The taxpayer-subsidized illegal alien help line
No doubt Janet Napolitano will find a way to praise this as an example of her homeland security system working:
A group of California artists wants Mexicans and Central Americans to have more than just a few cans of tuna and a jug of water for their illegal trek through the harsh desert into the U.S.
Faculty at University of California, San Diego, are developing a GPS-enabled cell phone that tells dehydrated migrants where to find water — and also broadcasts poetry, regaling them on their journey much like Emma Lazarus’ words did a century ago to the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” on Ellis Island.
The Transborder Immigrant Tool is part technology endeavor, part art project. It introduces a high-tech twist to an old debate about how far activists can go to prevent migrants from dying on the border without breaking the law.
You’re paying for it. And the “artists” you are paying are responding with a big middle finger:
The effort is being done on the government’s dime — an irony not lost on the designers whose salaries are paid by the state of California.
“There are many, many areas in which every American would say I don’t like the way my tax dollars are being spent. Our answer to that is an in-your-face ‘so what?’ ” says UCSD lecturer Brett Stalbaum, 33, a self-described news junkie who likens his role to chief technology officer.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Latest Addition to the Super Bowl Counterterrorism Squad: Hot Dog Vendors
February 3, 2012 07:53 PM by Doug Powers
45 Comments
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsObama and Jan Brewer Have Words on Airport Tarmac; Update: Brewer Book Sales Skyrocket
January 25, 2012 09:54 PM by Doug Powers
165 Comments
Gingrich channels open-borders SEIU; Rubio rebukes; Update:Newt retreats
January 25, 2012 10:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
155 Comments
Obama heads to Disney World to push looser visa policies
January 17, 2012 01:14 PM by Michelle Malkin
95 Comments
Obama’s “Razist” Lobbyist Moves Up
January 13, 2012 06:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
233 CommentsThe Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
The murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry: One year ago today
December 14, 2011 11:11 AM by Michelle Malkin
70 Comments
Supreme Court to Decide Arizona Immigration Law
December 12, 2011 01:18 PM by Doug Powers
57 Comments
Categories: Homeland Security,Immigration
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Betsys Page
» Cruising the WebPundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad joke
What’s up with morons like this? I mean, seriously…does anyone really know what goes through this man’s head? I’m at a loss for words…
Really . . . the TIT? Does this ever conjure up images of sucking the tax payers dry
TIT is a very appropriate acronym for these idiots’ program.
“aiding and abetting” is illegal, too. Hang ‘em high!
Use technology to track whoever is carrying one of these and then pick them up. Next step, deliver them to Brett Stalbaum’s house and let him and his ilk pay for their housing, food, healthcare, education, etc, etc.
DO NOT use my taxdollars for this cr@p!
And Arnie wants an 8 billion buck bailout!?!?
Is he open to a few suggestions!?!?
Unfortunately the linked article was not specific in how our tax dollars are paying for this, beyond the following -
The designers, who have raised $15,000 from a UCSD grant and an art festival award, hope to hand out phones for free in Mexico.
I suppose since UCSD is a public University, tax dollars have found their way to this program. Moreover, there is no direct link between Sec of Homeland Security Napolitano and what is being done by the Professors mentioned in the linked article.
And yes, speculation, asigning motive, and guessing does serve as some sort of psychological blanket to keep one’s derangement syndrome warm and comfortable.
From a different source about this same story -
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/us?guid=20091229/25065fa8-4d53-4e30-b824-926111bd4bc8
The following telling quote:
Brett Stalbaum – Sounds like “BS” to me.
Let’s make sure the money for this program comes from the University of California budget for faculty salaries!
I’m sure the faculty won’t mind having a round of layoffs to help these ILLEGAL immigrants.
I would have no problem with Stalbaum’s attitude if he was a firebreathing supporter of harsh punishments for employers who hire illegals.
If he sees danger and death happening because we dangle jobs out there to lure desperate people into the desert, and he sees the solution as drying up the demand for illegal workers, and he’s really just trying to save lives, then his project is noble.
However, I would be astounded if that is the case. I’m reasonably sure just from the article he’s an open borders type guy, in which case he is also a traitorous, arrogant slimeball enabling criminal behavior with our stolen (unconstitutionally hijacked) money.
