Academia, Civil society, Policy-makers, Security practitioners

Social acceptance analysis

OSINT technologies are increasingly used in the field of migration. The reduced costs and increased accessibility of these technologies allow a variety of actors to use them systematically or occasionally for various purposes, including the anticipation or management of critical situations at borders (humanitarian crises, violence, etc.), the detection of crimes (human trafficking, smuggling, sex and labour exploitation, etc.), the control of migration flows through the detection of violations at borders or the provision of support services to migrants present in European countries.

The use of these technologies offers growing opportunities to better manage migration, protect migrants from the risks associated with their migratory journeys, and protect the human rights of those directly and indirectly involved in migration. However, these same technologies can have serious social and ethical implications, negative intended or unintended consequences, and can also endanger migrants and their families.

It is therefore important to focus on the social acceptance of these technologies when applied to migration to ensure that they are used responsibly. This tool has been developed to enable anyone to conduct a social acceptance analysis of the use of OSINT technologies in migration. The analysis aims to identify the critical factors of social acceptance and to develop appropriate measures to increase the level of social acceptance. This can be useful both for those who use OSINT technologies (most of which are based on artificial intelligence) in migration and for those who intend to develop advocacy activities to support the responsible use of OSINT technologies in migration by others.

This tool is divided into two sections. Section One analyses the concept of social acceptance, while Section Two describes a four-step approach to social acceptance.

1. The concept of social acceptance

The concept of social acceptance is quite simple. A definition is given in the box below.

Social acceptance refers to positive attitudes of users, stakeholders, or the public at large towards a novel technology or technological system, leading to supportive behaviours.

Achieving a high level of social acceptance for a new technological system is particularly important for its future development and application. This is particularly important when new technological systems are applied to highly politically sensitive issues, such as migration.

Social acceptance matters because, e.g.,

Facilitates the ethical, legal, organisational and market integration of a new technological system
Facilitates democratic control over the risks associated with the new technological system
Makes the system more sustainable in the long term
Encourages investments, innovation and continuous improvements
Reduces and prevents conflicts
Facilitates social and cultural change among stakeholders and users.

Based on the definition of social acceptance given above, some considerations deserve to be made:

Social acceptance is a relational concept, i.e., it depends on the relationship between the new technological system and the concerned social groups or actors. Consequently, a technological system cannot be accepted by all to the same degree or for the same reasons.
This implies that social acceptance depends on how different actors and groups “frame” the new socio-technical system, that is, how they describe, interpret and communicate it and to which values, expectations, priorities and objectives they link it.
The question of social acceptance arises because no technological system is purely technological, but always a socio-technical system, in which technologies are closely intertwined with social, legal, ethical, psychological and economic dynamics.

2. How to identify the factors influencing social acceptance?

This section describes a four-step approach to identifying the main factors influencing social acceptance of a new technological system.

The four steps are as follows.

A. Locate yourself

The first step is to understand under which perspective we are analysing the new technological system. In many cases, three different kinds of social acceptance can be distinguished:

Socio-political acceptance. This kind of acceptance concerns the generic acceptance of technologies expressed by those who are not directly involved with the new technological system, such as the public at large, the media or the authorities that are not concerned with migration. Their knowledge of the new system is usually shallow.
Community acceptance. This type of acceptance is expressed by stakeholders, i.e. all those who are involved in and have an interest in the management of migration. They may include, for example, refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and potential migrants, NGOs dealing with migration, and national, European or international institutions dealing with migration. They usually know something about the new technological system, although their knowledge is not deep.
Market acceptance. This kind of acceptance concerns those who fund, use, or manage a particular technology or set of technologies, i.e., the end-users. In this case, reference is made to Frontex, national border authorities, and concerned law enforcement agencies. This level is mainly about how end-users are interested in and able to leave traditional solutions for more innovative technological solutions.

To begin an analysis of social acceptance, it is necessary to understand where one “fits in”, i.e. which groups one belongs to or thinks one represents. To begin an analysis of social acceptance, it is necessary to understand where one is “located”, i.e. which perspective(s) or groups one represents.

For example, members of NGOs working with migrants may locate themselves as representing specific stakeholders such as migrants, refugees or humanitarian workers. A set of questions to be answered can be useful in locating oneself. For example, members of NGOs working with migrants may locate themselves as representing specific stakeholders such as migrants, refugees or humanitarian workers.

A set of questions to answer can be useful to locate oneself.

