Patrolling the US Border Via Webcam

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."

Comments

Well...

[Dzimas]

They're not really hidden cameras if the output is streamed to the web, now are they?

Re:Well...

[belmolis]

They're hidden if they are difficult for people in the area to see. "hidden" is not the same as "secret".

Re:Well...

[mysidia]

They're relying on obscurity.

You can't look at a picture in your web browser and automatically know where the cameras are.

The border region is massive, there are many lakes and bodies of water in the region, and it should be almost impossible to figure out where these cameras are, unless you happen to know the specific area where the camera happens to be, extremely well.

Probably unless you're border patrol agent, drug trafficker, a local, or an illegal, you have absolutely no chance at all of recognizing the area, which is probably on federal border property.

And probably even 99% of the locals would have no chance of recognizing the body of water or characteristics as a specific area.

The various Texas border regions are approximately 100,000 square miles. Finding a pinhole camera over such a large area is akin to looking for a specific grain of sand on the beach.

Imagine how many different places the cameras could be if they weren't just in Texas.

Re:Well...

[zill]

1. Wear a Bigfoot costume and approach the border.
2. Frail around for 5 minutes.
3. Take a smoke break and then google "bigfoot Mexican border".
4. If there are no relevant results, you're safe to cross.
5. If there are a few million hits and you find yourself on /. front page, then congratulations on the career move from a deal smuggler to an internet celebrity.

The best part is that you're guaranteed not to be fired upon if spotted by the boarder patrol. Also you can claim you're just perpetrating a hoax if you're caught performing steps 1-3.

Security through obscurity never works.

Re:Well...

[timlyg]

can the mexicans register too? LOL
well, at least something for the debt whiners to do and stop whining about how they lost their jobs.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

oh dear - ever get the feeling that you and your country are slipping into darkness...?

ever wondered why most people on the planet hate you...?

you sir are a fine example of the kind of disgusting creep that your country seems to produce so well.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

hes kidding, dumbshit.

Re:Well...

[Toonol]

I don't actually have a problem with any country using machine gun turrets and ditches filled with flaming oil in order to keep people from sneaking in. It's an appropriate function of government. The problem is only when they try to keep their own citizens IN.

Re:Well...

[Fred_A]

1. Wear a Bigfoot costume and approach the border.

Since I first heard of this strange setup, I too have wondered why nobody has played with the cams, the potential for harmless shenanigans making fun of the security loonies is limitless.

Re:Well...

[Interoperable]

The big flaw is that internet celebrity doesn't pay nearly as well as drug smuggler.

Re:Well...

[Ash Vince]

The big flaw is that internet celebrity doesn't pay nearly as well as drug smuggler.

Actually I bet it pays miles better. The people doing the actual smuggling are not the people who make all the cash, that goes to the people who control them. The actual smugglers are probably just immigrant workers who have been thrown back out by border security so many times that they get to know the least patrolled routes in.

Re:Well...

[Idiomatick]

Its texas... they'll just shoot you...

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can google for bigfoot, you already have the internet.
If you have the internet, you can look at the web cams.
If you can look at the web cams, you can avoid being seen by them.
Thus I must conclude that the people that will get caught have no access to the internet.

How about installing a few cams in each ...

[Super Dave Osbourne]

of the homes of each member of congress, the judicial branches, and the whitehouse, and lets see how many of the 1000s caught have cousins that already are working here illegally paid under the table with tax dollars?

Absurd!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Why is a wholesome, All-American, project to Defend the Homeland(tm) letting dirty foreign IP addresses in?

I read on freerepublic that foreign IPs can carry tuberculosis and communism.

Re:Absurd!

[Anonymous Coward]

In the World, the America polices you. In the America, the World polices you. It's communism, I tell you!

Re:Absurd!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool! Now the mexicans can see their families being caught and handcuffed live instead of never hearing from them again. With reality tv... now reality webcam... The Catch a mexican cam... hey - that rhymes! Or maybe Catch a mexicam?

Re:Absurd!

[manwargi]

Foreign IPs carrying tuberculosis? What nonsense. Everyone knows that they're carrying swine flu.

Duck! I can see you, move to your right

[tonyahn]

Now if Mexico was registered to monitor the hidden cams..... "quick, duck, I can see you on the webcam"

Re:Duck! I can see you, move to your right

[TibbonZero]

No joke. I'd call my friend that's trying to cross the border and let them know they couldn't be seen. Duh.

Re:Duck! I can see you, move to your right

[zill]

Now all the poor families near the border have access to free video chat.

The only problem is that two minor features have not been implemented yet: audio and recipient selection.

Re:Duck! I can see you, move to your right

[moosesocks]

I'm pretty sure Mexico isn't particularly thrilled about the mass-emigration from their country, as it's a reflection upon their government's inability to do anything meaningful or promote social progress within their own borders.

Re:Duck! I can see you, move to your right

[Anonymous Coward]

We look for significant activity (or lack thereof) in webcam accesses from Mexican IP space, and we conclude something is about to take place.

Re:Duck! I can see you, move to your right

[Anonymous Coward]

au contraire, i think they are thrilled by it. think of all the money that flows back into mexico by the immigrants, legal and illegal.

Re:Duck! I can see you, move to your right

[rtb61]

What about if the whole webcam border watch, was all about flagging people who have an interest in US border operations. I wonder how many people who wish to cross borders illegally couldn't resist a quick perv even if it required registration and gives away your IP address.

When your searches are being recorded and analysed, and your email is recorded and analyses, and your mobile calls are recorded and analysed and, well basically anything you do across the web can be added to a database and probed. Well, adding in a few extra bits of digital bait help to create a more accurate profile of whom to target and who not to waste resources on can be a very effective, hmm, phishing technique.

Mexico?

[whoever57]

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."

Could it be that Mexicans have registered for the purpose of locating the cameras?

Re:Mexico?

[Eudial]

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."

Could it be that Mexicans have registered for the purpose of locating the cameras?

... or to continuously report a bunch of fake border crossings all the time so that the real events drown in a sea of fake ones.

Re:Mexico?

[couchslug]

The way to play that would be to point cams in one direction and patrol the others.

Re:Mexico?

[causality]

So this is for people to view and observe the border and report any activity right....well I guess this plan is already in the toilet now that people IN MEXICO can view the cameras and see exactly where they are pointed.

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.

I heard one simple idea that probably would solve the illegal border crossing problem: landmines. Line our side of the border with antipersonnel landmines, everywhere except the legitimate entrances/checkpoints. Post highly visible signs in English and Spanish, and also with graphics in case the person is illiterate, warning that it is a minefield. The purpose of this is to establish a deterrent, not to actually hurt anyone (though if that happens, they can't say they weren't warned). Maybe those signs can include some contact information at the bottom, useful for obtaining information on how to go through the process of coming here legally.

Re:Mexico?

[Anonymous Coward]

... or to continuously report a bunch of fake border crossings all the time so that the real events drown in a sea of fake ones.

I'm sure that will be a really funny story that you can share with all your new friends you make after you are tracked down by your IP and busted for kiddie porn.

Of course some other folks will have a really funny story about someone who thought crap flooding law enforcement with fake reports was a funny thing to do.

Re:Mexico?

[93 Escort Wagon]

I heard one simple idea that probably would solve the illegal border crossing problem: landmines.

And when dozens of cattle and feral horses are left maimed or dead, we'll just say "serves those stupid animals right! They should learn to read!" What, you didn't realize there is a significant amount of non-human traffic in those areas?

Or, for that matter, how desperate some people are when they're trying to escape severe poverty or starvation? Or do you just not care? A rudimentary knowledge of fairly recent history would have told you land mines don't deter the very poor from attempting to use land - they just send people out into the fields/paddies with poles in an attempt to blow up any mines before planting their rice (yes, we're talking about a country in southeast Asia). If mines didn't stop them from entering land they'd use multiple times, it's not likely to stop illegal aliens from attempting a one-time crossing.

Re:Mexico?

[Ksevio]

Well with all the miles of border, what are the chances someone will be able to recognize an area of desert or brush from a point of view they haven't seen in an area they haven't crossed over?

Re:Mexico?

[Eudial]

... or to continuously report a bunch of fake border crossings all the time so that the real events drown in a sea of fake ones.

I'm sure that will be a really funny story that you can share with all your new friends you make after you are tracked down by your IP and busted for kiddie porn.

Of course some other folks will have a really funny story about someone who thought crap flooding law enforcement with fake reports was a funny thing to do.

Well, what do you expect when you allow the people trying to cross into the country power to raise the alarm about people crossing into the country? Of course they're going to use it to their own advantage. They're already breaking one law, so I don't expect them to have any concerns about breaking another one to avoid getting caught.

Re:Mexico?

[spasm]

So that's why the US is one of the few nations not to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty)..

Re:Mexico?

[daveime]

Partially deflated hovercrafts, seems to work for the North Koreans at the DMZ.

Re:Mexico?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I didn't know Kim Jong-il read Slashdot.

Re:Mexico?

[causality]

I heard one simple idea that probably would solve the illegal border crossing problem: landmines.

And when dozens of cattle and feral horses are left maimed or dead, we'll just say "serves those stupid animals right! They should learn to read!" What, you didn't realize there is a significant amount of non-human traffic in those areas?

Or, for that matter, how desperate some people are when they're trying to escape severe poverty or starvation? Or do you just not care? A rudimentary knowledge of fairly recent history would have told you land mines don't deter the very poor from attempting to use land - they just send people out into the fields/paddies with poles in an attempt to blow up any mines before planting their rice (yes, we're talking about a country in southeast Asia). If mines didn't stop them from entering land they'd use multiple times, it's not likely to stop illegal aliens from attempting a one-time crossing.

The person who modded me "Funny" had the right idea.