Perhaps we can get a Predator drone to home in on their transponder signal.
somebody on sirius patriot radio suggested finding the water and dumping it…this is aiding and abetting illegal activity and should be treated as such as should those who put the water out there to begin with…if they want to be humane send money down to mexihole churches who can encourage their fellow citizens to remain in their own country and lobby their gooberment to find jobs for them….
find em and deport them and arrest and jail anyone who gives them a job or assistance to invade and colonize our country!!!
I’ve learned that when I had that type of attitude, paybacks were a 6itch.
Time to end taxpayer money to this school. IF they feel that they can tell the Amercian people to go screw themselves then they can do so without our money.
1.
Interesting, you just got me thinking… that any technology used in such a manner to enable / assist IAs to traverse the border areas could just as easily be used by smugglers and other nefarious persons with ill intent.
2. Also, with respect to the funding sources for these (for lack of a better word) ‘researchers’… the actual text of the grant/contract information should be reviewed IMMEDIATELY by the funding agencies as to a). make sure language regarding illegal activities is clearly included and b). they *should* immediately terminate the funding for any project supporting these guys because it is likely going to support an ILLEGAL activity.
#11
Of course they can as well as other non-lethal methods but they will treat us like we are stupid and tell us they cannot all the while telling us they can control global weather. These folks aren’t just stupid’ they are malicious.
I’m going to sound flippant and cruel here, but I mean every word. May anyone responsible with a gun “stray” across the border and do lots of target practice on all these water bottles and rations caches. Word will get around down south not to bother running the desert. Not being cruel. I’d rather have a Berlin type wall replete with minefields, no joke, because PC won’t stop the flood if there’s a plague in South or Central America.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
Will we ever get back to enforcing the laws?
Or will it be the wild west before we know it?
Two thoughts.
1. What’s to stop someone from hacking these things and sending these illegals around in circles to die in the desert?
2. Prosecute these guys for criminal negligence the first time an illegal dies in the desert from exposure with one of these cell phones on him.
Apparently you didn’t bother to read this part:
And blathering along without any idea what you’re talking about serves equally well as some sort of psychological blanket to keep your Malkin Derangement Syndrome toasty and comfy, too.
A much better choice for a Transborder Immigrant Tool would be an AK47 in the hands of a patriot.
Here, let him know what you think of his attitude:
(858)822-3883
bstalbaum@ucsd.edu
Just story number 99,999,999,999,987 regarding the shameful and near criminal shape of the finances of one our most populous states. Who let’s these tools spend their work hours, that are paid for by both tuition and taxes, doing things that undermine the very government they work for?
Thanks DJ. Email sent!
We need a few “Metal Storm” turrets out there near the water and food drops. Just think of it as “Performance Art”
“Our answer to that is an in-your-face ’so what?’ ” says UCSD lecturer Brett Stalbaum”
With any luck at all this clown will be a homicide crime victim of one of the illegals he loves so much……Giving me the opportunity to say “So what?” and have a good laugh. Cold? Certainly. But it has reached that point.
Idiots like Stalbaum (who sounds like a professional student to me) need to have their butts whipped. Repeatedly. At his own expense.
Dude! Where’s my tax-payer subsidized bailout?
Better placement would be around the faculty club at UCSD.
Desperate job seeking border jumpers lost in the desert aren’t the enemy. They are an effect of our bad government and imbecilic voters and intellectually and morally corrupt ‘teachers’ at places like UCSD, not a cause of our problems.
For illegals that would be a bail-in.
Can I laugh when these useful idiots get killed by an MS-13 member or get killed by an illegal drunk driver?
And, Awwwnold wants how much again from U.S. taxpayers or warns Cali is going to go bust? How about fighting to turn on the spigots to water the Central Valley so that those poor starving hoards of ‘undocumented’ will have something other to do than apply for welfare? Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime.
I don’t know why anyone would bother to fill out the mountains of paperwork to come here legally – or if you’re a wanna-be suicide bomber, why bother to get on an airliner?
oh Bre-heh-hett.
Come over here and say that, sweetie.
Paul Revere: yes.
Ah, yes, bending oneself into a pretzel, while clinging to the cloak (or cliff) of “neutrality,” to defend Obummer serves one a comfortable psychological blanket as well.
