Texas to Provide Online 'Bordercams'

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?

Can there be remote sniper rifles, too?

Quake 3 is open sourced, just use the game as a GUI.

The illegal immigration problem would go away in days!

Feature requests

Shouldn't there be a way to tell if anybody else is watching that camera so that you don't have everybody watching just one camera while the rest of the cameras go unwatched? I just skimmed the article, but I didn't see any mention of that feature.

There is a key difference

These cameras will be publicly viewable by anyone on the internet, not just The Authorities.

I have absolutely no problem at all with 100% public surveillance, as long as all of the video feeds are available to any person at any time, and not just Big Brother.

Re:There is a key difference

So you think that police state does not exist as long as big brother turns the citizenry into its watchdogs?

Guess again.

The Gestapo didn't have extensive networks of undercover spies to check up on German citizens. In fact, the only undercover spies they empoyed were used for the surveilance of underground socialist groups. The way they kept tabs on the public was through voluntary denunciations submitted to local Gestapo offices by ordinary citizens. That's how they chose who to arrest, how they monitored what was going on in German society, how they kept people in a perpetual state of fear, and how the Nazis were able to maintain control over German society.

This act may not be directed against American citizens, but it's another step towards posturing our culture to be more accepting of fascist policies. Not only is it promoting xenophobia, but it also encourages/trains American citizens to spy on others. Today it's our international neighbors, tomorrow maybe it's our domestic hispanic/arab/non-caucasian population, and then who knows where that paranoia and suspicion will spread to?

If anyone needs to be monitored more carefully by the American public, it's our government officials who have sold out the American people to their corporate masters. This is just one more distraction to keep Americans from addressing the real crisis that our nation is facing.

Re:There is a key difference

They aren't monitoring citizens, they are only monitoring people trying to illegally enter the country. It is promoting not xenophobia. A nation has the right and responsibility to secure its borders, and that is all that is happening. A sovereign nation has the right to decree who may or may not enter it. Even if you let every immigrant in, you have to control immigration, unless you have complete confidence in the other nation's security. Otherwise, how do you stop terrorists and criminals from coming across, possibly with weapons? This isn't a step towards fascism. I do agree that the government needs to be monitored more carefully, but we aren't in a crisis. We haven't been sold out to corporations. This is evident in the increasing regulation of them, and their portrayal by politicians as Bad (e.g. The recent trend about punishing oil companies for making profits").

Re:also, for further reference...

I'm always absolutely baffled by people who use words like "Privacy" to discuss people watching things that are done in public. You have no privacy in public. When you're in public, passers-by, cameras, the police, CIA satellites, nosy neighbours and anyone with a telescope can all see you.

That's why "Public" is the opposite of "Private".

If you want privacy for your actions, do them in private. It's not rocket science.

(The clue is in the words: "Privacy" is to "Private" as ..... is to "Public").

Re:also, for further reference...

I have a problem with people watching from private what I do anywhere in public. If you want to see what I do in public when I'm not in front of your window come and join me, so I can see you as well.

Re:also, for further reference...

I have a problem with people watching from private what I do anywhere in public.

Tough. You don't get to decide what other people do.

Re:also, for further reference...

Yup. No way should you be able to stop a murderer, or someone having consentual sex with your 8 year old daughter, you don't get to control what they do.

Re:also, for further reference...

Tough. You don't get to decide what other people do.

Will you apply this logic if I punch you in the face?

Re:There is a key difference

When the entire populace is asked to police themselves, you end up with people writing anonymous letters to denounce their neighbours to the gestapo.

...and when the authorities police us with no oversight, you face a lack of accountability. [wikipedia.org] There has to

Slight Difference

Hey, it's working for Britain, right?

There's a subtle, but important, difference. Britain's cams look in while Texas's cams look out. If Texas tried to spy on its citizens the same way that Britain does (not that I'm saying that Brits necessarily mind the camera), the Texans would blow them away with 20 gauge shotguns.

