8 ms·

The thesis of the article is: > Surveillance at the U.S.-Mexico border is a wasteful endeavor that is ill-equipped to respond to an ill-defined problem. This

The thesis of the article is: > Surveillance at the U.S.-Mexico border is a wasteful endeavor that is ill-equipped to respond to an ill-defined problem. This article cites efforts of doing this all the way back to 1997. The critical problem is not that the cameras are literally broken, although they seem to have struggled with this, but the fact that the cameras have not shown to improve operational results. An intelligently designed program would try to learn from these decades of trying the same thing unsuccessfully and try something else. Before confidently claiming that the problem was the quality of the execution, you should try to present some evidence that this solution is a sensible one. Claiming it would work if it was better is something you can do indefinitely with no evidence.

autoexec 2y ago
The fact that past programs failed to collect good data or failed to make good use of the data they were getting does not imply that having data is unlikely to improve operational results. I think it's plainly obvious that if your goal is to stop people from illegally crossing the border, then monitoring that border is a necessity. We could hire humans to stand all day in watchtowers and scan for people sneaking in with just their human eyes, but (working) cameras have a lot of obvious advantages. There is plenty of evidence and data showing that cameras can be a highly effective part of solutions to the problem of monitoring. There are countless companies, governments, and individuals using cameras right now with great success. Cameras are not an unproven technology and their usefulness is not theoretical. I don't think that anyone would be opposed to a better option that would eliminate the need for cameras and sensors, but if one exists I've never heard of it. Cameras and sensors seem to be the best options we have. The cameras and sensors (when they were functioning) were never the problem with past systems. Those past problems were more like "We paid for a bunch of cameras but we never budgeted for anyone to respond to them, or to maintain them, or to maintain the systems we need to collect data from them". Those are all very solvable problems which shouldn't have happened in the first place.
- michaelt 2y ago
  Seems to me if you see someone crossing the border illegally that’s only really useful if you can apprehend them before you lose track of them. How would you propose to respond to detections, if the cameras all worked?
  - autoexec 2y ago
    By sending border patrol out to collect them. As much as people hate the idea of a wall, and the entire concept has become politicized, it would make that process a lot easier, but the truth is that if you're going to monitor a border and prevent people from illegally crossing it, that will involve humans having to drive/fly out to wherever there are people who are illegally crossing in order to turn them away or arrest/process/deport them.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      What would that mean in terms of camera coverage, and border patrol coverage? Will the border patrol get there in, say, 20 minutes? And we have cameras covering all the land within 20 minutes of the border, so we don't lose them in that time?
      - autoexec 2y ago
        Yeah, it'd mean you need enough camera to cover the area and you need to have enough people on the ground to reach the people crossing within a reasonable amount of time. There are somethings you can do to slow them down (walls for one) and things you can do keep an eye on them while people are being sent out to make contact (cameras, drones, planes, helicopters, satellites, etc.). More people on the ground does cost money, but the good news is that those government jobs would be a real boon for people living near the border.
        fzeroracer 2y ago
        Are you familiar with how large the jurisdiction claimed by the CBP is? It's 100 miles from any border of the country [1]. What exactly counts as enough camera coverage? Should we just cover one border? Do we need to expand this to the Canadian border as illegal crossings increase up there as well? Should we blanket the majority of the population in these cameras now that we've established how big their jurisdiction is despite low evidence of their usefulness for their actual job? [1] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  It’s not plainly obvious at all. Because the border is fucking huge, surrounded by a vast, inhospitable desert. It can be tunneled under and/or more simply just trafficked through the formal crossings. There are some areas where cameras make sense. There are some areas where guards make sense. There are vast tracts where it’s an idiotic idea. The bigger question though is whether other approaches besides just trying to catch and stop people could be better.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    The fact that the boarder is huge does not mean that monitoring it is not necessary or that it is impossible. The fact that tunnels exist doesn't either. We have the technology to detect tunnels and tunneling. The fact that people sneak past at busy check points doesn't make the situation not worth trying to address. Every area where a person could cross can and should be monitored. Walls, cameras, drones, satellites, sensors, and guards are all valid tools for border protection. The question just comes down to where and how they are deployed and maintained. > The bigger question though is whether other approaches besides just trying to catch and stop people could be better. No one so far has managed to come up with an anything better. Have you?
    - NineStarPoint 2y ago
