In March 2020, Frank van der Linde, a human rights advocate, was returning to the Netherlands from outside the EU when he was subjected to a seemingly random immigration check at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport. Unbeknownst to him, the immigration officer had been alerted about his arrival through a routine process where airlines exchange detailed traveler data with governmental authorities. This data, retained for years, is increasingly utilized by tech firms employing algorithms to determine travelers’ security risks.
Van der Linde had previously caught the attention of Dutch authorities due to his outspoken views on social issues. After years of seeking transparency about his surveillance, he discovered that his travel information was being monitored. In late 2022, he requested his Passenger Name Record (PNR) data, which includes sensitive personal information related to his airline tickets. After initially denying any data-sharing, the Dutch government later admitted to sharing his flight records with law enforcement agencies.
Upon reviewing his data, Linde found inaccuracies, including records of flights he never took. This raised concerns about how discrepancies in data might lead to false conclusions about individuals.
Several technology firms, including Idemia, SITA, Travizory, and WCC, now provide governments with software that leverages traveler data to profile passengers, claiming to identify threats like terrorists and human traffickers. These products analyze multiple data streams, allowing authorities to expedite screening for low-risk travelers while subjecting flagged individuals to more scrutiny, including questioning or additional searches.
At a border security conference in 2023, these companies demonstrated their advanced surveillance systems, promoting solutions such as biometric face scans and predictive analytics that can sort travelers into risk categories based on their information. However, this automation raises fears about potential infringements on personal freedoms, as many travelers lack insight into why they may be flagged or how their data is utilized.
While the systems offer promises of expedited border processes, they can also unjustly label travelers as risks based on flawed data management or algorithmic biases. For instance, patterns that appear unusual—such as short stays or large luggage—could trigger alerts, despite having benign explanations.
Governments worldwide are increasingly motivated to share traveler information and use AI to analyze this data. The U.S. and EU initiated these practices post-9/11, with pressure from international bodies like the UN to standardize data collection among member states. Although privacy regulations like GDPR exist in Europe to protect resident data, exceptions for national security can lead to abuses.
Some companies have taken steps to ensure their systems avoid sensitive profiling, such as considering race or religion, yet enforcement is challenging, and the actual breadth of data collection remains obscured. Advocacy groups warn that reliance on these systems could lead to significant human rights risks, particularly in countries lacking strong privacy policies.
At the center of this evolving landscape, Frank van der Linde has become a symbol of the broader implications of travel surveillance. His quest for accountability underscores the need for transparency in how travel data is collected and utilized, as societal implications of predictive policing technologies continue to grow.
