Slashdot Mirror


South Carolina Wants To Jam Cell Phone Signals

Corey Brook writes "The South Carolina state prison system wants the FCC to grant them and local officers permission to block cell phone signals. News has been out about the growing problem of them perps smuggling cell phones into prisons for a while now. Inmates use cell phones as commerce, to implement fraud, smuggle drugs and weapons, and to order hits. Of course, some may use it to just talk to a loved one any time they can." Hopefully movie theaters and restaurants do it next.

601 comments

  1. Mobile phones by cheetham · · Score: 4, Funny

    I must resist mentioning how in Soviet Russia, mobile phones jam you!

    In my local cinema recently, people were quite good with keeping phones on silent, but the light from people checking and sending text messages still annoyed me a bit.

    1. Re:Mobile phones by poetmatt · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sounds like you weren't watching the movie then. Maybe your problem was a crappy movie?

    2. Re:Mobile phones by moranar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, you know, you could be annoyed by flickers of light you see with your peripheral vision.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    3. Re:Mobile phones by cheetham · · Score: 1

      It was the new Bond film, so that certainly is a possibility!

      I've never really ever had a problem with mobile phones in restaurants.

    4. Re:Mobile phones by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 5, Funny

      But if you ban cell phones in prison, only criminals will have cell phones in prison!

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    5. Re:Mobile phones by gnick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Our local cinema already blocks cell-phone signals. Active blocking violates FCC regs. Passive blocking is just fine per my understanding. Phones work in the lobby but drop to 0 bars as soon as you get to the hallway leading to the screens.

      The logistics of retro-fitting an entire prison complex with a passive blocking cage may be prohibitively difficult, though. In the theater, it was a design feature when it was built a couple of years ago.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:Mobile phones by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's 'cos eating still trumps talking for most people.

      How many people are going to sit there yakking while their food goes cold? Not too many.

      Food is pretty much up there with sex as far as primal instincts go.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Mobile phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you are one of the A-holes that does this.

    8. Re:Mobile phones by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Or you could try having a sense of humor as the OP did. *WHOOSH*

    9. Re:Mobile phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, someone smuggle this prisoner a phone with bigger buttons!

    10. Re:Mobile phones by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      You're obviously not familiar with the current generation of twenty something females, for whom yapping on the phone trumps food, sex, work and just about everything else. I've been to restaurants and seen girls madly SMSing away while their meal sits untouched. That's not even the most extreme. SMS related accidents are on the rise. Try convincing the average Sex In The City chick that replying to that SMS should take second priority to concentrating on the road.

      --
      I hate printers.
    11. Re:Mobile phones by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Informative

      Anyone who has studied the eye will be quite aware that the peripheral vision is far more sensitive to changes in light, while the focused vision is more sensitive to color. There are many more "rods" in the eye, about 120 million, than cones, but the rods are not sensitive to color. They are sensitive to light. The cones are sensitive to color, but are mostly clustered in the focal area. An interesting experiment to perform is to set up a dimly flashing light in a dark room and just allow your peripheral vision to pick it up. It will appear to be brightly flashing. However, if you then look directly at it, the flash will not appear anywhere near as bright.
      So yes, the light from cell phones in the movie theatre would be very distracting in your peripheral vision.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    12. Re:Mobile phones by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      How many people are going to sit there yakking while their food goes cold? Not too many.

      you need to go to a movie in detroit. you will have at least 3 very loud ethnic women talking away on their cellphone. If not on the phone they are talking to the screen...

      "Dont go in there! OH MY! DONT DO IT! LORDY!"

      I stopped going to the theater because of it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Mobile phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? Most of my dates have been more than happy to take phone calls in the middle of sex.

    14. Re:Mobile phones by mblase · · Score: 4, Funny

      How many people are going to sit there yakking while their food goes cold? Not too many.

      Your pro-eating, anti-yakking bias clearly identifies you as a sexist male.

    15. Re:Mobile phones by jfeldredge · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Another possible solution is to have a dummy base station that the cell phones will connect to, since it will have a stronger signal than the towers farther from the prison. If the base station is set up so as not to pass any calls on, it effectively blocks the calls. However, such a solution is currently not allowed as it would also interfere with calls for some distance around the prison, as well as the intended calls originating inside the prison.

    16. Re:Mobile phones by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Food is pretty much up there with sex as far as primal instincts go.

      Or in the immortal words of Descartes: "Burrito, ergo nom."

    17. Re:Mobile phones by ServerIrv · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmmm...and I thought that a slashdot post would have been sufficient.

    18. Re:Mobile phones by GigG · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to imagine a /.er that is familier with any generation of any age female.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    19. Re:Mobile phones by IchNiSan · · Score: 1

      No MOD points. 8(

      Just LOLZ.

    20. Re:Mobile phones by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Maybe he read about them on girlsaresilly.net.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    21. Re:Mobile phones by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      you need to go to a movie in detroit. you will have at least 3 very loud ethnic women talking away on their cellphone. If not on the phone they are talking to the screen...

      "Dont go in there! OH MY! DONT DO IT! LORDY!"

      I stopped going to the theater because of it.

      OH NO YOU DI'NT JUST SAY THAT!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    22. Re:Mobile phones by luder · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That's also the reason why you should use peripheral vision to see more details, when using a telescope. Even when looking at the stars with the naked eye, it is possible to notice that the stars on the peripheral vision appear much brighter than the ones you're looking directly at.

    23. Re:Mobile phones by bhamlin · · Score: 0

      You are obviously not married.

    24. Re:Mobile phones by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      The logistics of retro-fitting an entire prison complex with a passive blocking cage may be prohibitively difficult, though. In the theater, it was a design feature when it was built a couple of years ago.

      Could be put into effect going forward though. I work for a local/county municipality within South Carolina and I know for certain that we are taking bids for construction of a new detention center (the old one is quite old and crowded so a replacement is indeed due). If we're building a new one anyways then the extra cost might not be that much.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    25. Re:Mobile phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may say something about your lovemaking abilities.

    26. Re:Mobile phones by digitig · · Score: 1

      GP is also obviously not aware of how long it takes for the food to turn up in some restaurants...

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    27. Re:Mobile phones by moranar · · Score: 1

      I simply didn't find anything funny in the memory of paying through the nose for a film and then not being able to enjoy it because of some idiot. Maybe I deserve the WHOOSH.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    28. Re:Mobile phones by ubercam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is another (easier?) way to test this. Go somewhere with not too much light pollution and look up at the stars on a clear night. Stare into an area with lots of stars to get a good idea of how many there are. Then look at the same area using your peripheral vision and you will notice that you can see more stars than you could before, which seem to disappear when you look right at them. Try it out with an area that doesn't seem to have any stars at all and you will probably see a few with your peripheral vision.

    29. Re:Mobile phones by gnick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For the cells, work areas, cafeteria, medical area, etc, you're probably right. If it's planned into the construction it's probably only a minor additional expense - And that would likely solve most of the problem.