      I’ve always thought the real answer was to stop the businesses from hiring people. Make an actually useful national ID system that employers can use to identify if someone is allowed to work in the US, and then come down like the hammer of god on anyone found to be employing people under the table. People come here for economic opportunity. Remove the opportunity for people who enter without permission, and they stop coming. And that sort of solution deals with more than just border crossings.
      - jkestner 2y ago
        Yes, you could stop it at the point of demand. I remember AZ implemented eVerify or some such, don’t know what effect or loopholes it had. In Texas: Whenever Texas politicians threaten to pass laws that would make it harder for businesses to employ undocumented workers, phones in the Capitol start ringing. Stuck with the need to show their base that they’re cracking down on migrants, politicians, including Abbott, have instead found a middle ground: They keep up their bombast regarding the border, but they avoid stringing any razor wire between undocumented immigrants and jobs in the state’s interior. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/border-crisis-texas-solutions/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/border-crisis-tex...
- dfxm12 2y ago
  I think it's plainly obvious that if your goal is to stop people from illegally crossing the border, then monitoring that border is a necessity. This is the goal of fewer people in power than you think, and keep in mind there is more border than the one between Mexico and the US. Most undocumented people have flown here and simply overstayed their visa. On the other hand, congress has been saber rattling about the southern border my entire life and has done little about it. It's useful as a wedge issue though, so from time to time, you'll see some spending a lot of money on walls and towers that just aren't very effective (and maybe callously separate some kids form their families). On the other hand, undocumented people pay billions in taxes, work for cheap and make services (like dining, construction, landscaping, cosmetology, etc.) cheaper. The monied and political classes want to keep this status quo.
  - kurthr 2y ago
    How can you make political hay out of a solved problem? Solving it, now that would be a BIG PROBLEM! If it's not immigrants then you would have to blame someone else and/or more explicitly cite race/ethnicity/religion. Seriously, when you have a significant group of people regularly claiming on TV that 20million people have illegally entered the country in the last 4 years, that's both hilarious and dangerous.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      > a significant group of people regularly claiming on TV that 20million people have illegally entered the country in the last 4 years, Plus all of them somehow managing to cast totally-undetectable votes in elections, traveling to specific swing states, for no direct gain to themselves even though getting caught would mean deportation, while uniformly maintaining superhuman levels of discipline and secrecy. /s
      - jzackpete 2y ago
        electoral votes and number of representatives are allocated based on census numbers, which have nothing to do with citizenship status /!s
- underbiding 2y ago
  I think it's "plainly obvious" the the people pushing for this keep repeating the same argument, that is, they have no argument, they just say "duh, obviously watchtowers work!". This isn't evidence-based policy, this is literally the opposite. Can you name one program similar in-scope anywhere that would achieve results in-line with what you could see here? A pilot study in one small area that measured impact and effects? No? Oh well its just "plainly obvious" right so who needs evidence? This is cargo-cult nonsense, through and through. "See if we do the right mystical movements and arrangements then magically things will be fixed". Do we need to bring up that even Israel, one of world's most militarized states, failed to leverage this technology despite arguably far stronger technological knowledge institutionally and far more flexible hand in security spending? No, October 7th showed the same failures as it would for this border program. The problem is and never was about interdiction, the problem is the root-causes of these "threats" having nothing to do with physical human beings crossing a geographical space without being recorded on camera or a sensor.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> an ill-defined problem The problem is unauthorized border crossings. What about that is ill defined?
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Well, you’ve presented an elementary level view of the problem. The issue is that solving a problem effectively often requires defining the problem and its mechanics and drivers in greater detail to identify solutions that are to fit to address the nuances of the issue. Otherwise you end up with billions of dollars spent on a useless wall.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > you’ve presented an elementary level view of the problem I'm presenting the problem as it is understood by almost everyone who views the issue as a problem. The problem isn't ill defined: it's quite clearly defined. What we're disagreeing on is whether it constitutes the root problem. The EFF doesn't do itself any service by dismissing as ill-defined a perfectly well-defined problem when the disagreement is over whether it's a problem at all. Put another way: if I say my problem is I'm seeing too many orange things, I think that problem is perfectly well defined. It's just not really a prolbem.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      No, we are not disagreeing on whether it constitutes the root problem. What I am saying is that there’s nuance to the mechanics of the problem that are important to acknowledge when forming an effective solution; and you’re just repeating yourself with no acknowledgement of the nuance and an appeal to the masses.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > there’s nuance to the mechanics of the problem that are important to acknowledge when forming an effective solution Sure. I'm saying that is irrelevant to whether it is an "ill-formed problem."

