Border Security Technology Deployment Case Study

Border Security Technology Deployment - Case Study Example SBInet as a system represents a complex case of conflicts of interests whereby: 1. National Security concerns are marred by political interference. This is especially evident in the statement acquired from the contractor. Another case of political intrusion is mentioned by the Border Patrol Station Chief.He claims that some Washington based politicians had the towers installed approximately three hundred and thirty feet apart from the border so as to avoid â€Å"sending the wrong message.† Their new positions consequently minimised their capabilities. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Sector Chief and the Border Patrol Station Chief cite the Native American tribal councils as a major problem. According to Border Patrol Station Chief, there is a quick change of governance in the Native American tribal councils and every new leadership undermines all agreements that had been made by the previous leadership. To make matters worse Unmanned Arial Vehicles are not allowed to fly over their territories without permission. Neither can the border patrols cr oss without their permission. According to the CBP, Sector Chief Native American land is a preferred route for illegal immigrants due to its inaccessibility. The only way to deal with politics in this situation is to have a regulatory committee that tables the grievances of any trouble departments especially due to external interference. This is because some untouchables may have their way in jeopardising the SBInet operations due to their lack of professionalism in the particular field that is border security (CNN, 2012). It will be necessary to have the committee immune to manipulation or even intimidation so as to have a dependable body that is fair to all. 2. Conflicts between involved parties undermine border protection There are conflicts between the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE, whose responsibility is to monitor, investigate and to resolve illegal immigration deeds seems to be at loggerheads with CBP. CBP whose respon sibility is to patrol the border and to monitor illegal entry, apprehend and detain the illegal immigrants claims that ICE does not share information related to their common line of work. It is clear that the line of work between the two departments is very much related hence there is a need for co-operation especially from ICE. The ICE department claims that when the Department of Homeland Security was introduced the ICE, and CBP became one and blames the CBP for trying to take their assets. Meanwhile, CBP claims that ICE does not share their sensor data. According to the Border Patrol Station Chief it is difficult for the right hand to work without knowing what the left hand is doing. In as much as that makes perfect sense it is clear that the individual departments are supposed to be independent of each other. Hence it would be wiser to either have both departments combined into one with all their duties synchronised. Another option would be having their duties defined into clear , separate undertakings such that there will be no inter dependence between each other. This suggestion is mainly based on the reality that there may be policies within the individual departments that may make the ability to inter relate somehow constrained. The inter relations between the departments should also be put down on paper so that future conflicts be avoided and procedures of interactions be common knowledge. 3. Lack of accountability and responsibility hence blame games Blames games are commonplace in SBInet with no particular individual taking responsibility for any faults. For example, the Border Patrol