Slashdot Log In
Texas to Provide Online 'Bordercams'
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jun 02, 2006 09:03 AM
from the where-do-I-live-now dept.
from the where-do-I-live-now dept.
Dr_Barnowl writes "The BBC reports that Texas intends to erect a network of online webcams at its border to Mexico. The intention is apparently to use viewers as a kind of distributed processing network, with a free phone number to report border-jumpers." From the article: "'A stronger border is what Americans want and it's what our security demands and that is what Texas is going to deliver,' Mr Perry said. The cameras will cost $5m (£2.7m) to install and will be trained on sections of the 1,000-mile (1,600km) border known to be favoured by illegal immigrants " Hey, it's working for Britain, right?
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: London 2006, Meet London 1984 422 comments
Draape writes "Shoreditch TV is an experiment TV channel beaming live footage from the street into people's homes. According to the Telegraph
U.K. television will broadcast from 400 surveillance cameras on the streets, into people's homes. For now they are only showing it to 22,000 homes, but next year they plan on going national with the 'show'. They fly under the flag 'fighting crime from the sofa'."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Can there be remote sniper rifles, too? (Score:4, Funny)
The illegal immigration problem would go away in days!
Feature requests (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a key difference (Score:5, Insightful)
I have absolutely no problem at all with 100% public surveillance, as long as all of the video feeds are available to any person at any time, and not just Big Brother.
Re:There is a key difference (Score:5, Insightful)
So you think that police state does not exist as long as big brother turns the citizenry into its watchdogs?
Guess again.
The Gestapo didn't have extensive networks of undercover spies to check up on German citizens. In fact, the only undercover spies they empoyed were used for the surveilance of underground socialist groups. The way they kept tabs on the public was through voluntary denunciations submitted to local Gestapo offices by ordinary citizens. That's how they chose who to arrest, how they monitored what was going on in German society, how they kept people in a perpetual state of fear, and how the Nazis were able to maintain control over German society.
This act may not be directed against American citizens, but it's another step towards posturing our culture to be more accepting of fascist policies. Not only is it promoting xenophobia, but it also encourages/trains American citizens to spy on others. Today it's our international neighbors, tomorrow maybe it's our domestic hispanic/arab/non-caucasian population, and then who knows where that paranoia and suspicion will spread to?
If anyone needs to be monitored more carefully by the American public, it's our government officials who have sold out the American people to their corporate masters. This is just one more distraction to keep Americans from addressing the real crisis that our nation is facing.
Parent
Re:There is a key difference (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:also, for further reference... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why "Public" is the opposite of "Private".
If you want privacy for your actions, do them in private. It's not rocket science.
(The clue is in the words: "Privacy" is to "Private" as
Parent
Re:also, for further reference... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:also, for further reference... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:also, for further reference... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:also, for further reference... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:There is a key difference (Score:3, Insightful)
...and when the authorities police us with no oversight, you face a lack of accountability. [wikipedia.org] There has to be middle ground somewhere.
Slight Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a subtle, but important, difference. Britain's cams look in while Texas's cams look out. If Texas tried to spy on its citizens the same way that Britain does (not that I'm saying that Brits necessarily mind the camera), the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.
No, not working in Britain & it won't work her (Score:5, Insightful)
No, its not working in Britain either. Besides the fact that the cameras in Britain are for another purpose, lets talk about these cameras and immigration.
Britian is an Island. It is SURROUNDED by a physical barrier (the sea). Yet they still have illegal immigration. Why? Because the authorities are not serious about enforcing immigration laws or rounding up and deporting visitors who overstay their visas.
Any barrier or suveillance can be defeated if the guards don't give a damn. So there is a phone number. Big deal. You can take it for granted that reports will go into the circular file and be ignored. Having cameras or electronic surveillance does nothing unless coupled with a guard force that will then response to an incident. Having a sea barrier or wall does nothing unless you have a force of people willing to respond to breaches. A camera will not stop theft or crime or border-jumping, if it is generally known that nobody will respond. Electronic sensors or a virtual barrier will not stop anybody if they know that its all for show. Even physical barriers will not stop somebody if it is ungarded and they only need a ladder. If these careras are placed in "hot spots", then why isn't there a guard team there already if its a know "hot spot".
Only GUARDED physical barriers backed by the political will to do what is necessary will work. Otherwise it is just window dressing. The political will is lacking however, because immigrants equal cheap labor and political constituancies and everybody (or rather everybody with power) wants cheap labor to drive down wages or more people for their own constituancy so they can grab more power.
So now you can just watch as they steal the camera. I give it a few weeks before the cameras start showing up for sale on e-bay or El Paso pawn shops.
