TY - JOUR
AU - Frowd, Philippe, M.
AB - Abstract West African states like Senegal are increasingly turning to biometric technologies for border security. In this article I argue that this trend results from the construction and circulation of knowledge about biometrics by a transnational field of security professionals, assembled through official publications as much as through professional practices such as workshops. I argue that this biometric ideal rests on the promise to states in the global south that these technologies enable “smarter” and more efficient borders, enhance prestige, and facilitate states’ integration into global security arrangements. I go on to argue that, although the biometric ideal is often shared by security professionals in the North and South alike, the implementation of biometrics themselves is riddled with failure. These failures are revelatory and stem as much from the technical limitations of biometrics’ border security applications as they do from relations of competition and disaggregation between local security professionals. Drawing on fieldwork in Senegal, I use the country’s entry-exit system and biometric documents to give a view of the everyday practices behind the deployment of security technologies in the country. In doing so, I contribute to research on biometrics in West Africa by adding a focus on these technologies’ security implications. When arriving in Senegal through the Dakar’s Léopold Sédar Senghor (LSS) international airport, travelers’ first encounter is with a border guard from Senegal’s police de l’air et des frontières, who scans their travel document, records their photograph, and takes digital prints of their index fingers. The biographic and biometric information collected at the LSS airport is stored as part of a computerized register of entries and exits and is verified against local and international databases and watch lists. This system is just one of a rapidly growing number of digital biometrics deployments in West Africa. Niger and Burkina Faso collect travelers’ fingerprints on arrival at their main international airports, as does Mauritania, whose visa system is interconnected with its national biometric ID system. Biometric technologies are also increasingly used for electoral registration and have provided the technical backbone for voter registration in Burkina Faso, Benin, Ghana, and Togo. Biometric technologies—which use physiological elements such as bodily characteristics and behaviors for identification and surveillance—are promoted by manufacturers, security professionals, and state building experts as better for tying bodies to identities. Spurred on by bilateral security cooperation and a desire to conform to international standards, states across Africa are sparing no expense to adopt biometric passports, ID cards, and visas, as well as national biometric enrollment. For instance, South Sudan’s biometric passport issuance system, launched in 2011, has cost an estimated twenty million euros (Markó 2016) in a context of scarce foreign currency and low social spending. This slick digital present also has roots in an analogue colonial past, which includes the fingerprinting of “suspect” communities in South Africa in the early twentieth century (Breckenridge 2014), the kipande fingerprint ID card in colonial Kenya, and the carte d’identité, which policed movement in French colonial West Africa (Gary-Tounkara 2009). Despite these economic and historical burdens, biometric security is on the march in West Africa. In this article, I interrogate the adoption of biometric border security technologies, using the case of Senegal, through two research questions; the first focuses on social relations and the knowledges that underpin them, and the second focuses on what the gap between these ideals and biometrics’ everyday functioning reveals. First, I ask what claims are made by international and local security actors about the effectiveness of biometrics for border security, and I examine how these actors facilitate the assembling and circulation of these claims. In order to understand the growing use of biometric technologies in West Africa, we should be attentive to the social world of the (in)security professionals who make these technologies thinkable and doable. I understand this “field” in the same vein as authors such as Bigo and Tsoukala (2008), who use the term to account for the polyvocal nature of the production of knowledge about security threats. The appeal of biometrics for border control and national identification in Senegal is driven by security professionals’ (Bigo and Tsoukala 2008) promotion of a biometric “ideal” that promises greater legibility of mobility as well as symbolic modernity. This ideal is transmitted through the growing imbrication between Western security professionals and their African counterparts; the former drive to implement global standards while the latter buttress their position through the adoption of modern, integrated security solutions. Conceptually, I draw on work on the field of (in)security professionals to argue that the biometric ideal circulates through a multisited and multifunctional social space that includes international organization staff, local law enforcement agencies, street-level bureaucrats, and European interveners. Bigo and Tsoukala (2008, 4) refer to (in)security itself as the product of the “set of interactions and contradictory goals, interests, norms, and habitus” among such actors. In short, the production of security and insecurity is, in part, about the individual trajectories of security professionals but even more so about the struggles between them over what is to be secured and how. Building on this, I argue that sites of professional and expert interaction within this border control community—such as workshops or training—are crucial social spaces in which this knowledge transmission happens. Second, in this article, I ask how far the practical use of biometrics for border security lives up to the promises and claims of the biometric ideal that drives demand for these technologies. While the rich and vibrant literature on biometrics has paid considerable attention to its promises and pitfalls, there has been very little work on these aspects outside Europe and, more specifically, in West Africa. This is a particularly important empirical focus, which, in a country such as Senegal, shows us that biometrics deployments are spawned by radically different security relations and fail for reasons specific to the local context. These elements of success and failure of the biometric ideal make four key contributions to the literature on biometrics. First, they highlight the relative importance of the politics of cooperation and intervention in the rollout of biometrics in West Africa. Second, they show us the role of the private sector in making biometrics possible in West Africa, but also how it hinders attempts to link systems up. Third, this article shows the importance of the symbolic element of biometrics as tokens of modernity and the role this symbolism plays in generating demand for them. Fourth, we see that the dynamics of securitization behind biometrics are often the result of backstage technical and expert work, rather than popular or discursive appeals. The article proceeds in five parts. The first details the biometric ideal with reference to its promises of legibility and modernity. The second section draws on the idea of a field of security professionals and expands on its methods of transmitting the biometric ideal and the limits. The third section focuses on Senegal’s airport entry-exit tracking system and how it is undermined by incomplete connection to global systems and the persistence of analogue solutions. In the fourth section, I suggest that Senegal’s national biometric ID card epitomizes the failure of the promise of integration, mainly due to the role of the private sector. The fifth and final section is on Senegal’s biometric e-passport and now-defunct biometric visa, the rollout of which was driven by emulation of global security norms but undermined by the economic imperatives of quickened mobility and tourism. These case studies draw on three months of fieldwork in Senegal, which included participant observation at Dakar airport as well as semistructured interviews carried out across the range of actors shaping the rollout of biometrics: those in the field of law enforcement but also those with technicians and European diplomats. This fieldwork—and this article—are underpinned by an international political sociology method “focusing on the system of policies, practices, and discourses that govern particular intersections of the local, national, and global” (Salter 2007, 49). As such, the article’s rationale for the selection of cases hones in on particular sites of practice—that is, specific projects and technologies in Senegal—in which we can observe the practices and struggles of the professional community arising around biometric security. In each of these projects, we see similar sources of