(labelling people A and B, because 1) there'd be layers of >, 2) I want to signal I'm not curious about you and me or a verbal battle, just how someone else reads the article in a way where EFF does not discuss if they are crucial tools)
A: "I'm not sure why the EFF would be schizophrenic for disputing [that the program is a crucial tool]"
B: "They don't dispute that"..."the argument boils down to "historic border surveillance tools have been pork-barrel debacles"
B's two clauses seemed to me to be in direct contradiction at first blush. Ex. "debacles", seems to indicate awareness that they were not "crucial tools"
My steelmanning is that debacle is only meant to cover they were costly. There's numerous bits of the article that go beyond cost. The EFF article cites, inter alia, GAO[1], DHS[2], and RAND[3] saying it wasn't shown to be effective.
[1] In 2017, the GAO complained the Border Patrol's poor data quality made the agency "limited in its ability to determine the mission benefits of its surveillance technologies. In one case, Border Patrol stations in the Rio Grande Valley claimed IFTs assisted in 500 cases in just six months. The problem with that assertion was there are no IFTs in Texas or, in fact, anywhere outside Arizona."
[2] CBP is not well-equipped to assess its technology effectiveness to respond to these deficiencies. CBP has been aware of this challenge since at least 2017 but lacks a standard process and accurate data to overcome it.
[3] RAND Corporation published a study funded by DHS that found "strong evidence" the IFT program was having no impact on apprehension levels at the border
A: "I'm not sure why the EFF would be schizophrenic for disputing [that the program is a crucial tool]"
B: "They don't dispute that"..."the argument boils down to "historic border surveillance tools have been pork-barrel debacles"
B's two clauses seemed to me to be in direct contradiction at first blush. Ex. "debacles", seems to indicate awareness that they were not "crucial tools"
My steelmanning is that debacle is only meant to cover they were costly. There's numerous bits of the article that go beyond cost. The EFF article cites, inter alia, GAO[1], DHS[2], and RAND[3] saying it wasn't shown to be effective.
[1] In 2017, the GAO complained the Border Patrol's poor data quality made the agency "limited in its ability to determine the mission benefits of its surveillance technologies. In one case, Border Patrol stations in the Rio Grande Valley claimed IFTs assisted in 500 cases in just six months. The problem with that assertion was there are no IFTs in Texas or, in fact, anywhere outside Arizona." [2] CBP is not well-equipped to assess its technology effectiveness to respond to these deficiencies. CBP has been aware of this challenge since at least 2017 but lacks a standard process and accurate data to overcome it. [3] RAND Corporation published a study funded by DHS that found "strong evidence" the IFT program was having no impact on apprehension levels at the border