      However, passively blocking the exercise yard is going to be tough... I think out there you're going to have to go active or just hope that the guards will notice if somebody out there is mysteriously crouching and talking to their hand.

      [Disclaimer - The only prison I've seen close-up is Alcatraz and I learned most of what I know of prison anatomy from movies & TV. They do have big out-door areas, right?]

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    30. Re:Mobile phones by UnrealisticWhample · · Score: 1

      It can be quite disturbing when suddenly there is bright light in your peripheral vision. If you think the cell phones are bad, though, there was a stupid woman at the theatre a bit ago that had to be asked to stop trying to read her program with an obnoxious green LED flashlight.

    31. Re:Mobile phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next customer calling to confirm the location and time?

    32. Re:Mobile phones by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Funny

      A 15 mW pointer laser in the face of a person waving lights around a darkened theater like that should do the trick. Everyone else will get the message, too, and you have to blind only a minimum of selfish bastards to do it. After a while, society generally will learn the lesson, and the lasers will become merely the stuff of legend.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    33. Re:Mobile phones by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Funny, you'd think all that steel and concrete would be sufficent to block the signal. Especially when I can't get a signal in the parking lot of my grocery store...

    34. Re:Mobile phones by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Nah... they'll just use the sneakernet to carry them across the border.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    35. Re:Mobile phones by theaveng · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Roman prisons were holes carved into caves & the prisoners were thrown inside. They had access to nothing.

      The more I study history, the more I think the Romans displayed a heck of a lot more intelligence than modern politicians (in some respects, not all). If the prisoners have access to nothing, how are they going to charge their cellphone batteries? Eventually the problem solves itself (dead phones).

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    36. Re:Mobile phones by profplump · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, you shouldn't use your peripheral vision to see more detail in any situation. The data density from the center of your eye is significantly higher than at any other point. The intensity sensitivity of your eye is greater outside the center -- you are able to detect smaller amounts of light -- but with significantly less detail.

      So if you're goal is "detect dim objects" then peripheral vision is the way to go. But if your goal in "increased detail" you should stick with the center of your eye and just buy a telescope big enough so you can see the dim objects directly.

      And on a related note, you do have a small blind spot at the center of your eye where the optic nerve is attached, so in non-binocular, fixed-gaze viewing (like you would do with a telescope) it is important to avoid this particular spot. But your blind spot is pretty small, so you can still use the high-density portions of your eye near the center without a problem.

    37. Re:Mobile phones by Morkano · · Score: 1

      This is also why stars are dimmer when you look directly at them, if you have noticed.

      --
      Victory or awesome!
    38. Re:Mobile phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Food is good.

      The other day I was watching Madagascar 2 with my daughter. This idiot sitting next to me kept on talking to his buddy throughout the movie. So as I was passing by him to get a drink, I let out a long, long SBD right in his face. I peeked back and saw rows in front and in back making horrid faces. "Oh my God!" one woman said.

      When I returned he just glared at me. If I was a small guy he'd probably have hit me.

      I've resolved that anytime someone next to me starts talking, I'm going to start farting and belching.

    39. Re:Mobile phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How considerate of you to also spoil your daughter's movie watching experience in an attempt to spite an annoying movie-goer. Quite classy there...

    40. Re:Mobile phones by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      But your blind spot is pretty small, so you can still use the high-density portions of your eye near the center without a problem.

      A trick I like to find the blind spot is when you are riding a train, you go in the last car, and stare at the horizon where the track "vanishes". The rails suddenly disappear from the track near where the train is... :) :) :) :) :)

    41. Re:Mobile phones by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      It should be possible to configure the phone that it prefers another network, though. I'm pretty sure my old Siemens ME45 can do that.

    42. Re:Mobile phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funniest slashdot comment I've read in months. ++, sir.

    43. Re:Mobile phones by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh you should try Arkansas, because we got that beat. Not only do you get the loud ethnic women yelling at the screen AND yakking away to her girlfriend,but add to that her setting off her damned cell phone's flash so she can snap a shot of her new shoes or the dude she is with and then ADD to that the fact that more than half the audience have the most loud, obnoxious, ghetto ring tones you have ever heard and their phones go off about every 2 minutes. I too have long since given up on movie theaters thanks to cell phones. The invention of the cell phone pretty much was the death of the movie theater experience for me. Now I only go to late night fare like "Rocky Horror" where you expect everyone to be loud and wild.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    44. Re:Mobile phones by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Damn that's fucking hilarious.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    45. Re:Mobile phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to be a Latingrish grammar nazi but isn't it "burrito, ergo, om nom nom nom nom"?

    46. Re:Mobile phones by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      +1 ROFLMAO

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    47. Re:Mobile phones by nasch · · Score: 1

      Zoos have no trouble keeping birds in. I think a wire mesh above the exercise yard would be fairly cheap. I don't know if it would be cheaper to repair it after severe storms or put it on a framework strong enough to survive though. Probably depends on local climate.

    48. Re:Mobile phones by Arterion · · Score: 1

      In the case of stargazing, "increased detail" might very well be defined as detecting dim objects.

      I know I've been really freaked once by a little sticker someone had put on my ceiling. It was a glow in the dark sticker in the shape of a star. I guess it was really weak, because the glow was extremely faint. For a while I thought I was going crazy until I realized I could ONLY see it in the dark if I DIDN'T look directly at it. xD

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    49. Re:Mobile phones by JDevers · · Score: 1

      Maybe a better solution is to move to the western side of the state, we have no such problem (nor any of the myriad other problems the delta has).

    50. Re:Mobile phones by Cramer · · Score: 1

      bluetooth headsets. Many are small enough to go unnoticed, and guys walking around talking to the wind is not unusual.

      Make all the "yard" accesses have metal detectors. Noone headed into the yard from those points should have any metal at all on them.

    51. Re:Mobile phones by narcberry · · Score: 1

      Exactly, the only way to fight this is to make sure prison guards have bigger cell phones.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    52. Re:Mobile phones by narcberry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and dead prisoners.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    53. Re:Mobile phones by RockWolf · · Score: 1

      After a while, society generally will learn the lesson, and the lasers will become merely the stuff of legend.

      Here in australia, they already are... After a few morons decided it'd be funny to shoot laserpointers at the cockpit of 747's on approach, they got banned, pretty much.

      /~Rockwolf.

      --
      February 9th, 2009 8:55pm: Slashdot becomes self-aware.
    54. Re:Mobile phones by neomunk · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but for MY kids, farts enhance most any experience.

    55. Re:Mobile phones by lpq · · Score: 1

      Couldn't directional antennae be placed around the prison and aimed at the prison and 'downward' (angle) so that only the prison's property would be affected?

      Another option would be to install micro-cell towers around or inside the prison. Range of 20-50yards? Supposedly a university on 'hilly land' (on the side of a hill), needed to blanket their campus with micro-cells to get good coverage. But they seemed to have no problem with making sure that the micro-cells aren't accessible to line-of-site locations off campus -- either the power is too low, or the RF transceivers are focused downward. If they install multiple towers (each tower would have to support all active phone networks), couldn't triangulation be used to automatically drop or prevent calls that were triangulated to inside the prison property?