Now, now, don’t get yourself all bent out of shape, zyzzyg, it must be tough to insulate yourself from the cares and worries of the rest of us who see the destruction that open borders and coddling illegals ACTUALLY does to the US economy and self-defense.
You stay “non-commital,” sport.
Don’t go knocking over or destroying the water stations.
Just sneak in at night and spike the water with liquid laxative.
Uncle-Sam’s Revenge
I have a few questions that the article does not answer:
When they “hand out phones for free in Mexico”, are they going to give them to everyone they come across, along with a gilded invitation to visit the US? Or are they going to ask them first if they are planning to visit the US before they give them a $30, taxpayer-funded phone?
Do migrants go to “migrant shelters” in Mexico before they attempt to cross the border? If not, how are they going to get their hands on a phone with its required password? (Leaving phones on the trail like bread crumbs to lead the way north isn’t going to help much if a password is required.)
Why do I get the feeling that these phones are going to be used primarily by drug smugglers to help them avoid the border patrol?
And, apparently you did not read my entire post which included the following -
I suppose since UCSD is a public University, tax dollars have found their way to this program.
Or, when I cut and pasted from the article itself.
Salaries are one thing, and certainly publicly funded, but there is no direct funding, by line item, for the phones given to the illegal aliens trying to get into the country.
When I read ‘your tax dollars at work’ or “The taxpayer-subsidized illegal alien help line” I expect there to be a clear line of funding explicity directed to that program.
Yes, Government salaries, State and Federal, are tax dollars and those salaries go to a multitude of programs. Programs liked and disliked by each of us. But, tax dollars directed at saving the Snail Darter or Street Theater in San Francisco, is another.
Again, the salaries are and will be paid, but money spent on disagreeable line items is another.
And yes, there are salaries that are disagreeable.
What makes you think I have no idea what I am talking about? Am I not entitled to an opinion?
MM said, “No doubt Janet Napolitano will find a way to praise this as an example of her homeland security system working . . . ”
Is that statement not a guess, or speculation? Heck, it could even be an educated guess, but it is a guess nonetheless. Yes, or no?
Yep, it is even a tad snarky. Agreed? The thing is, snarky or not, it is still speculation. Yes, or no?
Who is defending Pres Obama? He was not even mentioned in what MM posted. And, why would think I am neutral? Moreover, I was not even defending Sec Napolitano.
I took issue with the lack of a direct link of tax funding to a specific program. Yes, taxes pay the salaries for the professors, but there is no line item funding for the phones. Yes, or no?
And, what makes you think I am not aware of the problems that illegal aliens cause the country?
Emjem, you are speculating, guessing and assigning motive again. Please stop. You would be well served to ask questions before drawing a conclusion.
Nope. My commitment is to demonstrate that presenting a story should not be absent facts. Yes, taxes go to salaries but there is no direct line item for phones. Yes, or no?
Where in MM’s article did she say there was a direct line item for phones? If she did not in fact say exactly that, then why are you being such a twerp?
Is that just the way you always are?
Phones? They should send a fleet of Greyhounds with food service. Making them walk is just heartless.
BTW, wouldn’t this make it easy for the border patrol. They could just send a signal to the GPS phones to come right to them. Just a thot.
Exactly. She did not and that is what I am talking about. Why suggest tax dollars are being used to fund a program when in fact the only tax dollars are professors salaries? And, the grant itself comes from UCSD, which may or may not be tax dollars.
MM said, “The taxpayer-subsidized illegal alien help line . . . ” and from the linked article it could not be determined that there was a direct line item of tax dollars paying for the phones.
By that arguement it could be said that tax dollars are paying for any number of things because the salaries of those individuals are provided by the State or Federal Government.
And, name calling is just another way to say that you don’t have an intelligent arguement, or cogent point.
Yep, I ask questions, answer them, have discussions, and use logic.
Do you often retreat to name calling for the lack of something important to say?
Exactly. She did not say that, and everyone understood what she was talking about.
Your trying to make something out of something she did not even say is silly and contemptible.
“Main Entry: twerp
Pronunciation: \ˈtwərp\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: circa 1923
: a silly, insignificant, or contemptible person”
It is not “name calling” when the shoe fits.
He’s a legend in his own mind.
I quoted MM. Correct?
