Commission’s second Sma Bo de s package in 2016 and be o e he o e in he UK on lea ing he Union. Wi h his imeline, he esul s o he expe imen s also add ess some o he p oblems and delays in he Sma Bo de s p ocess. The pa icipan s accessed he passwo d-p o ec ed Q so ing pla o m and ecei ed ins uc ions h ough he FlashQ p og amme, which hen sa ed he expe imen da a on a se e . The pa icipan s so ed he s a emen s isualised as ca ds acco ding o hei ag eemen o disag eemen , elying on hei cu en , subjec i e iews, which would p e- sumably be implemen ed in hei ad iso y and/o decision-making oles. They made a p ima y so in o h ee ca ego ies, “ag ee”,“neu al”and “disag ee”, hen a de ailed so , placing each s a emen in an emp y slo on he o ced “no mal dis ibu ion”g id anging om −4 h ough 0 o 4. In his way, we modelled he p io i isa ions hey would no mally choose in he ele an policy issues. We e i ied he alidi y o he da a by eques ing pa icipan s o explain in w i ing why hey had placed s a emen s in he ex eme columns. This ensu ed ha he pa icipan s unde s ood he s a emen s simila ly and so ed hem acco ding o hei opinions, which gua an ees he in e -compa abili y and eliabili y o he Q so s. Analysis o he da a We analysed he Q so da a wi h he PQ Me hod p og amme o iden i y he mos dis- inguishable and in e p e able ac o s o iews on ABC. Ha ing expe imen ed wi h a ious combina ions o ac o ex ac ion and o a ion me hods, we chose a h ee- ac o solu ion p oduced wi h p incipal componen analysis and judgemen al o a ion. The ac o s accoun al oge he o a sa is ac o y 50% o he a ia ion among he Q so s. The emaining Q so da a we e oo agmen ed, wi h iews which we e oo idiosync a ic o yield ac o s amenable o eliable in e p e a ion. Two indica o s a e decisi e in Q me hodological da a: he loading o a pa icipan on each ac o and he ac o Q sco es. The pa icipan s’loadings indica e he ex en o which hey ag ee wi h a ac o : a loading o 1.00 would signi y o al ag eemen and 212 P. LEHTONEN AND P. AALTO −1.00 absolu e disag eemen . The minimum alue o a s a is ically signi ican loading a he p< .01 le el was se a 0.44 using B own’s(1986, p. 64) o mula. Pa icipan s’ ac o loadings a e lis ed in Table 2, wi h he signi ican ones ma ked X. To keep he iews he ac o s exp essed as dis inc as possible, pa icipan s loading signi ican ly on mul iple ac o s (pa icipan s 19, 34, 36 and 44) we e excluded om he de ini ion o he ac o s, along wi h pa icipan s 8, 24 and 42 loading less han 0.44 on all ac o s. Table 2. Pa icipan s and hei ac o loadings, signi ican loadings lagged wi h an X. Pa icipan Loading on ac o s Na l. Posi ion Pa y/o ganisa ion Pa y de ini ion F1 F2 F3 1 UK Poli ical s a Libe al Democ a s R 0.58X 0.21 0.24 2 ES MP Socialis Wo ke s’Pa y L 0.65X 0.35 0.26 3 ES MP Uni ed Le L 0.50X 0.06 0.28 4 ES MP People’s Pa y R 0.29 0.63X 0.37 5 UK Poli ical s a Labou L 0.79X −0.12 0.22 6 RO MP Dem. All. o Hunga ians Min. 0.31 0.46X 0.26 7 ES MP People’s Pa y R 0.11 0.69X 0.14 8 UK MP Labou L −0.06 0.20 −0.22 9 UK Expe Na ional Audi O ice –0.19 0.51X 0.15 10 RO Poli ical s a Social Democ a ic Pa y L 0.12 0.69X 0.32 11 ES MP People’s Pa y R 0.26 0.59X 0.19 12 ES MP Socialis Wo ke s’Pa y L 0.67X 0.34 −0.02 13 FI Expe Uni e si y –0.29 0.74X 0.19 14 FI Expe Non-Go e nmen