A/HRC/13/37 constituted an attack on the honour and reputation of the listed persons, in view of the negative association that would be made between the names and the title of the sanctions list.40 28. Public and secret watch lists often also breach fundamental principles of data protection. Information generated for one purpose is reused for secondary purposes, and sometimes shared with other institutions, without the knowledge or consent of the individuals concerned. Erroneous information is used to make decisions about people, which result in restrictions on travel. These individuals may be refused a visa, turned away at a border or prevented from boarding a plane, without having been presented with evidence of any wrongdoing. (d) Checkpoints and borders 29. Through the use of new technologies and in response to rising concerns regarding terrorism, States are increasing the monitoring, regulation, interference and control of the movement of people at borders. Now, with the use of more advanced technologies and data-sharing agreements, States are creating comprehensive profiles on foreign travellers to identify terrorists and criminals even in advance of their arrival at borders, by accessing passenger manifests and passenger reservation records from carriers. States analyse this information to identify patterns that correspond to those of terrorists or criminals. At the border, individuals are subjected to further — potentially invasive — information collection practices. 30. Many States now require carriers to submit passenger manifests prior to departure. States are also seeking access to passenger name records, which include identification information (name, telephone number), transactional information (dates of reservations, travel agent, itineraries), flight and seat information, financial data (credit card number, invoice address), choice of meals and information regarding place of residence, medical data, prior travel information, and frequent-flyer information. This information is used for profiling and risk-assessing passengers, usually by submitting queries to various multiagency law enforcement and terrorist databases and watch lists. As a result, foreign carriers may be restricted from issuing an individual with a boarding pass solely on the basis of the results of a database query in the destination country, without due process. 31. The increased monitoring of immigrants and travellers for various purposes gives rise to a number of privacy challenges. States are gaining information on travellers from third parties who are compelled to comply lest they be refused landing rights or given punitive fines, even though privacy guarantees may not meet the requirements of domestic privacy laws. Moreover, foreigners might not be granted equal access to judicial remedies in these countries and rights at borders are usually significantly restricted. The United States Government policy on access to travellers’ laptops is a useful example. Despite the need to meet constitutional due process requirements for searching a laptop within the United States, the Department of Homeland Security has approved the accessing of travellers’ computers without judicial authorization.41 32. Lastly, States are establishing additional information requirements. Individuals can be prevented from entering States for refusing to disclose information, and States may insist upon disclosure without ensuring that there is lawful authority to require this information. Additionally, information collected for one purpose is now being used for additional purposes; for example, the European Union’s European Dactyloscopie system 40 41 12 See Human Rights Committee, communication No. 1472/2006, paras. 10.12–10.13. See the Department of Homeland Security, Privacy impact assessment for the border searches of electronic devices, 25 August, 2009. GE.09-17804