failure: contestation within the security field, technical glitches, the persistence of analogue practices, and tension between public and private actors. The Biometric Ideal There is now a vibrant literature on biometric technologies in international politics, which pays particular attention to the technologies’ role as security devices at borders and beyond. The authors of this literature dissect the forms of governance that biometrics incarnate, such as Ajana’s (2013) work on biometrics, which sees them not only as a form of governance of bodies but also as a means of regulating a new form of neoliberal biometric citizenship. In a similar vein, Bonditti (2004) sees biometrics through a Foucauldian lens, focusing on a turn to traceability of bodies, while Epstein (2007) considers the type of guilty subjectivities governed by biometric borders. All of these contributions see an inbuilt promise or purpose to these technologies; building on the idea that the body can “speak” and be a source of data, biometrics have been analyzed through the prism of how they disaggregate the body itself into information (Van der Ploeg 1999) and how they fit into the broader turn toward data and algorithms as border control technologies (Amoore 2006; Muller 2010). All of these contributions have come to the conclusion that biometrics—and the security actors who want them—are dependent on, or bearers of, understandings of what border security should look like. These contributions to work on biometrics have undoubtedly driven the research interest and questions this article poses. Yet few segments of this literature consider two aspects yielded by an analysis of security practices in West Africa. First, we do not know much about the contours of the transnational inflections of security practice emerging around these technologies, nor how knowledge about biometrics circulates to security professionals outside the West. Some contributions on biometrics have looked beyond the West, focusing, for instance, on the unique ID system in India (Jacobsen 2012; Thomas 2014), but most contributions in this field are focused on Western-specific experiences, notably the Europeanization of security fields (Broeders 2011) and biopolitics in advanced liberal societies (Pugliese 2010). Second, we do not know enough, in light of the tremendous uptake of biometrics for border security in Africa, about the particular local inflections of failure these deployments present in contexts such as Senegal. The appeal of biometric technologies to security professionals in places like Senegal rests on the labor of a transnational community of professionals who shape a biometric ideal specific to states in the Global South. The biometric ideal is a set of knowledge claims about the effectiveness and symbolism of biometrics that circulates through the interactions of international (usually European) and West African security professionals. There are two key elements of this biometric ideal. The first is the promise of legibility of populations both within the state and of those who cross it. This idea, drawing on the work of Scott (1998), captures the state’s desire to not only know but also to better record and analyze information about mobile populations. Activities aiming to buttress the state’s infrastructural power (Mann 1984)—the use of bureaucratic and technocratic rather than despotic forms of state power—enhance this ability to make legible. This includes international interventions around border control, such as police training and capacity building, which are increasingly common in Senegal (see Sandor 2016). Legibility through biometrics at the border furthers the “polysemic” nature of borders, a term Balibar (2002, 79) uses to describe how “borders never exist in the same way for individuals belonging to different social groups.” In this sense, the ideal is of a border whose function is selective, but also one whose filter is increasingly “smart” and efficient. Biometrics are held up as tools to more effectively identify who is “out there” and to provide better information for the state to make decisions about admission. This ideal of biometrics as a technology of legibility makes a selling point of its “smartness” or ability to “smartly” help make decisions at the border. This element is promoted by the biometrics industry writ large and by the security professionals who implement these technologies. As Feldman (2011) notes, biometrics operate in a double sense to both simplify judgements about travelers’ identities while also stratifying global mobility along wealth lines. This smartness, in turn, positions biometrics as tools working toward a neat, frictionless governance of mobility. The literature generated by those who govern global migration in support of this hope reflects this linkage between smartness and efficiency. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)—which pushes biometrics due to its role as a global regulator of civil aviation—encourages these technologies through the logic of efficiency, claiming the following: The ability to identify rapidly and precisely “problem cases” allows governments to spend their always-limited border control and law enforcement resources on those who should be given a more detailed inspection. That efficiency also reduces the need to hire additional government personnel and facility costs. (ICAO 2010) The ICAO’s MRTD Report, a quarterly magazine largely aimed at a tight-knit community of travel security, aviation, and border management professionals, reinforces this trope of “efficiency.” In its very first issue (2006) an advertisement for ViiSAGE, a US-based firm selling document readers, asks “Do you know who’s traveling?” in an advert for its passport chip-reading scanner. In a similar vein, a full-page advert for Gemalto in volume 2, issue 1 (2007), asks “Who’s behind?” above a picture of a passport being handed from border guard to traveler, both of whom remain unseen. The MRTD Report’s content sells the idea of biometrics as proving the credibility of travelers, but also that of states; the “you” targeted by the advertising is the globally mobile border security professional who, competing for limited resources within their state security apparatus, can justify their acquisition of technology as a reliable and efficient means of boosting the state’s ability to see and control flows at borders. The second element of the biometric ideal, the promise of modernity, is closely linked to the first and is at once a source of prestige and a technical achievement. Modernity here stands primarily for the sense of symbolism that comes from the adoption of high-technology solutions (such as biometric visas with real-time security screening) but also from the achievement of locally and internationally integrated security systems. For instance, officers from Senegal’s police de l’air et des frontières are keen to stress examples of data from border posts facilitating criminal investigations and take considerable pride in the interlinkage of local data solutions with international databases such as Interpol’s. Many Senegalese security actors pursue the symbolic modernity afforded by digital biometrics and relish (and are promised) the possibility of integrating their security systems into global (read “Western”) arrangements. There is also a developmental element to this modernity, which aims at the reduction of inefficiencies within the state itself. The World Bank’s Digital Identity Toolkit (Atik etal. 2014, 2) for Africa claims that developing countries “lack robust identification systems,” which leads to “inefficiencies in the way the government and firms interact with the population.” These claims are reprised in the work of development think tanks such as the Center for Global Development (CGDev), whose Identification for Development: The Biometrics Revolution report refers to an “identity gap” (Gelb and Clark 2013, 8) to describe how the lack of identification hampers government service provision. The drive toward a biometric state with integrated and efficient systems represents, to those who buy into the biometric ideal, the fulfillment of a promised radical technical break from the inefficient past. This, of course, is just a promise on the part of those whose work it is to create and transmit the biometric ideal. This is the world to which I turn in the next section. Security Professionals and Knowledge Transmission To transmit the biometric ideal is therefore to transmit promises about the state’s ability to secure and how it should do so. Who does this knowledge work for, and how do they do it? Critical security studies—building on a renewed emphasis on practices and the transnational nature of security— have increasingly focused on understanding security with reference to the social spaces of the actors who frame it. The attention to this social element of security has provided a means to identify and understand the trajectories, knowledges, and interactions of those who enact security practices. In this case, we can draw on this approach to