Re:Mexico?

[fast turtle]

Nah - Landmines are to cheap. You aint thinking like an American Politician. It's got to cost at least 1 million per emplacement, ensure it can detect not only ilegals crossing the border but the drug runners, sniff out radioactive materials and shoot down exocet cruise missles and the damn idiot tourist who flys to close to the No Fly zone.

Don't forget it's got to be a long term defense contract that'll cost 10-20 billion dollars for a 10 year contract and give plenty of jobs to our favorite congress critters districts so they'll vote for him in the next election. That's the Real American Way.

Re:Mexico?

[shaitand]

Somehow I doubt many Mexicans in the illegal border crossing business are afraid of U.S. law enforcement framing them for kiddie porn.

Re:Mexico?

[shaitand]

'And when dozens of cattle and feral horses are left maimed or dead, we'll just say "serves those stupid animals right! They should learn to read!"'

For the wild animals it doesn't much matter and for the domestic ones it is the responsibility of ranchers to track and herd their own animals. No reason to be concerned about this unless you are a PETA nutter.

'Or, for that matter, how desperate some people are when they're trying to escape severe poverty or starvation? Or do you just not care?'

I certainly don't care. Not when there are legal routes for the poor and starving to take to enter. Or they could get off their asses and work to improve their economic situation. Even Mexico has internet these days and that means they have more knowledge than any first rate university in the world at their fingertips.

Its an entire nation, you're going to tell me that with the global store of information at their fingertips and millions of people to search Google they can't figure out a way to make money?

'A rudimentary knowledge of fairly recent history would have told you land mines don't deter the very poor from attempting to use land'

That is what we refer to as natural selection.

The problem is that landmines are expensive we couldn't pepper the area with enough landmines.

I picture something more like two chain link fences with barbed wire and pressure sensors rather than landmines between them. The fences keep out animals and the pressure sensors alert border patrol. At regular intervals you have an autonomous motion sensing machine gun mounted. They can cover a greater range than landmines. They also help to protect against a Mexican military invasion.

Re:Mexico?

[noidentity]

... or to continuously report a bunch of fake border crossings all the time so that the real events drown in a sea of fake ones.

Caller: "I saw someone on the border cam! Go get him!"
Operator: "Let me review the last 5 minutes"
<5 seconds later>
Operator: "I didn't see anything from that camera in the past 5 minutes."

Re:Mexico?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your lack of respect for animal and human life disturbing.

Re:Mexico?

[Anonymous Coward]

Line our side of the border with antipersonnel landmines, everywhere except the legitimate entrances/checkpoints.

Way to go!

Since we're just about the only allegedly-civilized nation who won't sign the treaty against use of land mines, I say, "Quit wasting that valuable hardware on the ungrateful Iraquis, Afghans and Pakistanis."

Mine America first!

Re:Mexico?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, you are not familiar with how law enforcement works in Mexico. I will help you. Good luck having Mexico extradite someone for making false reports to the US authorities. I assure you this type of crime is high on Mexican law enforcement's priority list.

Re:Mexico?

[JackieBrown]

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?

[dangitman]

Even Mexico has internet these days and that means they have more knowledge than any first rate university in the world at their fingertips.

First rate universities don't have the internet? I highly doubt that.

Re:Mexico?

[MagusSlurpy]

And when dozens of cattle and feral horses are left maimed or dead, we'll just say "serves those stupid animals right! They should learn to read!"

Bah. We wouldn't do that. We'd have a damn barbecue!

Re:Mexico?

[noidentity]

I'm a troll because I showed how false reports could easily be determined by simply reviewing the last few minutes of the webcam footage to see whether anyone really appeared in it? Whatever!

Re:Mexico?

[TheLink]

> They're already breaking one law, so I don't expect them to have any concerns about breaking another one to avoid getting caught.

If their friends are in Mexico when they raise false alarms in USA, are they breaking any Mexican laws?

Re:Mexico?

[mpe]

Could it be that Mexicans have registered for the purpose of locating the cameras?

Then they could plot the locations on a map. It's not as if these cameras can have overlapping fields of view if there are only 21 of them :)

Re:Mexico?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Mexico?

[Eudial]

If their friends are in Mexico when they raise false alarms in USA, are they breaking any Mexican laws?

Nope, but depending on the seriousness of the crime in the US and the presence of an extradition treaty, you may be extradited and face charges in the US.

Re:Mexico?

[Eudial]

Well, at least probably nope. I'm not familiar enough with Mexican law to tell. But I seriously doubt there are such laws.

Re:Mexico?

[shutdown -p now]

Here's a question for you, as well as the other guys who supported the idea in replies.

Suppose that - let's say, out of sheer love of poor innocent bunnies and other cute and furry creatures - instead of setting up a dumb mine field, they've did something akin to what's described in TFA - a mounted MG combined with a webcam for aiming, in a zone where no-one legally crossing a border should go, available for anyone to control - so that humans can be filtered out of local wildlife and specifically targeted. Ultimately, the user is the one "pulling the trigger".

Would you be willing to take control over such a thing, and shoot absolutely anyone crossing? Yes/no?

Mexico?

[RsJtSu]

So this is for people to view and observe the border and report any activity right....well I guess this plan is already in the toilet now that people IN MEXICO can view the cameras and see exactly where they are pointed.

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.

I saw that movie

[TubeSteak]

If only there were a way for them to stay on their side of the border,
yet still do work on our side of it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804529/

Stupid.

[girlintraining]

The moment these people are signedup and logged in -- that's when we'll know the locations and capabilities of those cameras.

Contest! Find the Cameras!

[billstewart]

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!

AI

[Karganeth]

I hope AI is used to bring the webcams which have humans moving on it to peoples attention (rather than having everyone looking at random webcams, 99% of which will have nothing interesting on them).

When in Rome...

[Duradin]

So instead of lining some contractor's pocket how about we just do as the Romans did and actually patrol the damned border?

Sure boots on the ground isn't as flashy as a web cam but it might be actually effective.

Of course actual patrols might be too effective...

Re:When in Rome...

[belmolis]

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.

Re:When in Rome...

[Duradin]

We do have a standing army which we already pay.

Hadrian's wall had troops stationed in posts every 5000 feet along with observation towers and the occasional large garrison. If they could do it (in a foreign country none the less) we should be able to do it at home.

Re:When in Rome...

[belmolis]

Using the army might work in times of peace, but at present the army is stretched thin by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I doubt that they have personnel to spare. The Roman troops along Hadrian's Wall mostly stayed in the milecastles and the towers on either side. Intensive patrolling was not their strategy. Hadrian's Wall was only 73.5 miles long. The US border with Mexico is 1,969 miles long. To staff it the way the Romans staffed Hadrian's wall would require approximately 50,000 troops.

Re:When in Rome...

[couchslug]

That's actually quite practical, especially with UAVs and manned surveillance posts, but there is little political support in Washington for effective border control.

It's easy to build small operating bases, easy to stage patrols to monitor what sensor and cameras detect, and while it would not halt border crossings it would reduce them to a more reasonable level.

What isn't easy is doing this when Mexico objects (failed narcostate that it is, every dime sent from Yanquiland is welcome) and when Mexicans in the US (who have zero logical interest in border security and everything to gain from lack of it) vote and protest against it.

Re:When in Rome...

[couchslug]

Modern surveillance systems a combination of manned patrols and surveillance systems would make a modern "Morice Line" practical. The purpose isn't to stop them all, just most of them.

Re:When in Rome...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they've got the vote, they are no longer "Mexicans". They are Americans.

Re:When in Rome...

[cheekyboy]

50000 cylon type robots would do the trick.

Re:When in Rome...

[daveime]

Patrolling it effectively would probably take more guards than we want to pay for.

Couldn't we use some illegal Mexican immigrants ?

Dey tuk ur jerbs !!!

Re:When in Rome...

[ShooterNeo]

That's less than half the troops we have accomplishing nothing of value in Iraq/Afganistan.

Plus, we could do two birds with one stone if we had the Army patrolling the border. They could run all sorts of training exercises up and down along the border.

Re:When in Rome...

[Quiet_Desperation]

I always thought we could just consolidate all US military bases into one, long skinny one along the border. :-)

The whole controversy is weird. It's like we're not allowed to have a border. You'd think it was Kashmir, but even India and Pakistan mange to have a little fun with it.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1689795,00.html

I can't think of any other border where people act like it's an offense against the universe. Meanwhile, you see all sorts of anti-illegal immigration laws being tightened around the world and you don't hear boo about them.

Re:When in Rome...

[shaitand]

So in other words it would be a relatively trivial task for our military if we weren't trying to police the world and engage in holy wars.

Re:When in Rome...

[Anonymous Coward]

the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

You (USA) keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means...

Re:When in Rome...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you need to use UAVs in a peacefull area when you could fly a $20,000 plane with a guy makine $55,000 a year to fly it. Vs a multimillion dollar UAV with trained person who propably makes $35,000-50,000?

Re:When in Rome...

[bobzaguy]

Hadrian's Wall is for sale. Check eBay #333444CJF4046.

Re:When in Rome...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay for? How about we force the illegals ICE catches to guard the boarders (with us reinforcements of course)... Let them help pad the costs before we throw them back onto their side.

Re:When in Rome...

[Anonymous Coward]

I say, give us drone feeds. Everyone everywhere is tapping into predator drone feeds. Allow the internet to tap too!

Re:When in Rome...

[KudyardRipling]

I can't think of any other border where people act like it's an offense against the universe. Meanwhile, you see all sorts of anti-illegal immigration laws being tightened around the world and you don't hear boo about them.