No, not working in Britain & it won't work her

Hey, it's working for Britain, right?

No, its not working in Britain either. Besides the fact that the cameras in Britain are for another purpose, lets talk about these cameras and immigration.

Britian is an Island. It is SURROUNDED by a physical barrier (the sea). Yet they still have illegal immigration. Why? Because the authorities are not serious about enforcing immigration laws or rounding up and deporting visitors who overstay their visas.

Any barrier or suveillance can be defeated if the guards don't give a damn. So there is a phone number. Big deal. You can take it for granted that reports will go into the circular file and be ignored. Having cameras or electronic surveillance does nothing unless coupled with a guard force that will then response to an incident. Having a sea barrier or wall does nothing unless you have a force of people willing to respond to breaches. A camera will not stop theft or crime or border-jumping, if it is generally known that nobody will respond. Electronic sensors or a virtual barrier will not stop anybody if they know that its all for show. Even physical barriers will not stop somebody if it is ungarded and they only need a ladder. If these careras are placed in "hot spots", then why isn't there a guard team there already if its a know "hot spot".

Only GUARDED physical barriers backed by the political will to do what is necessary will work. Otherwise it is just window dressing. The political will is lacking however, because immigrants equal cheap labor and political constituancies and everybody (or rather everybody with power) wants cheap labor to drive down wages or more people for their own constituancy so they can grab more power.

So now you can just watch as they steal the camera. I give it a few weeks before the cameras start showing up for sale on e-bay or El Paso pawn shops.

Re:Slight Difference

You know, I probably dislike Bush as much as you do, but I have to correct you here. From what has been released in the press (which, of course, could be wrong, but we have no reason to doubt it), domestic-to-domestic calls have not been listened to without a warrant. All that has been done (and I'm not saying that it isn't sketchy) has been an identity-less correlation of mass amounts of calling patterns, with no contents of calls being recorded or listened to.

I suspect we are both on the same side, but you lose credibility when you are factually incorrect, and thus getting it right strengthens your argument.

Re:Slight Difference

Did they ban paintball too? Those'll do just as well at making a camera of less than optimal utility for would-be Peeping Governmental Toms, and you're not actually destroying property so if they did catch you the charges would probably be less.

Re:Slight Difference

As a Texas resident I can guarantee you we wouldn't use a 20 gauge. Most likey we'd use a 12 gauge ..or a 30-06.

The difference, for those unfamiliar with shotgun gauge measurements:

12 gauge:
- BLAM!!
- *croak*

20 gauge:
- bang!
- Hey!
- bang!
- Stop shooting me, man!
- bang!
- Ow! That one broke the skin!
- bang!
- Okay, okay! We'll take the cameras down, just put the gun away, Mr. Vice President!

(Actually Cheney shot his 'friend' with a 28-gauge, at close range. If it had been a 12-gauge, the guy would have no head.)

Re:Slight Difference

Because I'm not aware of any cameras on the streets of Austin, Dallas, or Houston.

You're not aware because you're not paying attention.

* Dallas has them [kxan.com]
* Austin has them [austinchronicle.com]
* The police have allready been caught [blogspot.com] for selling footage from the (now allegedly not

Feature request for v1.1

Now, if only we could add a web interface to a sentry gun...

It's a Video Game. It's National Security. It's two, TWO, two games in one!

Don't Laugh (was Re:Feature request for v1.1)

Now, if only we could add a web interface to a sentry gun...

I give you, the next generation of border security enhancements [bbc.co.uk]. Note where this set-up is located.

Cameras on private ranches.

The BBC article doesn't mention what some other articles [chron.com] do: The cameras are to be on private land.

I now have a new 'worst imaginary job':

Me: Knock, knock

Private Texan Ranch Owner: Yup?

Me: I'm from the government, I'd like to place these cameras on your land, so that people on the internet can....

(I can't ever see that sentence being finished)

Re:Cameras on private ranches.