understand the relations between those who make biometrics both a thinkable and a doable security technology. Work on security professionals has considered these social spaces through the analytical category of fields of practice, focusing on the role of law enforcement, intelligence, and national security actors in framing security threats and their use of expertise to shape efforts to block them. Security professionals, according to Bigo (2002, 74), are “invested with the office of defining and prioritizing threats,” a process that depends on the “ethos of shared knowledge.” In this article, I argue that the transnational social space in which these security professionals operate is best understood as “a field crossing the internal and external, a new generative space of struggles between security professionals that produces common interests, an identical program of truth and new forms of knowledge” (Bigo 2008, 17). Assuming that the field is a set of routinized social interactions, we should understand (in)security as “a field effect and not the result of a specific strategy of a dominant actor” (Bigo and Tsoukala 2008, 5). As a result, the production of security is polyvocal, relational, and processual. It is noteworthy that Bigo considers this approach particularly suited to a world in which internal and external security are blurred—one in which we might see French police officers advise Senegalese border police on containing internal and external threats. It is important to note, however, that Bigo’s (2011, 237) own use of these terms are used as “thinking tools” used to account for a “diversity of practices.” As such, they are also flexible and open to the challenges of examining the social world of security outside the relatively European Union (EU)–centric genesis of critical security studies. In fact, examining the ways that a transnational field of security professionals emerges around the biometric ideal requires a greater degree of attentiveness to the specificities of the interaction of North and South. The relationships within this field are—between global and local—far less competitive as they are marked by an emphasis on cooperation and capacity-building intervention. In addition, relations within local fields of security (i.e., within Senegal) may be stronger than within the transnational field of security professionals in which meetings may be limited to occasional workshops or expert symposia. The biometric ideal is not always a public-facing form of security appeal and is produced and transmitted in a manner akin to what Salter (2008) calls a “backstage” securitization. The audience of security politics may in fact be more limited than we imagine; in some cases, security professionals transmit their knowledge to others within their field or profession in narrowly technical or bureaucratic settings. The biometric ideal, as a set of claims about security threats and what is needed to block them, circulates in just such backstage settings most of the time. The role of private companies in this transmission is also subject to this backstage logic of professional networks, with contract attribution processes and product-marketing trade shows open to the field of security professionals but closed to the general public. One of these backstage forms of transmission for the biometric ideal is the role of technical standards. This is something that Walters (2011, 58) has brought attention to, using the concept of “technological work” to capture the technical and intellectual effort that goes into making infrastructures carry out security practices. A reflection of this work at the transnational level is the role of the ICAO not just setting policy but also recommending technical specifications for the adoption of biometrics, a type of technological work that sets it up as one part of the field of security professionals around the biometric ideal. Its Document 9303 on machine-readable travel documents (MRTDs) and electronic MRTDs sets the standards for when, and how, states are to move toward passports featuring biometric information (ICAO 2015a). These specifications are developed in part by the Technical Advisory Group on Machine-Readable Travel Documents (TAG-MRTD), composed of eighteen ICAO states and a New Technologies Working Group (NTWG). It is noteworthy, however, that the current ICAO standard is not digital biometry but simply machine-readability of a document, which can in theory be limited to a simple optical scan of the eighty-eight-character strip at the bottom of the passport’s photo page. However, digital biometric information (usually stored on a chip in the passport) has come to be an unofficial “standard” through international pressure and the exemplar of Western states. It is noteworthy that most Senegalese security professionals and their equipment providers, in their deployments of biometric technologies, officially reiterate the importance of conformity to ICAO standards. These standards, in turn, directly feed into the governance and control of mobility at the border. The transmission of the biometric ideal is undertaken at the level of cooperation and intervention between experts from Global North and Global South. In Senegal, French bilateral security cooperation is particularly dominant, but Spain is increasingly active in shaping the local security agenda on migration issues. Officials such as attachés de sécurité intérieure (interior security liaisons) play a key role in implementing programs that include biometrics or set the agenda in their interactions with local bureaucrats, police officers, and gendarmes. Routine practices such as biweekly coordination meetings between Western embassies’ security liaisons play a crucial coordination role in framing the “international” perspective on border security. Under the French Appui à la sûreté de l’aviation civile en Afrique (ASACA) airport security capacity-building program, immigration and security experts (conseillers sécurité immigration) shortlisted by France are placed in states’ ministries of interior as border management consultants.1 Similarly, the ICAO runs gap assessment missions as part of its Traveller Identification Programme (TRIP). This program, funded by the Canadian government, held assessment missions in Costa Rica and Honduras in 2013 and 2014 respectively (ICAO 2014) and more recently in Niger in January 2015 as part of the Sahel and neighbouring-states facet of the project (ICAO 2015b). These knowledge generation and sharing practices, which almost always operate behind closed doors, put forward both an image of borders (as identity managers) and how to control them (through technology and integrated systems). These practices also generate demand by raising awareness among local security elites and signaling best practices. It is noteworthy that trainees are often brought outside their home country for training, to prevent their everyday routines (work and family life) from getting in the way of their acquisition of the requisite airport security skills. Study tours in French airports—which have a similar institutional setup to that of francophone African countries—are frequently used as means of experiential learning for Senegalese police trainees.2 Expert meetings and workshops are key spaces in which the transmission of the biometric ideal happens. The ICAO has been instrumental in bringing together security professionals to share a common agenda. The International Organization for Migration (IOM), an intergovernmental organization dedicated to all aspects of migration from border security to resettlement, has also urged states in West Africa to adopt biometric technology as an answer to the question of weak border security. Both organizations have regional offices in Dakar and carry out training and capacity-building activities across the region. The ICAO Regional Conference on Aviation Security was held in Dakar in October 2011 (ICAO 2016), and Senegalese police officers have participated in ICAO trainings on airport profiling, for instance. The IOM has sought to position its own entry-exit tracking system as a low-cost alternative to expensive, privately marketed immigration management systems and provided workshops on fraudulent document detection for the Senegalese police.3 Other examples of these social spaces of knowledge transmission include the ICAO’s MRTD Regional Symposia, where key actors coalesce around common views of how borders (and travel documents) are to function. This is akin to the “workshopping” approach common in the development industry, which facilitates getting actors in the Global South on board with the importance of traveler identification. Finally, it is important to acknowledge the importance of local agency in the transmission of ideals about biometrics. Senegalese security professionals—like many of their counterparts in the region—adopt these technologies as a means of ensuring conformity to what are perceived as “global” standards. This is not to suggest a “copycat” mentality, but rather to point out that claims to modernity are