    56. Re:Mobile phones by syousef · · Score: 1

      That's 'cos eating still trumps talking for most people.

      How many people are going to sit there yakking while their food goes cold? Not too many

      Who says they're mutually exclusive? You just have to talk with your mouth full. ;-)

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    57. Re:Mobile phones by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That happened here, too. But you can still get the lasers. The ban is the legend.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    58. Re:Mobile phones by Heather+D · · Score: 1

      This being prison its more likely they'll have to resort to..

      um..

      'cavity'-net

    59. Re:Mobile phones by jfeldredge · · Score: 1

      In the USA, rather than banning laser pointers, they have fairly stringent punishment for shining lasers at aircraft. Of course, this does mean that they have to catch the perpetrator, not an easy task if they shine the laser from a well-populated location and only do so for a few seconds.

    60. Re:Mobile phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is an ethnic woman?

  2. smuggling by RemoWilliams84 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just realized what they mean by smuggling them in. I'm guessing I wouldn't want one of those phones close to my mouth/nose.

    --
    "I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
    1. Re:smuggling by decalod85 · · Score: 5, Funny

      My guess is that slimline phones are very popular. I wonder if they get "crappy" reception?

    2. Re:smuggling by n3tcat · · Score: 5, Funny

      I just realized what they mean by smuggling them in. I'm guessing I wouldn't want one of those phones close to my mouth/nose.

      Because you're allergic to the cake frosting? </naive>

    3. Re:smuggling by Joebert · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm going to get a cell phone implanted in my penis in case I ever go to prison, that way if anyone ever gets caught using it the guards will just think they're talking to my penis. I'm guessing that's normal behavior in prison.

      Even if I never go to prison, I can always just keep it on vibrate and still get some use out of it.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    4. Re:smuggling by RemoWilliams84 · · Score: 1, Funny

      How funny would it be when your ass started ringing with "Milkshake" or "Baby Got Back" as your ringtone. I bet you'd make a lot of, erm, friends quick.

      --
      "I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
    5. Re:smuggling by bwalling · · Score: 1

      I figured they would just have a visitor bring it to them.

    6. Re:smuggling by AceCoolie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Insert LG Chocolate jokes here.

    7. Re:smuggling by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      Because you're allergic to the cake frosting?</naive>

      I saw Zack and Miri last week, and as a result it took me a while to realize while you had the naive tag.

      "She frosted me like a cake!"

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    8. Re:smuggling by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Remember that most prisons consist of varying levels of risk regarding prisoners. The prisoners do smuggle a lot of stuff in, but the ones doing the smuggling aren't the ones using it. read into the drug trafficking that goes through prisons, it's ridiculous.

      Half the time, the prisoners know what you're in for before you even get there. If you're a high risk criminal that's going to be watched they don't care. If you're one that is lower risk and not likely to be watched, they swoop in on you, coerce you to do their bidding (by threatening to make the pound me in the ass prison a reality), and you smuggle the stuff in for them.

      The problem isn't so much that they are smuggling in cell phones, it's that the cell phones are helping to facilitate more smuggling. So by blocking the signals, they're hoping to reduce the amount of smuggling that goes on. After all, if the ring leader can't arrange the shipments of cocaine coming in, it's not coming in.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    9. Re:smuggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could even make some profit by renting it out to the other inmates, though I'm not even remotely curious as to how you intend to dial it.

    10. Re:smuggling by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm going to get a cell phone implanted in my penis

      Then you can use your Dictaphone... :-)

      (Sorry - but I had to get rid of that joke - it was getting so far past its tell-by date)

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    11. Re:smuggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *crickets chirping* </insult>

    12. Re:smuggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 Amazing

    13. Re:smuggling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Originally posted by RemoWilliams84:

      I just realized what they mean by smuggling them in. I'm guessing I wouldn't want one of those phones close to my mouth/nose.

      Uh, what ever you say Remo.

  3. I'd support that... by bhunachchicken · · Score: 1

    "Hopefully movie theaters and restaurants do it next."

    That's the one thing that really pisses me off when I go to watch a film in the cinema: some dickhead who decides to start texting or checking the football scores during the movie.

    Seriously, these guys must be loaded if they can afford to pay £8 to watch a film and then spend the whole time on their fucking phone.

    1. Re:I'd support that... by internerdj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For a long time I agreed with this but then I realized the last place I want my phone blocked in an emergency is someplace with minimum wage workers (and probably managers.) And as obnoxious as a phone is in the theater, those are the same idiots who talk to the people they come with during the film anyways.

    2. Re:I'd support that... by Bieeanda · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I wouldn't. A friend of mine worked for the Red Cross, and was required to keep an emergency phone on her at all times when she was on-call-- and those on-call periods could last upwards of a week. Or how about a doctor who needs to be accessible immediately, but also has social obligations?

      We don't need jammers in theatres and restaurants. What we need are old-fashioned ushers, and old-fashioned shaming. Some asshole keeps lighting up five rows down? Shout at him to quit it. If he gives you guff, go to the manager. You'll probably get a free ticket out of the deal, and he'll get turfed. If you're at a restaurant... well sorry, but you're at a restaurant. People socialize over food.

    3. Re:I'd support that... by Swizec · · Score: 0

      Or maybe they just don't like the movie and get bored? Or even more possibly, they're a part of the internet generation and their attention span is too short to last the length of the movie.

    4. Re:I'd support that... by despisethesun · · Score: 1

      Too fucking bad for them then. If they don't like the movie, they're free to walk out the door. They don't get to ruin it for everyone else just because they don't like it or can't even pay attention to it.

      --
      This poo is cold.
    5. Re:I'd support that... by Sobrique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd be sad. I'm on call, so I take my phone with me, set it to silent, and leave the cinema if I get called out - this happens very rarely on a saturday afternoon, but there would be trouble if I knowingly went somewhere there was no phone coverage.

    6. Re:I'd support that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Too fucking bad for them then. If they don't like >the movie, they're free to walk out the door. They >don't get to ruin it for everyone else just because >they don't like it or can't even pay attention to >it.

      What a fucktard or maybe that should be fucked turd all i can say is i hope he needs urgent help one day and one of those pox infested phone blockers screws his help big time

    7. Re:I'd support that... by SargentDU · · Score: 1

      Maybe the friend could watch TV or videos at home rather than in public then? Or have a pager as someone else suggested. As long as the friend knows where blocking is taking place the friend can avoid those places.

    8. Re:I'd support that... by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's illegal to jam signals electronically, but so far Faraday cages are legal. My friend Mike has a corrogated steel barn, wne when you're in the barn your phone will NOT work, perod.

      Theaters could coat the theater walls with aluminum to lagally block signals. I wish they would.

      Prisons could do the same thing. But actually, I think letting prisoners have cell phones is a GOOD thing; that is, if we want to rehabilitate these people. Sadly, I fewr we don't, as a place like Joliet is Crime University.

    9. Re:I'd support that... by DaFallus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where there no emergencies or on-call before cell phones existed?

