I apologize. I have not been clear. I'm not undermining that attempt.
I'm saying specifically that it is my impression that eyes on the file are better than automated risk assessment programs. It is better to have an individual making a judgment rather than putting in an algorithm.
It seems to me, if you look at the research on other ways of doing profiling, that there's a room very much like this one where border guards get together and the programmers ask, “What counts as risky?” They say, “Oh, lawyers coming from Nigeria—they're risky.” You ask, “Really? Why?” Well, they say they've had several...so okay, they put “a lawyer from Nigeria”, and that goes into the risk profile. Then the computer raises a red flag and says, “This person is dangerous.” Why? Because he fits the profile.
For me, I'm saying specifically—to put more eyes on the ground is a bad metaphor—that to put more boots on the ground is better than automated risk assessment.