Obviously, you've never been on a South Texas ranch. You've never had your ranch house burglarized, vandalized, or your cars stolen by illegal immigrants or drug runners. This kind of stuff happens all the time in South Texas. Most of the ranchers that I know would welcome any federal progress towards stopping illegal immigration, including the installation of security cameras on their land.

Unbelievable!

The government is even invading the privacy of whole other countries!
--
Music should be free [myspace.com]

Great!

Now drug smugglers and other criminals finally have the possibility to find out in advance where the cameras are located and avoid being seen.

What an amazing coincidence...

From the BBC article:

Mr Perry, a Republican, is running for re-election in November.

I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the grandstanding^W pandering^W honest effort to do what's best.

Besides, once someone identifies people crossing the border and "notifies the authorities", then what?

Hoo boy...

Not only do illegal immigrants have to jump fences, ford rivers, and risk life and limb.. now they have to camwhore as well.

I can see the AIM bots now.. "Hola! Click here to see me and my girlfriends have wild parties, hide from border patrols, and dodge farmers' bullets! Tee-hee! ;-)"

response times?

What sorts of response times are we looking at? Suppose I saw someone run across the frame and reported it. How long would it take the officials to get there to deal with it? And what do you want to bet that the description that most callers report is going to be along the lines of "Well, he looked like a dirty Mexican"?

Spying on each other

I've been waiting for something like this -- something that gets ordinary people to spy on one another. I know people will say this is the border, and the people crossing aren't "us".

But I don't buy the distinction between "us" and the people crossing, and I don't believe this will stop at the border. Pretty soon we'll have the public looking for traffic violations, doing screen caps and scribbling down license numbers, infrared cams in parks looking for kids having fun at night, etc.

We can put cams outside of bars, and let people look for people coming out, staggering a bit, and getting into their cars. You don't support drunk driving do you? And it's all on a public street.

If we all spy on each other, we can live in a crime free paradise! Look how well that whole stasi thing worked out.

Re:Spying on each other

It's called being a responsible citizen.

Yes, I know people who have called up the police on others who have attempted to drive while drunk. Why? To save a lief (or two or twenty). I have also witnessed people calling in traffic offenses, and in New Jersey, they even established a seperate 800 number for people to complain to (866-4-SAFE-NJ I belief is the number).

Ever hear of "citizen's arrest" ?? Yes, that's people taking responsibility and not relying on the government to do everything. It's part of being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN and caring about what happens in your community / state / country.

What do you think a witness is? Someone spying on someone else doing something! How do you think prosecutors actually convict murderers? There isn't always a police officer around when someone's getting shot. Usually it's a witness who was "spying" and turning someone in. What about when police officers get caught on video tape beating someone they just pulled out of a car? That was "spying", right? With a video camera nonetheless! To catch a crime, in the act, by a responsible citizen!

God you liberals make me sick.

You're confused

You seem to be confusing witnessing with spying/surveillance.

Witness is when you happen to be somewhere that something happens unexpectedly (to you) and you see/hear/experience it. You may or may not be engaging in responsible citizen type behavior by reporting what you witnessed whether voluntarily or by request. The OP is not in any way talking about this - why are you?

Spying/surveilling is when you're actively, purposefully on the look out for what you believe to be bad things and report them whenever they happen. That's what the subject is here, not witnessing. I don't consider this kind of activity by non-authorized/non-professional people as being a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN. It's quite the opposite in fact. It's one ingredient in the recipe for a miserable, repressive society.

RANT
You know what a true RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN is? It's someone who understands and is behind the principles on which the U.S. was founded and doesn't sit by spouting xeonophobic, fascist nonsense attempting to justify corrupt, morally bankrupt politicians and businessmen taking the wizz all over the Constitution for personal gain, crumpling it up, shoving it up our collective asses on a nearly daily basis and then calling it ice cream. It's pretty much the opposite of that in fact - it's someone who takes a stand against such things when they're attempted or even hinted at indirectly as is happening here with this fucking bill.
END RANT

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you just didn't get what the OP was talking about. Otherwise you're engaging in defense of uneeded xenophobia, totalitarianism and fascism, to which I'd say - god, cowardly douche bag morons make me sick.