More likely than not, these nations do not allow foreign entities to own their debt. Also, more likely than not, these are creditor nations who use their money to affect the policies of other nations by buying their debt. Perhaps China threatened to call their part of the debt if the US government tried to do something effective about southern border security. As long as wages are kept depressed through illegal immigrants, H1B visaholders and outsourcing, inflation does not exist~

See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/opinion/05friedman.html

Racist truths or cosmopolitan lies: the choice is yours.

Re:When in Rome...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps China threatened to call their part of the debt if the US government tried to do something effective about southern border security. As long as wages are kept depressed through illegal immigrants, H1B visaholders and outsourcing, inflation does not exist~

That doesn't make any sense. No country would want other countries to have low prices because that means more money flowing that way.

Honestly... Left wing should be against border control (Workers of the world unite). Right wing should be against border control (Cheap workforce? How about NOT regulating it based on birthplace?). Those are enough reasons for why nobody wishes to fix the "problem"

Back in the USSR

[adbge]

Maybe we could learn a few lessons from the Soviets and the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

from Mexico?

[Anonymous Coward]

Voluntary observers from Mexico? I can see then reporting: ... nothing to see here ... and ... move along ...
not necessarily to the same microphone.

What the fuck does this mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck does the USSR have to do with anything?

This isn't a wall, nor does it keep people in.

Your point makes absolutely no sense, you failed karma whore.

Re:What the fuck does this mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the thing to learn is that if you did build a wall, it would keep them in. Or out.

Re:What the fuck does this mean?

[adbge]

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!

Re:What the fuck does this mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Patrolling the Mexican-American border is about as effective as the war on drugs.

"George Bush says 'we are losing the war on drugs'. Well you know what that implies? There's a war going on, and people on drugs are winning it! Well what does that tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative motherfuckers on that side."
-- Bill Hicks

Re:What the fuck does this mean?

[bcrowell]

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.

I was with you on the first sentence. But there's a problem with the Berlin Wall analogy: the Berlin Wall was designed to keep people in, whereas the US border controls are designed to keep people out.

Re:What the fuck does this mean?

[TapeCutter]

The Berlin wall became an economic divide and some wanted it to stay that way. Although all the politicians said it was a good thing after it came down, the US and many EU countries (such as UK and France), were actively lobbying the two germanys to keep it up.

Re:What the fuck does this mean?

[TapeCutter]

The Berlin wall was there to seperate people, as are all walls.

Re:What the fuck does this mean?

[bcrowell]

The Berlin wall was there to seperate people, as are all walls.

I think there's an important distinction between being on the inside and the outside of a state prison.

Re:What the fuck does this mean?

[TapeCutter]

Of course but try getting into a state prison without going thru the gate and see what happens.

Why guard the border at all?

[dafing]

Speaking as a New Zealander, living on an island far away from other countries, whats the point in patrolling the border? To stop "criminal activity"? Isnt that really no different than all the Patriot act BS Security Theatre?

If you are so concerned about criminal activity "crossing the border", why not do what that lovely man in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City suggested for florida, build a moat! Start digging, and pretty soon you'll be sailing across the Caribbean sea, singing kumbya in the sunshine! No school! No tax! Free BBQ and pinball for everyone! We will have a rollercoaster for every family!......

In all seriousness though, surely a large enough moat would be the best thing to do, if you have such a problem with crime. Its pretty much eternal (unless "global warming" dries it up!) , so surely it would pay itself off over time? Oh, if only it had been done a hundred years ago! Think of all the "crime" and "drugs" that would have been stopped, the lives that would have been saved!

Check out the logo on TFA's linked site, here, imagine some obese guy with a tattoo of that on his left manboob watching his Dell hour after hour for starving families "trying to break in"...

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[bschorr]

There's already a moat of sorts - the Rio Grande river. I think that only stops illegals who can't swim and have no access to a raft or other boat.

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.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[MichaelSmith]

If you are so concerned about criminal activity "crossing the border", why not do what that lovely man in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City suggested for florida, build a moat!

Yeah as an Aussie it has long been my belief that you shouldn't be able to be a country unless you have water all the way around. Of course the Panama Canal is sort of a moat, and it is part of the USA.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[dafing]

Ahh, yes, thank you, I knew about the river, but was going for the "over the top" approach, using advice gained from a violent video game :)

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.

Exactly! All this talk of "criminals" and "drugs", calling large swaths of people "illegals"...its a terrible thing! They are still human beings you know...

This idea of having people watching computer screens for desperate people trying to make a new life in another country, its revolting to me. I also feel sorry for those who have grown up on the other side to see these people as a "pest".

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[dafing]

Glad to hear from an Australian friend, I've long wished that the "ANZAC spirit" were closer, with less of our stereotypes and poor jokes. If you forgive my "fussh und chuups", I'll pass over your "sex/six" difficulties :)

Still, Australia and NZ have had asylum seekers, that ended up being turned away. Really, if some impoverished people want to come to your country, is it such a bad thing for you, as a "rich" person? No matter how "poor" we might feel, we are so much better off than millions, nay, billions, overseas. What a strange situation, where many of our middle class give "a dollar a day" to "starving children in Africa", but we put up walls, fences, MOATS, to keep people out.

Does this talk of "patrolling the border" remind anyone else of the Berlin Wall? Wasnt a Right Wing American known for "tear down this wall"?

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a New Zealander, living on an island far away from other countries, whats the point in patrolling the border?

Paranoid superstition. If we imagine that the USA's success depends on keeping the Mexicans out (because Mexicans have an inferior race, culture, education or because citizenship is somehow a scarce resource or whatever) then keeping the Mexicans out is a way to insure (have control over) the USA's continued success. Basically, people in the USA feel insecure about their success and limiting immigration provides an illusion of control.

When you actually think the illusion through, it falls apart. For example, if you keep Mexicans out of the USA so they can't compete with people in the USA for low wage factory jobs, well, the factories just get moved to Mexico and people in the USA are then totally out of luck on the low wage factory jobs.

There is a case to be made for insuring that the US population doesn't increase way too much - but the best way to do that is to discourage people in the USA from having children.

To stop "criminal activity"? Isnt that really no different than all the Patriot act BS Security Theatre?

Sure, if the USA actually wanted to use borders to stop crime then the borders should be within the USA (e.g. put a Berlin style wall with checkpoint searches around some of the rough neighborhoods in L.A. ) but that would be inconvenient for people in the USA.

And, fundamentally, the whole point is to maintain a simple easy (at least for people in the USA) illusion of control.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[MichaelSmith]

Really, if some impoverished people want to come to your country, is it such a bad thing for you, as a "rich" person?

Put that way its not really a bad thing but spare a thought for the great number of people from poor countries who do the right thing by applying through channels, filling out the forms and working hard to qualify. Letting asylum seekers through does two bad things IMHO:

• It creates a black market for often lethal people smuggling.
• It reduces the number of places for migrants who use the system from end to end.

I 1997 I visited friends in the US. They had an apartment in Manhattan and during the day I made use of the laundry in their building. The demographics in the laundry and the attached playground were totally different from elsewhere generally in the building. The clothes were being washed and the children were being cared for by middle aged women from central America. It was actually a lot like Malaysia (my wife's native country), where many families have Indonesian servants.

If you want to retain your identity, migration has to be slow. I am sure that India or Sri Lanka could dump enough people on NZ in one year to create a new majority. I doubt that even the past immigrants from those countries want that to happen. And it is a sad fact I think that population pressure has to be used to reduce population growth. Its sad because starvation is implied in that equation.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[david duncan scott]

So can you show me a country that doesn't try to maintain its territorial integrity?

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[timmarhy]

if your from NZ it's obvious why your pro immigration - 1/2 your bloody country has immigrated to aussie!

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[theskunkmonkey]

Of course the Panama Canal is sort of a moat, and it is part of the USA.

I'd like to point out, we handed over the canal to Panama at the end of the last century. Seeing as your an Aussie, your forgiven.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had more mexicans than sheep roaming your country you would change your tune.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

New Zealand is sufficently remote that illegal immigration hasn't been much of a problem.

The US hasn't been so fortunate. Current estimates are that there are approximately 12 million illegals currently in the USA - the majority (81%) being Mexico and Latin America, 9% from Asia, 6% from Europe and Canada, and 4% from the rest of the world. With a US population of something over 300 million, that means that roughly 4% of the US population is here illegally.

When New Zealand has that same problem, be sure to check back with us and tell us how happy you are about it.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[dafing]

if your from NZ it's obvious why your pro immigration - 1/2 your bloody country has immigrated to aussie!

and yet our population is growing! Things are only getting better.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[dafing]

exactly, I realise that populations change significantly. On the last 60 Minutes podcast I listened to, one of the birthpaces of Christianity has been radically changed, and christians are apparently harassed, the entire region is Islamic now. I dont see it as a "bad" thing.

I'm "New Zealand European" or "Pakeha" or "white. I realise that going into the future, my country will be "less white", who cares? Why should we be afraid of that? That there will be more cultures in our country, I think thats great! It busts stereotypes, "oh, NZers are all just white trash dairy farmers", well, not the Chinese Vegans.

If a hundred years after my death, New Zealand population is mainly Chinese, it doesnt hurt me any! I guess I could fear my history and culture will be forgotten, that "NZ Europeans" will "die out", but really, what are we to do? A pre emptive nuclear strike on China? "fixing" people from large countries, the way we "fix" a dog?

Diversity is almost certainly a good thing, I have nothing to fear if poorer people come here and make a new life, good for them. I wouldnt try and stop them.

""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-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!""

How did America move away from its ideals, such as the pursuit of happiness for all?

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

So can you show me a country that doesn't try to maintain its territorial integrity?

Territorial integrity generally refers to where a country's borders are. I'm not seeing what that has to do with immigration. Michigan and Ohio have a definite border but people living in those states are free to pass across the border (either temporarily or permanently) with essentially no restriction.