Position	Which social actors do I believe I represent? What are their interests in the new technological system? Do I have enough information to have a say?
Previous knowledge	Have I ever heard of the new technology system? From whom or how? What information do I already have about it?
Opinion	Do I already have opinions about the new technological system? Are they positive or negative? What are they based on? Could they be biased?

It might be useful to write a short note at the end of this reflection, defining the perspective from which the new technological system is observed.

B. Describe the new technological system

The second step is to provide a linear and as complete as possible description of the new technological system. The description can be focused on the four main components on which the social acceptance analysis will be based.

Objectives and use. Describe, e.g., the explicit objectives pursued by the promoter of the new technological system; the problems to be addressed; the specific results expected; the time frame; whether the new system integrates with existing technologies, how these have been used, and what added value the new technological system is expected to provide.

Features of the technological system. Describe, e.g., the main components of the technological system; how they are assembled; how users can access the system; what outputs can be requested from the system; how data and information produced is used and stored; who has access to the system and its various components; what security, control and verification systems are in place; how the staff is made up and what skills it integrates.

Promoters of the technological system. Describe, e.g., which entities are involved in the new technological system and in what roles (e.g. financiers, owners, managers, consultants); where the new technological system is located organisationally (e.g. which department is responsible for it); when and how the new system was introduced and by what means; whether it has been modified over time and whether it is based on pre-existing technological systems or other similar initiatives.

Relations with the stakeholders. Describe, for example, whether the promoter(s) is/are in contact with external entities in the implementation, promotion, management and verification of the new technological system; whether and which collaborations with external entities are foreseen; whether the system has been publicly presented, to whom and on what occasions; whether the system has been described in detail in any publication (e.g. scientific articles, specific publications) or on any website.

It might be useful to draft a description report summarised the information collected during the analysis.

C. Identify the factors influencing social acceptance

The third step is to identify the factors that might influence social acceptance from the specific perspective(s) you represent. The four components used to describe the new technological system can also be used to think about the factors. Some factors are suggested in the following tables with some questions to be deepened.. However, many other factors may be identified.

Objectives and use
Factors	Questions (examples)
Objectives	Are the objectives of the system clear? Do we believe that these objectives could endanger or help migrants, refugees, humanitarian workers or others? Are these objectives acceptable? Why or why not? Are there other objectives that can be pursued through the system that could be useful in supporting migrants and refugees?
Actual use of the system	Is the system being used to achieve all the stated objectives? What objectives are not pursued and why? Is the system being used to achieve other «hidden» objectives? What are they? Are they acceptable?
Other factors

Features of the technological system
Factors	Questions (examples)
Accuracy	Is the system able to guarantee adequate levels of accuracy (ability to process data correctly), for example in image recognition or text classification in different languages? What sources do we have to know about? Are they reliable?
Veracity	Is the system capable of assessing the veracity of sources (e.g. identifying bots, fake news, manipulated images, etc.)? What sources do we have to know about? Are they reliable?
Training of the algorithms	Is the algorithm training process sufficiently controlled and contextualised to reduce the risk of biased information? What sources do we have to know about? Are they reliable?
Privacy and traceability	Does the system prevent the identification or traceability of individuals acting online or reported in online sources (e.g. in an image)?
Other factors

Promoters of the technological systems
Factors	Questions (examples)
Accountability	To what extent can the promoters be considered accountable, i.e. are they able to anticipate and keep control over the potential positive and negative impacts the new system could have as well as to enhance over time, in terms of both technologies and procedures adopted?
Sustainability	To what extent can the system be considered sustainable in the long run (e.g., in terms of funds, human resources, support from external actors, plans to ensure continuity of the activities carried out)?
Transparency	To what extent can the promoters be considered transparent, i.e., able to provide accurate, clear, and relevant information about the System?
Other factors

Promoters of the technological systems
Factors	Questions (examples)
Trustworthiness	To what extent can the promoters be considered trustworthy, i.e. do they have the qualifications, skills, honesty and reliability to set up and manage the new system?
Two-way communication	To what extent are the promoters able to keep a two-way communication with other authorities, institutions, stakeholders and the public at large? Which mechanism are in place to enable two-way communication? Are they effective?
Collaboration and synergies	To what extent are the promoters open to the collaboration with stakeholders? Which ones? In which areas (e.g., ethical issues, data gathering, data interpretation, access to the system, policy orientations, governance of the system)?
Other factors

Generally speaking, in order to identify the factors, it is necessary to ask what could be accepted, criticised or rejected by those we claim to represent (e.g. humanitarian workers, refugees, migrants, researchers) or, even more, what we should do if we were the promoters or end-users of the new technological system, identifying the risks and benefits each time.

