U.S. border surveillance towers have always been broken
Border surveillance towers on the U.S.–Mexico border are criticized as costly “security theater,” with some pointing to decades of failed or poorly evaluated programs as evidence that this tech-heavy approach is wasteful and politically driven. Others argue that cameras, sensors, and walls are necessary tools for managing unauthorized crossings and preparing for future migration pressures, but concede that oversight, data quality, and response logistics are chronic weak points. The exchange widens into whether the real leverage points are elsewhere—such as enforcing employment laws, reforming immigration policy, or treating migration as a humanitarian and climate-driven issue rather than a problem to be solved primarily with surveillance infrastructure.
Critique of the EFF Article
- Several commenters find the article shallow or “theatrical”: heavy on rhetoric about “waste” and “pork,” light on new facts or technical detail.
- Some argue it conflates historic failed programs (Boeing, General Dynamics projects) with newer systems (e.g., Anduril towers) without evidence they share the same flaws.
- Others defend the piece, noting it cites GAO, DHS, and RAND reports saying key systems were not shown to be effective, and view it as part of a longer documented pattern of failure.
Effectiveness of Surveillance Towers and Cameras
- Disagreement over whether broken cameras imply the concept is flawed or just poorly executed/maintained.
- One side: cameras are a “crucial tool” for monitoring any border; failures are due to bad contracts, oversight, and maintenance, not the technology.
- Other side: decades of poor data, minimal impact on apprehensions, and mismanagement suggest surveillance is a “wasteful endeavor” and not solving the real problem.
- RAND’s findings are contested: some say they show no impact; others say they show deterrence (fewer crossings in surveilled areas) and increased apprehensions for other technologies.
Scale, Logistics, and Practical Limits
- Multiple participants stress the southern border’s vast, harsh, roadless terrain; responding to every detection is logistically extreme and very expensive.
- Debate over whether “absolute security” is even desirable; many see it as unrealistic, violent, and not cost‑effective.
Alternative Approaches to Immigration Control
- Strong current in the thread: attack labor demand by enforcing employment eligibility, criminalizing employers who hire undocumented workers, and/or using national ID or verification systems.
- Others suggest immigration system reform, faster asylum processing, and focusing resources on ports of entry rather than remote deserts.
- Some advocate more open or market-based immigration; others emphasize future climate refugees and argue for tighter regulation now.
Civil Liberties and EFF’s Scope
- Disagreement on whether EFF should be involved: some say border surveillance is squarely a tech/civil-liberties issue; others see the article as drifting into general immigration politics.
Politics and Framing
- Several note that border security is a politicized wedge issue; some argue it is kept unsolved to serve political narratives and economic interests (cheap labor).
- The thread highlights a spectrum between open and closed borders, with most rejecting both extremes but disagreeing strongly about where to land.