autoexec 2y ago

The fact that past programs failed to collect good data or failed to make good use of the data they were getting does not imply that having data is unlikely to improve operational results. I think it's plainly obvious that if your goal is to stop people from illegally crossing the border, then monitoring that border is a necessity. We could hire humans to stand all day in watchtowers and scan for people sneaking in with just their human eyes, but (working) cameras have a lot of obvious advantages. There is plenty of evidence and data showing that cameras can be a highly effective part of solutions to the problem of monitoring. There are countless companies, governments, and individuals using cameras right now with great success. Cameras are not an unproven technology and their usefulness is not theoretical. I don't think that anyone would be opposed to a better option that would eliminate the need for cameras and sensors, but if one exists I've never heard of it. Cameras and sensors seem to be the best options we have. The cameras and sensors (when they were functioning) were never the problem with past systems. Those past problems were more like "We paid for a bunch of cameras but we never budgeted for anyone to respond to them, or to maintain them, or to maintain the systems we need to collect data from them". Those are all very solvable problems which shouldn't have happened in the first place.

michaelt 2y ago
Seems to me if you see someone crossing the border illegally that’s only really useful if you can apprehend them before you lose track of them. How would you propose to respond to detections, if the cameras all worked?
- autoexec 2y ago
  By sending border patrol out to collect them. As much as people hate the idea of a wall, and the entire concept has become politicized, it would make that process a lot easier, but the truth is that if you're going to monitor a border and prevent people from illegally crossing it, that will involve humans having to drive/fly out to wherever there are people who are illegally crossing in order to turn them away or arrest/process/deport them.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    What would that mean in terms of camera coverage, and border patrol coverage? Will the border patrol get there in, say, 20 minutes? And we have cameras covering all the land within 20 minutes of the border, so we don't lose them in that time?
    - autoexec 2y ago
      Yeah, it'd mean you need enough camera to cover the area and you need to have enough people on the ground to reach the people crossing within a reasonable amount of time. There are somethings you can do to slow them down (walls for one) and things you can do keep an eye on them while people are being sent out to make contact (cameras, drones, planes, helicopters, satellites, etc.). More people on the ground does cost money, but the good news is that those government jobs would be a real boon for people living near the border.
      - fzeroracer 2y ago
        Are you familiar with how large the jurisdiction claimed by the CBP is? It's 100 miles from any border of the country [1]. What exactly counts as enough camera coverage? Should we just cover one border? Do we need to expand this to the Canadian border as illegal crossings increase up there as well? Should we blanket the majority of the population in these cameras now that we've established how big their jurisdiction is despite low evidence of their usefulness for their actual job? [1] https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
jncfhnb 2y ago
It’s not plainly obvious at all. Because the border is fucking huge, surrounded by a vast, inhospitable desert. It can be tunneled under and/or more simply just trafficked through the formal crossings. There are some areas where cameras make sense. There are some areas where guards make sense. There are vast tracts where it’s an idiotic idea. The bigger question though is whether other approaches besides just trying to catch and stop people could be better.
- autoexec 2y ago
  The fact that the boarder is huge does not mean that monitoring it is not necessary or that it is impossible. The fact that tunnels exist doesn't either. We have the technology to detect tunnels and tunneling. The fact that people sneak past at busy check points doesn't make the situation not worth trying to address. Every area where a person could cross can and should be monitored. Walls, cameras, drones, satellites, sensors, and guards are all valid tools for border protection. The question just comes down to where and how they are deployed and maintained. > The bigger question though is whether other approaches besides just trying to catch and stop people could be better. No one so far has managed to come up with an anything better. Have you?
  - NineStarPoint 2y ago
    I’ve always thought the real answer was to stop the businesses from hiring people. Make an actually useful national ID system that employers can use to identify if someone is allowed to work in the US, and then come down like the hammer of god on anyone found to be employing people under the table. People come here for economic opportunity. Remove the opportunity for people who enter without permission, and they stop coming. And that sort of solution deals with more than just border crossings.
    - jkestner 2y ago
