Migrant advocates sue US government for data from surveillance program
Immigrant advocates and legal groups are suing the US government over its controversial and rapidly growing alternative to detention program, an effort that subjects migrants awaiting legal status to intensive surveillance through various forms.
Just Futures Law, Mijente Support Committee and Community Justice Exchange filed a lawsuit against US Immigrants and Customs Enforcement (Ice) on Thursday to obtain information about the data the agency is collecting on migrants surveilled through ATD. The groups first requested the information from the agency nearly eight months ago.
“Ice has aggressively grown it’s ecarceration program in recent years, largely without oversight or public debate,” said Jacinta Gonzalez, the senior campaign director at Mijente, in a statement. At the very least, we deserve to know how Ice is conducting this program and what data it’s collecting.”
Enrollment in the ATD program has surged over the years. In January there were more than 182,600 people in the program, up 60,000 from six months prior, according to Ice data. Today there are more than 200,000 people in ATD, according to Ice. The Biden administration plans to expand the program to include testing of new types of supervision.
Ice says the program is an effective means of ensuring people going through the immigration process show up to their court hearings, and a “humane” alternative to detention.
Running immigration surveillance for Ice is BI Inc, a subsidiary of the Geo Group, the largest prison corporation in the US. The company helps Ice keep tabs on more than 200,000 migrants in the US using ankle monitors as well as voice recognition, and a facial recognition app called Smartlink.
Because BI is a private company, there is little information about what the company does with the biometric and location data it collects through its Smartlink app. The company’s privacy policy also gives little additional information. BI does encourage information sharing among its various law enforcement clients and allows its employees to access any of the migrant’s historical check-in information.
“As part of the process, DHS officials collect biometric and biographical information – fingerprints, photos, phone numbers and an address in the United States – and run a background check to identify criminals or those who pose a public safety risk,” Ice’s acting press secretary, Paige Hughes, said in a statement in March. “Those who do not report are subject to arrest and potential removal.”
In their September 2021 Freedom of Information Act (Foia) request, the groups who filed suit this week sought information about the types of data BI collects through its app including “location data, video footage, voice recording, biometric data, information about the mobile network, and/or any other data about the mobile device or its uses” as well as the length of time this information is stored.
Though federal agencies are required to respond to Foia requests within 20 days of receipt, the groups say they have yet to receive any acknowledgment of the request.
“Ice’s reluctance to share what data it’s acquiring and how it’s using it should give us all pause,” said Sejal Zota, legal director for Just Futures Law, in a statement. “We know Ice has not changed their practices, just enhanced them through e-carceration. And we worry about who Ice and BI are sharing this data with, and who they might share or sell the data to in the future. It’s all the more concerning given the rising number of people under Ice surveillance.”
As the Guardian reported previously, BI devices – both the ankle monitors and apps – often malfunction, causing some migrants in the program to miss check-ins or suffer physical harm. Ice has said it has tested BI’s devices and has not seen any evidence that the ankle monitors cut or burn anyone. BI has referred questions about the surveillance program and its devices to Ice.
Former BI employees, immigrants in the program and advocates have also said that the program has few protocols governing case management, leaving decisions that dictate the fate of migrants in the program up to the discretion of their BI case managers or individual Ice officers. Ice had said BI had received an exceptional rating for its management of Isap during its most recent contractor assessment at the end of January.
Ice did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.