As far as examples of countries that don't restrict immigration, I'm not aware of any "pure" countries (in a certain sense that's like asking whether there are any countries that are completely free of religion). But, just off the top of my head, there's the European Union which has eliminated a great deal of previous immigration restrictions - and still seems to doing fine.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Thoreauly Nuts]

Second it would probably be more effective if we made it easier for them to come here LEGALLY

I would go further and say the borders of all countries should be completely open. All people have an intrinsic natural right to travel and just because some tyrant drew an imaginary line in the sand at some point in history doesn't justify the abridgement of said rights. No one should be forced to live in poverty or under tyranny simply by accident of birth.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Rio Grande is actually the source of the term "Wetback."

I think the solution is actually to make it illegal to pay illegal immigrants less than american citizens for the same types of work, then highly publicise this and make it a crime instead of a civil affair. That way other workers could report their employer for hiring cheap illegals. After a few high-profile cases, it will actually become more difficult for illegal immigrants to find work because employers won't want to face the stiff penalties involved in paying them less, and they often cannot speak English as well as the US citizens vying for the same work. Then the only way they have to compete is on how well they work versus US citizens, effectively leveling the playing field.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[timmarhy]

there was an article in the australian about all our fears being true - the dumber kiwi's are immigrating to australia. it might not be scientific but i think i work with most of them.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[zeropointburn]

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?

[dafing]

the dumber kiwi's are immigrating to australia. it might not be scientific but i think i work with most of them.

Of course, the smart ones know to stay :P

“New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia raise the IQ of both countries." Robert Muldoon

Just ensuring I stay modded down, remember, I was the one saying we need to get over our silly jokes, and come together as ANZAC brothers and sisters. Imagine, the Australasian Union! As long as we keep our coin sizes, $1 should be a smaller coin than $2 :)

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Thoreauly Nuts]

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.

"Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice." ---Henry Thoreau

"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." ---Thomas Jefferson

In short, I don't care in the slightest what the law says.

Maybe it sounds callous to you, but screw the people that drain our social support without giving anything back.

Yes, because the millions of illegal immigrants in this country don't give back by building our houses, cleaning our buildings, growing our food, or mowing our lawns for shit wages with no benefits. You know, all the jobs most Americans would never get off their fat asses to do, but nevertheless need to be done. They do more for America than most of the elected representatives in our own government...

we cannot allow a de facto aid package to be sucked out of our hospitals and food pantries and shelters.

But we can allow the government to spend trillions on war and bailing out rich corporations while continually eviscerating our civil liberties? Illegals shouldn't even be on the radar at this point...

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an extreme example: If Israel opened their borders, there wouldn't be an Israel, just a bunch of craters.

Israel has a couple different types of borders. There are the border with the surrounding countries and there are the borders between the settlements and the occupied territories. The long-term effect of Israel opening all it's borders would be the Palestinians in surrounding countries returning to the general areas in Israel where they used to live (the Palestinians' actual houses have long since been confiscated by the Israeli government and rented out to other people) - with the consequence that Israel would no longer be predominantly Jewish (incidentally, this is likely to happen anyway in a few decades due to natural demographic trends). The short-term effect would be rioting and harassment of the Palestinians by the right-wing Jewish settlers. Whether the Israeli government could (or even would) keep the lid on the settlers is hard to say. But it's unlikely that Israel would end up as a bunch of craters (unless the settlers managed to take control of Israel's nukes - in which case the whole country could wind up as a parking lot).

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.

OK, so the USA opens it's borders and then sometime later you head down to Walgreens and fill a prescription for an antibiotic but Walgreens gives you cyanide instead - presumably Walgreens would get in a lot of trouble for that.

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.

So what does that have to do with immigration? Do you really think that that the reason the big multinationals haven't sold nuclear ICBMs to Iran and North Korea is because Iran and North Korea have restrictive immigration policies?

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.

Well, sure, and if we divided the USA into a square-mile grid and strip searched anyone wanted to travel between grid squares, we would have even more control. But we can do OK without a strip-search checkpoint every mile and, the chances are overwhelming that we could do fine with substantially less restrictions on US border crossings - and also with less restrictions on immigration.

You accuse the other guy of not having thought this through but it looks to me like you're just reflexively defending the status quo without having actually thought it through either - you just naively assume that things are the way they are because that's the way they have to be.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[shaitand]

"That way other workers could report their employer for hiring cheap illegals."

No luck there. First of all, the actual people involved have protection from liability as a business so the business gets fined and nobody goes to jail. Second, in the US the accused has the right to face the accuser. WHO reported the company will be in the paperwork and will also be a matter of public record.

By the way it is already a crime to hire illegals, and to pay them less than american workers, and it is already a criminal affair. The system doesn't work particularly well.

You can anonymously report a crime, but you can not anonymously accuse someone of a crime. No employee is going to lose their job by reporting their employer for anything.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[shaitand]

'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?

[shaitand]

"""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-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"" [wikipedia.org]
"

That is next to Ellis Island where legal immigrants could register when they came into the country. There really isn't much barrier for someone to come here legally. When we set the bar so low, how should we respond to those who enter in violation of our laws so they won't be on the radar when they then proceed to violate the labor laws we have established?

Diversity is one thing, diversity is promoted by controlled diverse immigration. Change over a hundred years is one thing. Opening the border to Mexico outright would hand political control of the entire southwest of our nation to Mexicans, subjecting the entire existing population to their rule. That wouldn't take a hundred years, it might take as much as ten.

I welcome latin integration into our culture. But the latino culture has already been integrated and for the better. I would not want to see the latin culture replace the American culture wholesale.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice that we don't have nearly as much trouble with Canadians fleeing their country.

Yeah it's apples and oranges. In Canada, we have a land border with only one neighbouring country. So by definition the US is our biggest problem for illegal border crossings, and even that is strikes me as a minor law-enforcement issue. Like the US, Canada is a major country for folks to immigrate *to*. Per capita, Canada accepts more legal US immigrants per year (~8000) than the US accepts Canadians (~24000).

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[waltarro85]

Exactly, I think we should treat our border with Mexico the same way the treat theirs with Guatemala.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[bschorr]

Funny how people cavalierly dismiss what the law says...until they need it to protect them. The cops are all pigs and tyrants...until it's your home being broken into, your family under attack, you who needs protection under those same laws from those same "tyrants."

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:Why guard the border at all?

[bobzaguy]

beautifully said.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[dafing]

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.

That was rather shocking to me. This idea of "us" and "them", of "real all american" and "illegals"....You do realise that once upon a time, not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, America was very different to it is now? It hasnt always been this way, like evolution, its going to keep changing, it doesnt just "stop".

You do know that beneath the little terms that are thrown at them, "illegals" ARE real people too?

I happen to live in a mostly "white" rural part of New Zealand. I sometimes get really amazed by the larger cities, just having larger populations of people from all around the world. Things that people who live their would have grown up with, but that I've never seen before. I'd never seen a mosque before, or been to asian markets such as the ones in the larger centres here. There are advertisements in languages I dont understand, messages signwritten onto cars. I find it to be a cool feeling, this is what city living is about, not isolating yourself to some suburb. Diversity is a wonderful thing.

All the Pledge of Allegiance etc, do you think that all makes someone "good"? I dont think most countries in the world do similar rituals as those. To be honest, it sounds a little scary, I think you can imagine what Im skirting around. I have no problem if someone comes here from an actual "poor country", and DOESNT promise every day that they love this country that gives them a minimum wage job.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[dafing]

See, I see it differently. Do you see a tidal wave of "foreign" people about to crash over your country, and "invade" it? I dont. I see some probably poor people who want to make a new life for themselves. I dont think you can keep trying to plug holes in your dam to keep people out!

If 10 people live in a city, then they should have a say about what goes on there, doesnt matter if they have lived their for one generation or ten generations.

Have you ever seen online ads for "green cards"? I have, maybe I only see them because Im overseas. I've always found it upsetting, to say the least, to see these flashing banners. I think Gmail has put up text versions for me before. The idea that "oh, you're from outside of Country X, so you must be desperate to get in". Fact is, Im sure you can agree that a lot more honest, good people would like to move to the USA, and they just cant get in.

I've heard all kinds of stories about arranged marriages and the like, just to stay in the USA. Or, on programs like 60 Minutes, stories of the current American War Widows, who were not born in the USA and are going to be "sent back to where they belong" now that their husband was blown to bits defending his country overseas! Some of them that were featured had plans to be married, "when he got back", but it hadnt happened yet, and without a silly piece of paper saying so, they wouldnt be allowed to stay.

For hells sake, some had children that had been born in the USA, "oh, the kid can stay, but you have to get back to where you belong lady"! Unbelievable, imagine if the child did have to stay behind with family friends, while the mother HAD to leave. Oh yes, I know that currently there must be all kinds of schemes, phony marriages, to allow people to stay in the USA. Surely, if it were easier to belong there, that wouldnt happen?

I'm not for legalising all drugs, although it does seem to work, but when it comes to immigration, I'd be for having looser, if not essentially open borders. If you are for "free trade", then why not for "free borders"?

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[dangitman]

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.

You mean, the same situation that indigenous "Americans" were subjected to? The same process that allowed you to be an "American" in the first place? It's pretty pathetic bitching about it, when one considers all of the benefits that you, personally, gained from such a process.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Reziac]

Been to California lately? It's already too late. It has become a hispanic sub-country, culturally and politically.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[michaelhood]

Yes, because the millions of illegal immigrants in this country don't give back by building our houses, cleaning our buildings, growing our food, or mowing our lawns for shit wages with no benefits. You know, all the jobs most Americans would never get off their fat asses to do, but nevertheless need to be done. They do more for America than most of the elected representatives in our own government...

