Government Weighs Controversial Deal to Share Kiwis’ Biometric Data with United States

The government is considering whether to grant the United States access to New Zealanders’ biometric and other sensitive personal data as part of a proposed border security agreement.

Officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade have confirmed ongoing discussions with the US over the requirements and scope of what is being called an Enhanced Border Security Partnership. The negotiations come amid pressure from Washington, which has told the 42 nations in its Visa Waiver Program that they must finalise agreements by the end of the year or risk losing visa-free travel privileges.

Under the proposed arrangement, biometric information such as facial recognition data, fingerprints and potentially DNA could be shared with US authorities. Critics warn the information could ultimately be accessed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, widely known as ICE, raising questions about privacy, sovereignty and the potential for surveillance overreach.

Current biometric sharing arrangements already exist among Five Eyes countries including New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. Those systems typically operate on a limited “hit or no hit” model, where minimal data is exchanged unless further checks are requested case by case.

However, documents from European negotiations and commentary from privacy experts suggest the proposed partnership could allow automated access to national databases rather than limited, case-specific inquiries.

The US Department of Homeland Security has previously acknowledged in its own privacy assessments that biometric information could be used to vet individuals “encountered” during border inspections or immigration investigations. European regulators have warned such language could include minors, crime victims and witnesses.

Despite the potential scope of the agreement, the government has not publicly detailed what categories of data may be shared, what protections would apply, or whether Parliament or the public would be consulted before any deal is finalised.

In a brief statement, officials said: “New Zealand officials continue to discuss the requirements and scope of an Enhanced Border Security Partnership with the United States.”

Requests for further detail about when negotiations began, what privacy impact assessments have been conducted, and what safeguards are under consideration have not been answered. The office of Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters also declined to comment.

Green Party foreign affairs spokesperson Teanau Tuiono has criticised the lack of transparency, calling for parliamentary oversight and public scrutiny. He said the government should release any privacy assessments already undertaken and questioned the wisdom of deepening ties under the current US administration.

“We are seeing that alarm right across the world with the direction the US is going under the Trump administration. This is not a time for us to be seeking closer engagement and relationships with the US,” he said.

Civil liberties advocates have expressed even stronger concerns. Council of Civil Liberties chair Thomas Beagle described the proposed framework as far more intrusive than existing data-sharing agreements and urged officials to weigh the broader political context.

“The US is obviously struggling at the moment with the rule of democracy and rights-based society. They have government-sponsored gangs of people wearing masks who refuse to identify themselves disappearing people off the streets,” Beagle said.

“This is seriously in the direction of heading towards fascism – the idea that we’re then going to give these people access to our private data and even the private data of people associated with travellers is very, very concerning.

“Some people are still locked in the past where the US was a reasonably benign ally of New Zealand, and that’s becoming less and less true.

“We wouldn’t give other countries like China or Russia full access into our police and biometrics databases, would we?”

Beagle warned that once personal information leaves New Zealand’s jurisdiction, individuals lose the ability to correct inaccuracies or ensure deletion after a set period.

“Once this data passes out of our control, we don’t have that ability anymore. It’s going to be there for five or 10 years and could come back and bite you years later.”

He added that New Zealanders living in the United States could also be swept up in wide-ranging data searches.

A recent report by the European Data Protection Supervisor highlighted the unprecedented scale of similar agreements under discussion in Europe. Supervisor Wojciech Wiewiórowski said such arrangements would mark the first large-scale sharing of personal and biometric data with a non-EU country and could significantly impact privacy rights. He urged negotiators to limit any agreement strictly to travellers and require clear justifications for each database query.

The report also cautioned that sharing sensitive data could lead to detention or imprisonment.

Māori data sovereignty expert Dr Karaitiana Taiuru said the implications for Māori communities are particularly serious, especially regarding DNA information, which is regarded as taonga.

“For Maori and for many other indigenous peoples, our DNA is sacred to us. It’s not just this generation’s knowledge, it’s our previous generations and our future generations, so it’s very sacred,” he said.

He raised concerns about the sharing of police databases, citing longstanding issues of overpolicing and institutional bias.

“We know from reports over decades there has been an institutional racism issue in the past with the New Zealand Police. So automatically, that data is going to be biased, it’s going to be racist,” he said.

“There’s going to be some very sensitive information in those police files. What happens if someone has been proven innocent by the police? Would that data show up if it’s shared overseas, for example. What about survivors and victims of abuse? They’re entitled to privacy as well.

“Some major questions need to be asked about people’s privacy and our own laws.”

The Privacy Commission declined to comment on whether it had been consulted or whether a Privacy Impact Assessment had been completed. It noted that the Privacy Act and the Biometric Processing Privacy Code regulate collection, retention and overseas disclosure of personal information, although other legislation can override those protections.

In the United States, civil rights advocates have also voiced alarm. Saira Hussain, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said there has been a shift toward broad data collection at the border under the Trump administration.

There was a “let’s grab everything first and ask questions later approach, which is really, really concerning about how that information may end up being used, where it’s being stored, the retention period”, she said.

Hussain warned the scale of potential data transfers increases the risk of breaches, onward sharing with other governments, or uses beyond the original purpose.

She was “exceedingly concerned” about what information was changing hands, how US officials would be able to query databases, for how long, and if it was restricted to people who were traveling to the US, “which in and of itself is a very large ask, but the fact that it may be open to others beyond those traveling is seriously alarming.”

Auckland University law professor Gehan Gunasekara said the purpose limitation would be critical.

“If it’s retained for border protection and visa status, that’s fine, but if it’s been shared for other ulterior purposes, maybe with ICE so that they can go after relatives of the people that are traveling or … to build up profiles of people who have relatives in the United States who may be then imperiled that’s where we need to get safeguards,” he said.

Gunasekara noted that while greater scrutiny would be desirable, New Zealand may have limited leverage in negotiations with powerful foreign agencies.

“Unfortunately, that’s the reality when you’re dealing with powerful government agencies, especially foreign ones,” he said.

“It’s only the very large, powerful trading blocs like the European Union that are in a position to negotiate some kinds of safeguards and we know there’s been perennial conflict between the United States and the European Union when it comes to personal data.”

He pointed to past intelligence oversight reforms following a critical 2018 review as proof that stronger controls can be imposed when necessary.

“So if the intelligence agencies can be made to have certain kinds of checks put in those kinds of situations, then one would expect other government agencies to be even more robust in the controls and checks they have – but it seems either that’s not happening or we haven’t been told what those safeguards are.”

Internationally, several countries have either signed or are negotiating similar agreements. US authorities have promoted automated biometric exchanges with partner nations. Meanwhile, Washington has also announced plans to require travellers from visa waiver countries to disclose five years of social media history, email addresses from the past decade, phone numbers from the previous five years, family details and extensive biometric data through its Electronic System for Travel Authorization.

As negotiations continue behind closed doors, critics say fundamental questions remain unanswered about privacy, sovereignty and the future of New Zealanders’ personal data.