often made relative to the states that are considered leaders in the field of border security. This can in some cases refer to Western states (notably the United States and France), but many in the field of border security in Senegal also consider Mauritania to be a regional border security leader worthy of emulation. Perceptions of what are truly global standards are also shaped by perceived expertise; while Spanish expertise is highly regarded in terms of reducing irregular migration, French expertise triumphs in the context of airport security due to a similar institutional setup (evidenced by the shared police de l’air et des frontières moniker for their border police forces). The case of the biometric visa is particularly pertinent in this case, as Senegalese police justified it in relation to the visa policies of EU states specifically. Local agency is key not just to the biometric ideal but also to the malleability of this ideal; local law enforcement, airport authorities, technologists within African ministries of interior, and local political actors all have habits and registers in which they frame their work as well as personal trajectories that eliminate any pretension to the smooth transfer of international standards. In the next section, I suggest that the biometric registration of passengers at Dakar’s main airport is one such site in which we can observe the failures of the biometric ideal to live up to its own terms. Tracking and Tracing at the Airport In Adey’s (2002, 501) words, we “learn useful lessons at airports” about security and the ways mobility is sorted and controlled. Indeed, recent work on border security has taken the role of airports seriously as sites for the analysis of security policies. For instance, Salter (2007, 53) describes airports as places that “represent the policing power of the sovereign state, that contain the dangerous or risky elements of the unknown, and that render certain mobilities visible and others impossible or invisible.” Chalfin’s work on the Kotoka International Airport in Accra seeks to understand “how the aura of sovereign intimacy is sustained and internalized by those actors considered to be its source and its object” (2010, 193–94). Leese (2016) argues that airports are increasingly subject to the efficiency-driven managerial logics of the private sector. The airport is, therefore, a microcosm of the heterogeneity of borders and the ideals that go into securing them. In the case of Dakar’s airport, the use of biometrics is intended to push toward the efficient movement of travelers and testifies to the integration of Senegal into global security practices. Despite this, the specifics of local practice—its status as a privileged border point and the technical limitations of its systems—undermine the claims of the biometric ideal. On arrival at Dakar’s LSS airport, travelers immediately come face to face with biometrics, and registration of travelers begins with the scanning of their travel documents. The Senegalese police have electronic document readers that scan the machine-readable zone of travel documents. After this, a still image of the traveler is taken via the webcam, which sits in the border guard’s booth, and the traveler is then asked to provide her right and then left index fingerprints on the scanner. Traveler records are integrated, and each entry or exit can be visualized in the police’s system as an individual “transaction,” which is held in a police database on-site. When I asked to view my own records, I was able to see my photo, citizenship, fingerprint image, flight numbers, and dates of entry and exit, all from a simple search by surname. These transactions of biometric registration are part of a broader comprehensive security system in the airport, the Système Intégré de Contrôle Migratoire (SICM), provided by US-based Securiport LLC.4 In addition to the biometric registration of travelers, the SICM also manages video surveillance of the airport grounds. The imperative to capture and record data is one element of the drive toward a border that is not only intelligent in terms of what information it can capture, but also able to filter this information. This enables the triage of passengers as well as data analysis techniques; when a Senegalese national was able to fly to Washington, DC, without proper documentation, the US authorities were able to ask Securiport to reconstruct the trajectories of both passengers, using data from the system in Dakar, and to identify them (Securiport 2014). The biometric ideal of borders as an intelligent tool is effectively implanted here, even though the Senegalese authorities were left red-faced by the relative weakness of their exit controls. One of the elements of the biometric ideal is the promise of global interconnection and the implementation of internationally recognized security procedures. The SICM enables Senegal’s integration into global security arrangements at a very practical level, by being connected to Interpol’s database of Stolen and Lost Travel Documents as well as the I-24/7 database, which allows Senegal to receive red notices from Interpol for wanted persons. In this case, it is the security tool itself that silently facilitates the transfer of a culture of database-driven verification and authentication. Any flag raised by the system shuts it down and requires a supervisor override. The supervisor—a more senior police commander—manually examines every flag and can override the system in cases of erroneous identification. In addition, the system is integrated with local databases held by the police and gendarmerie stipulating who is prevented from leaving the national territory.5 This system’s global interconnections and attendant practices are a source of considerable pride within the Senegalese security field. When I spoke to the police commander in charge of security procedures, he mentioned the speed with which data retention and information-sharing facilitates cooperation between the police and Gendarmerie Nationale, making it easier to arrest locally wanted suspects whether or not they were in the Interpol database.6 This illustrates the inculcation of practices of interagency cooperation that feature in training given to Senegalese officers by international interveners such as ICAO, IOM, and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Senegal’s entry-exit system is shaped by growing aviation security intervention in the country as Western security professionals push for what they deem to be smarter borders and smarter border guards. These interventions are key methods of transmitting ways of approaching biometrics and are most often led by European security professionals under the guise of capacity building. For instance, a French-funded modernization program aimed at the Senegalese police (Appui à la modernisation de la police sénégalaise) has provided €700,000 for an assortment of activities: training of prosecutors and equipment donations to the drug squad, but also the provision of equipment and training at the airport to improve “prevention.” Prevention of cross-border crime and irregular migration function in part by trying to make the border smarter and more efficient. The presence of immigration liaisons (conseillers sécurité immigration)—shortlisted by France but chosen by the host government—is one such way to ensure a friendly voice for the cause of smarter borders within the local government as it shapes its border security policies. These conseillers’ presence is no secret yet their advisory role on border security threats and practices remains firmly in the backstage of bureaucratic politics. While the ideal of entry-exit biometrics as a “modern” solution for prestige is shared by European and Senegalese security professionals, the former tend to believe there is little point in gathering data if there is no emphasis on the analysis of data on which better filtration rests.7 The meaning of the much-vaunted smartness of borders is itself subject to the polyvocal nature of the security field. There is also a need to make the border guard herself smarter, and Western interveners put great effort into ensuring, for instance, that border guards at LSS stay in post long enough to internalize key practices of airport security,8 but this aim is often frustrated. This also includes trialing new biometric approaches centered on profiling arriving passengers’ behavior and body language, promoted by the ICAO, even though there is a cultural perception on the part of Western officials that African airports may be too “stressful” as a baseline for such practices to be effective ways of screening risky bodies from safe ones.9 This practice does have some approval in the local context, with a Senegalese police official telling me that biometrics cannot signal a person’s intentions, so there is a need for such profiling.10 This is underpinned by an understanding of the airport as a “laboratory” of border control, where new practices can be tested in a relatively controlled environment. This emphasis on speed and