al O g. –0.62X −0.09 0.21 15 FI Expe Go e nmen Agency –0.68X 0.23 0.10 16 FI Poli ical s a Social Democ a ic Pa y L 0.66X 0.42 −0.02 17 FI MP Le Alliance L 0.77X −0.23 −0.15 18 FI Expe Uni e si y –0.88X −0.15 −0.01 19 FI Poli ical s a Cen e Pa y C 0.21 0.58 0.51 20 FI MP Cen e Pa y C 0.08 0.61X −0.14 21 FI MP Social Democ a ic Pa y L 0.76X −0.08 0.05 22 FI Poli ical s a Na ional Coali ion Pa y R −0.04 0.48X 0.33 23 FI MP Le Alliance L 0.64X 0.32 0.01 24 FI MP Na ional Coali ion Pa y R −0.24 0.10 0.40 25 FI Poli ical s a The Finns Pa y RR/An i-EU 0.08 0.05 0.44X 26 FI MP The G eens En ./C 0.77X −0.12 0.01 27 RO MP Social Democ a ic Pa y L −0.04 0.76X 0.17 28 RO MEP Na ional Libe al Pa y R 0.31 0.45X 0.26 29 RO MP Social Democ a ic Pa y L 0.23 0.68X 0.16 30 FI MP The Finns Pa y RR/An i-EU 0.12 0.16 0.79X 31 RO MP Social Democ a ic Pa y L 0.59X 0.03 0.21 32 UK MEP UK Independence Pa y RR/An i-EU 0.11 0.65X 0.25 33 NL Poli ical s a Re o med Poli ical Pa y R 0.22 0.39 0.45X 34 FI MP The Finns Pa y RR/An i-EU −0.44 0.53 −0.09 35 UK MEP UK Independence Pa y RR/An i-EU 0.00 −0.38 0.60X 36 RO Poli ical s a New Republic Pa y R −0.27 0.57 0.56 37 RO Sena o Na ional Libe al Pa y R 0.43 0.49X 0.16 38 UK Expe Think ank (R) 0.55X −0.08 0.41 39 LV Poli ical s a G eens/EFA En . 0.88X −0.19 −0.06 40 ES Poli ical s a Socialis Wo ke s’Pa y L 0.70X −0.03 0.00 41 UK MP Libe al Democ a s R 0.50X 0.14 0.40 42 UK Expe Think ank (R) 0.25 0.40 0.15 43 DK Poli ical s a G eens/EFA En . 0.76X 0.00 0.08 44 UK Expe Think ank (R) 0.44 0.27 0.65 Explains he a iance among Q so s a 24% 17% 9% No es: Pa y de ini ions: cen e (C), en i onmen al (En .), Eu oscep ic (An i-EU), le (L), mino i y igh s (Min.), adical igh (RR), igh (R). Sou ces o he de ini ions: B ack and S a in (2015), Halikiopoulou and Vasilopoulou (2014), Hloušek and Kopeček (2010), Ro ny (2014), S an (2013). The abb e ia ed na ionali ies: B i ish, UK; Danish, DK; Du ch, NL; Finnish, FI; La ian, LV; Romanian, RO; Spanish, ES. EUROPEAN SECURITY 213 The ac o Q sco es ep esen he “ideal alues”o an imagina y esponden o ally ag eeing wi h he ac o , calcula ed om he de ining, signi ican ly loading Q so s. They ange he e om −4 o 4, he equi alen spec um along which he pa icipan s so ed he s a emen s. The Q sco es indica e (dis)simila i ies be ween ac o s and help o c ea e a na a i e o he con en o each ac o , a “ ac o iew”sha ed by he de ining pa icipan s. Ex emely high and low sco es, along wi h he di e ence o simila i y o sco es be ween ac o s, me i a en ion (see Appendix). In addi ion o he Q sco es, we used pa icipan s’w i en commen s in he na a i e c ea ion. Resul s: h ee iews on ABC The esul s o ou Q me hodological analysis e ealed h ee dis inc i e ac o iews, illus- a ed in e ms o he ac o sco es and pa icipan s’commen s (P1–P44, see Table 2). Fi s iew: p i acy igh s mus be sa egua ded The i s iew explains 24% o he a ia ion among Q so s, gaining he suppo o 19 pa - icipan s. View 1 was subsc ibed o by all he case na ionali ies and de ined by social democ a , le -wing, en i onmen al and libe al poli icians and pa y s a , likewise by law and da a p o ec ion-o ien ed expe s. Pa icipan s sha ing View 1 deemed he decisions ega ding ABC poli ical in na u e, as hey ha e implica ions o undamen al igh