Slashdot Mirror
RFID Bracelets to Track Inmates in L.A. County
Roland Piquepaille writes "According to RFID Journal, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is about to launch a pilot program to track 1,800 inmates using RFID devices. If the test is successful, the technology will be deployed for the 18,000 inmates of the L.A. county jails. With this system, inmates carry a wrist bracelet which issues a signal every two seconds and is caught by RFID readers installed everywhere in the prison. Officers and staff also carry a RFID device attached to their belts. And a central server keeps track in real time of the position of all prisoners and guardians. Besides tracking locations, the system also intends to reduce violence within the jail and to avoid escapes. If this system works as its promoters think, the potential market to equip all federal, state and county jails in the U.S. exceeds $1 billion. This overview contains other details and references, including a picture of a wristwatch transmitter worn by inmates."
It is a matter of your rights, as one day you may be a prisoner. Claiming its not about your rights because you're not in jail is like saying slavery wasn't about your rights because you weren't black.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
If you're of the camp that believes prison is for rehabilitation, enhanced freedom could be used as an effective tool to accomplish that. Prisoners that can be tracked wherever they are in prison is a necessary requirement to grant this enhanced freedom.
On the other hand, if you think prison is punishment, look at the transmitters as yet another way to make sure everybody is accounted for, and a way to gather evidence for crimes in the building.
prisoners gave up many of their rights when they commited a crime against society - theft - murder - etc. personally i dont think a murderer should have the same rights i enjoy - though they should still be treated humanely .ie no cruel and unusual.
always mosh clockwise
No, if the system was designed with any sanity, it will sound an alarm the moment the sensors lose track of the bracelet.
Unfortunately, if I know anything about human behaviour, the guards will disable these alarms instead of investigating them. And this will render this system worthless.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Sounds like you're never been in a prison.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Really!? Fascinating. Can you provide supporting links? I'd like to read about this, especially since being incarcerated depends on the criminal actions of the subject (according to the local law,) the economic status of the subject, and the celebrity status of the subject (ie. OJ Simpson) to name a few. So, genetics also play a role, in combination with the above mentioned? If this is true, then do defense lawyers offer genetic disposition as a defense? Is there really a jail gene? Or, are people actually responsible for their own actions?
sig: sauer
Would you still agree if the person released is a two or three time convicted child molester, who happend to move in next door to you and your lovely daughter/son etc. I think these indivduals need to be tracked for life, and ive heard its starting to happen.
"When they invent bitch slaps that can go through a monitor you better f'ing duck" --deft (253558)
If it works to improve safety and reduce escapes, then it results in lower costs through greater public safety, lower prison hospital bills, and fewer lawsuits against the state over effects of prison violence.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
the punishments don't fit the crimes in the US. while drug use/possession might be illegal elsewhere, it's not as major an offense as it is here. prison time for possession of marijuana. it's a non-violent crime. how about a fine or community service instead? the's why our prisons are over-crowded, there's too many non-violent "criminals" locked up. drugs shouldn't even be illegal here. and don't go and say "your username contains 420, so of course you think that" because i just got in the habit of adding that after my name when "rizzo" didn't work. there's just no really good reason for drugs to be illegal while alcohol and cigarettes are legal.
please me, have no regrets.
First they RFID'd the prisoners. I was not a prisoner, so I did not care.
Then they RFID'd the paroles and probationers. I was not a parolee or probationer, so I did not care.
Then they RFID'd the sex offenders. I was not a sex offender, so I did not care.
Then they RFID'd the ex-felons. I was not an ex-felon, so I did not care.
Then they RFID'd everyone. There was nobody left to care about me.
Apologies to Martin Niemoeller.
Seriously, this does have utility in prisons and perhaps with high-risk parolees, probationers, and highly-likely-to-reoffend ex-cons, but society has to make some hard "dark line" decisions to make sure this doesn't become a slippery slope.
PS: Will the next version be an implant with the number 666 on it?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
1. The primary purposes of jails are to deter crime and to keep criminals off the street. Punishment is a means to an end, and reform is just a good idea.
2. Sometimes, law enforcement doesn't even know what jail someone's in, where they need to be transferred to, when they need medical attention, or what their release date is.
I think if someone was convicted of being a child molestor three times, we shouldn't let him out. But yes, if someone is released from prison, then he shouldn't be tracked. The idea of letting them out is that they have paid for their crime. They are citizens again. Tracking movements aftwards is a violation of their rights to privacy and free assembly.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
prisoners gave up many of their rights when they commited a crime against society - theft - murder - etc. personally i dont think a murderer should have the same rights i enjoy - though they should still be treated humanely
Smoking crack in the leisure of your own home is not a crime against society...
Downloading MP3s is not a crime against society...
Crime != murder/rape ONLY...
With more and more draconian laws being passed in the US these days, anyone has an increasing chance of being a "criminal" someday. Guilty of thought "crime" perhaps?
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
-Martin Niemöller
Stupid like a fox!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
People in prison have lost their liberty.