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    10. Re:I'd support that... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't. A friend of mine worked for the Red Cross, and was required to keep an emergency phone on her at all times when she was on-call-- and those on-call periods could last upwards of a week. Or how about a doctor who needs to be accessible immediately, but also has social obligations?

      Perhaps they'd cope the same way they did before phones were ubiquitous. Or perhaps there could be a special screen in each cinema for phone users that isn't blocked.

    11. Re:I'd support that... by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am sure that friend was not allowed to do a lot of other things. Sorry, you are on call, that means you are not able to go to a restaurant or movie. Tough luck. Talk to you employer for compensation.

      The doctors I know all turn off their phone during the movie. OTOH they also send text messages to each other during operations, where mere mortals are not even allowed to turn on their phone. (Yes, during the operation.)

      Restaurants do not give much problems here. People take the call outside after the phone was set to vibrate. If they would be on call, they would go outside every 30 minutes or so (like the smokers) and check if they have a message.

      Doctors on emergency call that I know would not go to dinners, but stayed at home. They would do the same if there were blockers.

      If those people do not like it, take a job that does not require you to be on call. I should not suffer from your career choice.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:I'd support that... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But actually, I think letting prisoners have cell phones is a GOOD thing; that is, if we want to rehabilitate these people

      How does giving them cell phones that they use to commit fraud help to rehabilitate them?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:I'd support that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course there were. Before cell phones existed, they had pagers.

      And before pagers existed... well, you better hope that when you had an emergency, the hospital had a doctor a doctor in who could take care of you. Otherwise, have fun dying!

    14. Re:I'd support that... by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Or how about a doctor who needs to be accessible immediately, but also has social obligations?

      The doctor's job trumps their social obligations. If they need to be on-call, then they should not put themselves into a situation where they are not accessible. Much like how they don't oblige to the social obligations of having a few drinks at a bar.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    15. Re:I'd support that... by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We don't need jammers in theatres and restaurants.

      Well, what we really need is more responsible people that think about other people around them a little.

      Unfortunately, that is outside of your or mine or the theater management's area. We can't change those people. But we (that is, one of us, the management) can put in jammers.

      It's not the perfect solution. But if the perfect solution is theoretical, a good practical solution will do.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    16. Re:I'd support that... by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, because all minimum wage workers are sooooooo stupid. Why, they can't figure out how to operate a regular phone. If the building catches fire they'll probably just stand there and burn to death rather than call for help. It's common knowledge that they're so dumb that they can't drive, read or write, tie their own shoes, and they have to be reminded to breathe occasionally.

      Or maybe you're just an arrogant snob who really needs a reality check. Newsflash: a lot of those minimum wage workers you so pompously denigrated with one insulting generalization are students -- yes, even the older ones may well be students more often than you'd think -- and a great many of them have higher IQs than you or probably anyone you know. Just because you've apparently had someone give you a break so you never had to take one of those jobs doesn't mean everyone else is so fortunate. Other have had to work for a living while putting themselves through school. They didn't have Daddy set everything up for them so that they didn't have to take a menial job.

      Yes, I know a great many minimum wage workers don't do a great job at work. That's often because they don't care to, since they're still treated like crap by both managers and customers even when they out-perform circles around their co-workers who come into work hungover and try to sneak in some tokes during the day. In most cases, there's very little future in addition to being treated like you're the scum of the earth, so why bother? After all, as you so aptly proved, even when they do a good job despite the lousy pay, the mistreatment from managers and rude customers, they're still going to be treated by crap even outside their jobs by jerks like you.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    17. Re:I'd support that... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Nobody is forcing you to join the Red Cross or become a doctor. Should you choose to join the Red Cross or train for the medical profession, you have no right nor need to go to a movie theater.

      Old fashioned shaming? Have you been outside this century? people today have no shame.

      Every profession jhas its plusses and minuses. Doctors get paid shitloads of money. If they're on call, they can do it somewhere besides a theater.

    18. Re:I'd support that... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Restaurants do not give much problems here. People take the call outside after the phone was set to vibrate.

      Wow, you must live somewhere where people behave reasonably. Where I live, people are constantly receiving and making cell phone calls in restaurants, and talking loudly because they are on a cell phone, which has the microphone place 5 inches from your mouth in the opposite direction of the sound waves emanating thereforth.
      They also have to speak over the din of the restaurant because anymore restaurants are designed with "the industrial look" with exposed girders and sheet metal and absolutely no soundproofing. Form over function. Yeah!

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    19. Re:I'd support that... by LocutusMIT · · Score: 0

      I'd actually like to see a device that intermittently blocks mobile reception within the theatre itself, say every couple of seconds or so. This would allow pages or an initial ring (with caller ID) to get through, but no conversations or decent Internet access.

    20. Re:I'd support that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose it's up to theaters to decide who they're going to serve with what environment, and respond accordingly. If they find it's worth catering to a handful of doctors and emergency responders during their on-call time, at the expense of the casual movie-goer's viewing experience, so be it.

      And I expect, by default, that they will. As it is, they've decided that enforcing the rules isn't worth whatever increase in profit margin it might bring. (Anybody remember ushers? I don't.)

      But then, I don't go to many movies anymore, and part of the reason is that I'm rolling the dice in terms of viewing experience. Based on how the theater business is doing nation-wide, I'd speculate that I'm not alone. I bet even some of those doctors and emergency responders don't go to movies -- on call or otherwise -- for the same reason.

      If it were me, my priority would be to provide a good viewing experience. If that means I can't serve a subset of potential clients, so be it. It may sound harsh, and you may not like it, but going out to the movies is not some basic right; if your on-call obligations are incompatible with going out to movies, do something else.

    21. Re:I'd support that... by radish · · Score: 1

      If those people do not like it, take a job that does not require you to be on call. I should not suffer from your career choice.
      I keep my phone on, on vibrate. If it rings (which it rarely does) I go outside. How exactly does that make you "suffer from my career choice"? Get over yourself. Provided I'm not disturbing anyone I have just as much right to watch a movie as you do. The problem here is people who aren't considerate, not the phones. You can install all the blockers you like but some people will still slurp drinks, crunch popcorn, shout at each other and generally be anti-social. If you want the perfect, isolated, quiet controlled movie experience hire the entire theater or just stay at home. Otherwise, you're opting to be part of society and that includes putting up with people who do things you don't like.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    22. Re:I'd support that... by Neoprofin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last time I checked characterizing all minimum wage workers and the unsung heroes of the workforce, simply victimized by circumstance with a heart of gold, is just as misguided as characterizing all of them is incompetent.

      Of course OP only needed one sentence, so points for efficiency.

    23. Re:I'd support that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The doctor's job trumps their social obligations. If they need to be on-call, then they should not put themselves into a situation where they are not accessible.

      I'm on call 1 week out of every 4, and this is what I do. It's annoying but not difficult.

