I have done no research on this subject so take this with a grain of salt or leave it, YMMV.
I watched the border crossing joint announcement yesterday with incredulity. In my world you can’t achieve both greater security and make it easier to pass through.
Not possible. But that is the announcement.
My background is computer IT so my paradigm may not apply. In IT, increased security always comes at a cost to the business. The balance is always in risk analysis – is the probability and/or cost of a breach greater than the cost of the security measure? The cost is in implementing the new measure – hardware, software, management and in the impact to the business in getting the core job done in spite of the measure.
Sometimes a new secuity measure can be more security than an old measure and have less impact on the business. But I don’t think that there is ever less cost in having a measure compared to not having a measure. That all changes if your security gets exploited of course, that can cost zillion and destroy a business which is why any company allows security measures to exist in the first place.
If the same logic can be applied to border security then eventually that will become apparent as the new measures are implemented.
But really? I know nothink.