First, they're not doing those things out of the spirit of giving - we pay them. And yeah, no one built houses or cut grass before the flood of illegal immigrants.

Lastly, now that we're hovering around 20% underemployment, I'm sure many legal citizens would happily build houses or mow lawns.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty pathetic bitching about it, when one considers all of the benefits that you, personally, gained from such a process.

Recognizing that an adversary is using a similar tactic to one that has benefited you in the past and preparing to defend yourself against that tactic isn't pathetic.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Draek]

There really isn't much barrier for someone to come here legally. When we set the bar so low, how should we respond to those who enter in violation of our laws so they won't be on the radar when they then proceed to violate the labor laws we have established?

Let me guess, you're not a lawyer, and are either a US citizen or have never tried to enter the country, right? because if any of those were false, you'd know that the "bar" isn't really set "low". Take it from somebody who knows: it's easier to *live* in Canada than it is to *pass through* the United States.

I've often heard that it was easier to enter East Germany during Soviet rule than to get into the US today, dunno what the Soviets did out there but given the inmense amount of paperwork required just to be allowed to sit on your plane as it refuels in an US airport, I'd say they can't have been too bad.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[dangitman]

Recognizing that an adversary is using a similar tactic to one that has benefited you in the past and preparing to defend yourself against that tactic isn't pathetic.

Doing so without any recognition of that previous legacy is pathetic.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Thoreauly Nuts]

Funny how people cavalierly dismiss what the law says...until they need it to protect them. The cops are all pigs and tyrants...until it's your home being broken into, your family under attack, you who needs protection under those same laws from those same "tyrants."

Funny how people cavalierly ignore the context of statements as well. The point of Thoreau's quote is that one shouldn't support laws that are unjust, NOT that laws shouldn't be respected at all. Obviously, a law that protects you from criminals who threaten your family is just and should be supported. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I would think otherwise...

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

> There's already a moat of sorts - the Rio Grande river.

Hence "wetbacks".

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Thoreauly Nuts]

they're not doing those things out of the spirit of giving - we pay them.

Likewise, our politicians do nothing for America out of the spirit of giving - we pay them. In fact, not only are they highly paid but they get more state welfare through pensions and healthcare than all illegal immigrants combined.

Lastly, now that we're hovering around 20% underemployment, I'm sure many legal citizens would happily build houses or mow lawns.

I didn't say they wouldn't. Note the use of the word "most" in my post. Even if all 20% did those jobs, my statement would still be accurate.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[chrb]

If you are correct, and it isn't possible to have open borders, then how come the American borders were entirely open a couple of centuries ago? People all over Europe could (and sometimes did) jump aboard a ship and a couple of months later start their new lives in America. People in Mexico rode across the border on horses.

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.

The U.S. borders are effectively already open for trade. If I want to move a shipping crate of goods from China or Europe to the U.S. I could do it with minimal problems. The main factor stopping fake drugs flooding the U.S. market is the rigorous control of supply lines between manufacturers and their distributors.

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.

I don't see what this has to do with the GP's point about open borders - allowing the free movement of people between nation states (e.g. what already happens in the E.U.) does not mean that there are no barriers to the arms trade. In fact, looking at the E.U. as an example, the arms trade barriers are actually higher than most other places in the world, despite the people having freedom of movement.

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.

Wasn't slavery in the U.S. abolished before the introduction of modern immigration controls? Regardless, it is clear that the GP was talking about the free movement of people between borders, not free movement of weapons of mass destruction, so you are just attacking a strawman argument here.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[bschorr]

I see, and we're supposed to just surmise which laws you consider unjust? You apparently consider national borders to be unjust. Do you feel the same about personal property rights? Or is it o.k. for a person to draw a line in the sand around their house and decide who does and does not get to come in?

Question: If our borders were "thoroughly opened" do you think there would be anybody living south of Texas anymore? A few in Brazil, perhaps?

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Ernesto Alvarez]

Question: If our borders were "thoroughly opened" do you think there would be anybody living south of Texas anymore? A few in Brazil, perhaps?

Spoken like the stereotypical stupid gringo....

I know I wouldn't live in the US if they threw their borders open, and lost of friends of mine think the same way. You are completely deluded in matters related to your country, thinking it is the greatest country in the world while it goes down the drain.

Instead of posting comments like that, you might try to figure why tourists try to avoid the US, scientific conferences and business meetings occur in Europe if possible and cruise ships sail from Panama, instead. You might find the answer enlightening.

(then again, you should have gotten the gist of it reading this same forum)

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[shaitand]

"Doing so without any recognition of that previous legacy is pathetic."

It is recognized in the form of casinos and reservations. Or do you think the United States grants native Americans special status because we fear their wrath if we repeal the treaties?

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which countries have the lowest amount of child births? How well does instances and magnitude of starvation correlate with those countries?

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[shaitand]

"That was rather shocking to me. This idea of "us" and "them", of "real all american" and "illegals"....You do realise that once upon a time, not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, America was very different to it is now? It hasnt always been this way, like evolution, its going to keep changing, it doesnt just "stop"."

It changes, it evolves, we aren't talking about evolving American culture, we are talking about inviting extinction.

Yes it is us and them. If it weren't us and them there wouldn't be distinct terms for Mexicans and Americans.

"You do know that beneath the little terms that are thrown at them, "illegals" ARE real people too?"

That doesn't make them Americans now does it?

The law effectively IS America. It is the collective voice of the American people. The first act of illegals is to willfully break our law (despite easy legal immigration policies) so they can stay off the radar when they get here and break more of our laws.

This sort of person has nothing to offer the United States.

"Things that people who live their would have grown up with, but that I've never seen before. I'd never seen a mosque before, or been to asian markets such as the ones in the larger centres here. There are advertisements in languages I dont understand, messages signwritten onto cars."

I've spent years living in cities like you speak of and the diversity is great. But American culture IS a melting pot of diverse customs.

See how crazy you are about those other languages when your city is flooded within the span of ten to twenty years with immigrants. Your home which has been passed from family to family for generations is now located within a community in which you have no effective vote. Where local services are no longer offered in your own language.

You can't so much as use the postal service in English anymore. Service staff who are bi-lingual and speak perfect English refuse to help you because they are convinced that your home belongs to them by right.

Finally when you are forced to move from your family home because you can't even a piece of meat cut at the butcher anymore. Then, you can tell me how wonderful an idea mass immigration is.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[dangitman]

No, I mean recognition in your original post that the lifestyle you enjoy is because of the same actions in the past. And it's still rather pathetic, because you're perpetuating the same "us versus them" situation. Your side won, and you're living comfortably because of it. So rather than seek a new paradigm of sharing or working on new solutions to the problem, you embrace the hostile approach.

The way you replied in the parent post shows just how clueless and pathetic you are, and how you lack self-awareness.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[dafing]

I dont really have anything much more to add, just going back to my stance, that "foreign" people are nothing to fear, that we are all people, and to try and erect silly walls will get you nowhere.

I'm not afraid to live in a culture where other languages are spoken, not at all. I've never had a "white" best friend. I appreciate other cultures, I dont try and "lock them out" of my area!

I'm just guessing based on your signature that you live in New Mexico? If you are so worried about "illegals", why live in a place called New MEXICO? Why not move to an area thats more "unified" with people that are the same as you? I'm sure you can find a state (or a few dozen) where English is pretty much the only language spoken.

To end with your final comment about buying meat at a butcher, Im vegan :)

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[Anonymous Coward]

The post you replied to said "probably be more effective if we made it easier for them to come here LEGALLY", not "throw the borders open".

So you might be three fifths "insightful", but you can't read. Are these camera to stop people smuggling reactor-coolant sodium toothpaste? No.

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[shutdown -p now]

There really isn't much barrier for someone to come here legally.

Trust me as someone who has researched the options - US is actually one of the hardest countries to immigrate to, at least in First World. If you want to see what "really isn't much barrier" is like, look at Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Ireland. Even then, a degree is essentially a must (sometimes, you can get away without it, but you need lots and lots of work experience in a field that's on priority lists).

Re:Why guard the border at all?

[shutdown -p now]

Diversity is a wonderful thing.

Controlled diversity is a wonderful thing. Uncontrolled one has a problem: you invite people of all cultures, and some of those cultures can be quite xenophobic themselves. End result: they will come and settle down across your home, because it's a good place to live, in terms of quality of life etc; but they will treat you like subhuman scum, because, as far as they're concerned, you're one.

Oh, and they get a vote in your country, too. And they will, of course, vote their conscience (which, to remind you, is that people like you are subhuman scum).

Since you're a Kiwi, I would like you to remind of a certain local affair that is sort of relevant (note the implied message there: stoning to death is not okay in this society here and now, but societies change, and there are some out there in which it is perfectly fine).

Speaking more globally, I don't mind mosques at all. I come from a country where Muslims are a significant minority, and have been in that position for several centuries now - and most of them are well-integrated in a sense that, while they keep their faith and their unique national customs, and there are plenty of mosques in regions where they make a local majority, they do not draw the line in day-to-day life. One of my grandparents is Muslim. Some of his children are, too; some are not, like my father - he never pressed the latter to accept Islam, and did not reject them because of their "apostasy".

But when I watch things like this, I can't help but ask myself if there is, indeed, a serious issue with the current stream of Muslim immigrants to Europe. Tolerance is a great thing towards everything, except for intolerance and hatred - and if someone is so willing to draw the line separating them from me, you can be sure that I'll take that line as a de facto demarcation between "us" and "them".

What a waste of time

[HenryKoren]

130,000 peoples "croudsourced" surveillance leads to the arrest of 21 mostly dope smugglers. What a colossal waste of time and energy this was for this end result.