They do not have freedom. They committed some violation of rules that society has deemed it neccesary that they be locked up. Away from society. It is VERY important to public security that their whereabouts be known at all times while in prison. It is also VERY hard to do with 18,000 inmates and only a few hundred (maybe thousand) correctional officers.
This is NOT the first step on a slipperly slope. The government doesn't really care that at 1PM every day, I go take a shit. There's no way even if they DID care that they could seriously mark every citizen with an RFID and track their whereabouts, Real-ID or not. They can't even keep track of how many illegal immigrants there are!
Remember, we still do afford a certain amount of control on our government. If they DID try to monitor every citizen's whereabouts, it would be shot down by the general public even if the only reason is their taxes would go up.
Please remove the tin foil hat, because in this case, it's too damn expensive.
That assumes that the various criminal justice systems in the land incarcerate only the guilty.
Well, speaking for the US criminal justice system, that is the assumption. At trial, one is judged to be guilty or not guilty. If one is judged to be guilty, then the assumption is that of guilt, is it not?
The percentage of wrongly incarcerated prisoners is small - vanishingly so. Small enough that when it's discovered that someone has been wrongly convicted, it's news. It's small enough that it's pretty safe to assume that any particular individual judged guilty is guilty. Incidentally, see if you can find any research citing the actual percentages of wrongly convicted people. It's something that ought to be statistically estimated. I can't find anything and that makes me think that it's because the percentage is extremely low.
Don't go off on a tangent about innocent people in jail - sure, it's a problem and nobody should be punished for a crime they didn't commit. But the assumption that we incarcerate only the guilty is valid assumption.
you haven't told me why drugs should be illegal? the facts are out there that they can mess you up when abused. people should be held responsible for their own actions, not protected from themselves. the government is protecting me by making pot illegal, yet i can use it and not cause harm to others or myself. same goes for a slew of other drugs... heroin is an exception because you're practically hooked once you shoot up the first time.
people like you make me sick.
please me, have no regrets.
Then the problem isn't the issue of removing the wristband, but the need to keep certain types of criminals locked up to protect society.
In my opinion, if we feel a need to "track someone for life" because they are such a menace, then why are they out of prison to begin with?
This last weekend, I was robbed at gunpoint. The assailant took my wallet and my cell phone. The first thing I did after calling the police (at a land line) was call my banks to turn off my various cards. As the police officer was writing down his report, my sister on the phone with the bank discovered that someone had tried to use one of my cards 5 minutes after the robbery at a 7-11 down the street from the hold up.
The 7-11 had a video camera recording everything, and now that the cops had my description and a video surveillance image to go off of, their chances of catching the criminal are pretty high (though I was told that it was highly unlikely that I'd ever see my phone, wallet, or the IDs in the wallet ever again).
Because of modern anti-theft measures, the man who stuck a gun in my stomach is most likely going to end up in jail. The fast-acting real-time monitoring of credit card usage, the ever present video surveillance, and the fast response time of the police from my initial 911 call all are aiding to the apprehension of this guy who, all told, ended up with about $30 in cash and a phone that can never be activated again.
And yet, the more I think about it, the more I'm deeply disturbed. Yes, it was nice to know that because of our modern world, the guy didn't end up running up thousand dollar bills on my credit card. And yes, I do take comfort knowing that it's highly likely the guy will go to jail.
But at what cost? Every day we are giving up more and more privacy under the auspicious of safety, yet nobody in any position of power seems to consider that perhaps the government and corporate organizations of America shouldn't have that much access to our private lives.
I asked myself the question: What if I was on the other side of that technological dragnet? What if the government was after me because I said something that the government didn't agree with, or saw as a "threat", despite my benign intentions? What if, say, I made a remark publicly that I didn't think the current presidential administration was pursuing policies that have America's best interests in mind? What if I was in a position where people respected what I had to say, and would take it to heart? What if the administration decided to find me and silence me?
Granted, these "what ifs" are generally the bread and butter of the tin foil hat crowd, but it does make me uneasy. When I was a kid, my parents had a chip put in my dog. Now they're putting them on wrist bands of prisoners. It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that eventually all prisoners will have these, then all prisoners will have these implanted, then the citizenry will have them.
I can hear someone saying "Look, if you had a chip implanted in you with your ID and bank account information on it, you would have never been mugged, and you wouldn't have to be going through the hassle of getting your IDs and life back in order right now". Then again, the guy could have just shot me and dug out my chip with a dull knife. I'm not sure.
What I am sure of is this: We still live in a pretty good country. As misguided as I think their policies are, I still think most of the current government's activities are still in the best interests of the American people. But what is the otherwise respectable "done nothing wrong" citizen supposed to do if America's power is seized from them by people who don't mind trampling on personal liberties one bit to serve their own purpose? Things like RFID tags just adds to our impotency if the time comes when decent Americans have to raise up against our own government and set things right again.
I for one am willing to lose a little more money in a robbery, or have the knowledge that the chances that the guy who robbed me gets caught is lower in exchange for the safety in knowing that if things ever get really bad, I have some options in standing up to the government.
The Internet is generally stupid
Well yeah, no kidding. The entire justice system is based on that. You're responding to his argument by bringing up an ENTIRELY seperate argument.
