Nature and Scope: The system scans and records vehicle license plates on public roads, feeding the data into an algorithm that flags drivers whose travel patterns are deemed "suspicious" - criteria that can include driving on backcountry roads, being in a rental car, or taking short trips to the border region. This dragnet surveillance extends thousands of miles inland to states like Illinois and Michigan.

Consequences: Based on AI-generated "suspicion," federal agents communicate tips to local law enforcement, who then conduct "pretext stops" (pulling drivers over for minor traffic violations like speeding or a dangling air freshener) to conceal the federal surveillance tip. These stops often result in aggressive questioning, prolonged detentions, vehicle and property searches, and in some cases, arrests or asset seizures without proof of wrongdoing. Individuals who have been targeted have incurred significant legal fees to clear their names.

Harms/Impacts: The programme directly impacts the privacy and civil liberties of millions of ordinary American drivers, raising significant constitutional questions, especially regarding the Fourth Amendment. Critics warn the system's focus on "suspicious patterns of life" amounts to dragnet surveillance of citizens' daily movements and associations. The lack of transparency and legal ambiguity surrounding the system's nationwide use constitute both actual harm (unwarranted stops/searches/seizures) and potential harm (chilling effect on freedom of movement and association).

AI/product limitations: The core issue lies in the reliance on a predictive algorithm that operates on vaguely defined criteria ("suspicious travel patterns") to determine who warrants federal attention. This system can perpetuate inherent biases, is susceptible to error, and engages in mass surveillance rather than targeting known suspects. Other AI tools used by immigration enforcement, such as facial recognition in the CBP One app, have demonstrated lower accuracy for Black and darker-skinned individuals, suggesting the potential for systemic, racially discriminatory outcomes in other systems.

Corporate and government opacity: The programme's development and use have been marked by secrecy. Border Patrol agents and former officials reported efforts to conceal the AI tip as the true reason for a stop in court documents and police reports—a practice sometimes known as "parallel construction." The use of proprietary technologies (like those from companies such as Flock Safety, Vigilant, and Rekor) often involves data sharing between government agencies and private entities, further obscuring the full extent of surveillance and making it nearly impossible for those impacted to legally challenge the process or understand why they were flagged.

Lack of oversight: The Border Patrol has historically been described as a "rogue agency" with a long history of abuses. The rapid adoption of advanced AI technologies has outpaced necessary legislative and regulatory frameworks, allowing the agency to expand its operational scope into an internal intelligence/police force without robust human rights impact assessments or sufficient independent oversight.