> I'm not sure why the EFF would be schizophrenic for disputing that.
They don't dispute that. That's what's so weird. The argument boils down to "historic border surveillance tools have been pork-barrel debacles, therefore all border surveillance tools are bad," but the article doesn't even manage to draw a line from the past, cancelled programs to the current program.
This seems in line with the EFF's principles - they've always been strongly against the use of electronics for surveillance. I agree with you that this article left me with a weird taste, though - in this case, I think that the thesis is flimsy and the research is poorly done, so it comes off as grinding an axe rather than taking a stand.
This article complains a lot about previous-generation, cancelled projects, but doesn't really investigate what's going on with the current surveillance towers or investigate anything at all, really. The linked NBC article explains that the FAA (WTF... yes, the airplane FAA) administer some surveillance towers, and that border patrol agents are mad that there's a big ticket backlog of broken ones to fix. That's pretty much it.
Nobody investigated enough to figure out things like:
* Why the FAA administer the towers and what the actual hold-up is towards getting a fix? Certainly at least the backstory should be public information.
* Why the towers are broken. This is probably sensitive information but I'm sure some of the disgruntled border patrol agents would be willing to have a chat about it.
* Is it a specific generation of tower that's broken? Is it some kind of backend issue, or just rot from deploying electronics into a hostile desert environment full of people trying to destroy them?
* How do the new "AI" towers work? They're probably just drawing boxes around people and items, no?
This is a disappointing and silly article, in my opinion. It doesn't convince me at all that border surveillance overall is a bad idea or a waste of money, just that some old programs turned into pork-barrel debacles. There's no fresh information or anything that would convince me either way on this issue.
They don't dispute that. That's what's so weird. The argument boils down to "historic border surveillance tools have been pork-barrel debacles, therefore all border surveillance tools are bad," but the article doesn't even manage to draw a line from the past, cancelled programs to the current program.