The developments in the American algorithms for generating watch lists and profiling are seeking more and more data, and are infringing more and more on the privacy of Americans, and indeed on all travellers through America.
I'm a pragmatist. My question is what security, value-added, do I get for that loss of privacy? It is not clear to me. I have not read any study that demonstrates that watch lists have been effective in deterring fraudulent asylum claims, deterring fraudsters, or deterring terrorist attacks. I don't know what security I'm gaining for that loss of privacy. I believe that when individuals are there making a decision on the ground, they have both a duty of care but also a personal engagement that is superior to a risk calculation.
If I could draw a clear parallel, risk algorithms say: we know very little about you, and that's a problem, we know nothing good about you, and that's a problem, or we know something good about you.
Canada, and other countries, like the U.S., like the U.K., like Israel, are trying trusted traveller programs. They say: we know a lot about you, so you can go through.
That sounds good, but Mohammed Atta would qualify for that program. He travelled all the time. He had valid documents. He was a frequent flyer. I don't know what extra security I'm getting for that loss of privacy.