She used the words “tax payer subsidized”. Correct?
Please show me (cut and paste) where it is said tax money paid for the phones?
Let me help you. Grant money from UCSD was used. That grant money was never identified specifically as tax payer money.
Yep, the Professors are paid with tax money.
The connection between taxes and the phones is indirect. There is no line item directing that taxes be used for the phones. It would have been nice to see how the grant requested. Did it specificaly say it was going to be used to provide phones to illegal aliens?
Heck, why not say I am using tax payer subsidized firewood because I got it from a forest that is monitored by Forest Rangers, who are paid by the Government? It is a tenuous link to say that the firewood is subsidized.
That is correct. Why say “tax payer subsidized” when there is no evidence to support that contention? There might be a loose connection, but it is a circuitous route to suggest the phones were taxpayer funded.
One more time, really slowly for you.
When you say tax payer subsidized, it should be clear that the item is truly subsidized like regional airports, like crops, like banks, like whatever.
There is a line item in budgets that specifically state where the money is going for these various items. And MM, nor the linked article, did not provide any source stating the phones were actually funded by tax dollars.
Yep, one thing was said, but it was not backed up. You were led to the kool aid and you drank it.
Do you often retreat to name calling (and, cutting and pasting definitions) for the lack of something important to say?
Don’t bother addressing any of the questions I posed, because I suspect you lack the stones to do so.
talking to ‘ziggy’ is an exercise in futility. he/she/it refuses to acknowledge basic facts…like a typical liberal wacko.
Sigh.
The faculty members themselves note that it is the governments dime which means…taxpayer funded. Get a clue.
Ow! Dammith, you made me bite my tongue!
Really? What facts have I refused to acknowledge?
Well, you lob accusations like a typical liberal wacko. Were you a person of substance with any credibility you would back up your assertions with facts.
Make a sensible arguement with facts and I will witdraw my comment.
OK.
Sounds like a business opportunity for an enterprising individual to go down to Tijuana and sell fake phones with bogus info.
Wonder how many of these “immigrants” are drug mules?
The DEA needs to take a look at “Brett Stalbaum, 33, a self-described news junkie who likens his role to chief technology officer.” The question is … CTO for which cartel?
You say it yourself with every comment.
zyzzyg: There may NOT be a direct line item for the phones and the grant may NOT be a government grant. However, tax dollars can easily support such a program.
For example, if I give a bum $2 so he can purchase a hamburger (or a Congressman $2B to vote for healthcare), he might just do that. Or, he could use it to purchase another bottle of wine (or to get re-elected). And if he does spend it on a burger then the next person who gives him $$$ for food will NOT know the bum is no longer hungry, he just wants something to drink!
That is why I quit contributing to the Combined Federal Campaign. Yes, I could designate where my $$$ went, but when others don’t designate where their donations go, then the CFC directs $$$ to those charities I would never consider giving a red cent. They get money just by being a part of the CFC.
Wow.
No. Have you followed Napolitano’s political career? MM has followed it. Napolitano, armed with her political science degree, was described in this profile as “preternaturally political.”
She sneaks about as a triangulator pushing the “third way” when blocked. An excerpt from the profile on her illegal immigration stance in 2008:
2 things; someone above asked if we could laugh when an ms-13 gangbanger or drunk illegal alien killed some one. YES, but only if that someone is a politician, a “law enforcement agent” or a liberal college professor. someone above asked if we were ever going to enforce our laws? no, the international brotherhood of police and firefighters has deemed all enforcement activities other than revenue generating tickets is forbidden under the minimum work for maximum pay clause of their union contract.
For those of you who would like to express your ‘support’ of Mr. So What?:
stalbaum@ucsd.edu
zyzzyg,
If the program is being developed by people that are being paid with tax dollars, then the program is FUNDED by tax dollars.
Maybe you don’t understand project management and development. The actual phones are probably a small part of the cost so far.
Prove it.
Let me help you. What you have to do is deconstruct my statements with facts. It also helps if you are intellectually honest and answer questions. I am prepared to be taken to task but your assertions lack lack substance. Try beginning with cutting and pasting what I actually say and demonstrate where I am inaccurate.
Until then, what you say is meaningless.
Then you will agree that it is an exagerration, ummm painting with an extremely broad brush, to suggest that tax dollars are paying for the phones?