How about you border watchers go do something useful, learn a trade, contribute something positive to society. Obstructing other people from doing their work, does nothing to make this world a better place. It's a line in the sand!

Re:What a waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you sitting here reading Slashdot? What a waste of time. You could be out coddling Illegal Immigrants.

Doesn't encourage Vigilantism

[RobinEggs]

...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:Doesn't encourage Vigilantism

[StikyPad]

I agree with the part about vigilantism being a non-issue, but as for the location of the cameras, it should be easy enough to locate them (roughly) using astronomical markers on the images they record, then get better accuracy by overlaying a view from Google Earth and matching landmarks. If someone wanted to, they could find the cameras pretty quickly.

Re:Doesn't encourage Vigilantism

[Anonymous Coward]

...and even if you could find the location, you'd then be caught on camera.

Re:Doesn't encourage Vigilantism

[radtea]

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.

Others have pointed this out by why not pile on a little. Are you really seriously saying that it isn't possible to find when you can see what it's pointed at?

Why, exactly, do you believe that?

These cameras are in fixed locations and will be showing pretty much the same thing for years to come. Even without active intervention involving guys with flags wandering along the border and seeing if they show up anywhere, there are any number of relatively trivial ways of locating them. My personal bet is that a list of locations will show up on the Web within a week.

And remember, you don't have to know to the foot where they are, just the general area they are pointing at. So within a year the border-crossing activity at these points will drop off, people will stop watching the cameras, and then it'll start up again. Or basic cammo or other counter-measures will become more routine. This kind of thing is an irritant to people who are engaged in the sorts of activity they are intended to help stop, just like all the other "War on Whatever" stuff that the US wastes so much money (and so many lives) on.

Re:Doesn't encourage Vigilantism

[westlake]

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 read these posts wondering if the geek has the least idea of what the Mexican border looks like. Its length. Its terrain. If the cameras are set properly there will be no point of reference.

Re:Doesn't encourage Vigilantism

[Reziac]

I've been saying for a while that we need gun turrets at the border... this is a good start. Now if even a few of these turrets, er, cameras were equipped with autoaiming and autofiring, say at infrared signatures of the appropriate profile, methinks warmbody smuggling would evaporate overnight. ;)

Re:Doesn't encourage Vigilantism

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to tell me that these cameras won't show sunrise and sunset? If they do you can use those time to work out the longitude and you pretty much know the latitude already because the cameras are on the border. Once you know the location you can use shadows to determine the angle it is pointing.

other uses?

[belmolis]

I wonder if something like this couldn't be used to provide more effective protection than the police currently provide for witnesses, abused women, and others under threat. All too often even when such people get some protection it takes the form of a patrol car driving by now and then or officers posted outside the front door, often for limited hours and not for very many days. Providing really effective protection takes a lot of manpower that is hard for police to provide. And then there are cases where te police are unsympathetic or consider that there isn't enough hard evidence of a threat. If cameras could be set up to monitor building and in some case apartment entrances and exits and streamed to sites where volunteers would monitor them, that could provide a large increase in the manpower available.

Re:other uses?

[ceoyoyo]

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:other uses?

[belmolis]

I think you misunderstand my suggestion. I'm not suggesting this for the small number of cases where the location of the threatened person is secret. Clearly you don't want to do this if the witness is being kept in a safe house or other secret location. However, most witnesses, even those who are at risk, are not housed in safe houses. It is way too expensive to do this other than for very important witnesses or those who are under a very serious threat. Similarly, women at risk from abusive ex-partners or stalkers mostly live at home, in locations known to the men by whom they are threatened or that can easily enough be determined. The webcam wouldn't disclose anything the potential attacker didn't know.

Re:other uses?

[ceoyoyo]

True, but I'm not sure a guaranteed single-and-vulnerable woman would want her location and status broadcast to the world any more than a witness protection witness would want the world knowing where he or she was holed up.

The jealous husband/boyfriend might be able to think of a few interesting uses for the video feeds too. Nothing like video stalking your ex without having to break in and install the video surveillance yourself.

Re:other uses?

[nametaken]

Pipe stills into Amazons Mechanical Turk service, take the most common locational guesses and go verify it in person. Cheap n' easy.

Re:other uses?

[shaitand]

That is easily solved by semi-randomizing the feed volunteers view. Make sure it is another city (based on requester ID) and otherwise randomize. Every 15 mins, switch feed. And of course don't set the cameras up to show building numbers or street numbers.

It might be possible to trace a feed, but it would take a lot of effort and there is no guarantee which feed you are tracing.

It would be pretty useless for tracking specific people.

Re:other uses?

[ceoyoyo]

Never underestimate the cleverness of motivated people and the Internet.

You'd be releasing private information to the public. Sure, it might seem like you've figured out all the angles, but what if you miss one?

It's not even clear what the benefit would be. Okay, you see someone come into the building you're watching. Do they live there? Okay, they're sufficiently suspicious. Now what? Press the call the cops button? In the ten minutes it takes them to get there, the guy, who knows he's being watched (because everyone is) has done whatever he was going to do.

Re:other uses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Similarly, women at risk from abusive ex-partners or stalkers mostly live at home, in locations known to the men by whom they are threatened or that can easily enough be determined.

Thanks for the sexism. Men can be victims of stalking (and women perpetrators), too, you know.

So it's like Metal Gear

[karnal]

I Feel Asleep.....

Hidden?

[mcorner]

There is a fairly straightforward way to locate the cameras if you have a bit more time than me. Using the time of the sunrise and sunset (and the length of the day), you should be able to get a decent fix on the location (people use the same technique on whales and sea turtles.)

Re:Hidden?

[MichaelSmith]

Hmmm good point. I suppose a couple of seconds of random delay would introduce enough noise into the position to make the camera hard to spot.

Re:Hidden?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're mistaken. Using sunrise/sunset isn't meant to give a precise location, only a general area to search. A few seconds could throw it off dozen / hundreds of feet, but that doesn't matter in the end when you send out a human to locate it.

Each camera only has to be located once, and it's not like cheap labor isn't abundant. Getting a 100' radius search area and setting a whole bunch of people to find it isn't out of the question.

Re:Hidden?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guatemalans, Mexicans, El Salvadorians... and now you're telling me there are whales and sea turtles crossing the border as well?

It never ends, does it?

Re:Hidden?

[noidentity]

There is a fairly straightforward way to locate the cameras if you have a bit more time than me. Using the time of the sunrise and sunset (and the length of the day),

Simple solution: delay the feeds by the approprite amount of time so that the sun rises on all cameras at the same moment. Though I suppose this wouldn't protect against using solar eclipses to determine the time delays, heh.

Re:Hidden?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just stupid. What the hell are whales and sea turtles doing in the Rio Grande?

#illegal aliens are coming out now

[Anonymous Coward]

#illegal aliens are coming out now

It's a good idea

[mysidia]

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

[mysidia]

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:21 cameras are not enough

[selven]

Also, if the cameras connect wirelessly the signals will be easily detectable. If there are wires, the wires will have to run for dozens of kilometers, and they will get found and cut by illegal immigrants (or natural events like some tree deciding to grow a root somewhere).

Re:21 cameras are not enough

[dgatwood]

Not at all. Use solar power and a small satellite uplink dish. You could potentially do that in a way that is concealed from the ground, is pretty hard to detect, and only has wires between the location of the camera and the location of the uplink gear. Oh, and if those wires get cut, you could immediately dispatch someone to investigate, repair, and apprehend.

Re:21 cameras are not enough

[mysidia]

They could be wireless. It might not be easily detectable as cameras.. the frequency range in use could be kept obscure.

There could also be decoy transceivers designed to prevent triangulation of the signal, e.g. impossible to tell the precise location and difference between decoys and real cameras.

Re:21 cameras are not enough

[shaitand]

"Probably forested most geographically hostile areas, where cameras can't easily be placed, are going to be more favored crossing points. "

Forested? Are there any forested areas on the border? I was under the impression the entire region was a desert without much vegetation beyond sage brush.

Re:21 cameras are not enough

[mysidia]

Um... many areas of the border are indeed Desert or near-Desert, but that doesn't mean no vegetation or trees. There are several areas near the border where there might be significant vegetation to conceal immigrants.. portions have been cleared, but that doesn't necessarily mean an immigrant won't slip across the clearing.

More importantly... very hilly areas. It's not like the entire area is flat sand, that can easily be monitored from one vantage point (a high tower might work though).

Cleveland National Forest, Big Bend National Park, Coronado National Forest, Franklin Mountains State Park near Fort Bliss.

We can get some ideas of what parts of it looks like, thanks to Google street view from roads near the border in the US..: Example0, Example1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

Re:21 cameras are not enough

[michaelhood]

Especially if any of the illegal immigrants have "invisibility cloaks", EMPs, or other technological sophistication involved in their efforts.

lol.

Those who can afford this sort of half-imaginary tech can quite easily immigrate legally.

Re:21 cameras are not enough

[mysidia]

Well, some portion of the people who want to illegally migrate across the border, may already be able to cross legally..

But not with the drugs or other contraband they want to smuggle across.

Smuggling rings like this, may very well be able to afford high-tech gear, as it is. (I suppose) it just depends on what their profits have been in the past, and to what length they will go through.

I suspect radar, infra-red camouflage, and all sorts of fancy gear are not out of the question, as long as they can get access to it while in the US.

What is this crap

[tengeta]

Obama wants to create a citizen snitch force, and you guys post nothing on that. But this is a "your rights online"? Seriously? I might just avoid reading those joke articles for a while to spare myself the 10 minutes I'll be laughing at it after I wasted time reading it.