Identifying the factors that may influence social acceptance may require further data collection or in-depth analysis and interviews with promoters or stakeholders of the new technological system.

Also at the end of this step, it seems important to summarise in a written report, even a short one, which factors have been identified and why they are considered important (both negatively and positively).

D. Propose measures to improve social acceptance

The final step is to propose measures that could improve social acceptance (from the specific perspective chosen). The proposal should be realistic, i.e,

They must not involve costs that the promoters cannot bear)
They cannot be proposed all at once but should define a process to be developed within a sustainable timeframe.
They should include some possible verification mechanisms or checkpoints.
They should be consistent with the nature of the promoters and the objectives pursued.

Some possible measures are proposed below to address the factors mentioned in the tables above.

Objectives and use
Factors	Measures (examples)
Objectives	Add, remove or redefine some objectives Prioritize the objectives and allocate the resources accordingly Centralise the protection of human rights among the objectives
Actual use of the system	Introduce a monitoring & evaluation process to assess to what extent and how objectives are pursued Create an Advisory Board to review the objectives regularly Introduce and adhere to a set of ethical standards to prevent misalignment between objectives and actual activities/procedures

Features of the technological system
Factors	Measures (examples)
Accuracy	Adopt up-to-date technical routines to verify the quality of data Include humans in the loop to validate the process Involve external experts to regularly improve the technological procedures Involve cultural mediators or native speakers to verify the accuracy of text analysis Choose algorithms that suit the nature of the data and the specific OSINT tasks
Veracity	Organise cross-verification exercises with other information sources Use technical routines (reputation assessment, source authentication, fact-checking)
Training of the algorithms	Introduce datasets verification procedures to detect bias (e.g., gender and ethnicity) Regularly retrain the models used with new data to adapt them to changing information Train the models on diverse and representative datasets to improve generalization
Privacy and traceability	Establish ethical guidelines for data collection, processing, and use Define procedures to protect data from unauthorized access and breaches Adhere to legal and regulatory requirements regarding data privacy. Use anonymization procedures to prevent traceability

Promoters of the technological systems
Factors	Measures (examples)
Accountability	Define a set of procedures for developing and keeping up-to-date risk profiles related to the use of the system (e.g. for migrants, refugees or humanitarian workers). Clearly explain the capabilities and limitations of the system and the measures taken to prevent potential misuse or negative impact of the information generated
Sustainability	Define a publicly available multi-annual sustainability plan that identifies investments, resources and improvement processes Engage external stakeholders on sustainability issues
Transparency	Create communication tools (e.g., reports, newsletters, blogs) to regularly and properly explain what the system does, how and why

Relations with stakeholders
Factors	Measures (examples)
Trustworthiness	Involve stakeholders and civil society organisations from the beginning Introduce specific safeguards to protect human rights Reinforce the staff with specific professionals (e.g., psychologists, health experts, human rights experts, gender experts, cultural mediators) Train analysts and staff on best practices for managing the system appropriately
Two-way communication	Define communication structures and procedures allowing stakeholders to interact with the promoters Organising regular meetings to present and discuss the activities of the system and their results Establish a communication officer/team able to develop and implement a two-way communication plan
Collaboration and synergies	Establish collaborations with academic institutions and researchers to scientifically exploit the data produced by the system Work with experts and NGOs to develop meta-analyses of the data collected Allow stakeholders direct access to the system, adopting specific security procedures Involve stakeholders in specific governance structures (e.g. advisory boards, monitoring and evaluation committees, etc.) Define specific agreement with external experts and organisations concerning the collection, process and use of the data collected

The identification of possible actions may require the collection of new information and data (through interviews or stakeholder workshops) and a literature review.

A table of contents for a Social Acceptance Analysis Report

The following table suggests a standard table of contents for a Social Acceptance Analysis Report, based on the previous points.

Table of Contents
Aims, scope and limitations of the report
Sources of information
SECTION 1. The specific perspective(s) adopted
SECTION 2. Description of the new technological system
SECTION 3. Factors potentially influencing social acceptance
SECTION 4. Measures to improve the social acceptance of the new technological system
Conclusion and Final Considerations

Filter for target audience

MIRROR has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation action program under grant agreement No 832921.

CRiTERIA has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation action program under grant agreement No 101021866.

Imprint | Privacy Policy