Yes, tax dollars are paying the salaries of these people.
Ummmm, OK.
You stopped contributing to the CFC because other people did not designate where their contributions went? And, those contributions went to places you did not care for? What if other people designated their contributions for places that you do not care for?
Bottomline, you’re not donating money because other people have their money go to places you do not like? Have I understood you correctly?
Very well, we disagree. I believe it is speculation to suggest that Sec Napolitano will praise this program.
No, I have not followed her career. And, since MM has, it is not difficult to believe that she can make an educated guess about what Sec Napolitano will, or will not, do. So, you will agree that MM has the capacity to speculate about Napolitano and that MM’s statement is an educated guess, as I suggested?
Take a deep breath and acknowledge that I never said MM was right, or wrong, about her guess, just that speculating serves a specific purpose.
Ummm, OK. And, this serves to substantiate an educated guess about what Napolitano will, or will not do, correct?
Final question. Would it be intellectually honest to admit your speculation is incorrect should your educated guess not come to pass?
Well, alright.
You said:
In the same article, I read:
Which leads to the logical conclusion that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
zyzzyg:
No, you haven’t. Don’t imply or infer I don’t give to charitable causes. I do and what I give is my business and mine alone (except when April 15th rolls around when the IRS gets involved).
I refuse to contribute to the CFC because of how they manage their donations. For illustration purposes, let’s say there are only two charities in CFC, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) and Planned Parenthood (PP). I fully support what the BSA does, I abhor what PP does. The way CFC works, undesignated $$ are spread across all charities who were not designated by contributors. I will not support organizations who send $$$ to organizations I do not support.
Therefore, I give directly to those charities I support.
Feed the troll and they will have to poop.
I will not venture to argue further with someone offering a jumbled-up reply and constantly misspelling argument. Have a nice day.
zyzzyg,
You’ve already been proven wrong about the funding issue. You should stop debating it.
Wow, a one word response from the zman!(clutching chest) “Honey, have you seen the defibrillator?”
Nope.
The phrase ‘on the Government dime’ refers to the salaries. Read that paragraph again and tell me where it refers to phones. There is no explicit statement that says the phones are paid for with tax payer money, therefore it is a leap and a broad brush white wash to say we, as taxpayers, are subsidizing this program and specifically providing phones to illegal immigrants.
I have already acknowledged that taxes fund the salaries.
Moreover, if you want to further parse what was said in the article with regard to the phrase ‘on the Governments dime’ it is an editorial comment by the article’s author. It is not a quote. However there is a quote from one of the professors (which is pretty silly) that says (paraphrasing) ‘too bad you don’t like where tax money is going.’ In the paragraph of the quote it is salaries that are being discussed, and not phones. Yes, or no?
Do you understand the difference between taxes paying for salaries and taxes paying for phones?
It is called reading comprehension. You are being led to the kool aid, and you are drinking it.
OK. That is why I asked you questions.
I did no such thing. I asked you questions to better understand what you said.
Ummm, OK. But, you volunteered the information on the CFC, and why you give and why you don’t give. Correct?
You addressed several questions from that post, but not this question -
Then you will agree that it is an exagerration, ummm painting with an extremely broad brush, to suggest that tax dollars are paying for the phones?
Will you do so now?
Heck, I am not inferring or implying anything. Just asking a question.
It’s being developed on government time using a government grant. What more do you need?
People like you are the reason ACORN can move money between organizations with impunity and Madoff can hide a billion dollar Ponzi scheme for years. You probably believe the health care bill is deficit neutral.
I’m afraid there’s no cure for what you’ve got.
OK.
Though I understand your fear in not wanting to address direct questions. There was more than the one question you cut and pasted from my post. You avoided addressing the others. So be it. Like I said, I understand your fear.
You want to hide behind mis-spellings or your inability to comprehend, that is your perogative.
Have a lovely day.
zyzzyg: If I responded, I would merely be repeating what JD does so well in post # 74.
Even better news.
This guy has TENURE!
To all my minutemen friends out there, I would suggest the first of these you find in the hands of an illegal, send him back south so he can get it surgically removed, ASAP, before it seriously impacts his digestive system.