    24. Re:I'd support that... by internerdj · · Score: 1

      I'm not being an arrogant snob. I've spent my time in minimum wage. There isn't much motivation to do anything. So far whenever we have needed an employee at the theater to look into anything they are nowhere to be found. I couldn't get a manager to talk to me, when I lost my credit card in the theater. You have the employees manning the registers who can't leave their place and the ticket takers who can't leave their place. Maybe it isn't the fact they are paid next to nothing but they haven't exactly inspired confidence that anything barring the building disappearing around them will bring them out of their little role.

    25. Re:I'd support that... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Well, what we really need is more responsible people that think about other people around them a little.

      And the best part is, this fixes a LOT of things in addition to the theater/cell phone issue.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    26. Re:I'd support that... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You sound like the RIAA saying that Kazaa is only useful for copyright infringement. I'd rather prisoners have contact with normal, law abiding citizenry (i.e., people not in jail) than only having criminals to talk to. I'd rather have them come out of prison better than when they went in, instead of worse.

    27. Re:I'd support that... by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      Why is it a solution to punish all for a few individuals' actions?

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    28. Re:I'd support that... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Wow, you must live somewhere where people behave reasonably."

      Actually the reasonable thing to do is to answer your phone and have the conversation at a polite volume. For some reason if two people are talking at the table next to me that is not not rude (because it isn't), but take one of the two people and put them in another state on the other end of a cell link, thereby reducing the chatter by %50, and suddenly it is rude? That's why I love you humans. You sure do come up with some ROTFLMAO ideas about what is and is not "acceptable".

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    29. Re:I'd support that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate when doctors and other health professionals use "being on call" as an excuse to be rude. And I am a physician myself.

      If you are on call and actually have a reasonable expectation that you'll be called in to work, you should not be going out to the theater IMHO. Why can't you just go out on your non-call days and rent a movie if you're bored while on duty? Or, at least, keep the pager/phone on vibrate and sit near an exit.

    30. Re:I'd support that... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "The doctor's job trumps their social obligations. If they need to be on-call, then they should not put themselves into a situation where they are not accessible."

      Luckily they didn't. They went to a movie instead.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    31. Re:I'd support that... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      There were pagers before cell phones existed. Before that, presumably you had to have extra people actually at the facility, back far enough, an I suppose you just had manservants that you sent after people with letters. Response time, was, obviously not as good.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    32. Re:I'd support that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what we really need is more responsible people that think about other people around them a little.

      Unfortunately, that is outside of your or mine or the theater management's area. We can't change those people. But we (that is, one of us, the management) can put in jammers.

      I fully sympathize with those who are annoyed by people using cell phones in inappropriate places. But as many other posters have pointed out, jammers are a bad idea.

      Jammers treat the symptom, not the problem. The problem is people who are rude and inconsiderate.

      May I suggest that when you encounter such rude people that you politely explain to them that their behaviour is interfering with your enjoyment of your meal | the movie | &c.

      If the person refuses to stop, find the manager and politely explain to the manager that your enjoyment of the dinner | movie | &c for which you are paying is being affected by the person who refuses to cease their rude behaviour.

      If the manager refuses to do anything, politely ask for a refund.

      You can, with a little tact, get your message across and spread polite behaviour at the same time and thereby make the world a very little bit nicer a place to be.

    33. Re:I'd support that... by shicaca · · Score: 0

      Actually IMHO I think restaurants are THE perfect place to block cell phones. I worked at a national "fine dining" restaurant and there was a CONSTANT asshole that would make his Sprint/Nextel connection beep. It got to the point where the others around these tables would complain, but the managers could / would not do anything about it "We can't make them not talk on it b/c then they'll complain to corporate!" was their attitude. IMHO it should be LAW to set your phone not only on vibrate, but also law to make you go outside to talk on it. There's nothing like having an idiot that can't hear SCREAM into his cell phone when the restaurant is slightly quieter than usual. As far as the jail/prison cell blocks, I say go for it. Though I personally don't think they should get fed, housed, etc better than homeless people ... I think they need a little more isolation and a little less primping and pampering on my dime. That's my 2 cents...

    34. Re:I'd support that... by Dimitrii · · Score: 1

      Or how about a doctor who needs to be accessible immediately

      Or the person on the transplant list that has to wait for years. It isn't just people on call.

    35. Re:I'd support that... by Dionysus · · Score: 1

      How is it punishment not having to listening to people getting calls during a movie?

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    36. Re:I'd support that... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't. A friend of mine worked for the Red Cross, and was required to keep an emergency phone on her at all times when she was on-call-- and those on-call periods could last upwards of a week. Or how about a doctor who needs to be accessible immediately, but also has social obligations?

      Any place that deliberately blocks mobile communications should post notice of the fact. But anyone who relies on their mobile phone for emergency contact would be wise to periodically verify connectivity, since they could also be blocked by any number of innocent or unintentional activities or natural phenomena.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    37. Re:I'd support that... by BlueScreenOfTOM · · Score: 1

      Theaters could coat the theater walls with aluminum to lagally block signals. I wish they would.

      I don't... I'd much rather they just block all together than give me a laggy data or voice connection!

      ;-)

    38. Re:I'd support that... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      That would make it hard to enjoy a good D.C. conspiracy thriller if the entire theater is wrapped in aluminum foil.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    39. Re:I'd support that... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You sound like the RIAA saying that Kazaa is only useful for copyright infringement

      C'mon, you can do better than trying to stereotype me just because I don't agree with you.....

      I'd rather prisoners have contact with normal, law abiding citizenry (i.e., people not in jail) than only having criminals to talk to

      They already have a way to do this. Letters and phone calls through approved channels come to mind. They also have visitation.

      I'd rather have them come out of prison better than when they went in, instead of worse.

      I would too. But I don't see how encouraging them to disobey prison regulations teaches them how to follow the law once they get out of prison.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    40. Re:I'd support that... by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      It is less considerate to talk on a cell precisely because of the chatter pattern. We are conditioned to hear certain patterns in conversation, and when half of the expected pattern drops out our minds tend to focus on it. I think there was even an article about it here a few years ago.

      It is similar to the situation where someone is trying to sleep and someone else wants to turn on a light. If the light is turned on and left on most people will be able to adapt and sleep just fine. If the light is being flicked on and off at varying intervals, most people will come up swinging. It isn't the chatter itself that's distracting but the start-and-stop nature of a half-conversation.

      It's not the end of the world, and I carefully chose to write "less considerate" rather than "more rude" for a reason. Still, one should be aware of the effects of one's actions on those around him, and nearby cell phone conversations are more distracting than nearby in-person conversations.

    41. Re:I'd support that... by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      illegal to jam signals electronically, but so far Faraday cages are legal

      devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b)
      If the faraday cage is built for the primary purpose of blocking signals, then it is likely just as illegal as a active (low power) jammer.
      if the effect of either is limited to your private property it is unlikely to get any attention as long as it doesn't interfere with those outside your property.
      I do think, because the Cage couldn't be removed or turned off, it would likely be safer from a lawsuit, definitely not a guarantee for theaters.

    42. Re:I'd support that... by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Except in one case you are talking about copyright infringement which could potentially cost millions. The other: potentially cost thousands of lives through a terrorist attack.