Re:Spying on each other

Now, your average trendy lefty authority distrusting person, and I've been reading a number of the comments here, about how dreadful this is and we should leave law enforcement to the police.

And yet, and yet. They are meant to be our laws, if I saw someone being mugged, I hope I would have the courage to step in and help. I think ultimately laws only succeed where they have the approval and support of the community. In the UK the concept of 'Neighbourhood Watch' where people look out for criminal or suspicious behaviour in their street has made a big difference to some people's lives and made communities safer. Shrugging shoulders and saying its the polices job is a pretty shoddy denial of responsibility

So what is actually wrong with the proposal of letting any citizen 'twitch the net curtain'? Is it that the border/immigration laws themselves are unpalatable? If so they should be changed. If not, what's wrong with this as a mechanism of enforcement. It works for the back yard, why not for the Texas border?

Does it infringe on rights, lead to unfair treatment or a minority or stoke prejudice? Not that I can see. If people think that they can help an over-stretched PD somewhat by sitting at their computers, is this a problem? Is it worse than running folding@home?

I'm not sure.

While we're talking about illegal immigration...

...it may be worthwhile to mention that India has already built 1300 miles of it's 2500 mile [alipac.us] fenced barrier along it's border with Bangladesh.

It may be noted (for those unfamiliar with the region's history/politics) that India has faced a considerable inflow of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh for more than a decade [wikipedia.org]. Moreover, unlike India-Bangladesh relations are not benign as the US-Mexico relations currently seem to be, with a number of alleged fundamentalist religious organizations from Pakistan using the porous border to carry out terrorist activities on Indian soil.

While the world's attention has been focused on the Israeli security barrier sealing off the West Bank, India has been building a far longer fence to keep out Islamic militants, thwart cross-border smuggling and stop human trafficking.

More than 1,300 miles of the barrier has been erected in the six years since building began. Snaking through jungles, rivers and the villages of five states, Delhi's floodlit, 12ft double fence packed with razor wire will render India a fortress against her neighbour.

This is not intended as flamebait, nor as a political rant. Just thought it might be useful to look at the steps other countries have been taking to combat unapproved/illegal immigration into their borders...probably from more hostile neighbors.

I for one think each piece of technology has it's own place where it works well. Just because we have the technology to stream live video via the intarw3b doesn't mean it can replace a relatively low-cost hard barrier (agreed though that the FTA claims this is a temporary solution).

Calling all X10 webcam owners....

You know you're out there, you know you got suckered into buying a cheap $10 or $20 wireless webcam from X10 back in the late 90s.... now we all have a way to redeem ourselves ;-p

If we all dig out our old, useless X10s and donate them to the Fed, we can surely cover the entire border with motion activated, web enabled video surveillance... there has got to be millions of these little buggers out there... all the fed would have to do is wire them up.

GIve up Texas

Wouldn't it be easier to just to hand over Texas to Mexico? I know I wouldn't miss it.

-matthew

Re:GIve up Texas

Boy, that kinda talk will get your ass kicked down here in Houston.

I know. That is one of the reasons to give up Texas.

-matthew

I'd love to see a "solution"

I would love to have the immigration situation actually "resolved." Americans are in some heavy denial about how dependent the economy is on illegal, cheap immigrant labor. The Texas economy in particular would fall over, die, and burst into flame if all the illegal immigrants vanished. Restaurants? Hotels? Ranches? Farms? If all these demonized immigrants just vanished the people would realize in short order why nothing was ever done about it before, despite all the big talk. Racism sells, but money is what matters.

