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 surveillance tower at the U.S.-Mexico border near Nogales, Mexico. (Photo: Jonathan McIntosh/Flickr/cc)
Warning More Surveillance Would Violate Civil Liberties at Border and Beyond, Rights Groups Say So-Called "Smart Wall" Is Dumb
"We should not have to choose between a physical wall—a monument to xenophobia—and a surveillance-based 'smart wall'—which poses a serious threat to civil liberties."
Feb 04, 2019
Warning of serious rights violations at the southern U.S. border that could make way for similar infringements all over the country, more than two dozen civil liberties and immigrant rights advocates on Tuesday urged members of Congress to withhold all additional funding for expanded technological surveillance at the Mexico border.
Fight for the Future and the Electronic Frontier Foundation gathered signatures from groups including the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and RAICES for an open letter to the U.S. House, urging no new funding for the so-called "smart wall" or "technological wall" the Democratic Party has proposed.
"We call on Congress to conduct robust oversight of government surveillance technologies already deployed at the border," wrote the groups. "While that oversight is ongoing, we should not expand these technologies with new funding."
Days after the U.S. government reopened late last month following the longest government shutdown in U.S. history over House Democrats' refusal to give President Donald Trump $5.7 billion for a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, the party proposed funding a technological wall as a so-called compromise--provoking outrage from rights groups.
The funding package would include money for more Border Patrol agents, surveillance drones, and other "new cutting edge technology" at the border. Critics have expressed deep concerns that such advances could include algorithmic risk-assessment, facial recognition, and biometric technology including license plate readers and the collection of DNA.
"Congress should be reviewing and limiting existing border surveillance programs, not providing additional funding for dangerous technologies that infringe on our basic rights." --Evan Greer, Fight for the FutureIn their letter to House Democrats, the groups shared their concern that the use of such technologies at the border would place "disproportionate burdens on communities of color and could stifle Americans' willingness to exercise their first amendment rights in public."
"Risk-based targeting" of passengers and cargo which enter the U.S. is also part of the proposal--a term the groups warned is simply code for expanded racial profiling at the border.
"All too often, these systems replicate the biases of their programmers, burden vulnerable communities, lack democratic transparency, and encourage the collection and analysis of ever-increasing amounts of data in order to generate risk assessments," the letter read.
In a statement, Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer cautioned that enhanced surveillance at the border would have a domino effect on privacy violations all over the U.S., with authorities particularly targeting vulnerable communities.
"Technologies that are deployed at the border to target travelers, journalists, and immigrant families inevitably end up in our major cities targeting low income communities, religious minorities, and political activists," said Greer. "Congress should be reviewing and limiting existing border surveillance programs, not providing additional funding for dangerous technologies that infringe on our basic rights."
Erika Andiola, advocacy chief for RAICES noted that the U.S. government, especially the Trump administration, has proven that it can't be trusted to deploy funding for a so-called "smart wall" in a way that won't violate human rights--as such violations have characterized Trump's immigration policies and many of the actions of his predecessors as well.
"The government separated thousands of children for purely political reasons, we cannot trust them to deploy ubiquitous surveillance technology that pose a serious threat to immigrant and civil rights," Andiola said.
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.
Warning of serious rights violations at the southern U.S. border that could make way for similar infringements all over the country, more than two dozen civil liberties and immigrant rights advocates on Tuesday urged members of Congress to withhold all additional funding for expanded technological surveillance at the Mexico border.
Fight for the Future and the Electronic Frontier Foundation gathered signatures from groups including the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and RAICES for an open letter to the U.S. House, urging no new funding for the so-called "smart wall" or "technological wall" the Democratic Party has proposed.
"We call on Congress to conduct robust oversight of government surveillance technologies already deployed at the border," wrote the groups. "While that oversight is ongoing, we should not expand these technologies with new funding."
Days after the U.S. government reopened late last month following the longest government shutdown in U.S. history over House Democrats' refusal to give President Donald Trump $5.7 billion for a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, the party proposed funding a technological wall as a so-called compromise--provoking outrage from rights groups.
The funding package would include money for more Border Patrol agents, surveillance drones, and other "new cutting edge technology" at the border. Critics have expressed deep concerns that such advances could include algorithmic risk-assessment, facial recognition, and biometric technology including license plate readers and the collection of DNA.
