Biometric Surveillance in Conflict Zones: The Human Rights Implications of Gaza’s Proposed “Monitored Communities”

A recent report reveals that Global Delivery Company (GDC), an American firm led by Israeli-American businessman Mordechai Kahana, has received approval to establish highly monitored communities in Gaza. These communities would incorporate biometric checkpoints equipped with voice, facial, and fingerprint recognition technology to control and monitor movement. Proponents in Israel and the United States argue that these measures are essential for identifying and deterring potential terrorist threats within Gaza.

However, international human rights organizations, including the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC), have raised concerns that such measures could contribute to a broader pattern of human rights violations. Both the UN and ICC have criticized policies that restrict freedom of movement, regarding them as instances of excessive surveillance that may violate international humanitarian laws. In 2020, a UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism warned, “In the absence of robust rights protections which are institutionally embedded to oversee the collection, storage, and use of such evidence, relevant practices are likely to infringe international human rights law standards.”

This is not the first instance of biometric technology being used in conflict zones. Following U.S. forces’ takeover of Fallujah in 2004, the United States implemented the Automated Biometric Identification System (ABIS) during the Iraq War. The U.S. military collected fingerprints, iris scans, and facial scans to identify insurgents, asserting that rapid identification was essential for preventing terrorist attacks. Biometric checkpoints were set up across Iraq, including at checkpoints, military bases, and during patrols. By the time U.S. forces withdrew in 2011, the biometric system contained data on over three million Iraqis. In Afghanistan, biometric data collection became standard as well. According to The Economist in 2012, data was collected from as many individuals as possible—even the deceased—by pulling men from their homes, mosques, and buses for fingerprinting and scanning. This data was shared across U.S. agencies, including the Army, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security.

These biometric checkpoints, placed in strategic areas, often restricted civilians’ movement, disrupting daily lives with delays and intense scrutiny. Concerns arose that these practices violated international laws. A 2021 report, Biometrics and Counter-Terrorism: A Case Study of Iraq and Afghanistan by Nina Toft Djanegara, detailed the involvement of private firms like Lockheed Martin, Unicom, Cubic Corporation, and Northrop Grumman in the U.S. biometric efforts, raising questions about data security, potential misuse, and lack of oversight.

The international community has expressed concern over biometric data collection, especially in conflict zones where civilians often have little choice in participating. Key international frameworks, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 12) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 17), emphasize the importance of privacy and prohibit arbitrary interference. The ICCPR explicitly bars unlawful attacks on personal honor and reputation, underscoring individuals’ right to autonomy, which includes protection from invasive data collection practices that could compromise dignity and security.

Further protections are found in the Geneva Conventions, particularly the Fourth Convention (Articles 27 and 31), which aim to safeguard civilians from coercion and mistreatment during war. Although these articles do not specifically address biometric data, they stress the importance of respecting civilians’ dignity and protecting them from undue risk, especially in conflict settings. The UN’s Guidelines on Privacy in the Digital Age also recommend that nations establish strict oversight in digital data practices, emphasizing transparency in data use and retention policies, especially when it affects vulnerable populations.

Introducing biometric tracking in areas with longstanding restrictions on movement, like Gaza, raises ethical and legal issues regarding human rights, privacy, and the potential for abuse. The proposal by the U.S. and Israel to implement biometric systems in controlled areas with limited movement would likely exacerbate the already significant restrictions on Palestinians’ daily lives. In Gaza, where checkpoints and barriers are already pervasive, such systems could intensify hardships and further infringe on personal freedoms.

While biometric technology has advanced fields like crime-solving, the United Nations has stressed that these advancements bring a responsibility to protect human rights. The U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrates the immediate impacts of biometric implementation, including restricted movement, intense scrutiny, and broader psychological effects from limitations on individual freedom. These cases highlight the need for a balanced approach that respects human rights alongside security.

The psychological impact of these measures is profound. Constant surveillance and restricted movement create environments of fear and mistrust. The long-term effects include anxiety, stress, and trauma, affecting both individuals and broader society. The United Nations has emphasized the need for countries to protect those affected by such measures, ensuring transparency in data collection and its intended uses.

Further complications arise with the involvement of GDC and its leader, Mordechai Kahana. Kahana, an Israeli-American businessman, has described his for-profit business as “Uber for War Zones.” According to reports from Middle East Eye, Kahana has made derogatory remarks about Palestinians, including advocating for their forced transfer to Jordan. Kahana’s also has connections with key figures in Israeli politics. He has reportedly worked closely with members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, calling into question his ability to serve as an unbiased player in this highly charged environment.

Humanitarian organizations, including the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, have repeatedly criticized policies that restrict freedom of movement and violate international humanitarian laws. As the international community grapples with the use of biometric technology in conflict zones, it is crucial to prioritize the rights and freedoms of individuals. Robust oversight mechanisms, transparency in data collection, and adherence to international standards are essential. The lessons from biometric use in Iraq and Afghanistan serve as a cautionary tale, underscoring the need for approaches that balance human rights and security.