Periodic Reporting for period 3 - TRESSPASS (robusT Risk basEd Screening and alert System for PASSengers and luggage)
Período documentado: 2020-12-01 hasta 2021-11-30
Risk-based border management is about using border crossing points (BCPs) as a risk management measure that supports flow-, border- and national security. As such, border management is an essential element in a toolbox for mitigating a wide range of risks. Risk-based approaches are typically used to select risk measures that are more proportional to the actual threat, while maintaining or even reducing the remaining risk: relaxed if possible, more stringent when needed. This implies that for people and goods that pose no significant threat, invasive checks at border crossing points can be limited. This should lead to less and shorter interruptions in the flow of people, more freedom for passengers and less additional personal data (w.r.t. data already collected before arriving at the border crossing point) that must be transferred at those points.
TRESSPASS leverages the results and concepts implemented and tested for airport security within the H2020 FLYSEC and FP7 XP-DITE projects and for land border control in H2020 iBorderCtrl project, and expand them into a multimodal border crossing risk-based security solution within a strong legal and ethics framework. The TRESSPASS Consortium has been the Coordinator of all XP-DITE, iBorderCtrl and FLYSEC projects, and includes technical partners that bring on board an extensive experience in complex security projects and a roster of end users representing all three BCP modalities: air, sea and ground, including customs. The TRESSPASS solution will be tested “in-vitro” with extensive simulations and “in-vivo” in three carefully designed pilot scenarios and field tests.
The TRESSPASS results can be used to inform EU citizens about the trustworthiness of risk-based border control. With risk-based border control, travelers will experience a more proportional border check. For bona fide travelers, which are the large majority, the expectation is that the flow and accosting will improve substantially.
Objectives:
O1. Develop a single cohesive risk-based border management concept that covers the entire scope as described above, i.e. a four-tier trans-national, multi-modal security tunnel, including the accompanying concept of operations.
O2. Apply an ethics and data protection “by design” approach to ensure legal and ethical compliance of the solutions and provide ethical guidelines for decision makers regarding the planning and implementation of risk-based screening at borders.
O3. Include passenger trust in risk management model and perform sensitivity analysis and optimization by taking into consideration a trustful passenger as a proactive and trustworthy source of voluntary information and determine the benefits from the development of such trust-based interaction between security system and passenger in order to optimize the performance of the system in terms of efficiency, cost reduction, and increased security.
O4. Develop three pivoting pilot demonstrators for practical demonstration of key conceptual, operational and technical aspects of this concept using multiple threat scenarios, including terrorism activities at air borders, cross border crime at land borders and irregular immigration via sea (port) borders.
O5. Demonstrate the validity of the single cohesive risk-based border management concept by using the developed pilot demonstrators, red teaming and simulations.
O6. Prepare for the further development of this concept beyond this project by linking to other known risk-based border management projects and describe how their results contribute to a single cohesive risk-based border management concept. This will give all stakeholders a perspective for their respective further development.
TRESSPASS leverages the results and concepts implemented and tested for airport security within the H2020 FLYSEC and FP7 XP-DITE projects and for land border control in H2020 iBorderCtrl project, and expand them into a multimodal border crossing risk-based security solution within a strong legal and ethics framework. The TRESSPASS Consortium has been the Coordinator of all XP-DITE, iBorderCtrl and FLYSEC projects, and includes technical partners that bring on board an extensive experience in complex security projects and a roster of end users representing all three BCP modalities: air, sea and ground, including customs. The TRESSPASS solution will be tested “in-vitro” with extensive simulations and “in-vivo” in three carefully designed pilot scenarios and field tests.
The TRESSPASS results can be used to inform EU citizens about the trustworthiness of risk-based border control. With risk-based border control, travelers will experience a more proportional border check. For bona fide travelers, which are the large majority, the expectation is that the flow and accosting will improve substantially.
Objectives:
O1. Develop a single cohesive risk-based border management concept that covers the entire scope as described above, i.e. a four-tier trans-national, multi-modal security tunnel, including the accompanying concept of operations.
O2. Apply an ethics and data protection “by design” approach to ensure legal and ethical compliance of the solutions and provide ethical guidelines for decision makers regarding the planning and implementation of risk-based screening at borders.
O3. Include passenger trust in risk management model and perform sensitivity analysis and optimization by taking into consideration a trustful passenger as a proactive and trustworthy source of voluntary information and determine the benefits from the development of such trust-based interaction between security system and passenger in order to optimize the performance of the system in terms of efficiency, cost reduction, and increased security.
O4. Develop three pivoting pilot demonstrators for practical demonstration of key conceptual, operational and technical aspects of this concept using multiple threat scenarios, including terrorism activities at air borders, cross border crime at land borders and irregular immigration via sea (port) borders.
O5. Demonstrate the validity of the single cohesive risk-based border management concept by using the developed pilot demonstrators, red teaming and simulations.
O6. Prepare for the further development of this concept beyond this project by linking to other known risk-based border management projects and describe how their results contribute to a single cohesive risk-based border management concept. This will give all stakeholders a perspective for their respective further development.
TRESSPASS defined and provided the Risk based Border Management concept for BCPs and relevant models and CONOPS, including multi-national risk based cooperation
TRESSPASS Integrated System is developed and final version provided towards Pilot testing (TRL 6-7)
Pilot tests conducted successfully and TRESSPASS system tested in the operational environment in Air, Land and Sea BCPs.
