Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443

    Virtual border fence flawed

    Virtual border fence flawed
    Border Patrol: $20 mil system needs replacing
    Sean Holstege and Diana Marrero
    The Arizona Republic
    Feb. 28, 2008 12:00 AM

    An array of sensors and cameras defending 28 miles of border near Sasabe does not work as well as it should, and much of the technology will be replaced by summer at taxpayer expense.

    Five days after accepting and paying $20 million for the work, Homeland Security officials told lawmakers Wednesday that the virtual fence does not meet contract requirements for detecting border intrusions and endangers Border Patrol agents.

    The officials declined to estimate a cost for replacing equipment or securing the border. advertisement




    Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was praising the high-tech system Wednesday, saying it will be expanded to other rural parts of the border.

    "We do what actually makes tactical sense," he said.

    "We will expand the virtual fence. We are not mothballing (the project). It did work. . . . There are some things in it we want to improve, and there are some things that probably it turns out we don't really need. But I envision we will use this design in other parts of the border."

    Other agency officials, testifying before the oversight panel of the House Homeland Security Committee, said plans to expand the system to the Yuma and El Paso areas will be pushed back three years, to 2011, because of technological deficiencies.

    The Sasabe network, called Project 28, was intended as a cornerstone of the government's multibillion-dollar border strategy.

    As hundreds of miles of physical barriers and thousands of Border Patrol agents are being added, technology, anchored by the virtual fence, was to fill the gaps.

    "Project 28 was supposed to be an example of how we could use technology to secure the border. The lesson is we can't secure 28 miles of our border for $20 million," said committee member Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J. "After so many years of promises and tests and millions of dollars spent, we are no closer to a technological solution to securing the border. This is unacceptable. It's what's holding up comprehensive immigration reform."

    Contractor Boeing Corp. never consulted border agents before engineering the system, which is not suited to the rugged Sonoran Desert. The project was eight months late.

    A Boeing executive testified that the company spent more than double the value of the $20 million contract to set things right and is now refining the network. The Department of Homeland Security awarded Boeing a $64 million contract to improve the network in December, two months before the government accepted the Sasabe work.

    Amy Kudwa, a Homeland Security spokeswoman, said that the virtual fence is not in "full operation" and that the agency continues to test the system. Agency officials showed lawmakers shadowy footage taken last week in which Project 28 cameras tracked three large groups of immigrants crossing the border. The images were relayed to a command post in Tucson, 70 miles away.

    "We have the beginnings of a system," Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar testified. He told the committee that Project 28 does track people crossing the border without the need to position a Border Patrol agent, but he called the new tool a "marginal, limited capability."

    Congressional auditors and lawmakers on the Homeland Security Committee overseeing the work painted a very different picture, portraying Boeing's work as little more than a multimillion-dollar science experiment.

    Reading from contract documents written by Boeing, Government Accountability Office auditor Richard Stana told lawmakers that the company was paid to test a concept and leave behind a capability.

    "It doesn't work the way Border Patrol agents wanted it to," he said. "As far as a leave-behind capability, the fact that we are going to swap out nearly all the equipment tells us that wasn't met."

    www.azcentral.com
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443
    Invisible fence wastes cash, border resources
    Wednesday, February 27, 2008; Posted: 10:05 PM


    Feb 27, 2008 (The State News - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- BA | news | PowerRating | PR Charts -- A 28-mile stretch of the U.S. border seems to have become our government's latest "shiny object" -- distracting both lawmakers and citizens from the underlying immigration issue. The stretch of land in the Southwest has been the testing ground for a virtual fence intended to improve border security while reducing personnel.

    The project, which was developed by Boeing Co., has been aptly named Project 28. Specialized surveillance systems were created using both radar and cameras atop 98-foot towers.

    Lawmakers have been talking up the new technology as a big step in the fight against illegal immigration, but there have been enough technical glitches to undermine the project's credibility.

    The high-tech border protection plan began with a $20 million budget, but since then its funding has increased significantly. When fundamental problems were found with technology, the U.S. granted Boeing another $64 million to fix the fence's shortcomings.

    The electronic fence has a range of issues. Boeing has had a difficult time correlating the camera images with radar, and rain has blurred the surveillance systems. In some cases, the cameras have made it difficult to distinguish among shrubbery, trees and humans.

    But instead of ending the flawed program, the Department of Homeland Security increased the project's cash flow.

    Maybe lawmakers were hoping small changes could be made to fix the virtual fence, or maybe they were just backing what could have been an advanced piece of technology.

    Either way, a large amount of money has been poured into a pilot project that likely will not be extended any farther along the border.

    If the electronic border patrol had worked, it would have looked good for both campaign advertising and political resumes. Unfortunately the idea worked much better on paper than it did along Arizona's border.

    Part of the issue could have been the border patrol's handling of the 28-mile stretch of land. When the electronic fence was added, which would allow the number of border patrol agents in the area to decrease, fewer people were on hand to oversee operations.

    Surveillance towers were built but left unmanned. The new technology was supposed to do the work.

    But with electronic glitches, the virtual fence could not keep a tight watch over the border. Since personnel were removed from the area, Project 28 turned out to be a blemish on the reputation of U.S.-Mexico border security.

    Adding -- rather than depleting -- personnel along the border might have been a more successful use of the additional $64 million. The boost of personnel would have heightened the security already in place, created jobs and saved politicians some embarrassment when their grand plan didn't work out.

    If lawmakers hadn't been so distracted by the glitz of a virtual fence, maybe they would have found a more practical solution.

    http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/new ... s/1145539/
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member MyAmerica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,074
    Five days after accepting and paying $20 million for the work, Homeland Security officials told lawmakers Wednesday that the virtual fence does not meet contract requirements for detecting border intrusions and endangers Border Patrol agents.

    The officials declined to estimate a cost for replacing equipment or securing the border. advertisement

    Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was praising the high-tech system Wednesday, saying it will be expanded to other rural parts of the border.
    IF IT ENDANGERS BORDER PATROL AGENTS IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THAT POINT ALONE.

    CHERTOFF IS GOING TO EXPAND TO OTHER RURAL PARTS OF THE BORDER----THIS TAX-PAYER SAYS NO TO CHERTOFF'S FOLLY.
    "Distrust and caution are the parents of security."
    Benjamin Franklin

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Member whitneymuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by MyAmerica
    Five days after accepting and paying $20 million for the work, Homeland Security officials told lawmakers Wednesday that the virtual fence does not meet contract requirements for detecting border intrusions and endangers Border Patrol agents.

    The officials declined to estimate a cost for replacing equipment or securing the border. advertisement

    Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was praising the high-tech system Wednesday, saying it will be expanded to other rural parts of the border.
    IF IT ENDANGERS BORDER PATROL AGENTS IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON THAT POINT ALONE.

    CHERTOFF IS GOING TO EXPAND TO OTHER RURAL PARTS OF THE BORDER----THIS TAX-PAYER SAYS NO TO CHERTOFF'S FOLLY.
    It's time for Chertoff (aka skeletel, to resign before the 2008 elections...as Rummy did not, before the 2004 ones; we are surely headed for a disaster; call for Chertoff's reignation Mr. McCain!!
    Please consider signing up for NumbersUSA before the next "immigration" legislation is unleashed against the American public. http://www.numbersusa.com/index
    It's free and they will pre-prepare a

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •