Patrolling the US Border Via Webcam 249
The BBC features a story today on a controversial effort to patrol the border between Mexico and Texas by means of 21 hidden cameras, the output of which is streamed online for viewers at home, who can then report suspected illegal border crossings; more than 130,000 people have registered to observe the streams, from as far afield as "Australia, Mexico, Colombia, Israel, New Zealand and the UK."
Duck! I can see you, move to your right (Score:4, Insightful)
Mexico? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could it be that Mexicans have registered for the purpose of locating the cameras?
Mexico? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok yes, we see you. We will mark that crossing off our list of possibilities. Ok, a little further...there I can see you...keep going....now I can't, mark that with a flag or something.
Well played Border Control, well played.
Contest! Find the Cameras! (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, crowdsourcing a problem like this shouldn't be hard - 21 cameras, lots of geeks, Google Earth? How long will they stay hidden? Let's have a contest to find the things!
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
They're hidden if they are difficult for people in the area to see. "hidden" is not the same as "secret".
Re:When in Rome... (Score:4, Insightful)
The US border with Mexico is long. Patrolling it effectively would probably take more guards than we want to pay for. Furthermore, in situations like this were most of the time nothing is going on, guards tend to get bored, inattentive, and sleepy, which makes them miss things. Having lots of volunteers allows each one to monitor for a short time while alert and interested.
The Romans did not routinely use intensive foot patrols as you suggest. Their strategy was much like tat of the US, with walls instead of fences and occasional patrols.
Doesn't encourage Vigilantism (Score:5, Insightful)
...we would be concerned that the cameras might encourage vigilantism. That people would think they saw an illegal immigrant and then jump in their truck with a gun.
That criticism shows up at least twice in the BBC article, but it doesn't make sense to me. The cameras might attract some people already partial to vigilantism, but I don't believe they flat out encourage vigilantes in general.
What's more, the locations of the cameras are secret; otherwise immigrants and traffickers would learn to avoid all those spots within days. The watchers shouldn't be able to find the camera locations, so this stuff about "jumping into their truck with a gun" isn't even possible.
I don't know whether I agree or not with the program, but the "concerns" quoted here seem a little far fetched. Furthermore, vigilantes present as much danger to law enforcement as to their prey, so I don't believe the Border Patrol or sheriff's offices will continue the program if there's significant evidence of more people hunting illegals.
Re:Why guard the border at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we have bigger problems than illegal immigration and trying to patrol the border, which is an arguably worthwhile endeavor, is really not the most effective technique at our disposal. It would help, for starters, if the country they were fleeing wasn't such a cesspool of corruption, crime and poverty. Notice that we don't have nearly as much trouble with Canadians fleeing their country. I can hardly blame those Mexican immigrants for wanting to get the heck out of there.
Second it would probably be more effective if we made it easier for them to come here LEGALLY. Then they could work and live here, with less fear of deportation, and contributing more openly to the society they want so badly to join.
It's a complicated problem, which is why nobody has really managed to solve it. Just ask a Cherokee. If you can find one.
It's a good idea (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe the term is "crowdsourcing", or in this case, "sponsored crowdsourcing", where the citizens want their border protected, and there is not enough manpower or money for the government to do it.
However, I doubt it will catch on much, unless there is incentive/award to successfully identify illegal crossing that requires a high 'hit ratio' or low rate of false reports to claim a reward.
It is not vigilantism for citizens to assist law enforcement in enforcing the laws of the country. It is responsible citizenship, and it is getting involved, which are good things.
21 cameras are not enough (Score:2, Insightful)
The border is massive, and 21 cameras cannot possibly cover a significant portion.
It's good as a pilot project, but the border is thousands of miles long.
Would-be illegal immigrants will eventually get word about regarding which reasons are "safest" or that they're most likely to succeed at in crossing.
Probably forested most geographically hostile areas, where cameras can't easily be placed, are going to be more favored crossing points.