efficiency comes from the prioritization of the flux rapide (a quick flow),11 showing how Scheel’s (2013) observation that biometrics link together technology, security, and freedom of movement applies in the non-Western world. Technical failures underline the pitfalls of implementing the biometric ideal in West Africa. Although the Senegalese border police does collect biometric information from passengers, the optical reading and ultraviolet light equipment at the border does not allow the reading of the more securely stored (encrypted) biometric information found on a passport’s microchip. This information should also be compatible with the ICAO’s Public Key Directory, which is this organization’s means of fostering international collaboration on passport security through the proliferation of a common technical standard for reading encrypted information (ICAO 2015c). These keys for decoding are the backbone of biometric systems, as they are the necessary supplement for one state to read another state’s biometric documents, yet Senegal is not yet an implementer of this single standard. Through the collection of biometric data, Senegal participates in the biometric ideal, but by not verifying it, it is not completely integrated into one of the technical backbones of the global airport screening system. In this case, Senegal’s entry-exit system is symbolically integrated to global security systems but is not practically, at a technical level, reaping the enhanced legibility that is integral to the biometric ideal. Finally, one of the key elements of biometric screening is its digital nature, yet the entry-exit system at Dakar airport is marked by the persistence of paper solutions, and Senegal’s other borders are generally run with analogue solutions. While more senior Senegalese police officials dismissed the utility of paper landing cards, street-level officers actually preferred analogue techniques; many I interviewed lamented the decision to do away with these paper visitor landing cards, as in the past they provided an important backup for officers who forgot to save traveler transactions in the SIGM. Indeed, given the strict punishments meted out by the border police for forgetting to register travelers, the paper landing cards functioned as indirect guarantees of job security. Bonelli and Ragazzi (2014) discuss the use of papers, files, and memos in the French intelligence service, pointing out that these represent the persistence of a particular way of doing security work on the part of intelligence professionals. This is one of the elements that also reflects how divergences among actors who compose the field of security itself can undermine the best laid plans. In Senegal, the upper/lower levels of the police align along the digital/analogue split visible at Senegalese border posts; at most posts, Senegal still uses paper registers for the recording of entries and exits into the national territory. This is especially cumbersome for customs officials based outside of the capital who, as I observed, mostly do not have computer or internet facilities and must rely on paper documents and personal wireless internet sticks.12 In the next section, I turn to national identity papers and how these succeed and fail to enact biometric border security away from the border. National Identity Structures One of the key elements of biometric border security is the adjudication of citizenship and noncitizenship, which is managed through systems such as national identity cards. Ajana (2012, 852) points to the two-way interlinking of biometrics and citizenship/nationality, noting that “biometric systems are becoming symptomatic and constitutive of the ongoing mutations that are taking place within the rising forms and practices of citizenship.” The biometric ideal rests on an optimistic view of this relationship between biometrics and belonging, which assumes that the integration of identification systems leads to more efficient determination of who can enter or not or who is entitled to the rights of citizenship. Indeed, the ideal that efficiency is itself a phenomenon relevant to citizenship illustrates the degree to which citizenship is reframed by biometrics as a question of either access or exclusion (see Muller 2010). Senegal’s latest biometric national ID, launched in 2006, exposes these political limits of biometrics for border control and, in particular, the failures that come with private sector involvement in biometrics. While the carte d’identité is a standard feature in most francophone African states, the move toward biometrics in the card has been significant for what it promises but also what it reveals about the social world of security in the country. The national ID card is unable to fulfill the biometric ideal of symbolic modernity through better integrated systems. This system reflects what Martin, Van Brakel, and Bernhard (2010, 224) refer to as resistance from “artefacts.” They argue that “apart from the potential to breakdown or fail, the absence of technologies capable of fulfilling a desired surveillance mission is as effective a resistance mode as legislative or executive modifications to the intended scope of surveillance” (ibid.). While the ID card system is housed in the Ministry of Interior, it is not connected to other systems within the same ministry that exist for the same purpose of making populations legible. Take, for example, the Senegalese police’s $1.15-million criminal-fingerprinting program, provided as a gift by the US Embassy in Dakar on behalf of the US military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM). This tool was justified by the regional security context as a weapon in the fight against drug trafficking and terrorism (US Embassy Dakar 2011, 3). Even though this AFIS system was provided as a capacity-building tool to improve identification, and is housed within the same ministry, the data does not travel. In this case, data remains in siloes and is subject to the tensions inherent in the struggles within the security field. The claim to a fully integrated biometric state—which is something my interviewees in the Senegalese police de l’air et des frontières tended to support—is held back by the limited coordination of biometrics within the public sector. While in some instances the ID card has lived up to the ideal of legibility—such as the identification of people admitted to the hospital without ID—the ID card is an island in a system that begs for integration. While there are linkages between the biometric national ID card issued by the police’s Direction de l’Automatisation des Fichiers (DAF) and the databases of foreigners at the Direction de la Police des Étrangers et des Titres de Voyage (DPETV), this latter system is not linked to the register of foreigners or to the passport databases at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As a result, the ID cards’ promise to “border” citizen from noncitizen remains tenuous. Senegal’s national ID system creates a rift between the state’s pursuit of integrated biometric systems and private companies’ desire to distinguish their products. Here, even the best-laid plans and intentions fall by the wayside. Securiport, the company that runs the airport security system, including biometric scanning, does not communicate with UK-based DeLaRue even though this company runs the database for the national ID card (which doubles as a travel document within West Africa). This is due to incompatible and proprietary biometric algorithms used to decode and recode the biometrics they collect. The justification for such disjuncture is at first glance technical: competing algorithms for coding biometric data make this data incompatible. However, algorithms are also a matter of professional secrecy and a key selling point in the competitive private sector biometrics marketplace. Securiport has tried to decipher DeLaRue’s biometric algorithm and failed, something that the latter takes as validation of the strength of its system. This private sector competition is due to the fact that, according to my interviews with high-level officials in Senegal, border controls and electoral identification are the two most vibrant private sector markets for biometrics manufacturers.13 In this context, the profit motivation and the desire to assert expertise (which yields symbolic and economic capital) are essential, yet they undermine the state’s security actors from running a visibly modern, integrated system. It is one of the ironies of the biometric ideal that the implementation of digital biometrics can be economically gainful yet work to the detriment of its own promises about better security. While public-public and public-private integration are subject to failure, Senegal’s biometric national ID card does facilitate smooth international-local integration. According to interlocutors in the Ministry of Interior, information from the database is used by foreign embassies in Dakar, which means the data must be relatively complete and furthers the culture of verification and authentication