The United Kingdom (UK)

The UK is the possessor of the world’s oldest and largest DNA database by proportion of population: the National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database, established in 1995. As a nation-state that holds one of the world’s largest DNA databases, the UK has been dealing systematically with the societal effects triggered by various ethical controversies. In terms of bordering practices, the UK serves as an example of an ambivalent mode of re- and debordering. This ambivalence derives from the UK’s changing position regarding the Prüm system. In 2014, the UK government, driven by the parliament, decided to opt out of the Prüm Decisions. In 2015, after a Prüm-style pilot project run with other EU Member States, the UK decided to opt in. This decision, nonetheless, included the imposition of limits on other EU countries’ access to the UK’s data. Consequently, the UK’s debordering practices co-exist with rebordering attempts aimed at restricting access to their own data.

The Netherlands

The Netherlands’ DNA database was legally established in 1994 and became operational in 1997. It represents one of the mid-sized databases in the EU. The Netherlands has a track record of ‘innovation’ regarding the regulation and practical application of genetic technologies for forensic purposes. The Netherlands was involved with the Prüm regime from its beginnings in 2005. In terms of bordering practices, the country serves as an exemplary case of an expansive and diffusive mode of debordering. This positioning derives from the fact that the Netherlands has been a front-runner in building and implementing the technical framework for Prüm in its most expansive form; it is currently one of the most active countries in the Prüm regime. In addition, the Netherlands has also proactively trained other Member States, guiding them towards effective implementation and thus diffusing the expansive mode of debordering.

Poland

Poland established its DNA database in 2007 and joined the Prüm system in 2013. In comparison to the other countries in the European Union, the Polish DNA database is small. The facilitation of international DNA data exchange was considered as fundamental to Poland’s project to technologically modernize, integrate into Europe and incorporate international crime control standards. Furthermore, the country has demonstrated openness to those new and emergent forensic DNA technologies that have been critically assessed and strictly regulated in other countries. Poland is among Prüm’s most proactive members and is a country ambitious to catch up with a circumscribed expansive mode of debordering. This proactivity is manifested in the range of bilateral data exchange connections Poland has made with other Member States and in the data categories it makes available. Poland’s commitment to expansive debordering dynamics goes hand in hand with the EU’s agenda of integrating security policies.

Germany

Germany’s DNA database was established in 1998 and grew into one of the mid-sized databases in the EU. Under the leadership of its Minister of the Interior, Germany was among the countries that drove the creation of the Prüm system and was among the first signatories of the Prüm Treaty in 2005. The 2007 German Presidency of the EU, along with the European Commission, also pushed for the integration of the Convention of Prüm into an EU legal framework. In terms of bordering practices, the German situation serves to illustrate an expansive and diffusive mode of debordering. This expansiveness is documented by the country’s early involvement and comprehensive establishment of data exchange with most of the countries in the system; this diffusive character is illustrated by the string-pulling practices employed by Germany, and some other Member States’ governments, to influence transnational police collaboration in the EU.

Biobordering as a Concept

This chapter introduces the concept of ‘biobordering’. Taking the nationally grown crime control regimes into account, we argue that the proposed concept of bioborders is useful in capturing how the territorial foundations of national state autonomy are partially reclaimed (what we call rebordering) and at the same time partially purposefully suspended (what we call debordering). The concept of biobordering is particularly fruitful for understanding how modes of bordering entangle with large-scale IT database infrastructures for the exchange of biometric data in the context of crime control. It highlights in particular the legal, scientific, technical, political and ethical dimensions of data exchange across borders across the EU. The chapter reviews recent insights from border studies and continues by outlining components and dynamics of biobordering that make bioborders more or less permeable for expansive biometric data exchange.

A Brief History of the Evolution of Biometrics and Biometric Database Systems Crossing Borders in EU Law Enforcement

This chapter provides an outline of the historical evolution of biometric databases in the European Union and explores how these developments reconfigure notions of borders within this region of the world. This sets the scene for understanding how the melange of biometrical technologies and digitization has reconfigured how we think about the mobility of people, how modes of surveillance relate to human rights and ethical issues, and what modes of regulation are being enforced. This brief historical summary covers the evolution of a range of diverse biometric technologies and database systems and their use in the context of migration control and law enforcement. Furthermore, the chapter contextualizes why the Prüm system, a decentralized database system designed to facilitate the mandatory exchange of forensic DNA data amongst EU Member States to control criminality and terrorism, is of relevance to the concept of bioborders.

Portugal

The Portuguese DNA database was established in 2008 and is one of the smallest DNA databases in the EU. Portugal has one of the most restrictive regulatory frameworks in the EU in relation to the criteria for the entry and deletion of DNA profiles. The country started connecting with the Prüm system’s genetic data exchange in 2015. In terms of bordering practices, Portugal serves as an example of latent rebordering dynamics. This is because the requirements of the EU regulations regarding Prüm have been fully implemented in Portugal in terms of techno-scientific and operational infrastructures, yet Portugal simultaneously severely restricts access to biometric data. This situation derives from particularities of Portugal’s national policy regulations on data protection and its judicial traditions as well as regulations on ethical oversight.

Conclusion

The concluding chapter reviews and compares the modes of biobordering at the EU level and in Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and the UK with a particular focus on the transnational exchange of DNA data within the Prüm system. This analysis reveals the multiplicity of heterogeneous biobordering regimes that enact different visions of Europe and nationhood and that have implications for de facto hidden integration and disintegration processes in the EU. ‘European integration’ is believed to be achievable by the harmonization of scientific and technical procedures in different countries. However, the mandatory elements of the Prüm Decisions were politically enforced without taking into consideration the significant differences between EU countries. Thus, hidden disintegration comes as a contingency regarding operational and organizational traditions, legislation, the nature of the criminal justice system, and national variations around the human and economic resources to invest in forensic DNA databases and DNA profiling technologies. The conclusion ends with a proposal of a typology systematizing biobordering dynamics derived from the empirical case studies.

Introduction

This introductory chapter sets out the key themes and arguments of the book and provides a road map for the remaining chapters. It outlines the book’s ambition to contribute to the sociological and criminological literature on technological infrastructures, borders and specific visions of Europe by portraying what we call the biobordering processes at work in the EU. Relying on what Misa and Schot, reflecting on technological infrastructures, have called the ‘hidden integration’ and ‘hidden fragmentation’ of Europe, the transnational exchange of forensic DNA data organized through the Prüm system serves as an exemplary case through which to explore the different logics of biobordering dynamics at work across the European Union. We complement an EU-level analysis with country case analysis of modes of biobordering that emphasize the legal, scientific, technical, political and ethical dimensions related to the governance and uses of biometric technologies both at a national level and in a transnational collaboration.