s. This iew was opposed o le ing expe s and scien is s s ee he au oma ion o bo de con ol. I called o he ha monisa ion o EU legisla ion and clea , uni ied policies on ABC based on he no ion o he Union ha ing one ex e nal bo de . EU e ugee policy was c i icised (P12), wi h a call o inco po - a e he jus ea men o asylum seeke s in o he design o he o hcoming ABC sys ems and da abases; his e e ed o he isk p o iling used in ABC, which, acco ding o View 1, migh lead o disc imina ion. The goal o ABC o he i s iew is “ o inc ease he knowledge ha s a es ha e abou people a elling”(P5), ha is, he “in ellec ual expansion o he cen al s a e”(P1), no me ely o acili a e a el. The iew asse s ha ensu ing secu i y is compa ible wi h he indi idual’s igh o p i acy (P1, P37 and P39). I calls o he pe sonal igh no o disclose in ima e, biome ic da a e en o he au ho i ies. Pa icipan s s ongly opposed S a e- men 1, claiming ha hones people should ha e no eason o objec o hei biome ics being collec ed and used in bo de con ol (P2, P12 and P31). The s a emen eminded Spanish Pa icipan 2 o he dic a o ial and au ho i a ian a gumen a ion o he F anco adminis a ion, while Romanian Pa icipan 31 was wa y o biome ic da a becoming “a ool o he Go e nmen agains i s ci izens”. Finge p in ing hi d-coun y na ionals a bo de -c ossings o Sma Bo de s also appea ed ala ming o hose subsc ibing o View 1; i comp omises he p esump ion o innocence. Suppo e s o his iew s essed ha he e was mo e han enough p oo o da a misuse om he pas . Pa icipan 41 made a case o e e yone ha ing he igh o “disappea and eboo ”: E en he mos secu e and compa men alised da a will be sha ed e en ually, because o na u al cu iosi y o g eed o pa anoia […] i should he e o e as a ma e o p inciple be as skele al as is compa ible wi h achie ing he published p ima y aims o i s collec ion. 214 P. LEHTONEN AND P. AALTO S ic da a usage limi a ions should apply, allowing da a collec ed by bo de con ol o be used o ha pu pose only; he fi s iew is e y wa y o “su eillance c eeps”, ha is, he wide use o a echnology o a sys em beyond i s o iginal scope po en ially enc oaching on p i acy. 2 Law en o cemen au ho i ies in he EU should acco dingly no ha e access o bo de con ol da abases, no e en o comba e o ism. This goes agains he Ap il 2016 Sma Bo de s p oposal, which would allow he access e en in he case o hi d- coun y na ionals (Eu opean Commission 2016a, p. 11). The “di e en ”legal sys ems o EU Membe S a es would no gua an ee he exclusi e legi ima e use o he da a (P31), as “co up ion, low o no accoun abili y o w ongdoing and disc imina ion p e ail among he au ho i ies o many Membe S a es”(P14). Fo View 1, his gi es eason o be c i ical o an EU-wide biome ic da a sys em. Fu he , ABC and Sma Bo de s ep esen a dange o inc eased, unjus ified su eillance o EU ci izens. The pa icipan s conside ed i e y emp ing o Membe S a es o use he bo de con ol da a o o he pu poses (P26, P39 and P41). A loophole in he supe iso y a angemen s o only one s a e o bo de agency in he EU could ha e di e consequences (P41). View 1 mo eo e in ol ed p opo - ionali y: “since we don’ finge p in e e yone o figh ing c ime, he p inciple o p opo ionali y should also be applied o bo de con ols”(P39). Acco dingly, hidden con- ols o ca ch po en ial agg