Parent
Re:Slight Difference (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect we are both on the same side, but you lose credibility when you are factually incorrect, and thus getting it right strengthens your argument.
Parent
Re:Slight Difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slight Difference (Score:5, Informative)
The difference, for those unfamiliar with shotgun gauge measurements:
12 gauge:
- BLAM!!
- *croak*
20 gauge:
- bang!
- Hey!
- bang!
- Stop shooting me, man!
- bang!
- Ow! That one broke the skin!
- bang!
- Okay, okay! We'll take the cameras down, just put the gun away, Mr. Vice President!
(Actually Cheney shot his 'friend' with a 28-gauge, at close range. If it had been a 12-gauge, the guy would have no head.)
Parent
Re:Slight Difference (Score:3, Interesting)
You're not aware because you're not paying attention.
* Dallas has them [kxan.com]
* Austin has them [austinchronicle.com]
* The police have allready been caught [blogspot.com] for selling footage from the (now allegedly not recording, but still present) Deep Ellum cameras.
And the thing is, while UT had to publish the locations, that requirement no longer exists [blogspot.com] for street CCTV.
They could be installing hundreds of cameras - and wouldn't have to tell you. If you're Texan, then
Feature request for v1.1 (Score:5, Funny)
It's a Video Game. It's National Security. It's two, TWO, two games in one!
Don't Laugh (was Re:Feature request for v1.1) (Score:3, Interesting)
I give you, the next generation of border security enhancements [bbc.co.uk]. Note where this set-up is located.
Cameras on private ranches. (Score:5, Funny)
I now have a new 'worst imaginary job':(I can't ever see that sentence being finished)
Re:Cameras on private ranches. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Unbelievable! (Score:4, Funny)
--
Music should be free [myspace.com]
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
What an amazing coincidence... (Score:4, Funny)
From the BBC article:
Mr Perry, a Republican, is running for re-election in November.
I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the grandstanding^W pandering^W honest effort to do what's best.
Besides, once someone identifies people crossing the border and "notifies the authorities", then what?
Hoo boy... (Score:5, Funny)
I can see the AIM bots now.. "Hola! Click here to see me and my girlfriends have wild parties, hide from border patrols, and dodge farmers' bullets! Tee-hee! ;-)"
response times? (Score:3, Insightful)
Spying on each other (Score:5, Insightful)
But I don't buy the distinction between "us" and the people crossing, and I don't believe this will stop at the border. Pretty soon we'll have the public looking for traffic violations, doing screen caps and scribbling down license numbers, infrared cams in parks looking for kids having fun at night, etc.
We can put cams outside of bars, and let people look for people coming out, staggering a bit, and getting into their cars. You don't support drunk driving do you? And it's all on a public street.
If we all spy on each other, we can live in a crime free paradise! Look how well that whole stasi thing worked out.
Re:Spying on each other (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I know people who have called up the police on others who have attempted to drive while drunk. Why? To save a lief (or two or twenty). I have also witnessed people calling in traffic offenses, and in New Jersey, they even established a seperate 800 number for people to complain to (866-4-SAFE-NJ I belief is the number).
Ever hear of "citizen's arrest" ?? Yes, that's people taking responsibility and not relying on the government to do everything. It's part of being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN and caring about what happens in your community / state / country.
What do you think a witness is? Someone spying on someone else doing something! How do you think prosecutors actually convict murderers? There isn't always a police officer around when someone's getting shot. Usually it's a witness who was "spying" and turning someone in. What about when police officers get caught on video tape beating someone they just pulled out of a car? That was "spying", right? With a video camera nonetheless! To catch a crime, in the act, by a responsible citizen!
God you liberals make me sick.
Parent
You're confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Witness is when you happen to be somewhere that something happens unexpectedly (to you) and you see/hear/experience it. You may or may not be engaging in responsible citizen type behavior by reporting what you witnessed whether voluntarily or by request. The OP is not in any way talking about this - why are you?
Spying/surveilling is when you're actively, purposefully on the look out for what you believe to be bad things and report them whenever they happen. That's what the subject is here, not witnessing. I don't consider this kind of activity by non-authorized/non-professional people as being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN. It's quite the opposite in fact. It's one ingredient in the recipe for a miserable, repressive society.
RANT
You know what a true RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN is? It's someone who understands and is behind the principles on which the U.S. was founded and doesn't sit by spouting xeonophobic, fascist nonsense attempting to justify corrupt, morally bankrupt politicians and businessmen taking the wizz all over the Constitution for personal gain, crumpling it up, shoving it up our collective asses on a nearly daily basis and then calling it ice cream. It's pretty much the opposite of that in fact - it's someone who takes a stand against such things when they're attempted or even hinted at indirectly as is happening here with this fucking bill.