around borders.14 Other users of the ID system include the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which requests information to check the veracity of refugee requests, and EU election monitors, who audit the ID system in its capacity as the register of electors.15 This national identity card also fits into a broader context of thinking within the fields of security that crisscross West Africa. In this context, IOM proposals for a new resident card along the Senegal-Mauritania border build on the use of the national ID card. Finally, much like the case of the entry-exit system at Dakar airport, Senegal’s national ID card is beholden to the persistence of analogue solutions that frustrate the biometric ideal of legibility. The amount of information in the biometric system is dwarfed by what is provided and kept on the original paper application forms, which are kept by the Ministry of Interior. In addition to this, Senegal’s paper-based document issuance system—especially in the case of birth registrations—means that the “breeder” documents that demonstrate eligibility for the biometric national ID are easy to falsify and difficult to verify. In the final section below, I discuss the endogenous nature of elements of the biometric ideal as well as the limits of a security framing in shaping the appeal of Senegal’s biometric visa. Passports and Visas Passports and visas are crucial to the global mobility system, determining rights to access and vouching for citizenship and permissibility. Visas are a “necessary supplement to the passport system” (Salter 2006, 174) and effectively delocalize the border function inward (to verification systems) as well as outward (to points of issue) and are a central part of the facilitation of global mobility. As Shamir (2005, 212) points out, visas are essential profiling tools that have become increasingly data-driven and increasingly rely on “technologies of examination that are by far more sophisticated than the impressionist judgments of police officers and security guards. ” In this section, I argue that beyond inscribing sovereignty on the bodies of citizens, these technologies facilitate claims to modernity and prestige in the security field and inculcate the polysemic nature of borders. However, in the case of the biometric visa specifically, biometrics face contestation due to the slowing effects they have on desirable types of mobility. In 2008, Senegal launched its biometric passport and, in 2013, confirmed it would be using biometrics in its new visa. The need for a retooled visa was brought about by the then reciprocity policy, which meant that any state requiring visas of Senegalese citizens would have its own citizens subject to a visa requirement to enter Senegal. The rollout of the biometric visa was driven by a desire for preemption on the part of political actors and the higher levels of the police de l’air et des frontières. The upper levels of the Senegalese police considered biometric screening to be a means of better profiling travelers as well as overcoming the “randomness” of existing approaches.16 The biometric visa also aided the pursuit of a comprehensive view of who was in the country; in order to issue visas within forty-eight hours, the border police’s territorial surveillance directorate (DST) in Dakar had access to real-time data from visa applicants in Senegalese embassies across the world. This screening process, however, was significantly undercut by the informal crossing procedures that persist at most land-border crossing points, which includes allowing citizens of neighboring countries to “deposit” their ID card at the border post when visiting Senegal for daily errands. Nevertheless, the police command considered the biometric visa an essential token of “modernity” whose adoption largely went without saying.17 This reframed the debate about the visa from a political one (about what type of border control was best) toward a technical one (about whether the visa was more efficient or not). The biometric passport and visa are notable for being local technologies in their conception. While the exemplar of conforming to ICAO standards is powerful, the Senegalese biometric passport was not spearheaded from the outside, but rather by a particularly technologically keen commissioner of police in 2007. This particular commissioner was brought into the police for this project from a previous job in internet technology. While the passport is considered a “sign of modernity,”18 its rollout was unrelated to the pressures for international linkup that have been exerted in the cases of airport biometrics and the national ID card. In the case of the biometric visa, the justification for its use testified to the postcolonial logic inherent in the policy of visa reciprocity: that in a world in which formal political equality is underpinned by state sovereignty, operating on an equal footing with Western states requires the assertion of the rights to sort and filter citizens’ rights of passage in both directions. The infrastructure behind the biometric passport and visa draws equally from the private sector and from overseas expertise, much to the discomfort of local security professionals. The Senegalese police’s upper echelons expressed concerns about the visa being subject to commercial considerations.19 Although these doubts about the attribution of the contract and data management to foreign companies lingered, the supposed technical benefits of the biometric visa were never in doubt. The company charged with administering visa issuance was the Côte d’Ivoire–based Société Nationale d’Édition de Documents Administratifs et d’Identification (SNEDAI), and the biometric visa made SNEDAI into a major actor at the border posts through its donation of ten patrol vehicles to the Senegalese police (AllAfrica 2013). SNEDAI deployed equipment by Belgian ID-card-maker Zetes to Senegal’s border posts, some of which were newly built. Zetes provided the enrollment kits to Senegal under a five-year build, operate, and transfer (BOT) contract for sixty-six enrollment stations, the technology to individualize biometric records, and the installation of a payment system through its subsidiary FasTrace for 300,000 visas per year (Zetes 2013). The biometric visa enrollment machines used featured fingerprint sensors made by US-based Lumidigm. This variety of private sector actors made the project feasible but also created tension within the world of public sector security professionals. These efforts toward better legibility and efficient filtering at the border are generally lauded by Western security professionals in Senegal. Western officials interpreted the creation of a fraud bureau in the heart of the Senegalese police as a sign that document security had “entered the habits” of Senegalese security officials.20 It is a mistake, however, to assume that Senegal’s efforts toward achieving a biometric ideal, through passports and visas, are always met with cheers from security professionals from the Global North. Many of those based in Senegal as liaisons express a suspicion of biometrics and consider these technologies to actually entrench a status quo in which there are many fraudulent documents—including many of the ones on which biometric documents rest. There is also an element of disagreement between global and local security professionals about how this technology is meant to be used. Western security actors deployed in Senegal tend to resent the deployment of biometrics for their own sake, and many of my interlocutors were keen to point out that this technology is of no use unless local practice could ensure that proper procedures were followed.21 In the words of one European diplomat, the technologies themselves are nothing without the right political and infrastructural systems in which to frame them.22 This suggests a fundamental clash between two cultures of security: interveners seeking to reshape security practices and a local security field focused on the symbolic and technological gains of implementing digital biometrics. While the rollout of biometrics is a source of the kind of “shared knowledge” (Bigo 2002, 74) that Bigo identifies as a characteristic of security fields, there is disagreement over what precisely is the successful use of the technology. Many of these contentions over the meanings of security and the use of technology are ironed out in the workshops and bilateral meetings that define global-local border security cooperation in Senegal. Within the Senegalese law enforcement field, the biometric visa reflected the preeminence of its top strata. This visa was largely a prestige technology, targeted mainly at Western foreigners (citizens of Economic Community of West African States countries do not need visas to enter Senegal) and other travelers who mainly transit via LSS airport in Dakar. The visa was not just a token of modernity but also facilitated the projection of a modern identity. My interlocutors at the top level of the police claimed, for instance, that stamp visas are outmoded