esso s we e ejec ed. Pa icipan 41 poin ed ou he ola ili y o he concep o e o ism: Eu opean ideas on wha e o ism is ha e changed: he Hi le bomb plo and he F ench esis - ance being he oic, and he ube suicide bombe s being cowa dly. Some EU coun ies gi e sanc ua y o hose ha o he s a es seek o ex adi e o e o ism. Fashions in hese hings change, bu he da a emains on eco d. Second iew: ABC will enhance secu i y and ad ance Eu opean in eg a ion The second mos explana o y iew, a 17% and wi h 13 pa icipan s loading signi ican ly on i , was suppo ed mainly by igh -wing and cen e- igh poli ical pa ies in all ou case coun ies, al hough he Romanian pa icipan s suppo ed he iew mo e widely. Fo he second iew, bo de secu i y was pa amoun and could be enhanced by au o- ma ing bo de con ol. The EU should hus s i e o be a he o e on in acqui ing he mos mode n, e icien and sa es echnological solu ions in bo de con ol. The secu i y a ibu es o ABC sys ems we e belie ed o o e ide o he conside a ions, such as he speeding up o bo de -c ossing, as he EU was seen o “a ac illegal c oss bo de h ea s and o he sou ces o ins abili y om ou side he Union”(P10). This is why View 2 demands a isk-based app oach in bo de con ol, e e ing o “di ec ing bo de gua ds a hose deemed he iskies […] no spending ime checking he passpo s o e y low- isk passenge s”(P9). Au oma ed isk p o iling was conside ed an ad an age o ABC, especially gi en he “shee olumes o people a elling, and p ojec ions o g ea e numbe s in he u u e”(P9). The second iew accep ed he use o a elle s’biome ics a mo e ex ensi ely han he i s iew. Ad oca ing EU-wide iden i ica ion da abases in ABC and deeming he e - i ica ion o passenge s’iden i y insu icien , View 2 was also in a ou o using hese da a- bases in sol ing se ious c imes and comba ing e o ism by sha ing hei in o ma ion wi h law en o cemen au ho i ies. The use o biome ics in ABC and Sma Bo de s was encou - aged: his iew included no no ion o po en ially unjus i ied su eillance o EU ci izens o EUROPEAN SECURITY 215 No es on con ibu o s Pinja Leh onen is a esea che and doc o al candida e a he School o Managemen , Uni e si y o Tampe e, Finland. She is cu en ly wo king on a se ies o Q me hodological s udies on Eu opean bo de con ol policies o he EU F amewo k P og amme 7 p ojec “FASTPASS –A Ha monized, Modula Re e ence Sys em o All Eu opean Au oma ed Bo de C ossing Poin s (2013–16)”. Pami Aal o is p o esso o In e na ional Rela ions a he School o Managemen , Uni e si y o Tampe e, Finland. Along wi h bo de policies, his esea ch conce ns he EU, no he n Eu ope, Russia, he A c ic and Eas Asia; likewise ene gy policy, in e disciplina i y and in e na ional socie y. He leads he Uni e si y o Tampe e eam in he Fas Pass p ojec , which is co-o dina ed by he Aus- ian Ins i u e o Technology. ORCID Pinja Leh onen h p://o cid.o g/0000-0003-1173-1813 Pami Aal o h p://o cid.o g/0000-0003-1559-8175 Re e ences Alkophe , T.D. and Blanc, E., 2016. Schengen a ea shaken: he impac o immig a ion- ela ed h ea pe cep ions on he Eu opean secu i y communi y. Jou nal o in e na ional ela ions and de elop- men .doi:10.1057/s41268-016-0005-9. Amicelle, A., A adau, C., and Jeandesboz, J., 2015. Ques ioning secu i y de ices: pe o ma i i y, esis - ance, poli ics. Secu i y dialogue, 