Surveillance Technology: us and the us-mexico border


Visualization

Introduction

There is a familiar saying within the Mexican community in regards to US and Mexico geopolitics, we didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us. As a first generation Mexican-American, like many others, my parents crossed the US-Mexico border in 1989. My mother, then 20 years old, pregnant with my oldest brother, sought a better quality of life that’d nourish more economic and educational opportunities for herself and her children. Growing up, when my parents had gatherings with relatives and friends, it would often reach a point where they began to reminisce and share their journeys crossing the border. In every instance that they did, I’d sit down and listen. The starvation, physical/mental exertion, and the known risks and fear of falling a victim of rape, trafficked, murdered, or killed; or the memories of having witnessed any of the following happen to others in their travels seeped a dark sorrow in me. Then and now I continue to ask myself why do migrants have to endure harsh conditions and continuously face new barriers with the already precarious state they are in, all to obtain a better quality of life? A couple of years ago, I began to learn about smart borders, the expansion of surveillance and monitoring technologies including cameras, drones, biometrics, spyware, and motion sensors to make a border more effective in stopping unwanted migrants and keeping track of migrants. 

The US-Mexico border has behaved as an experimental ground for surveillance technologies and not only has it only impacted migrants/refugees, but borderland communities, Native Americans, and US citizens as well. Within the US, surveillance technologies are being used mainly by the police. However, the police in the US commit human rights violations at a shockingly frequent rate, particularly against black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). According to Mapping Police Violence, in 2019 Black people were 24% of those killed by the police, despite being only 13% of the population. 1033 program, a law that was passed in 1996 which authorizes the US Department of Defense with military hardware which include combat vehicles, rifles, and military helmets across local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies (Federal Militarization of Law Enforcement Must End). These equipment have been deployed at protests, especially those advocating for racial justice. The most recent example, is George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis in May 2020, it sparked the most largest racial justice protests that spread across globally. US law enforcements and Customs Border Protection used predator drones to surveil the protests (Heilweil, Rebecca). 

The collaboration between US law enforcement and Customs Border Protection and their precedent reputation of human rights violations, oppression, and discrimination continue to grow alongside more powerful tools. The objective of this project is to explore the impact and growth of surveillance technologies within the US and US-Mexico border.  What is the evolution of surveillance technology in the US and US-Mexico border? What are the current technologies that exist?  What private companies are manufacturing and profiting from these technologies? How common are these technologies becoming? What is the potential harm and risk with artificial intelligence and data privacy between those who are exercising these technologies and those who are being targeted?  Surveillance and biometric is traditionally masked as protection for drug trafficking, and organized crime but it is often used as a tool to scrutinize and oppress people who seek a better livelihood. How can the US citizens and non-citizens prevent an authoritarian regime in the US?

Methodology

Data

Electronic Frontier Foundation in partnership with the University of Nevada created the largest repository of information on which law enforcement agencies are using what surveillance technologies in the US. The project, Atlas of Surveillance, is open source, meaning that the information is gathered from already existing online content. This can be across social media, online news articles, press releases, and government websites. The dataset had 26  features and 4536 observations. I reduced the features into 11 which included:

  • City
  • County
  • State
  • Agency
  • Type of LEA
  • Summary
  • Type of Jurisdiction
  • Technology
  • Vendor
  • Link 1 Source 
  • Link 1 Date 

The second was an already existing subset dataset of Atlas of Surveillance targeting Border Communities. This dataset is made up of 13 features and 208 observations.

  • Agency
  • City
  • County
  • State
  • Lea Type
  • Jurisdiction Type
  • Technology Type
  • Vendor
  • Primary Link
  • Document Type
  • Source
  • Document Date

Tools

I preprocessed both of the datasets in OpenRefine. I used Tableau for the line graphs and geospatial map. I used Gephi for the network analysis visualization. And finally, I used R to develop the chord diagram.

Results

Figure 1 illustrates the amount of surveillance technologies used by the US by law enforcement agencies between 2006 and 2020. From the total number of observations (4,536), 1,457 observations were null. I removed them and only accounted for the cases that had registered dates. Since 2016, there’s been a gradual increase every year and between 2018 and 2019, a spike increase of over 1,000 cases were registered.