and any country that takes its security seriously must have something more modern,23 without providing technical rationales. Dezalay and Garth (2002) capture this idea of a split within any given field in which one part is internationally oriented and seeking symbolic capital from abroad, and the other remains rooted in existing local or informal practices and oriented toward local gains. This is very much the case in Senegal, where the highest ranked officers tend to be invited to international border management workshops—internalizing the knowledge and habits of the transnational field—while others lower down the ranks remain confined to routines devoid of technology, away from the capital, and disconnected from the world of policy. The elimination of the biometric visa requirement in May 2015 testified not only to the limits of the biometric ideal when faced with divergences in police practice, but also to limits exogenous to the world of security. The suppression of the visa in May 2015, amid complaints from the country’s tourism sector, hit hard by international fears following the Ebola outbreak in the region, highlighted how the biometric ideal may not always guarantee frictionless mobility; knowledge in the name of security was pushed aside in favor of a greater facilitation of leisure travel. This undermines the idea of biometrics as a facilitator of mobility—in fact, at the same time as the removal of the visa, Senegal’s airport taxes were also reduced (Ba 2015) as part of a broader removal of financial obstacles to visiting Senegal. The visa had made the work of the border police at the airport confusing—they frequently faced confused travelers arriving without visas in hand—so the actual functioning of the visa, beyond its symbolic importance, was a source of consternation. By 2015, the arrivals area of Dakar’s LSS airport was littered with two material reminders of the failures of the biometric ideal: on one side sat the unplugged automated passport scanning gates provided by Iris Corporation as part of the twenty-year biometric passport contract and abandoned when the SICM was installed, and on the other the visa application machines that had been provided for travelers who had—in defiance of the ideal of legible mobility—arrived in Senegal without one. Conclusion In this article, I argue that biometric technologies—which link body and identification—have become increasingly widespread in the African context due to a biometric ideal that security professionals put forward, promising enhanced legibility and modernity to states in the Global South. Technologies such as Senegal’s biometric national identity cards, visas, passports, and entry/exit systems are increasingly digital, speedy, and interlinked but also subject to failure in their claims to effectively manage inclusion and exclusion at the border. I have argued that these various “promises” of biometric technologies are held up by a transnational community of practice that includes security professionals from European and African fields of border management and law enforcement, bureaucrats in international organizations, and a host of competing private actors. In allying this argument with original fieldwork in Senegal, in this article I seek to make four main conceptual and empirical contributions. First, it focuses attention on the growing interweaving of Western and African security professionals around biometrics in Senegal. Such security cooperation, often through interior ministry attachés and police-training projects, is the civilian face for a growing securitization of borders in West Africa. Second, I seek to highlight the diversity of actors involved in (in)security practices around biometrics in Senegal. These are not limited to global and local law enforcement officials, but also include private sector providers (who compete with each other as well as the state) as well as bureaucrats in charge of visa and tourism policy. Third, the article shows that the biometric ideal is just that—an ideal—and perhaps even a myth. While the article shows that there is a tremendous deal of reputational and symbolic gain to be had from the modernity of digital biometrics, these technologies’ claims to smartness are often hollow. Finally, the article shows the degree to which decisions about governing and controlling mobility are played out in expert proceedings and workshops, through the interaction of diverse technical—rather than political—debates about biometrics and their effectiveness. If we are to better understand the rapidly growing world of biometrics in West Africa, we must be attentive to the social world of security that produces its boldest claims and its biggest flaws. Footnotes 1 " Interview with European aviation security expert #1, Dakar, March 11, 2013. 2 " Interview with European aviation security expert #2, Dakar, March 11, 2013. 3 " Interview with IOM officials, Dakar, January 22, 2013. 4 " Interview with unit commander at LSS airport, Dakar, July 22, 2013. 5 " Participant observation at Dakar airport, Dakar, July 22, 2013. 6 " Interview with unit commander at LSS airport, Dakar, July 22, 2013. 7 " Interview with European security attaché, Dakar, March 11, 2013. 8 " Interview with European aviation security expert #2, Dakar, March 11, 2013. 9 " Interview with European aviation security expert #2, Dakar, March 11, 2013. 10 " Interview with the head of Senegalese border police (DPAF), Dakar, July 11, 2013. 11 " Interview with ICAO official, Dakar, July 21, 2013. 12 " Participant observation at customs post, Rosso, January 12, 2013. 13 " Interview with head of data protection authority, Dakar, January 25, 2013. 14 " Interview with technicians at Ministry of Interior, Dakar, January 28, 2013. 15 " Interview with technicians at Ministry of Interior, Dakar, January 28, 2013. 16 " Interview with head of Senegalese DST, Dakar, July 11, 2013. 17 " Interview with director of the DPAF, Dakar, July 15, 2013. 18 " Interview, senior Senegalese police commander, Dakar, February 12, 2013. 19 " Interview with director of the DPAF, Dakar, July 15, 2013. 20 " Interview with aviation security expert #1, Dakar, March 11, 2013. 21 " Interview with aviation security expert #2, Dakar, March 11, 2013. 22 " Interview with EU official, Dakar, January 29, 2013. 23 " Interview with head of Senegalese DST, Dakar, July 15, 2013. References Adey Peter. 2002 . “Secured and Sorted Mobilities: Examples from the Airport.” Surveillance and Society 1 ( 4 ): 500 – 19 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Ajana Btihaj. 2012 . “Biometric Citizenship.” Citizenship Studies 16 ( 7 ): 851 – 70 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Ajana Btihaj . 2013 . Governing Through Biometrics: The Biopolitics of Identity . Basingstoke : Palgrave . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC AllAfrica . “Sénégal: Un appui en véhicules de la Snedai aux postes frontaliers.” Last modified March 28, 2013. Accessed December 3, 2015. http://fr.allafrica.com/stories/201303281533.html. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Amoore Louise. 2006 . “Biometric Borders: Governing Mobilities in the War on Terror.” Political Geography 25 ( 3 ): 336 – 51 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Atik Joseph j. , Harold Gelb Alan, Pahlavooni Seda, Ramos Elena Gasol, Safdar Zaid. “Digital Identity Toolkit: A Guide for Stakeholders in Africa.” World Bank Group Working Paper , 2014 . http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/147961468203357928/Digital-identity-toolkit-a-guide-for-stakeholders-in-Africa. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Ba Mehdi. 2015 . “Sénégal: la filière touristique salue la suppression du visa d’entrée annoncée par Macky Sall.” Jeune Afrique , April 7. Accessed March 6, 2017. http://www.jeuneafrique.com/228428/economie/senegal-la-filiere-touristique-salue-la-suppression-du-visa-dentree-annoncee-par-macky-sall/ . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Balibar Etienne. 2002 . Politics and the Other Scene . London : Verso . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Bigo Didier. 2002 . “Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease.” Alternatives 27 (1_suppl) : 63 – 92 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bigo Didier . 2008 . “Globalized (in)Security: The Field and the Ban-opticon.” In Terror, Insecurity, and Liberty: Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes after 9/11 , edited by Bigo Didier, Tsoukala Anastassia, 10 – 48 . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Bigo Didier . 2011 . “Pierre Bourdieu and International Relations: Power of Practices, Practices of Power.” International Political Sociology 5 ( 3 ): 225 – 58 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bigo Didier , Tsoukala Anastassia. 2008 . “Understanding (in)Security.” In Terror, Insecurity, and Liberty: Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes after 9/11 , edited by Bigo Didier, Tsoukala Anastassia, 1 – 9 . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Bonditti Philippe. 