      More realistically, very little lost revenue as most of those copyright infringers don't buy anyway. Verses continued drug operations and possibly a hit on a key eye witness.

      Come on! Really? I like the idea that you have wall phones that allow you to dial specific prefiltered phone numbers. And the conversations are recorded. But cell phones?

    43. Re:I'd support that... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Letters and phone calls through approved channels come to mind. They also have visitation.

      Letters, sure. Phone calls are insanely expensive (high priced collect calls) and so is visitation, unless you live in the same town. And if you really are a kingpin from prison, you're still going to find ways to manage your drug empire and order hits. If they want a draconian ban on cell phones, fine, but then they need to make regular phone calls reasonable.

    44. Re:I'd support that... by eeyoredragon · · Score: 1

      Were there places to go before cars existed? Were there sick people before anti-biotics? What happened before plumbing? We should get rid of those things imo.

    45. Re:I'd support that... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      That's not a lack of motivation to do anything, that's a motivation to not get fired. Don't blame the employees, blame the corporate management who has made it clear that humanity, compassion, and helping customers will not be tolerated.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    46. Re:I'd support that... by MerlinX420 · · Score: 1

      I've been in both the prisons in Joliet. It is Crime University. I heard of things I never would think of. A Long-timer told me that prison is like collage for criminals.

    47. Re:I'd support that... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If they want a draconian ban on cell phones

      I don't see how you can call a ban on cell phones 'draconian' in an environment where you are subject to cavity searches and have to shower with 30 other people watching. It's prison for goodness sakes.... it's not supposed to be fun or easy.

      but then they need to make regular phone calls reasonable.

      I would concur with that. Collect calls from prison are a rip-off used to line the pockets of the state and the telephone company. I don't understand why they can't just offer a reasonable per-minute rate and deduct it out of the commissary account as they do with other expenses.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    48. Re:I'd support that... by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think that allowing cell phones in prisons is the way to go about it. Someone being "not in jail" doesn't automatically make them "normal, law abiding citizenry," and in all likelihood most of the same people that prisoners would use cell phones to talk to are the same people who contributed in some measure to putting the prisoner on the path to jail in the first place.

      What you appear to be advocating is a greater sense of community with good people, and I like that. I don't have a solution, but I'm certain that allowing the use of cell phones in prison, while occasionally furthering that goal, will be much more likely to detract from it.

    49. Re:I'd support that... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      That's why you get paid more to be on call. If you're not, then your problem is with your employer, not the movie theater.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    50. Re:I'd support that... by jasmak · · Score: 1

      Wishing I had mod points because this is one of the most insightful post I have ever read on /

      --
      It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    51. Re:I'd support that... by jasmak · · Score: 1

      It's all about the Realism experience

      --
      It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    52. Re:I'd support that... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Someone being "not in jail" doesn't automatically make them "normal, law abiding citizenry,

      This is America, buddy -- or it used to be, anyway. We used to have this concept called "innocent until proven guilty". In short, if you're not in jail or under indictment, you are a law abiding citizen.

      If we had fewer laws we'd have more law abiding citizens. If our laws were respectable we'd have more people respecting the law.

    53. Re:I'd support that... by reidconti · · Score: 1

      I am sure that friend was not allowed to do a lot of other things. Sorry, you are on call, that means you are not able to go to a restaurant or movie. Tough luck. Talk to you employer for compensation.

      Get a life, ass.

      It's legal and bothers nobody. If all of a sudden all theaters started jamming phone calls, it would negatively impact a whole crapload of people who use their cell phone/pager responsibly and happen to want to be allowed some entertainment during their time on-call.

      You propose creating a negative impact when there was none, just because you're a self-centered prick who likes to assume that on-call people are the ones creating distractions with their cell phones, and without them your life would be a distraction-free paradise.

    54. Re:I'd support that... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      And who gets to decide which film the on-call people get to watch? That seems like a lousy solution to me.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    55. Re:I'd support that... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The other: potentially cost thousands of lives through a terrorist attack.

      I'm fucking SICK of hearing about the God damned terrorists. You people have been brainwashed SO BAD it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

      3,000 people died on American soil by terrorism THIS CENTURY. However, thet's not counting the half million who died from cancer because of the terrorists who run the tobacco companies EVERY SINGLE YEAR, or the half million Ronald McDonald killed by heart attack with his trans-fat money-savers, or even the 45,000 who die on the highway every year.

      Or the 4,000 Bush killed by sending them to an idiot's crusade in Iraq.

      ONLY FOOLS FEAR TERRORISTS. You, sir, I'm sorry to say, are a fool. The terrorists are NOT A THREAT TO YOU.

      75% of those prisoners or there because of non-violent drug offenses.

    56. Re:I'd support that... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that was my point entirely. Someone please mod the parent "insightful".

    57. Re:I'd support that... by ReedYoung · · Score: 1
      Excellent idea.

      Theaters could coat the theater walls with aluminum to legally block signals. I wish they would.

      But politically, it makes too much sense and doesn't cost enough. Maybe when an honest Illinois politician becomes President.

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
    58. Re:I'd support that... by Bobb+Sledd · · Score: 1

      If they're making minimum wage? Well, they probably are incompetent (on some level).

      I haven't seen a minimum wage job in ages. There isn't even minimum wage in fast food any more. Even with this economy. So if you're making minimum wage (at least around here), yeah, I'd characterize you as incompetent.

      <sarcasm>And if you really can't find work for more, then go pick cabbage! I heard they're paying $12/hour now because no one wants to do it.</sarcasm>

      --
      "They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
    59. Re:I'd support that... by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Good correction, but you haven't responded to my point about influence. In my experience (which amounts to little more than hearing stories from a friend and watching Oz), the character of the people that a jailbird will contact on his own does not differ significantly from the character of his fellow inmates.

      Then again, taking into account the huge number of nonviolent offenders tossed in the brink for violating stupid laws, my estimate of such a program's overall effects could be way off. I still think that a better solution is to get more community-minded people to go into prisons and provide influence that way, but I also recognize that such an effort would require volunteers, who are in short supply nowadays.

    60. Re:I'd support that... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Jammers treat the symptom, not the problem. The problem is people who are rude and inconsiderate.

      Good argument: Same answer. If you can't treat the problem, but you can treat the symptom, doing that is better than doing nothing and waiting for a miracle that takes care of the problem but might never happen.

      May I suggest that when you encounter such rude people that you politely explain to them that their behaviour is interfering with your enjoyment of your meal | the movie | &c.

      You see, the problem with assholes is that by and large you can't stop them without becoming one yourself. In the movie example specifically, the asshole is not usually the one in the next seat, so in order to tell him you have to become a disruption yourself.

      You can, with a little tact, get your message across and spread polite behaviour at the same time and thereby make the world a very little bit nicer a place to be.