Figure 1: Surveillance technologies between 2006 – 2020

Figure 2 is from the border communities sub-dataset. Similar to figure 1, it shows an increase of surveillance technologies between 2008 and 2019. 21 out of 208 observations were null and those were removed for this table. Interestingly, in 2018, of the 76 observations, 15% were made up of Spy Planes. According to the manufacturer Pilatus, the planes are capable of tracking people and vehicles from several miles away and are equipped with transmitting high-definition video overlaid with powerful mapping software in real time to analysts. According to Melissa Del Bosque and G.W Shulz article The Eye Above Texas, between 2015 and July 2017, spy planes flew over 357 times over Rio Grande City in Texas, making the border towns of approximately 14,500 inhabitants the most watched city in Texas.  The following are records that contain purposes of flights, “border interdiction patrol”, or in the case of non-border flights “criminal transport”, “criminal photography”, or “criminal investigation”. There are instances that record Department Public Safety flying surveillance planes over the border and into Mexico between 2015 and 2017. The high risks of migrants, especially unaccompanied children being recorded without their authorization and what are the ways this data is being used to create barriers to entry. For 2019, of the 43 registered cases, 20% were drones. There are legal prohibitions on the use of exercising drones to conduct random surveillance activities, target a person solely on individual characteristics, harass, intimidate, or discriminate against any individual or group, or conduct personal business of any type for law enforcement agencies. But even then, there isn’t enough auditing being done for drone activities in order to escalate internal accountability if their use were breached. 

Figure 2: Border Communities Surveillance Technologies between 2008 – 2019

Figure 3 is a network analysis of type of technology surveillance and the manufacturers/vendors. I used technology as my target and vendors as my source for this graph. This illustrates the name of manufacturing key players who are involved in profiting from surveillance technologies that are used by US law enforcement agencies. 

Figure 3: Network Analysis of Types of Surveillance Technologies and Manufacturers

Figure 4 is a geospatial map where the markers are every county registered in Atlas of Surveillance dataset and colored by Type of Law Enforcement Agencies. Each marker has a label that summarizes the name of the county and the summary of the source article. There is a strong concentration of surveillance technologies east coast and saturated in Florida. On the west coast California also has a strong use of variety technologies being used.

Figure 4: Type of Law Enforcement Agencies utilizing Surveillance Technologies within the US

Figure 5 is a chord diagram that illustrates the relationship between type of law enforcement agencies and the surveillance technology they exercise. Apart from the common technologies the police use, such as body-worn cameras and automated license plate readers, they are now utilizing surveillance drones, facial recognition, real-time crime centers, predictive policing, and spy planes. Federal agencies use surveillance towers and ground sensors. 

Figure 5: Chord Diagram of Type of Law Enforcement Agencies and Surveillance Technologies

The illustration below is the final poster for this presentation. It also outlines a summary of each surveillance technology recorded in both datasets.

Conclusions

The exploratory analysis did help me understand the magnitude of surveillance technology in the U.S and also the key manufacturing companies. It has also affirmed the continued growth of this industry and the vulnerability and risks it has on our democracy, sovereignty, and freedom.  

 This analysis had geared me towards further research in disproportionate and discriminatory impacts of privacy invasions on individuals and/or groups at risk; in this instance it would be relating to migrants, border-town communities, and activists seeking asylum. Furthermore, the effects and design on big data and machine learning algorithms that are used for prediction for migration automated systems. This project is a stepping stone to examining the globalized movement towards smart borders. 

References

“A History of Police Violence in America.” Stacker, https://stacker.com/stories/4365/history-police-violence-america. Accessed 7 Nov. 2021.

Coeckelbergh, Mark. AI Ethics. The MIT Press, 2020. 

C. J. Alvarez, Border Land, Border Water: A History of Construction on the US-Mexico Divide (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2019). 

Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs. Punitive Expedition in Mexico, 1916-1917. Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs., 20 Aug. 2008, https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/108653.htm.

Del Bosque, Melissa & Schulz G.W. “The Eyes Above Texas.” The Texas Observer, 23 May 2018, https://www.texasobserver.org/planes/.

“Federal Militarization of Law Enforcement Must End.” American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/federal-militarization-of-law-enforcement-must-end/. Accessed 7 Nov. 2021.

Heilweil, Rebecca. “Members of Congress Want to Know More about Law Enforcement’s Surveillance of Protesters.” Vox, 29 May 2020, https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/29/21274828/drone-minneapolis-protests-predator-surveillance-police.

Hellerstein, Erica. On the US-Mexico Border, a Corridor of Surveillance Becomes Lethal. 14 July 2021, https://www.codastory.com/authoritarian-tech/us-border-surveillance/.

“Mapping Police Violence.” Mapping Police Violence, https://mappingpoliceviolence.org. Accessed 20 Nov. 2021.

No related posts.