Re:What is this crap

[couchslug]

There is an option for citizens who want to be good guys and snitch on companies who employ illegals and are thus tax cheats.
You can turn in illegals, punish employers who exploit both them and Americans who need jobs, and make a profit.

http://www.taxwhistleblowers.org/main/page.php?page_id=2

"Amount of Form 211 Reward
Rewards range from 1% to 15% of amounts collected (including taxes, fines, and penalties, but not interest) up to a maximum of $10 million."

Re:What is this crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you aware that the police relies on informants to fight crime? Why are Obama's "snitches" so evil when the god damned police relies on "snitches" to do their work for decades? Is it because this particular president is a nigger and he has the audacity to suggest that the US government must implement programs that, with tax paid by tax payers, are supposed to benefit the tax payers?

What we need now

[CAIMLAS]

What we need now is an additional camera every, oh, quarter mile. Figure $250 per camera installation (small ARM network board, camera, connectivity). That'd be a good start.

Then put autocanons on them designed to only shoot south.

Re:What we need now

[Anonymous Coward]

Landmines

Re:What we need now

[moosesocks]

$250? Try $25,000 (and this isn't a jab at government inefficiency)

Sure, a small ARM board and low-resolution camera would probably cost about $250. However, you'd need to make it able to withstand a harsh outdoor environment, and also consider things such as visibility in the rain and at night (otherwise, people would just wait until these times to cross). Also make sure your field of view is sufficient to legibly capture an eighth of a mile in both directions.

Next, factor in power and connectivity at a location that is effectively in the middle of nowhere. Solar would work, but you'd need batteries for at night. Any cellular network would have to be built, and might not even be worthwhile if the cameras are going to be spaced so far apart.

Finally, make sure these things are nailed down sufficiently to not be stolen (as well as the copper in the power lines you go that route), and find somebody to install and maintain this network.

$250 per camera isn't even remotely close to what it'd cost to build such a system.

Re:What we need now

[CAIMLAS]

I know. I was going for intentional understatement.

But, I do think $25k/camera is a bit high. Maybe for the camera-turret system. :)

For optics, you could get what you need for under $450. That would be a webcam with a wide-angle lense, a gen1 nightvision monoscope (IR and the like would be useless in the desert), and a wide-angle lens enclosure for them both (to reduce any moving parts - doesn't matter if everyone looks fat, as long as you get more area).

Tying it all together might be a little more difficult, because of the NV limitations. Might be able to simply put it in front of another webcam.

The whole thing could sit atop a pole in a plexiglass box (with a white-painted top). The low temperatures aren't going to be an issue, but the highs might. You can place a battery ($50) in an enclosure at the base of each camera, and an inexpensive solar panel ($70) on it somewhere to recharge it constantly during the day.

An ambient light sensor (to switch between the NV and day webcam, and disable the NV one so it doesn't get burnt out) would also be necessary. Cheap.

So $250? No, probably not. But probably $1500 if labor is free.

There is an easier way...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why use autocannons? Just link the cameras and guns to an online sniper game and let the crowd do it!
Heck, you could probably charge $1 per shot and make money!

In this picture, there are 47 people.

[Anonymous Coward]

None of them can be seen.

And the point?

[nurb432]

After being on hold for 30 minutes: "Officer, i saw a crossing, 50 miles from any human post.. "

By the time they mobilize, all the cameras will do is allow us to count how many crossed over, for the census.

Waiting for video...

[Anonymous Coward]

It might work a little better if there was something to watch!

Tried a few cameras and get a black screen with "Waiting for video" ;-(

How about some of you "smart" guys give 'em a hand down there improving the service???

Re:Waiting for video...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be halarious if those cams got slashdotted.

cost effectiveness of the war on drugs in general?

[bcrowell]

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.

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.

There is no obscurity.

[fyngyrz]

The various Texas border regions are approximately 100,000 square miles. Finding a pinhole camera over such a large area is akin to looking for a specific grain of sand on the beach.

Please. This isn't even slightly tricky. Time the sunset / shadows. That gives you the east-west position (and very accurately, too.) Local noon identifies local midnight (and every other local time) perfectly. So does sunset. Since the cameras are on the border, that reduces the problem to a very small one -- what portion(s) of the border match those times. Then go there (using GPS and holding a pic of the POV of the camera)... walk right up to it, grab it, throw it in the 4WD. Rinse, repeat. If the cameras are observing places where people can go, they're in places where people can get at them.

Also, borders aren't "square miles", they are linear miles. The problem is not as intractable as you want to think it is.

Offer me fifty grand per camera, as well as guaranteed legal immunity, and I'll go down there and hand the vast majority of em to you in a dusty heap in, oh, a couple of weeks or so. It'd be fun. :)

Re:There is no obscurity.

[mysidia]

Please. This isn't even slightly tricky. Time the sunset / shadows. That gives you the east-west position (and very accurately, too.)

You can't time the sunset/shadows when you can't see shadows..

It's not necessarily clear how frequently the video feed is updated, and how much delay there is between real-time and what is shown.

Attempts to "time" the sunset accurately may not be feasible at all..

What methodology do you suggest could be used to do such a thing?

Re:There is no obscurity.

[david duncan scott]

This is on land, remember. At sea, the horizon is much more definite. On land, "sunset" can be when the sun drops behind a hill. This is part of the reason I don't keep a sextant in my car.

As for the square miles issue, yes, borders are linear. However, the cameras could be placed anywhere within, say, 200 yards of the border, so that you're looking at largish areas to search. Knowing that the camera is somewhere within a square block isn't the same thing as laying hands on it--and that's assuming that it isn't moved every so often.

Re:There is no obscurity.

[fyngyrz]

Ahem. If you're supposed to detect passage of illegals on a feed that isn't real time... well, the planners of such stupidity will deserve what they get, which will no doubt be nothing. Unless it's a live feed, which of course is the only reasonable course here.

Re:There is no obscurity.

[mysidia]

If the feed is 30-60 second delayed, or updated less often when motion is not detected, it can still be useful.

It's not as if a large amount of movement can occur in 1 or 2 minutes, across such a wide view.

Re:There is no obscurity.

[fyngyrz]

On land, "sunset" can be when the sun drops behind a hill. This is part of the reason I don't keep a sextant in my car.

No. You're missing the point. Local noon is when the sun is straight up. When shadows go to minimum, or change sides. It's pretty obvious, if you've been outdoors a bit. Once you ID noon, you have every other hour. This tells you where you are, east west. And, because you're on the border, which, while not straight, is at least generally east west, the north south position is determined as well. From there, the FOV of the camera is the final determination.

The only way this wouldn't work would be if the feed wasn't live and the delay isn't known, as someone pointed out above; but then again, if the feed isn't live, it isn't going to catch anyone, either, so I don't see a problem. I doubt even drug-war addled feds are that stupid. Well, some of them must not be, anyway.

Re:There is no obscurity.

[fyngyrz]

30-60 seconds won't screw up your shadow ID. Motion triggers might, but they miss slow movement and are easily fooled by camouflage, and so are very poor choices for incursion detection. Again, I doubt even drug-war-addled feds are that stupid.

Re:There is no obscurity.

[mysidia]

Well, they could provide updates in a staggered fashion.

Example: Your IP address saw the footage at time X. The next footage your IP address will see from that camera will be at time X+n.

Where 'n' is some random number between 5 and 10 minutes, whatever 'n' necessary to screw up your timing attempt.

Different people accessing the camera will see different 'time offset' selected randomly.

So when there are 30 - 40 people watching the same camera there will be continuous coverage.. but one person can't see every moment.

Re:There is no obscurity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, borders aren't "square miles", they are linear miles. The problem is not as intractable as you want to think it is.

Quote from the posting you seek (unsuccessfully) to critique: "The various Texas border regions are approximately 100,000 square miles."

Note the word "region". That implies an indefinite area perhaps miles om either side of the line.

If you've been following the lunacy of DHS policy, "the border", defined as an area where ICE has the right to search you without reason, has now been expanded to include places as far as 100 miles inland from the geographical border. Taking a very conservative estimate of 3K miles of border north and south and 1K miles on the east and west coasts, that means a minimum of 800K square miles of federally-defined "border region" in which you have no defense against an "unreasonable search".

The only thing intractable here is your lack of reading comprehension.

Re:There is no obscurity.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. This isn't even slightly tricky.
Offer me fifty grand per camera, as well as guaranteed legal immunity,

You must've missed the part about this being in the real world where internet nerds don't just randomly get offered huge sums of money and govt assistance to prove their keyboard warriorness.
The tricky part the task comes not from the abstract problem, but very fact that is zero reward combined with a very real chance of a federal sentence if you get caught if you try it.

Oh and nowhere does it say that the cameras lie precisely on the official border. Since areas around main border towns have one mile deep exclusion zones, I think it's quite fair to treat the border as square miles rather than linear.

A general area to search

[SuperKendall]

Using sunrise/sunset isn't meant to give a precise location, only a general area to search.

Like, say, the border of Mexico?

I don't think between the area not being that wide and slight variations of terrain you are going to have much luck with that sun/shadow thing.

Re:A general area to search

[radtea]

I don't think between the area not being that wide and slight variations of terrain you are going to have much luck with that sun/shadow thing.

Most of the cameras have some sky in the shot. Light curves are easy to take, which will give you a very good idea of camera longitude. Being on the US/Mexican border gives you the latitude.

You might have to take data over a few days to narrow it down to a mile or so, but beyond that, who cares? Avoid those 21 miles of the border and you're good to go.

These things are basically self-locating.

Re:A general area to search

[michaelhood]

I don't think between the area not being that wide and slight variations of terrain you are going to have much luck with that sun/shadow thing.

Most of the cameras have some sky in the shot. Light curves are easy to take, which will give you a very good idea of camera longitude. Being on the US/Mexican border gives you the latitude.

