Alternatives to detention: How tech ‘solutions’ expand containment

Guest post by Antonella Napolitano. Antonella is an independent expert on technology policies and their impact on society, particularly on migration and welfare. She publishes research on the role of technology in border externalisation policies and identity systems for refugees and migrants. Previously, she was Senior Policy Officer at Privacy International, where she developed the organisation's work on migration and surveillance technologies. She worked on the report, ‘Surveillance to Empowerment’ as Digital Technologies Consultant with the International Detention Coalition. This post is part of a two-part series on the findings of the report.

In recent years, governments all over the world have been increasingly adopting digital technologies to monitor people on the move, creating vast infrastructures of digital surveillance and algorithmic control used to manage, deter, and discipline mobility.

A new report From Surveillance to Empowerment: Advancing the Responsible Use of Technology in Alternatives to Detention looks specifically at policies and practices in the context of alternatives to detention. This area of migration governance is still under-researched but quickly gaining a central role in the debate around the human impacts of technologies.

Alternatives to detention (ATD) refers to mechanisms that provide states with a means to manage migration without resorting to custodial detention, which therefore allows people to remain in the community. The International Detention Coalition – a co-author of the report – defines ATD as “any law, policy or practice by which persons are not detained for reasons relating to their migration status.”

Technology such as wearable devices like GPS ankle monitors or GPS-enabled watches, smartphone-based tracking apps, and risk-assessment algorithms are promoted as humane and cost-effective ATD. In reality, these technologies often replicate and extend the control and harms of detention in new digital forms. As the report finds, they can restrict liberty, undermine dignity, erode trust, and cause serious mental and physical health impacts, particularly when used by default and without safeguards. As such, they are better characterised as alternate forms of detention, rather than alternatives to detention.

ATD as an alternative form of detention

The research - the first of its kind - is a collaboration between the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at USNW, the International Detention Coalition, and the Refugee Law Lab at York University. It is based on extensive consultations with 158 participants across eight global regions and a survey of emerging global practices that included contributions from people with lived experience, civil society, researchers, technologists, academics, international human rights bodies, UN agencies and other practitioners.

The results reveal that technology is sometimes framed as ATD by states but often used for surveillance and enforcement, rather than rights-based support, creating lasting damage and perpetuating trauma. This results in the co-optation of the ATD label by some states for harmful practices, sometimes even explicitly: for example, in the US, ICE has an Alternatives to Detention programme with intensive surveillance conditions. 

The report charts global policy trends that are intertwined across jurisdictions. For example, in Europe and other Global North contexts, the use of surveillance technologies is already widely spread in migration management. In the US, most notably, the migration enforcement landscape is increasingly defined by biometric tracking, algorithmic monitoring, and private sector partnerships in immigration detention. In Europe, these tools have been extensively deployed in the UK, but new legal and policy frameworks, including the EU’s Migration and Asylum Pact and the rushed-through EU Returns Regulation, are creating openings for intrusive technologies to become further embedded in migration governance. 

At the same time, in several Global Majority countries where surveillance technology is not routinely used in the same way, human rights groups interviewed for the report highlighted concerns about pressure to adopt such systems and practices as a condition to keep funding from Global North countries or to get into visa programs. These technological tools, often branded by companies as 'solutions' could become part of wider “securitised migration cooperation” and border externalisation agendas. 

Another worrying element is that these systems are often provided by private corporations operating through opaque procurement processes with minimal oversight or accountability. This has created a surveillance business model that profits from restrictions on human mobility and the erosion of privacy rights. A recent research project mapped over 450 companies conducting a “cosy relationship” with three EU agencies instrumental for implementing EU migration policies — EU-LISA, Europol, and Frontex.

A call for genuine alternatives

These trends raise profound concerns under international human rights law, including risks to privacy, liberty, equality, and the right to health. Technology enabling surveillance and control are intrusive systems that extend detention beyond the walls of a facility: as such, they should not be used on people on the move. 

Yet, our consultations - particularly with people with lived experience - also showed that technology has the potential to be part of the solution. When designed with and for affected communities, grounded in legal safeguards, and used to expand — rather than restrict — choice and agency, these tools can connect with essential services, work towards case resolution and permanent solutions that centre people’s dignity and ability to live freely.

The report details these and other systems, as well as a wide range of digital and non-digital reporting tools such as telephone reporting or participatory reporting tools that allow people to choose verification methods that don’t include biometrics. This taxonomy also has an additional category that focuses on digital support services: distinct from compliance or monitoring mechanisms, these types of tools aim to empower and assist rather than to control. Examples include digital case management systems and integration-focused digital resources, such as platforms and geolocated apps that connect people- on-the-move to centralized and decentralized service directories - often co-created with or independently created by migrant communities.

Crafting a way forward is crucial: this is why the report sets out 10 guiding principles to ensure technology is used to reduce rather than extend detention, and to promote freedom, dignity, rights, and community integration. 

Principles highlight that technological tools must not amount to deprivation of liberty, either individually or cumulatively. Additionally, data collection should be strictly limited to what is necessary for a specified, limited and lawful purpose, anonymised where possible and stored securely. Finally, any outsourcing must adhere to principles of open and public procurement, be subject to ongoing human rights and data impact assessments, and include safeguards to ensure transparency and accountability.

These principles address key risks, and should be applied holistically rather than individually, with each reinforcing and complementing one another. Together, the principles can guide the efforts of governments, international organisations, civil society, people with lived experience and technologists to move away from surveillance-driven approaches and toward genuine alternatives grounded in trust, procedural fairness, and meaningful engagement.

The report From Surveillance to Empowerment: Advancing the Responsible Use of Technology in Alternatives to Detention was published in September 2025. It is co-authored by Daniel Ghezelbash, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, UNSW Sydney, and Petra Molnar, Refugee Law Lab, York University, and the Berkman Klein Center, Harvard University, in collaboration with Carolina Gottardo and Antonella Napolitano, International Detention Coalition.

Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or find us on LinkedIn, Bluesky and Instagram.