      Yes, you could stop it at the point of demand. I remember AZ implemented eVerify or some such, don’t know what effect or loopholes it had. In Texas: Whenever Texas politicians threaten to pass laws that would make it harder for businesses to employ undocumented workers, phones in the Capitol start ringing. Stuck with the need to show their base that they’re cracking down on migrants, politicians, including Abbott, have instead found a middle ground: They keep up their bombast regarding the border, but they avoid stringing any razor wire between undocumented immigrants and jobs in the state’s interior. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/border-crisis-texas-solutions/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/border-crisis-tex...
dfxm12 2y ago
I think it's plainly obvious that if your goal is to stop people from illegally crossing the border, then monitoring that border is a necessity. This is the goal of fewer people in power than you think, and keep in mind there is more border than the one between Mexico and the US. Most undocumented people have flown here and simply overstayed their visa. On the other hand, congress has been saber rattling about the southern border my entire life and has done little about it. It's useful as a wedge issue though, so from time to time, you'll see some spending a lot of money on walls and towers that just aren't very effective (and maybe callously separate some kids form their families). On the other hand, undocumented people pay billions in taxes, work for cheap and make services (like dining, construction, landscaping, cosmetology, etc.) cheaper. The monied and political classes want to keep this status quo.
- kurthr 2y ago
  How can you make political hay out of a solved problem? Solving it, now that would be a BIG PROBLEM! If it's not immigrants then you would have to blame someone else and/or more explicitly cite race/ethnicity/religion. Seriously, when you have a significant group of people regularly claiming on TV that 20million people have illegally entered the country in the last 4 years, that's both hilarious and dangerous.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > a significant group of people regularly claiming on TV that 20million people have illegally entered the country in the last 4 years, Plus all of them somehow managing to cast totally-undetectable votes in elections, traveling to specific swing states, for no direct gain to themselves even though getting caught would mean deportation, while uniformly maintaining superhuman levels of discipline and secrecy. /s
    - jzackpete 2y ago
      electoral votes and number of representatives are allocated based on census numbers, which have nothing to do with citizenship status /!s
underbiding 2y ago
I think it's "plainly obvious" the the people pushing for this keep repeating the same argument, that is, they have no argument, they just say "duh, obviously watchtowers work!". This isn't evidence-based policy, this is literally the opposite. Can you name one program similar in-scope anywhere that would achieve results in-line with what you could see here? A pilot study in one small area that measured impact and effects? No? Oh well its just "plainly obvious" right so who needs evidence? This is cargo-cult nonsense, through and through. "See if we do the right mystical movements and arrangements then magically things will be fixed". Do we need to bring up that even Israel, one of world's most militarized states, failed to leverage this technology despite arguably far stronger technological knowledge institutionally and far more flexible hand in security spending? No, October 7th showed the same failures as it would for this border program. The problem is and never was about interdiction, the problem is the root-causes of these "threats" having nothing to do with physical human beings crossing a geographical space without being recorded on camera or a sensor.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> an ill-defined problem The problem is unauthorized border crossings. What about that is ill defined?

jncfhnb 2y ago
Well, you’ve presented an elementary level view of the problem. The issue is that solving a problem effectively often requires defining the problem and its mechanics and drivers in greater detail to identify solutions that are to fit to address the nuances of the issue. Otherwise you end up with billions of dollars spent on a useless wall.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > you’ve presented an elementary level view of the problem I'm presenting the problem as it is understood by almost everyone who views the issue as a problem. The problem isn't ill defined: it's quite clearly defined. What we're disagreeing on is whether it constitutes the root problem. The EFF doesn't do itself any service by dismissing as ill-defined a perfectly well-defined problem when the disagreement is over whether it's a problem at all. Put another way: if I say my problem is I'm seeing too many orange things, I think that problem is perfectly well defined. It's just not really a prolbem.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    No, we are not disagreeing on whether it constitutes the root problem. What I am saying is that there’s nuance to the mechanics of the problem that are important to acknowledge when forming an effective solution; and you’re just repeating yourself with no acknowledgement of the nuance and an appeal to the masses.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > there’s nuance to the mechanics of the problem that are important to acknowledge when forming an effective solution Sure. I'm saying that is irrelevant to whether it is an "ill-formed problem."