Session Readback by Aapti Institute | RightsCon 2025

The latest edition of RightsCon took place between February 25th to 27th in Taipei, Taiwan. Aapti Institute co-organised two sessions at the conference — a panel discussion under the thematic area, ‘Data Protection’ and a roundtable under thematic area, ‘Freedoms and Agency in the Age of Surveillance’.

Roundtable discussion:

Our roundtable discussion, “The Border-Industrial Complex and the Inevitable Rise of the Private Sector in Migration Management”, explored the network of actors shaping contemporary migration governance. This complex ecosystem comprising governments, private corporations, financiers, consultants, and civil society organisations, has influence over border control and migration management policies.

Facilitators and Key Themes

The session was led by Poorvi Yerrapureddy (Aapti Institute), Jassin Irscheid (Robert Bosch Foundation), and Caterina Rodelli (Access Now), with opening remarks by Petra Molnar (Refugee Law Lab), who framed the discussion around the power dynamics that shape migration control. The conversation examined how private entities increasingly influence the trajectory of border governance, often with minimal oversight and accountability.

Insights from all participants could be shared in an interactive format on  three thematic blocks:

• Mapping Power & Influence

• Pinpointing Intervention Strategies

• Corporate Accountability

  
  

Takeaways from the discussion:

1. Expanding Accountability in Border Technology:  Accountability extends beyond corporate regulation. Actively including people on the move in discussions on accountability, it is important to as without their perspectives, the discourse remains incomplete, often reinforcing top-down narratives rather than addressing the real-world consequences of border technologies. 

2. Mapping Power and Influence in the Border Technology Ecosystem: A structured mapping of power dynamics within the border technology industry revealed the existence of multiple, often obscured, layers of influence. While major corporations, governments, and multilateral agencies are widely recognised as key decision-makers, intermediary actors such as whistleblowers, advocacy organisations, investigative journalists, and academic researchers play an equally pivotal role in shaping discourse and pushing for transparency and accountability. These groups serve as critical watchdogs, exposing unethical practices, influencing policy, and advocating for more equitable governance of border technologies.

3. Identifying Areas of Intervention:  Exploring options for mobilisation strategies, including the use of social media for different types of campaigns, strengthening advocacy networks and coordinating grassroots movements to demand corporate and government accountability, highlighted the importance of effective public mobilisation and a greater role for the public than had previously been assumed. . This led to an. Strategic litigation emerged as an impactful tool, with the potential to not only involve government agencies in regulatory enforcement but also hold private-sector entities legally accountable for rights violations stemming from border technology deployment.

4. Enhancing Private Sector Accountability:  To identify concrete mechanisms to increase private sector accountability, participants examined whether established strategies from AI governance, human rights advocacy, and corporate accountability frameworks could be adapted to the border technology sector. We hoped to identify concrete strategies, one specific outcome of which was that while dealing with non-transparent actors, it is often not enough to target the usual groups such as political decision-makers and the general public, but also look at shareholders who would be influenced. Targeting shareholders responsible for corporate decisions by exposing rights violations linked to border technologies could lead to reputational risks and financial consequences. By driving awareness campaigns and investor activism, there is potential to impact share value, incentivising corporations to adopt ethical practices.

As the conversation on border technology governance evolves, these insights provide a foundation for strategic interventions that move beyond theoretical discussions and translate into concrete actions. By fostering collaboration among advocacy groups, journalists, legal experts, and affected communities, accountability efforts can shift from reactive to proactive, ensuring greater oversight in the development and deployment of border technologies.

Panel Session:

For our dialogue on ‘Community-oriented technology in migration; what does it look like and what can it solve?’, we brought together panellists working on  human migration, mobility data, and digital infrastructure. The panel delved into rethinking technology design and development in ways that involve migrant communities. The session explored how current systems are designed, why they fail migrants, and what a more community-driven approach to migration technology could look like.

Speakers:

• Jessica Bither, Senior Expert for Migration at the Robert Bosch Foundation 

• Laura Bingham, Executive Director, Institute for Law, Innovation & Technology at Temple University 

• Usama Khilji, Director, Bolo Bhi

  
  

Moderator:

• Soujanya Sridharan, Senior Manager, Aapti Institute

  
  

Takeaways from the discussion: 

1. Deterrence Is Not a Solution: Migration policies are often narrowly framed within a political discourse that equates migration, particularly irregular migration, with a problem requiring deterrence. However, deterrence-based approaches have consistently failed to reduce migration flows. Instead, they push people toward more perilous and unregulated routes. Jessica Bither highlighted the dangers of this strategy, arguing that it not only jeopardises lives but also undermines the integrity of migration policy itself. A shift from deterrence to dignity is imperative - one that prioritises safe, legal, and humane pathways over punitive measures.

2. Interoperability vs. Hyper-visibility The push for interoperability in migration governance, such as integrated identity systems and cross-border databases, are often presented as a means to improve efficiency. However, as Laura Bingham emphasised, these systems frequently enable excessive surveillance, leading to the hyper-visibility of already vulnerable migrant populations. Rather than facilitating inclusion, such technology-driven frameworks often result in invasive tracking, data exploitation, and restrictions on movement. There is an urgent need for stronger, principle-driven safeguards that prioritise migrant rights over security-led digital governance.

3. Colonial Pasts and Migrant Futures: Migration is not merely a response to crises; it is deeply tied to historical injustices, particularly colonialism and the arbitrary establishment of border systems. Usama Khilji highlighted how migration is often a direct consequence of such historical forces, particularly in Global Majority countries, where communities have long navigated complex migratory journeys as part of their cultural and economic identity. Ignoring these historical contexts leads to policies that fail to address the root causes of migration and instead reinforce exclusionary narratives.

4. Refugees as Political Bargaining Chips: Refugees are frequently reduced to mere instruments of political negotiation, used by governments to secure economic aid, diplomatic leverage, or push restrictive policies. This not only dehumanises displaced individuals but also obstructs meaningful solutions that prioritise their protection and rights. A rights-based approach is necessary to ensure that refugee policies centre the dignity and agency of those affected rather than serving as tools of political manoeuvring.

   
   

By acknowledging these structural flaws and historical injustices, migration governance can move beyond reactive, securitised approaches towards frameworks that uphold rights, prioritise dignity, and foster long-term inclusion.

Next Steps:

1. Over the next two years, we will conduct case study research to examine how migrants interact with digital technologies across key migration corridors. By analysing data governance practices and infrastructure, we will produce actionable insights that challenge existing frameworks and inform bottom-up technology design and policymaking. Our goal is to embed ResTech principles in migration governance, ensuring that digital infrastructure is shaped by lived experiences and preserves migrant agency.

2. We will strengthen the Migration x Technology community as a collaborative platform for researchers, policymakers, technology developers, and migrants to share insights and build solidarities. Through issue-based discussions, convenings, and participation in global policy forums, we aim to mainstream our research findings and reframe migration narratives. By embedding our work in key policy spaces, we seek to influence governance frameworks, promote collective rights over migration data, and challenge siloed approaches to digital infrastructure development.

3. We have launched a taxonomy identifying platforms that address the shortcomings of institutionalised migration infrastructure by developing migrant-sensitive technologies—what we term ResTech. Our goal is to build a dynamic, community-driven repository that remains continuously updated and shaped by collective contributions. By fostering an open, collaborative space, we aim to create a resource that evolves alongside the migration ecosystem, ensuring accessibility and relevance.