46 (4), 293–306. Auel, K. and Raunio, T., 2014. Deba ing he s a e o he union? Compa ing pa liamen a y deba es on EU issues in Finland, F ance, Ge many and he Uni ed Kingdom. Jou nal o legisla i e s udies, 20 (1), 13–28. Bigo, D., e al.,2012. Jus ice and home a ai s da abases and a sma bo de s sys em a EU ex e nal bo de s, an e alua ion o cu en and o hcoming p oposals. In: D. Bigo, e al., eds. CEPS pape in libe y and secu i y in Eu ope. B ussels: Cen e o Eu opean Policy S udies, 1–90. Boulanin, V. and Bellais, R., 2014. Towa ds a high- ech “limes”on he edges o Eu ope? Managing ex e nal bo de s o he Eu opean Union. In: E. Valle , ed. Bo de s, ences and walls: s a e o insecu - i y? Fa nham: Ashga e, 231–246. B ack, N. and S a in, N., 2015. In oduc ion: Eu oscep icism, om he ma gins o he mains eam. In e na ional poli ical science e iew, 36 (3), 239–249. B oede s, D., 2007. The new digi al bo de s o Eu ope: EU da abases and he su eillance o i egula mig an s. In e na ional sociology, 22 (1), 71–92. B own, S.R., 1986. Q echnique and me hod: p inciples and p ocedu es. In: W.D. Be y and M.S. Lewis- Beck, eds. New ools o social scien is s: ad ances and applica ions in esea ch me hods. Be e ly Hills, CA: Sage, 57–76. Ceyhan, A., 2008. Technologiza ion o secu i y: managemen o unce ain y and isk in he age o bio- me ics. Su eillance & socie y, 5 (2), 102–123. Cô é-Bouche , K., In an ino, F., and Sal e , M.B., 2014. Bo de secu i y as p ac ice: an agenda o esea ch. Secu i y dialogue, 45 (3), 195–208. Del Sa o, R.A. and S eindle , C., 2015. Unce ain ies a he Eu opean Union’s sou he n bo de s: ac o s, policies, and legal amewo ks. Eu opean secu i y, 24 (3), 369–380. Dijs elbloem, H., Meije , A., and Bes e s, M., 2011. The mig a ion machine. In: H. Dijs elbloem and A. Meije , eds. Mig a ion and he new echnological bo de s in Eu ope. Basings oke: Palg a e Macmillan, 1–21. D yzek, J.S., Cla k, M.L., and McKenzie, G., 1989. Subjec and sys em in in e na ional in e ac ion. In e na ional o ganiza ion, 43 (3), 475–503. Eu opean Commission, 2016a.P oposal o a egula ion o he Eu opean pa liamen and o he council es ablishing an en y/exi sys em (EES) o egis e en y and exi da a and e usal o en y da a o hi d 222 P. LEHTONEN AND P. AALTO coun y na ionals c ossing he ex e nal bo de s o he membe s a es o he Eu opean union and de e mining he condi ions o access o he EES o law en o cemen pu poses and amending egu- la ion (EC) No 767/2008 and egula ion (EU) No 1077/2011. B ussels: Eu opean Commission. Eu opean Commission, 2016b.S onge and sma e in o ma ion sys ems o bo de s and secu i y. Communica ion om he commission o he Eu opean pa liamen and council. COM(2016) 205 inal, B ussels, 6.4.2016. A ailable om: h p://www.eulisa.eu opa.eu/News oom/News/ Documen s/SB-EES/communica ion_on_s onge _and_sma _bo de s_20160406_en.pd [Accessed 7 Decembe 2016]. Eu opean Commission, 2016c.Eu opean agenda on secu i y –Second epo on p og ess owa ds an e ec i e and sus ainable Secu i y Union. P ess elease 16 No embe . A ailable om: h p:// eu opa.eu/ apid/p ess- elease_IP-16-3681_en.h m [Accessed 2 Decembe 2016]. Eu opean Da a P o ec ion Supe iso , 2015.Da a p o ec ion glossa y: da a minimiza ion. A ailable om: h ps://secu e.edps.eu opa.eu/EDPSWEB/edps/si e/mySi e/pid/74 [Accessed 28 Ap il 2015]. F iedewald, M., e al.,2010. Resea ch no e: p i acy, da a p o ec ion and eme ging sciences and echnologies: owa ds a common amewo k. Inno a ion –The eu opean jou nal o social science esea ch, 23 (1), 61–67. F on ex, 2013.Annual isk analysis 2013. A ailable om: h p:// on ex.eu opa.eu/asse s/Publica ions/ Risk_Analysis/Annual_Risk_Analysis_2013.pd [Accessed 20 No embe 2015]. F on ex, 2015.Annual isk analysis 2015. A ailable om: h p:// on ex.eu opa.eu/asse s/Publica ions/ Risk_Analysis/Annual_Risk_Analysis_2015.pd [Accessed 20 No embe 2015]. Halikiopoulou, D. and Vasilopoulou, S., 2014. Suppo o he a igh in he 2014 Eu opean pa lia- men elec ions: a compa a i e pe spec i e. The poli ical qua e ly, 85 (3), 285–288. Ha el, A., 2009. Biome ics, iden i ica ion and p ac ical e hics. In: E. Mo dini and M. G een, eds. Iden i y, secu i y and democ acy: The wide social and e hical implica ions o au oma ed sys ems o human iden i ica ion. Ams e dam: IOS P ess, 69–84. Hayes, B. and Ve meulen, M., 2012.Bo de line: he EU’s new bo de su eillance ini ia i es. Assessing he cos s and undamen al igh s implica ions o EUROSUR and he “sma bo de s”p oposals. Be lin: Hein ich Böll Founda ion. Heiskanen, M., 2014. Bo de games: om duel o Russian oule e a he bo de . In: E. Valle , ed. Bo de s, ences and walls: s a e o insecu i y? Fa nham: Ashga e, 67–84. Hills, A., 2006.The a ionali ies o Eu opean bo de secu i y. Eu opean secu i y, 15 (1), 67–88. Hloušek, V. and Kopeček, L., 2010.O igin, ideology and ans o ma ion o poli ical pa ies: eas -cen al and Wes e n Eu ope compa ed. Su ey: Ashga e. Hube , K., 2015. The Eu opean pa liamen as an ac o in EU bo de policies: i s ole, ela ions wi h o he EU ins i u ions, and impac . Eu opean secu i y, 24 (3), 420–437. Jain, A.K. and Kuma , A., 2012. Biome ic ecogni ion: an o e iew. In: E. Mo dini and D. Tzo a as, eds. Second gene a ion biome ics: The e hical, legal and social con ex . New Yo k: Sp inge , 49–79. Kwon, T. and Moon, H., 2008. Biome ic au hen ica ion o bo de con ol applica ions. IEEE ans- ac ions on knowledge and da a enginee ing, 20 (8), 1091–1096. Leh onen, P. and Aal o, P., 2015. Policy equi emen s o au oma ed bo de con ol sys ems: a Q me hodological s udy o Finland in he con ex o a la ge Eu opean esea ch p ojec . Ope an sub- jec i i y, 38 (2), 1–14. doi:10.15133/j.os.2015.006 Le u h, B., 2015. Ope a ionalizing na ional p e e ences on Eu ope and di e en ia ed in eg a ion. Jou nal o Eu opean public policy, 22 (6), 816–835. Lodge, J., 2004. EU homeland secu i y: ci izens o suspec s? Eu opean in eg a ion, 26 (3), 253–279. Mény, Y. and Su el, Y., 2002. The cons i u i e ambigui y o populism. In: Y. Mény and Y. Su el, eds. Democ acies and he populis challenge. New Yo k: Palg a e, 1–21. Mo dini, E. and Rebe a, A.P., 2012. No iden i ica ion wi hou ep esen a ion: cons ains o he use o biome ic iden i ica ion sys ems. Re iew o policy esea ch, 29 (1), 5–20. Mulle , B.J., 2004. (Dis)quali ied bodies: secu i iza ion, ci izenship and “iden i y managemen ”. Ci izenship s udies, 8 (3), 279–294. Mulle , B.J., 2011. Risking i all a he biome ic bo de : mobili y, limi s and he pe sis ence o secu - i isa ion. Geopoli ics, 16, 91–106. EUROPEAN SECURITY 223 Palm, E. 2013. Righ s ha ump: su