Nope. Re-read the linked article. It is a UCSD grant. Not all university grants are funded by tax dollars. Yes, or no? True, or false? Yet, you conclude that it is tax dollars. You are being led to the kool aid and you are drinking it freely without asking questions.
It is critical reading and critical thinking. More importantly it is reading comprehension. Try it, you’ll like it.
Huh?
A tangent and something that should be discussed on another thread.
Try staying on topic and address the question “Do you understand the difference between taxes paying for salaries and taxes paying for phones?” Yes, it was from the previous post. Are you afraid to address the question?
OK, I’ll bite. What is it that I have? Why make an assertion and not back it up with facts?
I know, I know, another question that you will not address.
Why are you relying on others to address questions asked of you? Are you afraid of using your own words? Using your own thoughts?
Believe me, I understand your fear.
And, I responded to what John Deaux said in post # 78.
That being said, since you are relying on others to address direct questions to you it will be fair to ignore you on this thread.
zyzzg: I just chose not to continue wrestling with you on this as JD had answered your earlier post and I would merely be repeating it. You seem to enjoy arguing for argument’s sake.
I’ll return the favor. TTFN
Note to self: “Never wrestle with a pig, you’ll both get dirty but the pig will enjoy it.”
You’ve lost this and you know it.
You know that phone cost is probably tiny compared to the development and management of this project.
One month of one person’s salary can purchase quite a few phones.
Never argue with an idiot. They’ll take you down to their level and beat you with experience.
feel free to leave them some comments…they are approving them so who knows if they’ll show up once you enter one….no registration…
http://bang.calit2.net/xborderblog/?p=173&cpage=1#comment-76
The word games are just sad. You really have to torture syntax and context to infer this “might” not be taxpayer funded.
Let me explain how U of C grants work:
The U of C system receives taxpayer funds and private donations which pool into a general fund. The board of regents delegates these funds as “line items” to departments based on spending projections which explicitly include their research proposals. A grant which is provided by a private source for an explicit purpose would be noted as such, and not called a “University Grant.” Case in point, the “art festival award” is listed seperately.
If you and I each put $50 into an account, and we decide to give out 10 $10 grants, are only half the grants funded by each of us? Or do both of us fund all of them? It doesn’t matter what % of the grant came from which source, and frankly, the supposition that the U of C segregated government funds OUT of this and only this project would be absurd; an absurdity which would be prerequisite to any assertion that any U of C grant is NOT taxpayer funded.
Also, this nonsense about salary versus project funding is a difference without a distinction. This research project (or “effort” as the article refers to it) is not just a capital expenditure. This is not 3 professors taking a cheque from the art fair and buying ready-made TIT phones from Best Buy. Professors can not just do whatever research project they feel like; they are presented to their department heads as research proposals which have to be approved as a valid use of their time (read PAID time). So yes, the continued pay of their salary is contingent upon the explicit approval of the use of their salary towards that end.
Next time you’re at work, tell your boss you’d like to spend an hour of your salaried day using work computers for researching internet porn and see how that goes for you. Salaried professors have work contracts just like everyone else, and as such have expected and approved duties for which they may be paid, and for which they may use university resources. If they used a University resource such as a computer, lab, intern, or assistant even ONCE, then it is taxpayer funded, end of discussion.
That’s right, project budgets include capital and LABOR. That’s why even salaried employees are often required to fill out time cards for how much they worked on a given project or for a given client. Because their pay IS part of the project’s expenditure.
For all these reasons, you can only deny this is “taxpayer funded” by being intentionally obtuse.
Indeed. And, in addition to that, I would offer a humble reminder that in nearly every university in the US, the typical formal process requires contracts/grants to go through a review process by a “Grants and Contracts Office” or “Office of Sponsored Programs” or similar such entity.
There should have been some internal screening process (within UCSD) by an experienced administrator to ensure each project had correct formal contract language in place — not to mention a review for even more basic things, as in conformance to applicable laws and such. Even if these people didn’t outright drop the ball in this case, they are pushing the envelope in a manner that might be very hard to defend later, not to mention expose the university to an array of liability claims, etc. I would be very surprised that such an office would knowingly allow such a grant to proceed.
Indeed, this is inescapably the case, as an effort utilizing available mobile technology would be subject to a host of FCC rules, and GPS software is subject to export control regulations.