Ethical Impact Evaluation and framework provided, ensuring by design protection of ethics, legal, data protection and security aspects
Validation framework ready in terms of Pilot Planning & Red Teaming scenarios and Simulation Framework
Exploitation and further development of the concept: Sustainability report (Roadmap) and provided Policy Options, including white paper on Standardisation
TRESSPASS Integrated System is developed and final version provided towards Pilot testing (TRL 6-7)
Pilot tests conducted successfully and TRESSPASS system tested in the operational environment in Air, Land and Sea BCPs.
Ethical Impact Evaluation and framework provided, ensuring by design protection of ethics, legal, data protection and security aspects
Validation framework ready in terms of Pilot Planning & Red Teaming scenarios and Simulation Framework
Exploitation and further development of the concept: Sustainability report (Roadmap) and provided Policy Options, including white paper on Standardisation
Take-away message: Benefits
The methodological TRESSPASS-type of risk based border control, to some degree implemented in technology, can indeed improve on competing operational performance areas:
• Stopping power against multiple types of threats
• Flow rate in different travel modalities
• Efficiency (OPEX)
… simultaneously in the same border control filter, while strengthening identity checks (D8.5).
Take-away message: Ethics
TRESSPASS disseminates proactively and openly - also about ethics. (e.g. website FAQ, public Deliverables, reports and white paper on standardisation)
Risk-based border control in general has ethical risks. (D9.9)
The methodological approach of TRESSPASS has identified many of them (D9.x D6.3 and e.g. D2.2 Annex), and identified and validated several mitigation measures for these ethical risks in the TRESSPASS concept. (D8.5 D9.9)
Ethics can not be delegated or outsourced. EU institutions, and border guards will also need to make their own assessments.
Take-away message: Feasibility
Risk-based border control can be explained elegantly by:
“more stringent when needed, more relaxed when possible”
Still, it is inherently more complex than rule based border control. This complexity is reflected in all aspects: e.g. in technical feasibility, teachability, ethics, explainability and in accountability. (D1.x D5.x D6.x D9.x)
• Core components functioned as required.
• TRESSPASS end users led their own pilots, which was instrumental for their learning curve. (D8.x)
• Lessons-learnt proved to be transferrable to other pilots.
• Simulation is essential (D7.x)
• Member states will need high level support going forward (D10.6 Standardization White Paper).
What’s next?
• Continuing transparency about ethical risks and their mitigation will be crucial (D9.9).
• EU-wide COVID-19 crash course can be evaluated from risk-based perspective.
• Roadmap has provided policy options for EC (D10.6).
• We expect different opinions regarding these options from EU member states.
• Full implementation of option 2 will take ~10yrs
• Member states will need high level support and can benefit from coordination (D10.6).
• Dutch Border guard has started work to develop risk-based operations at large BCPs to TRL8, in line with policy option 1.
• Within their natural roles, parts of the TRESSPASS consortium can be leveraged to help build this supporting capability (D10.6).
How does it all connect?
• How has the context developed?
• We see an increased need that can be addressed with risk-based border control.
• What do the results mean?
• The TRESSPASS concept works
• There are ethical concerns for which we have
identified mitigations
• The core of the concept is currently feasible
• What’s next?
• Learning opportunities are needed and
are available
• A road forward has been described
• Enthusiastic end users are already moving
The methodological TRESSPASS-type of risk based border control, to some degree implemented in technology, can indeed improve on competing operational performance areas:
• Stopping power against multiple types of threats
• Flow rate in different travel modalities
• Efficiency (OPEX)
… simultaneously in the same border control filter, while strengthening identity checks (D8.5).
Take-away message: Ethics
TRESSPASS disseminates proactively and openly - also about ethics. (e.g. website FAQ, public Deliverables, reports and white paper on standardisation)
Risk-based border control in general has ethical risks. (D9.9)
The methodological approach of TRESSPASS has identified many of them (D9.x D6.3 and e.g. D2.2 Annex), and identified and validated several mitigation measures for these ethical risks in the TRESSPASS concept. (D8.5 D9.9)
Ethics can not be delegated or outsourced. EU institutions, and border guards will also need to make their own assessments.
Take-away message: Feasibility
Risk-based border control can be explained elegantly by:
“more stringent when needed, more relaxed when possible”
Still, it is inherently more complex than rule based border control. This complexity is reflected in all aspects: e.g. in technical feasibility, teachability, ethics, explainability and in accountability. (D1.x D5.x D6.x D9.x)
• Core components functioned as required.
• TRESSPASS end users led their own pilots, which was instrumental for their learning curve. (D8.x)
• Lessons-learnt proved to be transferrable to other pilots.
• Simulation is essential (D7.x)
• Member states will need high level support going forward (D10.6 Standardization White Paper).
What’s next?
• Continuing transparency about ethical risks and their mitigation will be crucial (D9.9).
• EU-wide COVID-19 crash course can be evaluated from risk-based perspective.
• Roadmap has provided policy options for EC (D10.6).
• We expect different opinions regarding these options from EU member states.
• Full implementation of option 2 will take ~10yrs
• Member states will need high level support and can benefit from coordination (D10.6).
• Dutch Border guard has started work to develop risk-based operations at large BCPs to TRL8, in line with policy option 1.
• Within their natural roles, parts of the TRESSPASS consortium can be leveraged to help build this supporting capability (D10.6).
How does it all connect?
• How has the context developed?
• We see an increased need that can be addressed with risk-based border control.
• What do the results mean?
• The TRESSPASS concept works
• There are ethical concerns for which we have
identified mitigations
• The core of the concept is currently feasible
• What’s next?
• Learning opportunities are needed and
are available
• A road forward has been described
• Enthusiastic end users are already moving