      Totally. Meanwhile, put in the jammers. There will be enough other opportunities to tell the assholes to behave the way you outlined, where another option isn't available. But where it is, I politely refuse to be responsible for other people's behaviour, including the bad one.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    61. Re:I'd support that... by Tom · · Score: 1

      I fail to see the punishment. You and me, we don't need to take (or make) calls during the movie, nothing is being taken away from us. The cell phone network will even store up any SMS and provide voice-mail service to any calls we miss.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    62. Re:I'd support that... by Tom · · Score: 1

      It does. But you need to read the next sentence as well. :-)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    63. Re:I'd support that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. It's as if everyone has forgotten how 911 was dialed before cell phones.

    64. Re:I'd support that... by orlanz · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with you on the terrorist point. I think the whole airport security (to take one, small example) and such are total BS. The loss in privacy, personal rights, lack of actual protection from an ill defined, unknown attack vector, and the monetary costs aren't worth the pointless jobs (one good thing) it has created. I think we did more to harm ourselves in the last 8 years than anything labeled as terrorist could have hoped to achieve in the last century.

      I was just using it as a way to say how ridiculous the RIAA's claims were.

      Anyway, as before, "realistically" speaking, cell phones could be used to continue criminal business operations. Lets say that actual harmful criminals make up only 5% of the prisoner population. To take it to a realistic extreme, do you really want an "income tax evader" such as Al Capone to continue operations from an x by y cell?

    65. Re:I'd support that... by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you replied to me. Honestly I don't know anyone who makes minimum wage, nor have I ever, I was just making the point that generalizing all workers based on pay rate is stupid, much like any other generalization.

      And while I don't know anyone now, I have known people in the past. The most frequent reason was low cost of living where they worked. A job that might pay $8-10 starting in a metropolitan area can frequently be a minimum wage job out in the sticks because there's no need to keep up with cost of living and far less competition for workers. Does it make them any more or less skilled than their urban counterparts who are making more for the same job? I wouldn't think so.

    66. Re:I'd support that... by syousef · · Score: 1

      I am sure that friend was not allowed to do a lot of other things. Sorry, you are on call, that means you are not able to go to a restaurant or movie. Tough luck. Talk to you employer for compensation.

      That's fantastic. You think your "right" to watch a movie or eat at a restaurant is more important than the right of those who sacrifice their leisure to fulfil a role in society to still have some semblance of normality.

      The doctors I know all turn off their phone during the movie. OTOH they also send text messages to each other during operations, where mere mortals are not even allowed to turn on their phone. (Yes, during the operation.) ...and this is something you endorse or find acceptable??? There are very few if any situations where this should ever be permitted.

      If those people do not like it, take a job that does not require you to be on call. I should not suffer from your career choice.

      Well if enough of these people make a career choice that means there are less doctors etc. you will suffer and possibly die. The main problem I have with that is that so would others.

      If a person is being a schmuck with their phone at a theatre, cinema, or restaurant, they should simply be ejected. Just as someone who behaves in any other inappropriate manner should be ejected. Having a phone on vibrate and going outside to answer it (or even briefly answering and walking out to continue the conversation) IF it's an urgent situation (like an on call event) is no big deal. Some idiot with zero etiquette chatting to their sister/boyfriend/cousin with complete disregard for people should be treated like any other disruptive person. The problem isn't the phone. If you catch someone masturbating in a theatre do you propose we castrate all theatre goers??? No you deal with that individual's socially unacceptable behaviour.

      People shouldn't have to give up their right to use a phone appropriately just because you don't want a 10 second interuption of your movie. Stop being so damn self centred.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    67. Re:I'd support that... by Bobb+Sledd · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I guess I was feeling 'saucy.' :-)

      Regarding the specific job -- you're right, you can't say by pay amount who is more skilled.

      But the thought occurred to me that in generally good economic times (and though things are getting worse, they are not terrible), when a minimum-wage job is difficult to find, it speaks something about the person who managed to find it. I think it says something about their mental capabilities, to say they are making minimum wage (even if they live in the sticks). Because, assuming they aren't living in the sticks for the benefit of seclusion or something, someone with general smarts would know that 'the sticks' is a bad place to find high-paying jobs, so they would eventually move.

      I don't think this here is a level stereotype though. For example, most of my life I've been paid less than what I was worth. Now I'm paid more than I'm worth, so it doesn't hold true here. But with my capabilities and my experience, if I were to say I am making minimum-wage, you'd wonder why I couldn't do better, right? I mean you'd look for some explanation, right?

      --
      "They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
    68. Re:I'd support that... by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Backing you up, the person I knew who was making minimum wage was in between jobs and it was very much a temporary situation.

      The only other positions I can think that are minimum wage are mall jobs, and I would argue that there's a fair lack of skill in selling spiky bracelets to 12 year olds.

  4. Cell phone blocking paint by kabloom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I seem to recall reading about cell phone blocking paint and wall paper. I doubt these require FCC approval. On the other hand, they're harder to get rid of when you use the building for a new purpose, and no longer care about cell blocking. The illegal electronic jammers that they probably want to get FCC approval for could be turned off as soon as they were no longer necessary.

    1. Re:Cell phone blocking paint by deniable · · Score: 1

      How about concrete and steel? Don't they put walls on prisons in South Carolina?

    2. Re:Cell phone blocking paint by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Passive 'jamming' is not illegal. Active jamming is. The difference is that you're flooding the airwaves with white noise in a spectrum.

      Most movie theaters aren't rezoned as anything else. I know that some adult only theaters have become popular (They serve dinner and alcohol and make it 21+) among DINKs because they don't have to deal with anyone's kids. Next one they plan on building, just toss in a Faraday Cage and call it good.

    3. Re:Cell phone blocking paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure that, if a prison were someday to be repurposed for civillian uses (how often does a prison go condo, anyway?) it would be repainted and re-wallpapered, along with all of the other rennovations. (Like, say, removing the bars.)

    4. Re:Cell phone blocking paint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're harder to get rid of when you use the building for a new purpose

      What could you use a prison for as a new purpose where cell phones could be used? I don't think too many people want to work at a spot where someone was killed, etc. and where the divisions between cubicles are concrete and bars no matter how cheap the rent is.

    5. Re:Cell phone blocking paint by kabloom · · Score: 1

      If you were redecorating paint that was already there, just for asthetics, you could just paint over it. But the cell-phone blocking paint would still be blocking cell phones. I think it would take a massive amount of work to remove the "jamming" paint first.

    6. Re:Cell phone blocking paint by kabloom · · Score: 1

      True. But I could think of all kinds of places where we would want cell-phone jammers (synagogues, churches, maybe some restaurants) just out of a sense of enforced politieness, that could be repurposed.

  5. My concerns by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work right next to SCDC's main prison facility in Columbia. Right now, the thing that really concerns us is "spillover" of this jamming into our area. We have a wifi network that we depend on (and cellphones we need, of course) and so the last thing we need is this plan having unitended consequences for wireless signals. It doesn't help that South Carolina state government has a long history of hiring shoddy technology contractors who promise the world and deliver a buggy product that only makes things worse. Jon Ozmint (the head of SCDC) has sworn that it won't leak outside of their facilities, but I'm somewhat cautious.