Wait till people are paying $8 for a head of lettuce, and the light just may go on. If ranchers and restaurants actually paid ALL of their employees a legal wage, complete with all the taxes, insurance, etc, prices have to go up. I'm all for the immigrants--the poor bastards have been exploited for too long. I hope, for their own sake, that the problem is "fixed" long enough for people to realize how much we depend on their existence. If the immigtants just stopped coming, the entire US economy would have to undergo some serious readjustment.

I'm not saying it would crash, but a steady supply of cheap, exploitable, never-talk-back labor has been taken for granted probably for as long as the US has been a nation.

Pointless waste of, well, everything!

Let's not forget that not one, NOT ONE terrorist has EVER been caught crossing the US-Mexican border. However, the potential LAX bomber was caught trying to cross over into the US from Canada (turns steely glare directly north).

According to the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com], the US has a laughingly low number of border patrol agents on the northern border.

From TFA: "The United State posts more than five agents per mile across our southern border. By contrast, we post less than one agent every five miles across our northern border. What's more, as the United States has cut off urban crossing points in places such as El Paso and San Diego, it has forced many illegal immigrants to go through the Arizona desert -- a brutal journey, particularly for someone with no knowledge of the terrain. Would-be terrorists coming from Canada are not only less likely to be caught, they are less likely to die along the way.

There also happen to be many more potential jihadists in Canada. Unlike Mexico, with its negligible Arab and Muslim population, Canada in recent decades has welcomed large numbers of immigrants from the Middle East. And while the vast majority are law-abiding, Canadian authorities estimate that roughly 50 terrorist groups operate in the country. In their study, Leiken and Brooke identify three suspected terrorists who have tried to enter the United states from Canada, including Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian native arrested in December 1999 on his way to blow up Los Angeles International Airport."

I love my country, but seriously, this is just so out of hand now. To paraphrase The Talking Heads: "We're on a road to nowhere."

Xenophobe?

I live in Arizona, and the illegal immigrant problem is reaching epic proportions. My wife works for the state health department, and the numbers that she mentions on how much it costs the taxpayers to subsidize these illegal aliens in just Arizona is mind blowing.

Just looking at a report on the Center for Immigrant Studies website http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalcoverage.ht ml/ [cis.org] mentions that it cost the US more the $10 billion in government services for households headed by illegal aliens. Good to know that my tax dollars are hard at work.

Re:a wall

Because they cant get American labor to do it, they'd have to hire migrant workers. The irony.

Re:a wall

Because then people will just find 21-foot ladders. If you can't patrol the wall properly, it's nearly useless and a terrible waste of money. As long as there's an incentive to cross the border and people can find a way across that's worth the cost, they

Re:"What Americans want"

Says who? I suspect an honest poll of real-life ordinary Americans would reveal that they want affordable social security, the end of the war in Iraq, sensible energy policies and a range of other things first...

Feel free to browse here [pollingreport.com] to see what Americans think the biggest problems are. War in Iraq, gas prices, immigration are all high on every poll...

Re:"What Americans want"

A stronger border is what Americans want

Says who?

Says me! You have no idea how scared I am of those filthy Canadians sneaking across the border to take advantage of our healthcare system and steal all our good beer.

Re:"What Americans want"

Usually when people say "I suspect an honest poll of real-life ordinary Americans..." they really mean "Because I'm right and everyone else in the country has the same political agenda as me..."

Not trying to knock you for your agenda, mine is very similar,

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

You do realize, that Mexico has a fence, with armed guards, at their southern border. And they shoot trespassers on sight.

Funny how that fact never makes it into the US media.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

Re: You do realize, that Mexico has a fence, with armed guards, at their southern border. And they shoot trespassers on sight. Funny how that fact never makes it into the US media.

There are plenty of stories [google.co.uk] about that border. Just not on Fox News, app [google.co.uk]

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

Finally, even if the rumors were true, I have to ask "So what?" Even if Mexico's southern border were a Berlin wall-style no-man's land with minefields, automatic machine guns and guard towers every 100 yards with order to shoot to kill, would that justify the US using inhumane tactics in guarding its own border?

