Technology, faces, presences: The sensory work of border control

Publikation: Konferencebidrag › Paper › Forskning

Standard

Technology, faces, presences : The sensory work of border control. / Møhl, Perle.

2018. Paper præsenteret ved 15th EASA Biennial Conference, Stockholm 2018, Stockholm , Sverige.

Publikation: Konferencebidrag › Paper › Forskning

Harvard

Møhl, P 2018, 'Technology, faces, presences: The sensory work of border control', Paper fremlagt ved 15th EASA Biennial Conference, Stockholm 2018, Stockholm , Sverige, 14/08/2018 - 18/08/2018.

APA

Møhl, P. (2018). Technology, faces, presences: The sensory work of border control. Paper præsenteret ved 15th EASA Biennial Conference, Stockholm 2018, Stockholm , Sverige.

Vancouver

Møhl P. Technology, faces, presences: The sensory work of border control. 2018. Paper præsenteret ved 15th EASA Biennial Conference, Stockholm 2018, Stockholm , Sverige.

Author

Møhl, Perle. / Technology, faces, presences : The sensory work of border control. Paper præsenteret ved 15th EASA Biennial Conference, Stockholm 2018, Stockholm , Sverige.

Bibtex

@conference{674385e8a40f48ffa3433ad3dcdd4020,
title = "Technology, faces, presences: The sensory work of border control",
abstract = "Border control involves the use of a whole range of biometric technologies, varying from very simple analog tools to complex high-tech installations.The paper compares the workings of two such biometric technologies used in border control: facial recognition in automated border control and presence detection in the control of border transgression attempts. Both artefacts are biometric in that they register and measure qualities of the body, but they work in very different ways, and on very different technological, temporal, spatial and sense-making grounds. They also relate very differently to life. The paper dwells on and compares these differences and their existential and semiotic qualities. The comparison somewhat temperates the omnipresent idea, whether critical or rejoicing, that digital technologies are more efficient and also more difficult to circumvent than other, simpler types of border control.The analysis is based on fieldwork among police officers in two border control settings: the border in Copenhagen Airport and the border between Spain and Morocco in Ceuta, a Spanish city enclave on the Moroccan coast.",
author = "Perle M{\o}hl",
year = "2018",
month = aug,
day = "18",
language = "English",
note = "null ; Conference date: 14-08-2018 Through 18-08-2018",
url = "https://www.easaonline.org/conferences/easa2018/",

}

RIS

TY - CONF

T1 - Technology, faces, presences

AU - Møhl, Perle

PY - 2018/8/18

Y1 - 2018/8/18

N2 - Border control involves the use of a whole range of biometric technologies, varying from very simple analog tools to complex high-tech installations.The paper compares the workings of two such biometric technologies used in border control: facial recognition in automated border control and presence detection in the control of border transgression attempts. Both artefacts are biometric in that they register and measure qualities of the body, but they work in very different ways, and on very different technological, temporal, spatial and sense-making grounds. They also relate very differently to life. The paper dwells on and compares these differences and their existential and semiotic qualities. The comparison somewhat temperates the omnipresent idea, whether critical or rejoicing, that digital technologies are more efficient and also more difficult to circumvent than other, simpler types of border control.The analysis is based on fieldwork among police officers in two border control settings: the border in Copenhagen Airport and the border between Spain and Morocco in Ceuta, a Spanish city enclave on the Moroccan coast.

AB - Border control involves the use of a whole range of biometric technologies, varying from very simple analog tools to complex high-tech installations.The paper compares the workings of two such biometric technologies used in border control: facial recognition in automated border control and presence detection in the control of border transgression attempts. Both artefacts are biometric in that they register and measure qualities of the body, but they work in very different ways, and on very different technological, temporal, spatial and sense-making grounds. They also relate very differently to life. The paper dwells on and compares these differences and their existential and semiotic qualities. The comparison somewhat temperates the omnipresent idea, whether critical or rejoicing, that digital technologies are more efficient and also more difficult to circumvent than other, simpler types of border control.The analysis is based on fieldwork among police officers in two border control settings: the border in Copenhagen Airport and the border between Spain and Morocco in Ceuta, a Spanish city enclave on the Moroccan coast.

M3 - Paper

Y2 - 14 August 2018 through 18 August 2018

ER -

ID: 201237140