The low number of border agents places them at significant advantage to catching or outrunning illegal immigrants in geographically hostile areas where vehicles can't ride.
Especially if any of the illegal immigrants have "invisibility cloaks", EMPs, or other technological sophistication involved in their efforts.
Re:other uses? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good idea. Posting video feeds from in and around the buildings where witnesses and others in need of protection live sounds like a great idea.
Law enforcement: "Please watch these cameras and let us know if you see something suspicious."
Mafia: "$5000 for the first person who recognizes the building in this picture."
Re:What the fuck does this mean? (Score:2, Insightful)
It means that closing borders is a waste of time and energy. It's a pointless drain on the economy to waste tax dollars on a pipe dream. Not to mention the privacy concerns of erecting sophisticated surveillance equipment wily-nily.
Patrolling the Mexican-American border is about as effective as the war on drugs. I thought the economic and social drain of the Berlin Wall was well known.
The point is:
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
cost effectiveness of the war on drugs in general? (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA says: "the administrators of the site maintain the primary goal of the initiative is to tackle crime, not illegal immigration." In other words, this is about the war on drugs. At a cost of about 4 million dollars, 21 arrests have been made; "Critics say this does not represent value for money."
This is a fascinating proposition. Let's figure out the value-per-dollar supplied by the war on drugs in general, and see if it's better than the value-per-dollar supplied by this program.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the war on drugs. (The term was first used by Nixon in 1969.) I don't think it will come as a surprise that it's been a failure [wikipedia.org].
What about the "per-dollar" part? Well, I don't know about your state, but mine (California) spends more on prisons than it spends on education, and the vast majority of prison spending arises from drug prohibition. First of all, you have all the people in prison for buying, selling, or using drugs. Then you have all the crime directly associated with the illegal drug trade; just as the stereotypical Chicago gangster of the 1930's wouldn't have existed without Prohibition, gangs today wouldn't exist without drug prohibition. And then you have all the crime that indirectly arises from drug prohibition. Drug prohibition makes drugs expensive, so people commit crimes to support their habits. So we have all the costs of incarceration, the social costs suffered by the victims of violent crime, etc. It's a lot of money.
So I would estimate that the value-per-dollar of the war on drugs over the last 40 years equals x/y, where x is a number so small that it's controversial whether it's positive or negative, and y is huge.
Re:Why guard the border at all? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll comment under the assumption that you haven't thought this out to its many possible consequences. Maybe you could make a case for some intrinsic right of travel, but there are other natural rights (not to mention socially-accepted rights and responsibilities) that would supersede such a right.
Here is an extreme example: If Israel opened their borders, there wouldn't be an Israel, just a bunch of craters.
Here's another: If the US opened their borders (ports, specifically), you wouldn't be able to trust that the antibiotic you're taking isn't actually cyanide or an ineffective knockoff.
Here's another: If there was no barrier to trade in controlled arms and dual-use technology, North Korea and Iran (among others) would already have space-capable nuclear arsenals.
For that matter, take any horrible thing you can imagine, from lethally incorrect medication to radioactive waste to biological and chemical weapons to slaves and make those things available anywhere in the world. Better get out your Geiger counter and make sure your toothpaste wasn't made with reactor-coolant sodium.
There are a lot of things that we get wrong. The mere existence of famine, poverty, and widespread illness are testaments to our social failures. These things do not invalidate what we have gotten right. Some things should be controlled, some things should be validated, some things deserve a chain of responsibility and a means of seeing that responsibility culminate in rational consequences for those that abuse their fellow man.
The real problem is that there is no one solution. Every problem plaguing us today is a trade-off. Drugs are illegal in part because of the collateral damage, in part because some people are just too stupid/irresponsible to have them, in part because it offends some people's morality, and in part because it damages someone's bottom line. Guns, same thing. The 'war on' targets are all like this. Other problems such as poverty, famine, economic collapse; these are due to many factors. Adjust that 'one thing' that seems like it will make everything better and something else collapses, some other unforeseen consequence hits us. We could do nothing and see no improvement at all, but then what would be the point of trying? Besides, different cultures define moral in different ways. There is no one right way.