END RANT
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just didn't get what the OP was talking about. Otherwise you're engaging in defense of uneeded xenophobia, totalitarianism and fascism, to which I'd say - god, cowardly douche bag morons make me sick.
Parent
Re:Spying on each other (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, and yet. They are meant to be our laws, if I saw someone being mugged, I hope I would have the courage to step in and help. I think ultimately laws only succeed where they have the approval and support of the community. In the UK the concept of 'Neighbourhood Watch' where people look out for criminal or suspicious behaviour in their street has made a big difference to some people's lives and made communities safer. Shrugging shoulders and saying its the polices job is a pretty shoddy denial of responsibility
So what is actually wrong with the proposal of letting any citizen 'twitch the net curtain'? Is it that the border/immigration laws themselves are unpalatable? If so they should be changed. If not, what's wrong with this as a mechanism of enforcement. It works for the back yard, why not for the Texas border?
Does it infringe on rights, lead to unfair treatment or a minority or stoke prejudice? Not that I can see. If people think that they can help an over-stretched PD somewhat by sitting at their computers, is this a problem? Is it worse than running folding@home?
I'm not sure.
Parent
While we're talking about illegal immigration... (Score:5, Interesting)
It may be noted (for those unfamiliar with the region's history/politics) that India has faced a considerable inflow of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh for more than a decade [wikipedia.org]. Moreover, unlike India-Bangladesh relations are not benign as the US-Mexico relations currently seem to be, with a number of alleged fundamentalist religious organizations from Pakistan using the porous border to carry out terrorist activities on Indian soil.
While the world's attention has been focused on the Israeli security barrier sealing off the West Bank, India has been building a far longer fence to keep out Islamic militants, thwart cross-border smuggling and stop human trafficking.
More than 1,300 miles of the barrier has been erected in the six years since building began. Snaking through jungles, rivers and the villages of five states, Delhi's floodlit, 12ft double fence packed with razor wire will render India a fortress against her neighbour.
This is not intended as flamebait, nor as a political rant. Just thought it might be useful to look at the steps other countries have been taking to combat unapproved/illegal immigration into their borders...probably from more hostile neighbors.
I for one think each piece of technology has it's own place where it works well. Just because we have the technology to stream live video via the intarw3b doesn't mean it can replace a relatively low-cost hard barrier (agreed though that the FTA claims this is a temporary solution).
Calling all X10 webcam owners.... (Score:3, Funny)
If we all dig out our old, useless X10s and donate them to the Fed, we can surely cover the entire border with motion activated, web enabled video surveillance... there has got to be millions of these little buggers out there... all the fed would have to do is wire them up.
GIve up Texas (Score:5, Funny)
-matthew
Re:GIve up Texas (Score:5, Funny)
I know. That is one of the reasons to give up Texas.
-matthew
Parent
I'd love to see a "solution" (Score:5, Insightful)
Pointless waste of, well, everything! (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's not forget that not one, NOT ONE terrorist has EVER been caught crossing the US-Mexican border. However, the potential LAX bomber was caught trying to cross over into the US from Canada (turns steely glare directly north).
According to the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com], the US has a laughingly low number of border patrol agents on the northern border.
From TFA: "The United State posts more than five agents per mile across our southern border. By contrast, we post less than one agent every five miles across our northern border. What's more, as the United States has cut off urban crossing points in places such as El Paso and San Diego, it has forced many illegal immigrants to go through the Arizona desert -- a brutal journey, particularly for someone with no knowledge of the terrain. Would-be terrorists coming from Canada are not only less likely to be caught, they are less likely to die along the way.
There also happen to be many more potential jihadists in Canada. Unlike Mexico, with its negligible Arab and Muslim population, Canada in recent decades has welcomed large numbers of immigrants from the Middle East. And while the vast majority are law-abiding, Canadian authorities estimate that roughly 50 terrorist groups operate in the country. In their study, Leiken and Brooke identify three suspected terrorists who have tried to enter the United states from Canada, including Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian native arrested in December 1999 on his way to blow up Los Angeles International Airport."
I love my country, but seriously, this is just so out of hand now. To paraphrase The Talking Heads: "We're on a road to nowhere."
Xenophobe? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just looking at a report on the Center for Immigrant Studies website http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalcoverage.h
Re:a wall (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:a wall (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, we could build the wall. And then a future Mexican president can stand by the wall and demand that the US bring down that wall. The circle will be complete, although the irony will
Re:"What Americans want" (Score:5, Informative)
Feel free to browse here [pollingreport.com] to see what Americans think the biggest problems are. War in Iraq, gas prices, immigration are all high on every poll...