You might have to take data over a few days to narrow it down to a mile or so, but beyond that, who cares? Avoid those 21 miles of the border and you're good to go.

These things are basically self-locating.

Mexicans who can figure this out are more than welcome to join our society in my book..

The East Germans had something like that.

[EWAdams]

Shaped-charge high explosives filled with shrapnel designed to turn anyone climbing over their fence into a colander.

Mind you, the East German security people were total douchebags. Presumably that is what you want the US Border Patrol to become also. Or perhaps you think they already are.

The East Germans took them down after a while (well before the Wall came down). Even they realized how scummy it was.

Luxemburg.

[EWAdams]

Border security? Nada. Why bother? They don't behave in such a way as to piss anybody off.

Re:Luxemburg.

[david duncan scott]

So if I rolled into Luxembourg and applied for a job, there'd be no problem, right? Or just hung out on a street corner begging?

Pissing people off is almost the least of it. That calls for an army, not a border crossing guard.

There's an additional discussion around how much sovereignty is given up in joining the EU, and the Union itself certainly has border control. Perhaps Luxembourg doesn't need it for the same reason that Maryland doesn't.

Epic flood of false positives...

[EWAdams]

... in 3...2...1...

If the Department of Vaterland Zecurity thinks for one second that people won't find a way of monkeywrenching this, they're even more deluded than they seem.

Serious

[hemlock00]

Nothing says your serious on border control like a webcam.

Stop or I'll show you my genitals!

[syousef]

How does this work? Defending border by webcam sounds like "Stop! Hold it right there! Or I'll start my video feed and show you my genitals". How is that wholesome for that matter?

Re:Stop or I'll show you my genitals!

[AHuxley]

You contact the webcam base in the USA and the call the feds with the location.
If they do make it into the USA they face:
America's Secret ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement} Castles
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100104/stevens
"If you don't have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but you think he's illegal, we can make him disappear."

Re:Stop or I'll show you my genitals!

[dangitman]

You contact the webcam base in the USA and the call the feds with the location.

So, essentially, you could spam the authorities and tell them where to go. I guess that could never be abused by drug smugglers or illegal immigrants, could it?

Re:Stop or I'll show you my genitals!

[Whatshisface]

That is probably why you have to register to become one of the observers. No anonymous tips allowed.

Re:Stop or I'll show you my genitals!

[Bourdain]

So, essentially, you could spam the authorities and tell them where to go.

I'd like to think they could (really, would) confirm reports since the streams are almost definitely recorded

Re:Stop or I'll show you my genitals!

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts exactly - why even allow access to foreign IPs ? Especially MEXICAN ones ! WTF are they thinking ?!? Typical of the dumb ass US Government.

When in Mexico...

[Anonymous Coward]

"What isn't easy is doing this when Mexico objects (failed narcostate that it is, every dime sent from Yanquiland is welcome) and when Mexicans in the US (who have zero logical interest in border security and everything to gain from lack of it) vote and protest against it."

Considering the sate of our economy, It's Americans who are crossing into Mexico for work.

Re:cost effectiveness of the war on drugs in gener

[koll64]

You have nicely lined out how much the drug prohibition costs.

But to be complete you would have to answer other question too: how much would cost NOT having drug prohibition?

Thinking of all those good-willed, but stressed workers running to drug-lords and not pay anymore taxes seems like tremendous cost to me. Unless you would tax those operations taxable, too.. (... already happening? legal drugs..)

So, you cannot call it 'complete failure' yet..

Re:Fat Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell aren't parents of fat children locked up for child abuse?

Why the hell aren't parents of off-topic posters locked up for child abuse?

Controversial ?

[Exception Duck]

As much as I am against American immigration policy, I fail to see why these webcams are more controversial than just a webcam set up looking over New York downtown ?

On another topic - how many years until mexicans overtake us in population in america ?

Re:I hope...

[rally2xs]

WTF? You WANT these a-holes sneaking into the country? Why?

What a waste of time/money

[afabbro]

Seriously. Set up a minefield, clearly label it on all sides, and there is no longer a need for all of this wall-building and camera-monitoring. The solution is just, humane, and obvious.

I know most of the liberal Slashdot community will react with "OMG! the children! What would Barbra say!" comments/mods, but really - what is wrong with a nation saying "this is our border, please respect it"?

Re:What a waste of time/money

[Whatshisface]

The problem is that in practise, landmines are never a clean solution.

No matter how many wanrnings you put up, invariably some children or animals will wander into the area and get blown up, or crippled for life.

There are lots of more humane ways to implement a barrier than landmines.

Re:What a waste of time/money

[algoa456]

A simpler way is simply to have a one year campaign saying that anybody caught crossing will be shot on sight. After one year implement the plan. One or two will be shot and word will spread like wild fire that the 'gringos' are serious. Border crossings will drop to almost zero.

Redundant

[WGFCrafty]

I knew I saw this years ago on here, and they sure weren't talking about any controversy then. Both were reported from the BBC :

http://news.slashdot.org/story/06/06/02/1250244/Texas-to-Provide-Online-Bordercams?art_pos=4

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?

I'm Sanchez Hansen...

[andreyvul]

why don't you take a seat over there?

Add one more

[Stan92057]

130,001 now :)

Mexicans using the webcams to jump the boarder?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it. If there was someone living in Mexico who had the access and finacing to afford a computer, a location secure enough for it not to be stolen and internet access, I doubt they lack the skills and knowledge to have a job and would need to hop the boarder. Infact they're probably intelligent enough to find out to get over legally and put what knowledge they do have to use.

Great Work U.S.A !

[bruceslog]

Way to Create New Jobs ! Instead of hiring the many unemployed in the country to watch these cameras at, say, $15.00 an hour, our Gov't decides to ask for 300,000 volunteers to do the job for them for free ! Good thinking, that. Does this mean that these volunteers are considered part and parcel of Homeland Security ?

Laughable.

[jonadab]

23 cameras? For the US/Mexico border? Really?

Come on. Deploy twenty-three *thousand* cameras, on rotating stands so they each observe a wider swath, and you might be getting somewhat close to having enough resources to watch a good chunk of the border.

But I'm not sure what you gain by exposing the footage to the internet. If you don't have border patrol agents stationed close enough to each camera to respond promptly if someone is seen crossing there, there's not much point, and if you do have border patrol agents stationed, why can't they watch the (output of the) cameras while they wait for something to happen?

We send money, lots of money back.

[jotaeleemeese]

Pretty simple....

What do asylum seekers have to do with this?

[jotaeleemeese]

Just so you know, people that claim asylum have a right to do so, this is not a gracious concession by the USA, is part of international law and all signatory states of the respective UN charter are legally obliged to offer asylum to people facing prosecution on their respective countries.

Asylum has nothing to do with illegal immigration, bar tickling the sensitive nerves of xenophobes.

Re:What do asylum seekers have to do with this?

[MichaelSmith]

I probably should point out that I am an Australian, and because of the configuration of our borders it takes a lot of effort to get close enough to us to ask for asylum. While the US has a big problem with people who just walk across the border and stay, or people who overstay their visa, we have problems with people who arrive in unseaworthy boats and surrender to the first navy boat they see.

The last big load to be intercepted claimed to be Tamil, from Sri Lanka. The thing is I work with a guy who is Tamil, from Sri Lanka. He went back to Sri Lanka to get married. The goes there to watch the cricket. I just don't believe that people of that ethnic group, from that country, qualify in large numbers for asylum.

What a surprise.

[jotaeleemeese]

A part of the US that was under Spanish and Mexican rule for around 300 years being predominantly Hispanic in nature.

What a frigging surprise.

Re:What a surprise.

[Reziac]

CA didn't used to be *predominantly* Hispanic in population or culture... during its nominal Spanish/Mexican rule, it had very little population of any sort (and remember CA's first major immigrants were Russians, not Spaniards, and the Spaniards were mainly around the Catholic missions) -- significant population came only AFTER it became part of the U.S., or more specifically, after the gold rush of the mid-1800s, and that almost entirely from the eastern U.S.

But it has changed radically just during my lifetime, from a part of the United States, into El Estado Mexicano del Norte -- from around 10% hispanic, and mainly temporary migrant workers at that, to about 40% and almost all permanent residents (legal or not).

Ah, the law of unintended consequences.

[jotaeleemeese]

Look, we can argue about how the US came to be in possession of all the former Mexican territories until the end of times, the unquestionable truth is that the US expanded from its paltry origins to its current size.The US would be perhaps the first case in history in which such expansion is carried out by other countries voluntarily giving their own riches away to others. If you USians really think this is the truth you frankly need to wake up and smell the coffee.

The fact is that the US took possession of territories that had a strong Mexican and Hispanic character, but what was not realized at the time was that those parts of the country had a very specific cultural landscape shaped for thousands of years by Native Americans and by 300 years more by Spanish and Mexican cultures.

It would be incredibly naive to believe that absorbing territories with such strong cultural heritages would not affect in some way the conquering country.

It is my belief that the US will become a country with an Hispanic majority at some point, and there is nothing anybody cn do about it because the US seeded these changes on its own history by seizing the Mexican territories all those years ago.

Empires never learn, thankfully, since it would not be the first case of a major power being weakened by its own conquests.

US unilateral open borders

[RunsWithMatches]

After a methodical reading of this thread to its end, I have come to the conclusion that most of the world, (most of slashdot actually), believe that the US should maintain an open border policy (and be unique in the western world in this respect). That somehow it is immoral to prevent some disadvantaged individual or their whole extended family from entering our country illegally. Tough shit. It is not immoral or unwise to prevent anyone from entering illegally. No one here illegally should be allowed to stay for any reason. Instead of complaining about this web cam project, why not take whatever steps you think prudent to stem the illegal immigration? How are you helping to stop the onslaught? Are you part of the problem?