eillance-based mig a ion go e nance and a subs an ial igh o mobili y. Jou nal o in o ma ion, communica ion and e hics in socie y, 11 (4), 196–209. Ro ny, J., 2014. The o he “o he ”: pa y esponses o immig a ion in Eas e n Eu ope. Compa a i e eu opean poli ics, 12 (6), 637–662. Sklepa is, D., 2016. (In)secu i iza ion and illibe al p ac ices on he inge o he EU. Eu opean secu i y, 25 (1), 92–111. S an, L., 2013. Romania. Eu opean jou nal o poli ical esea ch poli ical da a yea book, 52 (1), 196–207. Valkenbu g, G. and an de Ploeg, I., 2015. Ma e iali ies be ween secu i y and p i acy: a cons uc i is accoun o ai po secu i y scanne s. Secu i y dialogue, 46 (4), 326–344. an de Ploeg, I., 2009. Machine- eadable bodies: biome ics, in o ma iza ion and su eillance. In:E. Mo dini and M. G een, eds. Iden i y, secu i y and democ acy: he wide social and e hical implica ions o au oma ed sys ems o human iden i ica ion. Ams e dam: IOS P ess, 85–94. Vaughan-Williams, N., 2015.Eu ope’s bo de c isis: biopoli ical secu i y and beyond. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. Vuko , T. and Shelle , M., 2013. Bo de wo k: su eillan assemblages, i ual ences, and ac ical coun e -media. Social semio ics, 23 (2), 225–241. Appendix. S a emen sample wi h Q so alues o each ac o / iew. The posi ion o each s a emen in he model appea s in pa en heses. S a emen s associa ed wi h a ac o in he analysis appea in bold ace. Consensus s a emen s appea in bo h bold ace and i alics. S a emen F1 F2 F3 1. Hones people who ha e no hing o hide ha e no eason o e use hei biome ic da a (such as inge p in s) being collec ed and used in bo de con ol (Aa) −411 2. I would be bes i he passenge s did no know whe e, when and which con ols a e happening a bo de s, so ha po en ial a acke s would be caugh (Ab) −2−23 3. Clea s a emen s mus be p o ided o he a elle s, on exac ly how hei biome ic da a a e used, wi h whom hey a e sha ed and o wha pu pose (Bb) 323 4. The EU should no go o wa d wi h ABC because i is oo expensi e, conside ing he big budge cu s (Cc) −1−30 5. Eu opean bo de gua ds despe a ely need au oma ed echnology o be able o manage he inc easing passenge lows and o concen a e on checking isky a elle s (Aa) −21−1 6. Membe S a es ha ha e o in es mo e han o he s in implemen ing he common s anda ds on au oma ed, ex e nal bo de con ols should be compensa ed by he EU (Cc) 0−12 7. The EU should be a pionee in ge ing he mos mode n, mos e icien and sa es echnological solu ions in bo de managemen (Ac) 021 8. The ABC p ocesses and ga es ha e o be as simila as possible h oughou Eu ope o make he sys ems easy and as o use, and hus cos -e icien (Aa) 12−2 9. The p oblems o co up ion and disc imina ion by bo de gua ds can be a oided by au oma ising bo de con ols (Ab) −110 10. People bound o wheelchai s mus accep ha hey will no be able o use ABC ga es (Ab) −4−4−2 11. Eu opean companies should be hea ily p io i ised when o de ing ga es and so wa e o ABC in he EU (Ac) −100 12. Decisions ega ding echnical issues, such as biome ics in bo de con ol, should be le in he hands o expe s and scien is s (Ab) −3−1−1 13. In ABC, he decisions o allow en ance a e made by p o iling g oups o people as isky, which may lead o disc imina ion on g ounds o na ionali y, e hnic o igin, skin colou , e c. (Ba) 30−2 14. De eloping applica ions also sui able o land and ma i ime c ossings should be a p io i y in he p ocess o au oma ising bo de con ols (Ac) −112 15. Claiming ha ci izens ha e o gi e up p i acy igh s o he go e nmen s o be able o keep hem sa e is en i ely alse and c ea es an a mosphe e whe e people no longe know hei igh s (Ba) 100 16. In many EU Membe S a es, he da a p o ec ion sys ems a e cu en ly no eliable enough o be used in ABC (Ca) 102 17. ABC and Sma Bo de s may lead o inc eased, unjus i ied su eillance o EU ci izens, whose mo emen s can easily be eco ded and s o ed in he u u e (Bb) 3−31 (Con inued) 224 P. LEHTONEN AND P. AALTO Appendix.Con inued. S a emen F1 F2 F3 18. I is enough o e i y ha he passenge ’s biome ics ma ch he da a in he passpo a he bo de . No EU-wide iden i ica ion da abases a e needed (Bb) 1−3−1 19. The goal o ABC is simply o make a elling as and easy (Cb) −21−1 20. The leas possible amoun o biome ic da a can be collec ed o speci ied, explici and legi ima e pu poses and mus no be u he used o o he pu poses (Bc) 442 21. Be o e c ea ing new EU-wide IT sys ems o bo de con ol, binding legal ins umen s and moni o ing mechanisms o con ol he IT sys ems mus be ag eed on (Bc) 233 22. When designing ABC sys ems and da abases o he EU, hei e ec s o he jus ea men o people seeking in e na ional p o ec ion a he bo de s mus be conside ed ho oughly (Bc) 220 23. Be o e p oceeding wi h ABC, he plans mus ha e democ a ic legi imacy in each Membe S a e a leas on he Pa liamen le el and p e e ably among ci il socie y (Bc) 434 24. The use o highly e ec i e echnologies a pa s o he bo de may igge he inc eased use o o he , mo e dange ous illegal en y poin s (e.g. ma i ime ou es) (Ba) 001 25. Collec ing biome ic in o ma ion and eco ding he en y and exi o all hi d-coun y na ionals c ossing he EU’s ex e nal bo de s will inc ease he ime mos a elle s spend a bo de con ols, no ma e how much new echnologies a e able o speed up he p ocess (Ca) 0−1−1 26. ABC and Sma Bo de s a e p esen ed mainly as echnological de elopmen s, which hides hei as poli ical and legal implica ions (Ca) 2−14 27. The inc easing use o biome ics in bo de con ol is in he in e es s o poli ical ha dline s who iew immig a ion as a h ea o he EU’s homeland secu i y (Ca) 1−2−3 28. Opposing ABC o igina es om he adical idea o oppose all kinds o go e nmen al su eillance, including bo de con ol (Cb) −2−1−3 29. I is a con adic o y EU policy o ge id o isas and a he same ime igh en he bo de con ols wi h echnology (Cb) 0−2−3 30. ABC echnology will be expensi e a i s , bu in he long un i is a be e in es men han hi ing mo e bo de gua ds (Aa) −14−2 31. Go e nmen s o de eloping coun ies canno p oduce biome ic passpo s, which will b ing unjus i ied suspicion on o hei ci izens in ABC (Cb) 00−4 32. Ga he ing inge p in s om hi d-coun y na ionals a bo de -c ossings makes a elle s suspec s, which h ea ens he democ a ic p esump ion o innocence (Bb) 2−2−4 33. EU laws should be a oided in bo de con ol because hey ep esen EU ede alisa ion (Cc) −3−40 34. Law en o cemen au ho i ies in EU Membe S a es mus be able o access all exis ing and new biome ic EU da abases used in bo de con ol, in o de o sol e se ious c imes and comba e o ism (Cc) −331 EUROPEAN SECURITY 225