SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A U.S. surveillance tower seen from Nogales, Mexico, near the wall that runs between Mexico and the United States. (Photo: Jonathan McIntosh/Flickr/cc)
'Not a Good Answer': Privacy Advocates Reject Democratic Proposal for 'Technological Wall' With Expanded Border Surveillance
"'More surveillance' has become the default answer to far too many difficult policy questions."
Jan 10, 2019
Progressives in recent weeks have applauded Democrats' refusal to bend to President Donald Trump's demands for a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, a key component of his xenophobic anti-immigration agenda. But on Friday, digital rights advocates called on Democratic lawmakers to expand their fight against the wall into a fight for all human and constitutional rights--instead of suggesting alternative "border security" proposals that would infringe on civil liberties.
Fight for the Future launched a campaign Friday to fight against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) suggestion on Thursday that a so-called "technological wall" would be an appropriate alternative to Trump's planned concrete or steel wall.
Trump, Pelosi said in a press conference, "knows we all support border security and that there's a better way to do it...90 percent of the drugs come in through the ports of entry. So what we are proposing is to build the infrastructure of the ports of entry...to have the scanning technology to scan cars coming through, for drugs, contraband of any kind, weapons even."
"The positive, shall we say, almost technological wall that can be built is what we should be doing," Pelosi said.
Fight for the Future swiftly circulated a petition following Pelosi's speech, calling on Democrats including Senate Majority Leader Schuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) not to replace Trump's proposed wall--which critics say would further endanger migrant families coming to the U.S.--with a surveillance system that would threaten their right to be protected from unlawful search and seizure.
"Increasing border surveillance is a nefarious move that widely threatens the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." --Fight for the Future"Schumer and Pelosi's position may seem appealing in light of Trump's bizarre plan to build a costly and unnecessary wall, but in reality--increasing border surveillance is a nefarious move that widely threatens the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," wrote the group.
Sarah St. Vincent, a surveillance researcher at Human Rights Watch, wrote on Twitter that "'more surveillance' has become the default answer to far too many difficult policy questions."
"Replacing more visible rights harms with--potentially--less visible ones is not a good answer," St. Vincent said.
Fight for the Future pointed to border surveillance programs that already exist and "desperately need Congressional review" instead of being expanded, including searches of electronic devices and monitoring by drones.
"Current border surveillance programs subject people to invasive and unconstitutional searches of their cell phones and laptops, location tracking, drone surveillance, and problematic watchlists," wrote Fight for the Future in its petition.
The group addressed Democratic leaders directly, writing, "Drop your plan for a 'technological wall,' or increased surveillance, at the border."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Progressives in recent weeks have applauded Democrats' refusal to bend to President Donald Trump's demands for a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, a key component of his xenophobic anti-immigration agenda. But on Friday, digital rights advocates called on Democratic lawmakers to expand their fight against the wall into a fight for all human and constitutional rights--instead of suggesting alternative "border security" proposals that would infringe on civil liberties.
Fight for the Future launched a campaign Friday to fight against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) suggestion on Thursday that a so-called "technological wall" would be an appropriate alternative to Trump's planned concrete or steel wall.
Trump, Pelosi said in a press conference, "knows we all support border security and that there's a better way to do it...90 percent of the drugs come in through the ports of entry. So what we are proposing is to build the infrastructure of the ports of entry...to have the scanning technology to scan cars coming through, for drugs, contraband of any kind, weapons even."
"The positive, shall we say, almost technological wall that can be built is what we should be doing," Pelosi said.
Fight for the Future swiftly circulated a petition following Pelosi's speech, calling on Democrats including Senate Majority Leader Schuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) not to replace Trump's proposed wall--which critics say would further endanger migrant families coming to the U.S.--with a surveillance system that would threaten their right to be protected from unlawful search and seizure.
"Increasing border surveillance is a nefarious move that widely threatens the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." --Fight for the Future"Schumer and Pelosi's position may seem appealing in light of Trump's bizarre plan to build a costly and unnecessary wall, but in reality--increasing border surveillance is a nefarious move that widely threatens the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," wrote the group.
Sarah St. Vincent, a surveillance researcher at Human Rights Watch, wrote on Twitter that "'more surveillance' has become the default answer to far too many difficult policy questions."
"Replacing more visible rights harms with--potentially--less visible ones is not a good answer," St. Vincent said.
Fight for the Future pointed to border surveillance programs that already exist and "desperately need Congressional review" instead of being expanded, including searches of electronic devices and monitoring by drones.
"Current border surveillance programs subject people to invasive and unconstitutional searches of their cell phones and laptops, location tracking, drone surveillance, and problematic watchlists," wrote Fight for the Future in its petition.
The group addressed Democratic leaders directly, writing, "Drop your plan for a 'technological wall,' or increased surveillance, at the border."
Progressives in recent weeks have applauded Democrats' refusal to bend to President Donald Trump's demands for a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, a key component of his xenophobic anti-immigration agenda. But on Friday, digital rights advocates called on Democratic lawmakers to expand their fight against the wall into a fight for all human and constitutional rights--instead of suggesting alternative "border security" proposals that would infringe on civil liberties.
Fight for the Future launched a campaign Friday to fight against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) suggestion on Thursday that a so-called "technological wall" would be an appropriate alternative to Trump's planned concrete or steel wall.
Trump, Pelosi said in a press conference, "knows we all support border security and that there's a better way to do it...90 percent of the drugs come in through the ports of entry. So what we are proposing is to build the infrastructure of the ports of entry...to have the scanning technology to scan cars coming through, for drugs, contraband of any kind, weapons even."
"The positive, shall we say, almost technological wall that can be built is what we should be doing," Pelosi said.
Fight for the Future swiftly circulated a petition following Pelosi's speech, calling on Democrats including Senate Majority Leader Schuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) not to replace Trump's proposed wall--which critics say would further endanger migrant families coming to the U.S.--with a surveillance system that would threaten their right to be protected from unlawful search and seizure.
"Increasing border surveillance is a nefarious move that widely threatens the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." --Fight for the Future"Schumer and Pelosi's position may seem appealing in light of Trump's bizarre plan to build a costly and unnecessary wall, but in reality--increasing border surveillance is a nefarious move that widely threatens the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," wrote the group.
Sarah St. Vincent, a surveillance researcher at Human Rights Watch, wrote on Twitter that "'more surveillance' has become the default answer to far too many difficult policy questions."
"Replacing more visible rights harms with--potentially--less visible ones is not a good answer," St. Vincent said.
Fight for the Future pointed to border surveillance programs that already exist and "desperately need Congressional review" instead of being expanded, including searches of electronic devices and monitoring by drones.
"Current border surveillance programs subject people to invasive and unconstitutional searches of their cell phones and laptops, location tracking, drone surveillance, and problematic watchlists," wrote Fight for the Future in its petition.
The group addressed Democratic leaders directly, writing, "Drop your plan for a 'technological wall,' or increased surveillance, at the border."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.