[doe_eyes]

I generally side with the EFF, but I find the article weirdly duplicitous. It's framed as a criticism of government waste, but would the EFF be happy if the government built a more effective surveillance system at the border? Of course not.

If they wanted to make some sort of a precise argument against border surveillance, they failed to do so in this write-up. "Public contracts are rife with grift, so the government shouldn't be doing stuff" isn't likely to change too many minds.

[Animats]

> I generally side with the EFF, but I find the article weirdly duplicitous. It's framed as a criticism of government waste, but would the EFF be happy if the government built a more effective surveillance system at the border? Of course not.

Right. Israel has towers like this. But theirs have guns.[1]

[1] https://www.globalresearch.ca/israels-remote-occupation-wome...

[jncfhnb]

> Well, one reason may be that treating problems at the border as humanitarian crises or pursuing foreign policy or immigration reform measures isn't as politically useful as promoting a phantom "invasion" that requires a military-style response. Another reason may be that tech companies and military contractors wield immense amounts of influence and stand to make millions, if not billions, profiting off border surveillance. The price is paid by taxpayers, but also in the civil liberties of border communities and the human rights of asylum seekers and migrants.

They are claiming it is an ineffective solution to the problem, conceptually, that is perpetuated by bad political and lobbyist incentives.

The position is not that it does not work well enough. The position is that it would not be a viable solution regardless of the quality of execution. Therefore we should stop allowing corrupt and fear mongering politicians from manipulating public optics to support these surveillance companies.

[llamaimperative]

> The position is not that it does not work well enough. The position is that it would not be a viable solution regardless of the quality of execution.

That's definitely the implication, but it doesn't really substantiate this, as far as I can tell.

"Past iterations were filled with pork, therefore future ones must be as well, therefore this conceptually cannot work."

For example, the RAND study that they said showed "strong evidence" that IFTs were having no effect actually... doesn't say that at all.

IFTs actually lowered apprehension levels, to which RAND says, "we conclude that there is strong evidence for the presence of a deterrent effect as migrants choose to avoid areas surveilled by IFTs—a proposition for which there is also qualitative evidence outside the data."

Then it goes onto say that for every other technology type, they increased apprehension levels, i.e. they worked. They didn't seem clear on why IFTs behave differently.