This is about border cameras, sure, just as much as border patrol is about borders. It's not uncommon for border patrol to set up checkpoints two or three hundred miles from the border just to shake down people for identification (Papers, please!).

Today's border cameras are liable to be deployed all over in the future. Watch what you build because it's very hard to un-build things.

The farther I know is Sarita TX and one along I-10 some where in AZ (been through both), they are not two hundred miles inside, even though Sarita TX is about 80 miles from border. Would really appreciate if you can point one check post that is 200 miles inland from border?

This practice is so rampant apparently there's a Wikipedia page for it now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_in...

I'm not sure if the 100 mile thing is a new convention or not (https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone) but it's 100 miles from the border as the crow flies, not via highways. That means the entire state of Vermont is somehow inside that zone.

I think the 200 mile figure that was reported, though I can't find the citation, involved the driving distance. Vermont, for example, is 159 miles end to end, and somehow the southern tip is in the border zone.

What if they decide this entire zone is worth putting up cameras in? What if that software that recognizes "illegals" is so bad that it simply tags anyone who looks vaguely Mexican? These systems are only as good as their data, and the data is astonishingly thin in areas where it counts.

A recent story covered three people that were treated as "identical" in the police database because they had the same first/middle/last names and birthdates. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/03/identity-the...

> is so bad that it simply tags anyone who looks vaguely Mexican

Or someone without a ~~personal tracking device~~ cellphone

> Would really appreciate if you can point one check post that is 200 miles inland from border?

The overwhelming majority of the country lives within 200 miles of a border (since ocean borders count as borders). 66% of the country lives within only 100 miles of the border.

So even if you're talking about something that "only" applies to the 200 mile region, you're still talking about something that applies to the vast majority of people actually living here.

"Build the wall" is not merely about enforcing border crossings. It's a political rallying call to scapegoat undocumented immigrants.

He's developing a technological alternative to "full-scale border walls." He also explicitly positions it as a "defense" technology to protect citizens from threats. A substantial amount of the money to be made here is made possible by anti-immigrant hysteria.

I will never begrudge anyone trying to seek a better life. If was in their position I could probably be at fault for doing the same.

I wouldn't want any of my technology preventing people from improving their situation. So yes, in this instance, I would not work on this project.

This is easy to say when you're from an island-nation. The few non-island nations without border control are all third-world hell holes with major terrorism problems.

What happened to the EU? Is it not also made of 'non-island nations without border control'? Sure, it has external borders — but only around a whole continent.

The majority of terrorists are second and third generation immigrants. Border control or travel bans won't stop them as they already here and would not have prevented all terroristic attacks.

Trump's travel ban or lidar-based border control wouldn't even have prevented 9/11 as most came from a country that is of economic importance.

Maybe Luckey can sell its technology to Saudia Arabia and Trump can then boast of the big money deals he made. In the mean time SA can fund European mosque's that calls not to integrate, to resist western society/ideals or democracy. That is big part of the problem.

I don't believe for one bit that this has to do with "security" or "keeping troops save". There are easier things you can do that would improve that.

If only there was a 100% sure fire way to prevent an ideology from exerting control over new vulnerable people.

There has to be a solution

There are countless things to work on. Why incur even a slight distaste in your work?

Changing work can be costly, risky, difficult and just plain annoying. It may have negative consequences for the family and for your CV (imagine leaving your job soon after you realize what you _really_ are working on... and then again... and then being asked in an interview about that). These are all reasons enough to stop some people from simply changing a job once they realize it's not what they want to work on. Because oftentimes you don't know how you respond to something until you're in it.

And, of course, this technology will never be applied elsewhere. /s