Parent
Re:"What Americans want" (Score:5, Funny)
Says who?
Says me! You have no idea how scared I am of those filthy Canadians sneaking across the border to take advantage of our healthcare system and steal all our good beer.
Parent
Re:"What Americans want" (Score:3, Informative)
Not trying to knock you for your agenda, mine is very similar, but you should be aware that most of the time, the rest of the country does not have the same agenda as you do. Consulting a recent poll (below), I see that you're right about the war, but wrong about the other two.
Stolen from Polling Report [pollingreport.com] and modified
Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how that fact never makes it into the US media.
Parent
Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia (Score:3, Informative)
There are plenty of stories [google.co.uk] about that border. Just not on Fox News, apparantly [google.co.uk]. Don't confuse one with the other.
Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally, even if the rumors were true, I have to ask "So what?" Even if Mexico's southern border were a Berlin wall-style no-man's land with minefields, automatic machine guns and guard towers every 100 yards with order to shoot to kill, would that justify the US using inhumane tactics in guarding its own border?
Nothing would justify us using inhumane tactics in guarding our border. With that said, no fence means people are more likely to try and cross in fairly dangerous desert areas and die trying. A fence raises the barrier to successful entry and makes people less likely to try (and thereby less likely to risk their lives).
The remaining people are either really bad, or really bad off, and in either case, handling a smaller number of people would be easier. Of course, since our current president, his counterpart in Mexico, and the senate don't seem to want to do anything to actually control entry to the US, it's a moot point.
I actually don't think the webcams are such a bad idea, they're almost certainly more effective than fences and they should greatly reduce the number of guards required. They may also have a small effect in limiting the abuse of illegals by guards and others (though more likely the abuse will just move to where the cameras don't cover). In the final analysis, though, I think any attempt to keep people out is ultimately doomed to failure, and of questionable morality besides. We're better off finding ways to allow people to come in legally.
The webcams *are* a bad idea for several reasons. First, because they'll cause more deaths than a fence (parallel: potential drownings at a public pool protected by cameras vs. a fence), and second, because the Texas DPS (state police) will be monitoring the cameras, and they are currently explicitly not allowed to perform any type of immigration enforcement.
In addition, they are actively discouraged from reporting potential immigration-related problems to immigration officials...basically, Perry wants to spend some money so we can watch people walk on in, but not actually do anything about it.
We *are* better off finding ways to let people come in legally, and we do need some effort put into greatly improving the legal immigration process, but we have to deal with the existing problem *first*.
My favorite analogy for what's happening immigration-wise is an amusement park. You and your kids (legal immigrants) buy tickets to DisneyFlagsGardens and get to the front gate at 6AM so you can go on the new supercoaster first. The gates open, and you make a beeline for the ride, only to see a couple hundred people emerging from between some greenery at the edge of the park near the ride and queuing up in line already.
You tell one of the staff at the park, and they tell you that there's nothing they can do about it, and that you should just wait normally, all the while more and more are squeezing in line ahead of you.
It's just not fair. If we want to allow open immigration and diversity, then I guess we need to start programs to fly people from other poorer countries across the atlantic and pacific oceans so that they can have the same opportunity. Proximity should not make it okay for illegal immigrants to enter our country unchecked. There should be a line, and everyone should fall in at the back.
Parent
Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia (Score:3, Insightful)
There are official border crossings, with visa checks and more, at every border in the world. People are expected to use them. There are reasons for this, besides just xenophobia. Money is one. Legal accountablity is another. So is soverenty, and protection of the legal citizens of the country. (One of the basic purposes of havin
Re:The Newer Colossus (Score:4, Insightful)
How about "PS: No People whose first act in this country is violating its laws and sovereignty" instead.
What about all those people in the world who aren't lucky enough to live in a country along your southern border (like me). Are they doomed to never be allowed into your country legally because Mexicans are illegally flooding into your country, illegally filling whatever "immigrant" quota exists (unofficially, of course)? Or do we have to enter your country illegally as well now? If you believe that every person who wants to should be allowed to enter and live in the US, I suggest you find some place to put 3 billion people at least (the pop of the world - Western Europe - Canada - Australia - New Zealand - Japan - South Korea - Very Rich of China & India - Hong Kong - Singapore - Taiwan >> 3 billion). Or is entering your country at will a privilege only available to Mexicans?
Parent
Re:The Newer Colossus (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Newer Colossus (Score:3, Insightful)
The real point is you can be a self center jack ass jerk no matter your race, religion, creed, political affiliation, penis / boob size, hair color, nationality, etc...
If people would concentrate on what we have in common, and what we can all do that is good for each other the world would be a much better place.
That being said, cameras on our borders is a fine idea, because we do need to protect what we hav