If we totally want to avoid guilty convictions, I guess we should abolish prisons then.
"Last time I checked, open rebellion against your country was treason.
Only if you lose.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
What you all seem to not understand, is this in NOT a prison. Jail and Prison are two completely different things. A prison is where you get sent after being found guilty and sentenced to hard time. A county jail is where you go if you got a little too drunk and ran into a cop on the walk home. A county jail is where you go if you got busted for smoking a joint (at least around here). A county jail is where they hold you BEFORE you have your day in court. At any time I guarantee you there is at least 1 innocent person in county jail. You give up your rights only when you commit a felony, not a misdemeanor. Well over %50 of the people in any county jail are still 100% full citizens of the US, and as such deserve every single right they are entitled to.
At any rate, I don't see this as a particular invasion of privacy, you have to wear those wrist ID bands anyways, this one just identifies remotely.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
...so we should wait until a DUI drivers kills a bunch of people before putting him in jail eventhough two warnings were already given... I'm sorry but I don't agree with that.
If marijuana should be illegal because it's harmful, then alcohol and tobacco should definitely be illegal too because they're much more harmful than marijuana. And probably coffee should be illegal because that's in the same harmfulness ballpark as marijuana.
Marijuana is an interesting case - it's the classic example of a currently illegal drug for which there is no good reason (not even the poor reason of "it'll hurt you!") for its illegality. It's mildly intoxicating and it's not addictive (perhaps habit-forming at worst (ie. much like using the internet :), but not addictive).
Penn and Teller's Bullshit did an episode on drugs in general (and marijuana in particular) a while ago. The one bit that stuck in my head involved them showing death counts due to particular drugs. Cigarettes - quite a lot, as you'd expect. Alcohol - quite a lot as well. Marijuana... zero. As in "not any at all, ever".
So why is it illegal again?
I find it very difficult to believe the cost to society of legalising all drugs could come anywhere near the cost of the "war on drugs". Also, legalising drugs would (conveniently) upset one group of people more than any other - organised crime (Homer: "Mmmm.... organised crime"). Their biggest money-earner would be gone just like that.
I'm going to start off with an ad-hominem, because it's just too good to pass up: Judging from your abuse of lower case letters, when you get drunk, you come here and post on slashdot. Here's a nice summary of 41 scientific studies! But it's from the NIH, so they obviously don't know what they're talking about.
marijuana is harmless. it doesn't cause addiction, it doesn't cause death, and when used properly in THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME, you affect no one but yourself. there are no known deaths related to marijuana.I'm in favour of legalising marijuana, but you live in fantasy land if you think it's harmless. It's full of carcinogens ( like pretty much anything else you burn, really ), and the American Heart Association presented a study ( non journal though, so whatever ) during their March 2000 conference that said it represented a fivefold risk factor for cardiac arrest in the first hour after use for older users ( about twice the risk entailed by sex for sedentary individuals ). These are not the only medical questions surrounding cannabis at the moment, some bad, some good. Don't make the mistake of dishonestly portraying it as 'safer than sugar doughnuts' ( as one particularly retarded pothead has attempted to do in my presence. )
Regards,YLFI
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
You don't even see the contradiction in this, do you? If somebody has "paid" for their crime, why is it ever an issue again? Let's put it another way: Sounds stupid, doesn't it?
The truth of the matter is that sitting in a cage doesn't "pay" for anything. It's a punishment for doing something wrong, in a Pavlovian attempt to make the threat of more cage time prevent you from being bad. It might make the victim of the crime feel a bit better knowing that the cause of their woes is having a bad day. But that's about it.
There's no "rehabilitation" in the "Criminal Rehabilitation System", unless you consider extreme boredom and being Bubba's biatch "rehabilitation".
So, let's dispense this fiction, and get on with it... some crimes are committed out of mental illness for which there is no cure. (EG: Pedophilia) Why
Otherwise, let's cook up a system whereby a criminal actually CAN "pay" for his misdeeds. But let's not start on a lie, eh?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
We can't remove alcohol and tobacco from our society, they are too much a part of it now. However, just because our great grandparents did a stupid thing, that doesn't mean we should start letting every man and his dog start shooting up.
What the US's experiment with alcohol prohibition proved is that the effects of prohibition are likely to be worst than the banned drugs themselves.
Almost every study says ANYTHING over 0% BAC causes some level of impairment, just because we have set an arbitrary standard of 0.08 or 0.10 doesn't mean that these are "safe" levels.
Many drivers at 0% can be more impaired then people with 0.15% due to distractions. But irregardless, it is safer to EVERYONE if the limit is "if you drink ANYTHING, you don't drive", yes you might have to get a taxi ride home and pick up your car in the morning, but that's the consequence of going out to drink, deal with it.
Medevo
I think if someone was convicted of being a child molestor three times, we shouldn't let him out
I hope for the world's sake that the first two kids that every child molester diddles (the free ones, according to you) are your kids.
The recidivism rate for child molesters is so high that once and done is a more appropriate response.