Nothing would justify us using inhumane tactics in guarding our border. With that said, no fence means people are more likely to try and cross in fairly dangerous desert areas and die trying. A fence raises the barrier to successful entry and makes people less likely to try (and thereby less likely to risk their lives).

The remaining people are either really bad, or really bad off, and in either case, handling a smaller number of people would be easier. Of course, since our current president, his counterpart in Mexico, and the senate don't seem to want to do anything to actually control entry to the US, it's a moot point.

I actually don't think the webcams are such a bad idea, they're almost certainly more effective than fences and they should greatly reduce the number of guards required. They may also have a small effect in limiting the abuse of illegals by guards and others (though more likely the abuse will just move to where the cameras don't cover). In the final analysis, though, I think any attempt to keep people out is ultimately doomed to failure, and of questionable morality besides. We're better off finding ways to allow people to come in legally.

The webcams *are* a bad idea for several reasons. First, because they'll cause more deaths than a fence (parallel: potential drownings at a public pool protected by cameras vs. a fence), and second, because the Texas DPS (state police) will be monitoring the cameras, and they are currently explicitly not allowed to perform any type of immigration enforcement.

In addition, they are actively discouraged from reporting potential immigration-related problems to immigration officials...basically, Perry wants to spend some money so we can watch people walk on in, but not actually do anything about it.

We *are* better off finding ways to let people come in legally, and we do need some effort put into greatly improving the legal immigration process, but we have to deal with the existing problem *first*.

My favorite analogy for what's happening immigration-wise is an amusement park. You and your kids (legal immigrants) buy tickets to DisneyFlagsGardens and get to the front gate at 6AM so you can go on the new supercoaster first. The gates open, and you make a beeline for the ride, only to see a couple hundred people emerging from between some greenery at the edge of the park near the ride and queuing up in line already.

You tell one of the staff at the park, and they tell you that there's nothing they can do about it, and that you should just wait normally, all the while more and more are squeezing in line ahead of you.

It's just not fair. If we want to allow open immigration and diversity, then I guess we need to start programs to fly people from other poorer countries across the atlantic and pacific oceans so that they can have the same opportunity. Proximity should not make it okay for illegal immigrants to enter our country unchecked. There should be a line, and everyone should fall in at the back.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

I don't know about the fence part, but otherwise the other things he said are 100% true. Go look it up - I'm not Google. Mexico does NOT tolerate immigrants coming from Guatemala and places further south.

Re:Tags: redneck xenophobia

There is a legal system for getting a visa to the USA. (Or to any other country, for that matter.) If these people needed to, they could get one. It's not really that hard.

There are official border crossings, with visa checks and more, at every border i

Re:The Newer Colossus

PS: No Mexicans
How about "PS: No People whose first act in this country is violating its laws and sovereignty" instead.

What about all those people in the world who aren't lucky enough to live in a country along your southern border (like me). Are they doomed to never be allowed into your country legally because Mexicans are illegally flooding into your country, illegally filling whatever "immigrant" quota exists (unofficially, of course)? Or do we have to enter your country illegally as well now? If you believe that every person who wants to should be allowed to enter and live in the US, I suggest you find some place to put 3 billion people at least (the pop of the world - Western Europe - Canada - Australia - New Zealand - Japan - South Korea - Very Rich of China & India - Hong Kong - Singapore - Taiwan >> 3 billion). Or is entering your country at will a privilege only available to Mexicans?

Re:The Newer Colossus

Nah, what you'll get is the smiling face of one kid disassembling the camera, then some snow...

Re:The Newer Colossus

Just like democrats don't care about poverty stricken people, they just say they do to get more votes.

The real point is you can be a self center jack ass jerk no matter your race, religion, creed, political affiliation, penis / boob size, hair color, natio