I think that's a fair characterization, and I also think there are problems on both sides with this low-tech, high-tech distinction you mention, and it's important to highlight them. High-tech doesn't necessarily mean objective. Individuals—you, me—could theoretically create an algorithm. While those algorithms are certainly based on best practices and expertise within institutions, they are still only as good as the rules or input that crafts them. I'm not really convinced that low-tech, high-tech is necessarily a useful distinction .
Also, it's important to note that within financial institutions that use this high-tech modality, they still use the lower-tech human-generated reports of suspicion in their assessments. Either way, you still wind up having that subjectivity coming into the reports.
I would like to comment briefly on your remarks about these reports being generated and then staying there, wherever they might be, either within the financial institution or at FINTRAC. I think it's important to note that where those reports are not necessarily based on truly suspicious financial transactions or activity but on ideas or suspicions having to do more with strangeness than true illegality, it's not particularly fair or equitable that those reports are made and retained in the first place. I think it's important to note that guidance or feedback could help to mitigate that issue. I wouldn't want my transactions to be put forth because somebody thought, as I was told in an interview, that my dark hair made me suspicious to talk to as a researcher.
I think it's very important for us to keep those issues in mind when we make these distinctions.