information was as a rule provided as a one-time commodity during arrival, and rarely with respect to what was to come following beneficiaries’ eventual departure from the RICs (e.g. integration); in itself, a further factor exacerbating the feeling of unease felt at not knowing what the future might hold in store for them. “Information [provision] is highly incomplete. They arrive [on the island]…they undergo their [asylum] interviews, they await their decisions, and they are still not aware of what said decision might mean [for them]…for what reason, to begin with, they are accommodated here [at the RIC] … [they are not informed] that this is just a [temporary] station [after which] they will then have to go elsewhere, where something new awaits them. The result is to have their [hopes and] expectations shattered”77 The issue, to be noted, is not one solely attributable to the reception system, as such, even if the latter’s ongoing deficiencies in terms of the lack of ongoing provision of quality information further serves to exacerbate what is a highly sensitive matter. Throughout their journey, asylum seekers and foreign nationals more broadly are exposed to a continuous stream of (mis)information, inter alia acquired through their contact with smugglers and smuggling networks, which offer them depictions of a “promised land” waiting for them just beyond the borders.78 Thus many arrive with usually misguided pre-conceptions as to what awaits them upon arrival in Greece.79 In other cases, misinformation presents itself in the face of seemingly local “do-gooders”, as was the case with a beneficiary in Kos, who following his arrival went and bought an airplane ticket, after being led to believe that he could freely leave the island following his registration.80 The result, of course, was his disillusionment after being informed that he had to return to the RIC, and that he had accordingly spent, perhaps, his last money, to buy a useless commodity. Lastly, refugees and asylum seekers have and/or create their own networks of information, which extend from their (container) roommates to friends, family member and/or fellow travelers that are found at different sections of the Greek borders and may be experiencing different facets of the reception and asylum procedures. Networks, that is, which may inter alia serve to enrich their understanding of the Greek system of reception and asylum, albeit subjectively (i.e. based on individual, and thus disparate experiences) and thus with the risk of further spreading inaccurate information. An indicative example, provided to us in Kos,81 was that of two single women, friends and roommates, both of who vulnerable, one of which, however, also a documented victim of gender-based violence. With her increased vulnerability constituting RICbased accommodation an even more unsafe place for her wellbeing, the latter was prioritized for transfer out of the RIC. The former, on the other hand, kept residing in the RIC, albeit now feeling not only that she had been left behind, but that somehow, and beyond her understanding, she had been discriminated against. As to the reason, this was because from what the two women could tell, in lack of adequate information (in 27