2004 . “From Territorial Space to Networks: A Foucaldian Approach to the Implementation of Biometry.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 29 ( 4 ): 465 – 82 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bonelli Laurent , Ragazzi Francesco. 2014 . “Low-tech Security: Files, Notes, and Memos as Technologies of Anticipation.” Security Dialogue 45 ( 5 ): 476 – 93 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Breckenridge Keith. 2014 . Biometric State: The Global Politics of Identification and Surveillance in South Africa, 1850 to the Present . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Broeders Dennis. 2011 . “A European ‘Border’ Surveillance System under Construction.” In Migration and the New Technological Borders of Europe , edited by Dijstelbloem Huub, Meijer Albert, 40 – 67 . Basingstoke, London : Palgrave Macmillan . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Chalfin Brenda. 2010 . Neoliberal Frontiers: An Ethnography of Sovereignty in West Africa . Chicago : University of Chicago Press . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Dezalay Yves , Garth Bryant G. 2002 . The Internationalization of Palace Wars: Lawyers, Economists, and the Contest to Transform Latin American States . Chicago : University of Chicago Press . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Epstein Charlotte. 2007 . “Guilty Bodies, Productive Bodies, Destructive Bodies: Crossing the Biometric Borders.” International Political Sociology 1 ( 1 ) : 149 – 164 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Feldman Gary. 2011 . The Migration Apparatus: Security, Labor, and Policymaking in the European Union . Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Gary-Tounkara Daouda. 2009 . “La dispersion des Soudanais/Maliens à la fin de l’ère coloniale.” Hommes & Migrations ( 1279 ): 12 – 23 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Gelb Alan , Clark Julia. “Identification for Development: The Biometrics Revolution.” Center for Global Development Working Paper 315 , Washington, DC , 2013 . https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/1426862_file_Biometric_ID_for_Development.pdf OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) . 2006 . MRTD Report , vol. 1, issue 1. Montreal : International Civil Aviation Organization . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) . 2007 . MRTD Report , vol. 2, issue 1. Montreal : International Civil Aviation Organization . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC ICAO . 2010 . “Benefits to Governments.” Accessed December 3, 2015. http://www.icao.int/security/mrtd/pages/benefitstogovernments.aspx . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat ICAO . 2014 . MRTD Report , vol. 2, issue 2. Montreal : International Civil Aviation Organization . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC ICAO . 2015a . “Doc 9303: Machine Readable Travel Documents.” Accessed December 3, 2015. http://www.icao.int/publications/pages/publication.aspx?docnum=9303 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat ICAO . 2015b . MRTD Report , vol. 10, issue 3. Montreal : International Civil Aviation Organization . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC ICAO . 2015c . “ICAO PKD.” Accessed December 3, 2015. http://www.icao.int/security/mrtd/pages/ICAOPKD.aspx . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat ICAO . 2016 . “ICAO Regional Aviation Security Conference IN Dakar, Senegal, 17–18 October 2011.” Accessed April 25. http://www.icao.int/security/pages/regionalaviationsecurityconferencedakar.aspx . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Jacobsen Elida K. U. 2012 . “Unique Identification: Inclusion and Surveillance in the Indian Biometric Assemblage.” Security Dialogue 43 ( 5 ): 457 – 74 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Leese Matthias. 2016 . “Governing Airport Security between the Market and the Public Good.” Criminology and Criminal Justice 16 ( 2 ): 158 – 75 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Mann Michael. 1984 . “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms, and Results.” European Journal of Sociology 25 ( 2 ): 185 – 213 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Markó Ferenc David. 2016 . “We Are Not a Failed State, We Make the Best Passports”: South Sudan and Biometric Modernity.” African Studies Review 59 ( 2 ): 113 – 32 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Martin Aaron K , Van Brakel Rosamunde E, Bernhard David J. 2010 . “Understanding Resistance to Digital Surveillance: Towards a Multi-disciplinary, Multi-actor Framework.” Surveillance & Society 6 ( 3 ): 214 – 32 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Muller Benjamin J. 2010 . Security, Risk and the Biometric State: Governing Borders and Bodies . Oxford : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Pugliese Joseph. 2010 . Biometrics: Bodies, Technologies, Biopolitics . Oxford : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Salter Mark B. 2006 . “The Global Visa Regime and the Political Technologies of the International Self: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics.” Alternatives 31 ( 2 ): 167 – 89 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Salter Mark B . 2007 . “Governmentalities of an Airport: Heterotopia and Confession.” International Political Sociology 1 ( 1 ): 49 – 66 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Salter Mark B . 2008 . “Securitization and Desecuritization: A Dramaturgical Analysis of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.” Journal of International Relations and Development 11 ( 4 ): 321 – 49 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Sandor Adam. 2016 . “Tightly Packed: Disciplinary Power, the UNODC, and the Container Control Programme in Dakar.” African Studies Review 59 ( 2 ): 133 – 60 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Scheel Stephan. 2013 . “Autonomy of Migration Despite Its Securitisation? Facing the Terms and Conditions of Biometric Rebordering.” Millennium 41 ( 3 ): 575 – 600 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Scott James C. 1998 . Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed . New Haven, CT : Yale University Press . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Securiport . “Securiport’s Intelligent Information Management Data Analytics Enable International Authorities to Interdict Senegal-Based Human Trafficking Ring, Resulting in Numerous Criminal Arrests and Preservation of Positive Diplomatic Relations.” Last modified November 24, 2014. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://www.securiport.com/securiports-intelligent-information-management-data-analytics-enable-international-authorities-interdict-senegal-based-human-trafficking-ring-resulting-numerous-criminal-arrests-preservati/. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Shamir Ronen. 2005 . “Without Borders? Notes on Globalization as a Mobility Regime.” Sociological Theory 23 ( 2 ): 197 – 217 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Thomas Owen D. 2014 . “Foucaultian Dispositifs as Methodology: The Case of Anonymous Exclusions by Unique Identification in India.” International Political Sociology 8 ( 2 ): 164 – 81 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat US Embassy, Dakar . 2011 . “L’Ambassade offre au Sénégal un système automatisé d’identification d’empreintes.” Panorama , July–August. OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Van der Ploeg Irma. 1999 . “The Illegal Body: ‘Eurodac’ and the Politics of Biometric Information.” Ethics and Information Technology 1 ( 4 ): 295 – 302 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Walters William. 2011 . “Rezoning the Global: Technological Zones, Technological Work, and the (Un-) Making of Biometric Borders.” In The Contested Politics of Mobility: Borderzones and Irregularity , edited by Squire Vicki, 51 – 73 . London : Routledge . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Zetes . “Zetes Produces Senegalese Biometric Visa and Delivers 66 Fixed Enrolment Stations.” Last modified 2013. Accessed December 3, 2015. http://peopleid.zetes.com/en/news/zetes-produces-senegalese-biometric-visa-and-delivers-66-fixed-enrolment-stations . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Author notes " Author’s note: I am grateful for the extensive, constructive and generous comments of the anonymous reviewers, who helped me greatly refine this paper. This research was funded by an Ontario Graduate Scholarship and by a Doctoral Award from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada. © The Author (2017). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Studies Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
TI - The Promises and Pitfalls of Biometric Security Practices in Senegal
JF - International Political Sociology
DO - 10.1093/ips/olx015
DA - 2017-12-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/the-promises-and-pitfalls-of-biometric-security-practices-in-senegal-QyJ25FLfLQ
SP - 343
VL - 11
IS - 4
DP - DeepDyve
ER -