CBP's smartphone app, used mainly to manage asylum seekers, faces even stronger challenges in a new lawsuit. What if the agency had built a better app?
Your point about effective technology reminds me of the flawed rollout of the Affordable Care Act. A better design makes a difference! In the current case, it would cut the number of true horror stories.
I agree that the CBP One app should have been tested and improved before it was released into the wild, but the fact still remains that it doesn't follow our current asylum law. It discriminates against the poor who don't have access to smartphones, discriminates against the illiterate in English, Spanish or whatever languages it's currently available in. And asking for asylum as defined by the United Nations and our own INA says nothing about it can only be requested at certain ports of entry. A person is free to request asylum no matter how they reached the US or where they entered. Those issues are more worrisome than perfecting the app, IMO.
I don't know the specifics of CBP One development but do know that, in general, government-funded software development skimps on testing software with diverse users/customers and in diverse contexts. I'm curious whether you or other research or advocates have been able to obtain detailed information about pilot testing--e.g. with whom and under what conditions.
Your point about effective technology reminds me of the flawed rollout of the Affordable Care Act. A better design makes a difference! In the current case, it would cut the number of true horror stories.
I agree that the CBP One app should have been tested and improved before it was released into the wild, but the fact still remains that it doesn't follow our current asylum law. It discriminates against the poor who don't have access to smartphones, discriminates against the illiterate in English, Spanish or whatever languages it's currently available in. And asking for asylum as defined by the United Nations and our own INA says nothing about it can only be requested at certain ports of entry. A person is free to request asylum no matter how they reached the US or where they entered. Those issues are more worrisome than perfecting the app, IMO.
I don't know the specifics of CBP One development but do know that, in general, government-funded software development skimps on testing software with diverse users/customers and in diverse contexts. I'm curious whether you or other research or advocates have been able to obtain detailed information about pilot testing--e.g. with whom and under what conditions.