Source URL: https://algorithmwatch.org/en/border-security-when-even-public-information-is-kept-from-the-public/
Source: AlgorithmWatch
Title: Border Security: When Even Public Information Is Kept from the Public
Feedly Summary: EU border security projects are required to provide publicly available documents. But when they will be disclosed seems to be a different matter. The agency in charge has an ingenious take on transparency.
AI Summary and Description: Yes
**Summary:** The text discusses transparency issues surrounding EU-funded maritime surveillance projects that incorporate AI technologies, particularly highlighting the lack of public access to important deliverables related to ethical considerations. This insight is relevant for professionals in AI and cloud security, as it touches on the critical need for ethical governance in AI deployment within sensitive domains like surveillance.
**Detailed Description:**
The text provides a critical examination of the COMPASS2020 project and other EU-funded initiatives aimed at enhancing border security through the use of AI. Despite significant investment, key aspects of these projects, particularly those concerning ethical and societal implications, remain hidden from public view. This lack of transparency raises concerns not only about accountability but also about the ethical considerations that govern the use of AI technologies in surveillance operations.
Key Points:
– **Funding and Purpose:** The EU invested nearly 5 million euros in the COMPASS2020 project to develop an AI-supported maritime surveillance system that combines data from human and unmanned sources. However, only minimal deliverables have been made accessible to the public.
– **Lack of Transparency:** Other projects like EFFECTOR and ARESIBO similarly faced scrutiny for keeping ethics-related deliverables confidential. This trend points to a broader issue within the EU’s Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe border security projects where vital ethical considerations are not publicly accessible.
– **Ethics Board and Deliverables:** The ARESIBO project included a provision for an “Ethics Board,” but deliverables concerning ethical guidelines were labeled “CONFIDENTIAL.” Such practices undermine the principles of transparency and public accountability in projects funded by taxpayers.
– **Inquiry into Missing Deliverables:** The text mentions an inquiry directed at the EU Commission’s Research Executive Agency regarding several projects (e.g., EURMARS, FLEXI-cross). Despite the projects being past their timelines for public deliverables, the REA dismissed concerns about missing documents and attributed delays to internal review processes.
– **Implications for Governance and Compliance:**
– The concealment of important ethical considerations raises significant questions about governance in AI and related projects.
– The project’s handling of deliverables suggests potential gaps in compliance with regulations aimed at ensuring public accountability in public-funded research.
– There is a noteworthy disconnect between the agency’s view on public transparency and the expectation from civil society regarding accessible information about taxpayer-funded initiatives.
This analysis underscores the necessity for enhanced transparency and ethical oversight in AI projects, particularly those involved in surveillance. For security and compliance professionals, this serves as a reminder of the critical role they play in advocating for ethical practices within the evolving AI landscape.