"Congress should be reviewing and limiting existing border surveillance programs, not providing additional funding for dangerous technologies that infringe on our basic rights." --Evan Greer, Fight for the FutureIn their letter to House Democrats, the groups shared their concern that the use of such technologies at the border would place "disproportionate burdens on communities of color and could stifle Americans' willingness to exercise their first amendment rights in public."
"Risk-based targeting" of passengers and cargo which enter the U.S. is also part of the proposal--a term the groups warned is simply code for expanded racial profiling at the border.
"All too often, these systems replicate the biases of their programmers, burden vulnerable communities, lack democratic transparency, and encourage the collection and analysis of ever-increasing amounts of data in order to generate risk assessments," the letter read.
In a statement, Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer cautioned that enhanced surveillance at the border would have a domino effect on privacy violations all over the U.S., with authorities particularly targeting vulnerable communities.
"Technologies that are deployed at the border to target travelers, journalists, and immigrant families inevitably end up in our major cities targeting low income communities, religious minorities, and political activists," said Greer. "Congress should be reviewing and limiting existing border surveillance programs, not providing additional funding for dangerous technologies that infringe on our basic rights."
Erika Andiola, advocacy chief for RAICES noted that the U.S. government, especially the Trump administration, has proven that it can't be trusted to deploy funding for a so-called "smart wall" in a way that won't violate human rights--as such violations have characterized Trump's immigration policies and many of the actions of his predecessors as well.
"The government separated thousands of children for purely political reasons, we cannot trust them to deploy ubiquitous surveillance technology that pose a serious threat to immigrant and civil rights," Andiola said.
Warning of serious rights violations at the southern U.S. border that could make way for similar infringements all over the country, more than two dozen civil liberties and immigrant rights advocates on Tuesday urged members of Congress to withhold all additional funding for expanded technological surveillance at the Mexico border.
Fight for the Future and the Electronic Frontier Foundation gathered signatures from groups including the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and RAICES for an open letter to the U.S. House, urging no new funding for the so-called "smart wall" or "technological wall" the Democratic Party has proposed.
"We call on Congress to conduct robust oversight of government surveillance technologies already deployed at the border," wrote the groups. "While that oversight is ongoing, we should not expand these technologies with new funding."
Days after the U.S. government reopened late last month following the longest government shutdown in U.S. history over House Democrats' refusal to give President Donald Trump $5.7 billion for a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, the party proposed funding a technological wall as a so-called compromise--provoking outrage from rights groups.
The funding package would include money for more Border Patrol agents, surveillance drones, and other "new cutting edge technology" at the border. Critics have expressed deep concerns that such advances could include algorithmic risk-assessment, facial recognition, and biometric technology including license plate readers and the collection of DNA.
"Congress should be reviewing and limiting existing border surveillance programs, not providing additional funding for dangerous technologies that infringe on our basic rights." --Evan Greer, Fight for the FutureIn their letter to House Democrats, the groups shared their concern that the use of such technologies at the border would place "disproportionate burdens on communities of color and could stifle Americans' willingness to exercise their first amendment rights in public."
"Risk-based targeting" of passengers and cargo which enter the U.S. is also part of the proposal--a term the groups warned is simply code for expanded racial profiling at the border.
"All too often, these systems replicate the biases of their programmers, burden vulnerable communities, lack democratic transparency, and encourage the collection and analysis of ever-increasing amounts of data in order to generate risk assessments," the letter read.
In a statement, Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer cautioned that enhanced surveillance at the border would have a domino effect on privacy violations all over the U.S., with authorities particularly targeting vulnerable communities.
"Technologies that are deployed at the border to target travelers, journalists, and immigrant families inevitably end up in our major cities targeting low income communities, religious minorities, and political activists," said Greer. "Congress should be reviewing and limiting existing border surveillance programs, not providing additional funding for dangerous technologies that infringe on our basic rights."
Erika Andiola, advocacy chief for RAICES noted that the U.S. government, especially the Trump administration, has proven that it can't be trusted to deploy funding for a so-called "smart wall" in a way that won't violate human rights--as such violations have characterized Trump's immigration policies and many of the actions of his predecessors as well.
"The government separated thousands of children for purely political reasons, we cannot trust them to deploy ubiquitous surveillance technology that pose a serious threat to immigrant and civil rights," Andiola said.
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.