To bring this back to the original topic, no. We absolutely cannot throw the border open. We may not like our laws, but we are bound to respect them and it is not legal to enter this country without a visa or citizenship. We are not morally obligated to drive our own support systems past the point of collapse solely to appease the guilt-ridden people who feel bad about the terrible conditions across the border or anywhere else. To put it bluntly we're no help to anyone if we can't help ourselves, and we're not doing so hot right now. Maybe it sounds callous to you, but screw the people that drain our social support without giving anything back. If individuals want to donate their time, money, or expertise then so be it but we cannot allow a de facto aid package to be sucked out of our hospitals and food pantries and shelters.
Re:Why guard the border at all? (Score:2, Insightful)
'Really, if some impoverished people want to come to your country, is it such a bad thing for you, as a "rich" person?'
If it were only a matter of rich vs poor then we could have legal crossing day every month and just let them enter legally.
There are quotas on immigration for other reasons. One very important reason is prevent mass immigration from a single place and to spread it around. This prevents people who are loyal to another nation and culture from effectively conquering by immigration. This is a very real and serious concern for the U.S. where legal immigrants can vote and have a voice equal to someone who has lived in and built up this nation their entire lives.
Mexican's in particular have a widespread belief that the American southwest was stolen from Mexico. Illegal mexican immigrants have actually staged protest marches carrying mexican flags.
The problem isn't just that we would have pockets of the U.S. in which people who consider themselves Mexican rather than American would have political power. The problem is that there are Americans living in the places were those immigrants would take over. Americans who would be displaced or submerged within a foreign culture in a short period of time. Aliens in their own country, their own homes, the communities where they were born and raised.
Part of the process of legal immigration is forswearing loyalty to your previous nation and swearing loyalty to the United States. It requires learning rudimentary English and learning some of the basics of American History. And of course it requires finding and keeping gainful employment in the U.S. That's a pretty thin security blanket as it is.
I would support raising immigration quotas somewhat if some sort of placement were applied to spread the immigrants out instead of allowing them to band together. Obviously there would be no such restriction on their offspring or even after they gained citizenship but it would provide a good chance for them to gain some sense of America and loyalty for it.
Re:Why guard the border at all? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why guard the border at all? (Score:2, Insightful)
In the absence of law you would see a whole other kind of tyrant. It would be the tyranny of the strong and cruel where the bullies would rise up and take what they wanted without consequences. For evidence of that just look to some of the parts of the world where there is no working system of law. If that's the way you want to live I'm sure you could find a nice place in Somalia, for example.
At least the way it is now we get to choose who has that power and it's those laws you speak of so derisively that keep them at least somewhat in check.
Is our system perfect? No, it's the worst system there is...except for all of the other ones.
Re:Mexico? (Score:3, Insightful)
How will Mexico ever improve if the people that want to make better lives for themselves leave for the US?
(For the record, I don't agree with the mines theory that the poster was joking about, either.)
Re:Mexico? (Score:1, Insightful)
It doesn't want to. In fact, it encourages those scraping on the bottom to head for the states.
Now imagine if only we could make it very easy for our ghetto superstars and trailer trash to head on a one-way trip elsewhere. (We're talking Jerry Springer grade material here.) And imagine if the place they arrived at actually catered to them by not making them learn the local language, making it easier for them to get a job, allowed them to overcrowd houses and apartments in a way that destroys any effectiveness of established property taxation schemes, and having most of the government bend over and pull their pants down when it comes to their demands even though they're not legally considered citizens. Don't you think the public expenses of schooling, healthcare, and policing/prisons would go down if we could export that whole portion of the populace? Now imagine if we could also convince those idiots to send the money back, instead of spending it where ever they relocated to.
So can you entirely blame Mexico for what they're doing? I think the problem is more on this side of the border and politicians and their supporting voters without their priorities straight.