Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Now if Mexico was registered to monitor the hidden cams..... "quick, duck, I can see you on the webcam"
Could it be that Mexicans have registered for the purpose of locating the cameras?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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!
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
...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.
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.
-B-
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.)
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."
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."
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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:
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
Find free books.
1. Wear a Bigfoot costume and approach the border. /. front page, then congratulations on the career move from a deal smuggler to an internet celebrity.
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
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.
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. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.