Top Highlights
- Despite the deployment of over 600 border surveillance towers, many migrant deaths occur unnoticed or unrecorded, highlighting significant failures in monitoring and response.
- The investigation compiled a comprehensive dataset of nearly 4,000 deaths since 2015, revealing that many deaths happened within range of surveillance towers but often went unintercepted.
- Surveillance tower ranges and visibility are difficult to verify accurately; terrain, vegetation, and data gaps limit assessments of whether these towers could have detected migrants in distress.
- Authorities’ internal evaluations of surveillance effectiveness are rare, and access to real-time or post-incident data is limited, hampering understanding of technology failures and accountability.
Creating the Map: Combining Data and Expertise
Our 15-month investigation started with a simple question: Why did so many people die near surveillance towers? To find answers, we examined thousands of government records, visited the border, and spoke with over 45 experts. We looked into locations of migrant deaths and the placement of Border Patrol towers since 2015. We merged data from organizations like No More Deaths, Humane Borders, and government agencies to build a detailed database. Texas posed a special challenge because its records are scattered and incomplete. Instead of relying solely on local authorities, we contacted sheriff offices and processed over 4,000 pages of police reports. We also used AI tools to analyze large batches of records efficiently. The goal was to connect each death to nearby towers, considering when and where they appeared. This extensive effort produced the first comprehensive map showing deaths in relation to surveillance towers.
Mapping the Surveillance and Facing Challenges
Next, we focused on the towers themselves. We mapped about 600 current and former towers using satellite images, government documents, and reports from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We identified three main tower types and estimated how far each could see based on existing research. To do this accurately, we checked tower installation dates through satellite imagery, confirming when towers first appeared. We also estimated each tower’s height and examined terrain to see if physical features might block views. Through topographical analysis, we determined whether a person who died could have been seen by a tower. However, obstacles like vegetation and buildings introduced uncertainties. Thermal imaging might detect bodies even through light vegetation, but dense trees and structures could hide a person. These limitations mean some deaths within range may have gone unnoticed, highlighting the gaps in surveillance coverage.
What the Data Tells Us and Its Limits
Our map shows where migrants likely crossed and intersected with surveillance coverage. But it cannot definitively say whether agents saw each person at the moment of death. Border Patrol doesn’t share detailed alert logs or footage, making it impossible to know how often surveillance prevented tragedies. We did interview current and former agents and officials, uncovering that technology often underperforms and is rarely evaluated for effectiveness. We also sought families of the deceased, conducting trauma-informed interviews to understand personal stories. Although the data helps reveal patterns and gaps, it cannot fully explain why so many lives are lost. These findings serve as a step toward better understanding surveillance’s role and inform ongoing debates about its functionality and future adoption.
Continue Your Tech Journey
Stay informed on the revolutionary breakthroughs in Quantum Computing research.
Explore past and present digital transformations on the Internet Archive.
AITechV1
