The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has launched a new biometric border management app it calls ReportIn that allows permanent residents, foreign nationals, and refugee claimants to meet reporting obligations remotely. This includes individuals who must report to border agents while awaiting deportation or final decisions on their immigration status in Canada.
CBSA’s ReportIn app is similar to U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) also relatively new CBP One app, in that both apps aim to enhance efficiency in immigration processes and overall border security. However, both apps also present strikingly similar privacy and civil rights concerns. Despite the differences in the two apps’ specific functionalities, the core concerns about the apps revolve around biometric, biographic and location data collection, storage, security, and their broader implications for individual freedoms and equity.
The ReportIn app was developed to assist individuals with reporting conditions imposed by immigration authorities. These conditions often arise from the need for compliance monitoring where individuals are required to report regularly to the CBSA while residing in Canada. The app eliminates the need for frequent in-person visits by allowing users to fulfill their reporting obligations remotely. Through the app, users can confirm their identity and share their location with CBSA, providing a secure and efficient method of ensuring compliance. In contrast, the CBP One app is designed to address a broader range of needs for travelers, migrants, and others interacting with the U.S. immigration system.
CBSA’s ReportIn app collects personal data, including photographs and GPS-based location information to ensure compliance with immigration conditions. This parallels the CBP One app, which also gathers sensitive information such as biometric data and geolocation information for purposes like identity verification and scheduling appointments. The extensive scope of data collected by both apps though raises questions about necessity and proportionality. Users of both platforms may be concerned about how their information is stored, how long it is retained, and whether it could be accessed by unauthorized parties or repurposed for broader surveillance efforts.
Transparency is a shared challenge for both apps. While CBSA and CBP provide some information about data usage, many users remain uncertain about how their information is shared or cross-referenced with other government databases. In the case of the CBP One app, data could potentially be shared with law enforcement or international entities, while the ReportIn app’s lack of clarity about potential cross-referencing similarly undermines user trust. This opacity in data-sharing practices leads to significant accountability concerns.
Data security is another critical issue. Both apps – by virtue of their digital nature – are exposed to the risk of cyberattacks. A breach of either platform could lead to identity theft, exposure of immigration status, or other significant consequences. These risks are particularly acute for vulnerable populations, such as asylum seekers and refugee claimants, who may already face precarious situations.
Robust cybersecurity measures are essential for both platforms to protect the sensitive information they handle, yet the mere existence of such risks underscores the challenges of relying on digital systems for managing immigration compliance.
The mandatory nature of the two apps further complicates the concept of consent. In both Canada and the United States, individuals subject to reporting conditions or seeking critical immigration services may feel compelled to use the respective apps without a clear understanding of their terms. This undermines the principle of informed consent and places users in a position where they must prioritize compliance over their privacy rights. The CBP One app’s use for asylum scheduling, for instance, creates an environment where migrants have no practical alternative but to engage with the system, while the ReportIn app similarly requires individuals to submit data as part of their reporting obligations.
Civil rights concerns also emerge prominently in both contexts. The location tracking features of the ReportIn and CBP One apps can be perceived as intrusive, creating a sense of constant surveillance. For individuals not accused of criminal activity but simply awaiting decisions on their immigration status, this level of monitoring could be seen as infringing on their right to privacy and may negatively affect their mental health and personal freedom.
The CBP One app’s reliance on biometric technology also introduces the potential for algorithmic bias, particularly in facial recognition systems which have historically shown higher error rates for racial and ethnic minorities. The ReportIn app uses facial biometrics from Amazon to confirm the person’s identity and, although the app will be voluntary, questions have been raised about its algorithms, user consent model and the danger of bias. Its location tracking disproportionately affects groups like refugee claimants and foreign nationals who are already in vulnerable positions.
Accessibility is another shared issue. Both apps require users to have smartphones and reliable internet access. This reliance on digital infrastructure creates barriers for economically disadvantaged individuals, particularly migrants and asylum seekers who may not have the necessary resources. The digital divide exacerbates existing inequities, leading to disparities in access to immigration services in both countries. Individuals unable to use these apps effectively may face delays or complications, further marginalizing already vulnerable populations.
Freedom of movement also is indirectly impacted by both platforms. For users of the ReportIn app, concerns about location tracking may deter them from traveling within Canada, fearing that they might be flagged as non-compliant with reporting conditions. Similarly, the CBP One app’s surveillance potential could discourage migrants from exercising their rights to move freely within legal parameters. This chilling effect – where individuals alter their behavior out of fear of surveillance – is a significant concern in both cases.
Despite these parallels, the apps reflect broader tensions between the goals of operational efficiency and the protection of individual rights. The CBSA ReportIn app’s focus on monitoring compliance contrasts with the CBP One app’s broader scope, which includes facilitating asylum scheduling and other border-related processes. Nevertheless, both systems highlight the risks of normalizing invasive monitoring tools in immigration contexts and potentially extending such practices to other areas of governance.
Addressing these concerns requires concerted efforts from both the CBSA and CBP. Enhanced transparency about data collection and sharing practices is crucial to rebuilding trust and ensuring accountability. Limiting the type and amount of data collected to what is strictly necessary can mitigate privacy risks for users of both apps. Independent audits and oversight mechanisms could also be established to evaluate compliance with privacy laws and civil rights standards. Furthermore, robust cybersecurity measures are essential to protect personal information from potential breaches.
Equity can be promoted by providing alternatives for individuals without access to smartphones or Internet connectivity. Both apps could prioritize fairness by addressing potential algorithmic biases in their systems and ensuring that all users are treated equitably, regardless of their demographic characteristics. Finally, giving users greater control over their data – including the ability to view, verify, and challenge information collected about them – would enhance both platforms’ accountability and user trust.
The privacy and civil rights issues associated with the ReportIn and CBP One apps underscore the challenges of balancing technological efficiency with the protection of fundamental freedoms. While these tools offer practical solutions for managing immigration processes, their implications for individual rights and equity cannot be ignored. Both Canada and the United States should take proactive steps to address these concerns, ensuring that digital solutions serve their operational purposes without compromising the rights and dignity of the individuals they are designed to assist.
Article Topics
biometric-bias | biometrics | border security | CBP | CBP One | CBSA | facial recognition | immigration | mobile biometrics | ReportIn