    The Ridegville test referred to in the article wasn't that worthwhile because Ridgeville is isolated (it's in the middle of nowhere and lagely self-contained.) The main facility in Columbia is a much larger, more wide open area located right next to the state police headquaters, Dept. of Public Safery, and several other state agencies and businesses--all of whom depend greatly on their cellhones, networks, and communications equipment. I just don't see how they could blanket that whole area and not have spillover jamming--Unless they restrict it to inside of their buildings which would mean that most prisoners would still have plenty of opportunities to use their cellphones (since most prisoners spend a lot of time outside the buildings, except for the really high-level ones)

    It's not that we're not sympathetic to the problem of cellphones in the prison system. We're just worried that they might be rushing forward with an untested and possibly ill-advised solution that could have a deleterious effect on nearby wireless usage. We're hoping they will at least give us a testing period to see its effects before they bring it online.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:My concerns by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jon Ozmint (the head of SCDC) has sworn that it won't leak outside of their facilities, but I'm somewhat cautious.

      I'm pretty sure that all signals leak to some extent. If he claims no leakage at all, then he's already making ill-informed claims.

    2. Re:My concerns by grassy_knoll · · Score: 1

      Minor correction...

      It doesn't help that everyone has a long history of hiring shoddy technology contractors who promise the world and deliver a buggy product that only makes things worse.

      As another poster observed there's other ways to implement blocking cell phone signals. Those other ways probably don't look too "sexy" though (i.e. not enough shiny blinky lights for management and/or not high enough margins for the contractor ).

    3. Re:My concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it does leak into your area, why not file an imminent domain suit? Sounds like a taking to me.

    4. Re:My concerns by AJNeufeld · · Score: 1

      I doubt your WiFi network would be in trouble if they are jamming cellular & PCS frequencies. And "jamming" a cell phone network isn't a high-power endeavor. Put a micro-basestation operating inside the facility, and phones operating inside the facility will likely find it over more distant base stations outside. What you connect the micro basestation to is then up to you. If nothing, then all phone calls go into the bit-bucket.

    5. Re:My concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he claims no leakage at all, then he's already making ill-informed claims.

      That would be called marketing.

    6. Re:My concerns by noundi · · Score: 1

      Shit if all your concerns are related to weather the prisons do this right or not, see to that they do it right! Right now they aren't prisoners, but rather in a quasi Matrix with possibilities to raise hell from distance.

      Nonetheless, less wifi or less murder. Fucking simple if you ask me.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    7. Re:My concerns by ProzacGod · · Score: 1

      They shouldn't have to use active "jamming" jamming creates a large amount of EM noise. They'd more likely use a Faraday cage - there is paint that does this, now if you are VERY close to the prison, as in right next to it, and the cell tower is on the other side, then there is a chance you'll get no service, most likely slightly diminished service. But prisons keep their distance from the populace. And you'd really have to be standing next to the wall to have issues with it. Find out what they intend to use to block cell phones, and then cry out if they are over spending with active jammers. It's quite likely that some bureaucrat saw a jammer in a magazine and though oh-my-god-this-will-keep-my-voters and just went with it, finding someone to install it, a person to support it and never really researching the possibilities. Even Active can be localize to prevent bleed over, directional antennas, with low output jamming, and use multiple units, and it would likely not be a nuisance to the public.

    8. Re:My concerns by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >e have a wifi network that we depend on (and cellphones we need, of course) and so the last thing we need is this plan having unitended consequences for wireless signals.

      It wont affect wifi. Those are completely different frequencies.

      If implemented right then you shouldnt have any problems. Cell phones are designed to deal with interference. I imagine the implementation will be a mix of jamming and installing materials that block RF.

      >We're just worried that they might be rushing forward with an untested and possibly ill-advised solution that could have a deleterious effect on nearby wireless usage.

      Jamming is as old as radio. Its a known issue. I cant help you with shoddy contractors, but its a solved problem for the most part.

    9. Re:My concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A correct solution can have minimal impact, but there's always some leakage. If they only do it in the buildings, then Faraday shielding will attenuate outside signals (allowing a lower-power jamming signal) and also attenuate the jamming signal; that's the simplest way to ensure minimal external leakage.

      If they have to cover outdoor areas, there's not much to do but sector antennae at the corners, with omnis to fill in the middle/in buildings/etc., and carefully adjust the power at each antenna.

  6. One obvious question... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What in the hell are inmates doing with cell phones in the first place?

    In an environment where even the smallest improvised weapon can be found and confiscated, you'd think it would be drop-easy for the prison to find and confiscate a cell phone. Any inmate caught with one gets n weeks/months added to their sentence... problem solved.

    Seriously - it's prison, not a Hilton, FFS - if they need to use a phone (for speaking to their lawyer, loved-ones, etc), let 'em use a POTS phone wired into a wall somewhere.

    The solution the SC prison system is looking for? It's akin to wrapping ships in Saran Wrap to fix any potential leaks - expensive and not very workable over time...

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:One obvious question... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Prisoners are notoriously good at smuggling in and hiding contraband (they have all day to think of little else and very little to lose if they get caught). And it doesn't help that SCDC is SERIOUSLY understaffed right now (thanks to years of budget cuts and neglect).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:One obvious question... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you'd think it would be drop-easy for the prison to find and confiscate a cell phone

      You've never been in prison have you? ;)

      Imagine having nothing to do for 24 hours a day other than think of ways to smuggle shit past the guards. Think you might come up with a few ideas?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:One obvious question... by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The other prisoners have a good reason to snitch about weapons. It's hard to shank someone with a cell phone, so it goes un reported.

    4. Re:One obvious question... by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Any inmate caught with one gets n weeks/months added to their sentence... problem solved.

      Because inmates are known to have respect for consequences and surely wouldn't want to do anything that could get them, oh wait...

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    5. Re:One obvious question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in the hell are inmates doing with cell phones in the first place?

      A few years ago they were calling college girls to scare and harass them sexually. UMass in particular. The fucking police did jack sh!t to stop it except advise people to hang up (gee really? Thanks for that tip, officer).

    6. Re:One obvious question... by Minwee · · Score: 1

      you'd think it would be drop-easy for the prison to find and confiscate a cell phone.

      Oh, please, it's not like cell phones have some kind of built-in radio transmitter which would make them easy to...

      Oh, yeah. Never mind.

    7. Re:One obvious question... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine having nothing to do for 24 hours a day other than think of ways to smuggle shit past the guards.

      Smuggling shit is notoriously easy. Everyone of us does it every day. Smuggling other stuff, like cellphones or weapons, is somewhat harder, and requires a modicum of thought.

    8. Re:One obvious question... by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many inmates get, and get to keep, whatever they want, (drugs, weapons, phones) via bribed and/or intimidated guards...at least a 'blanket' jamer would sidestep the problem. You can't cavity-search all the inmates and staff every 20 minutes...

    9. Re:One obvious question... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, cell phones can be traded, sold, or lent out, in exchange for other valuables. Why would someone want to report the existence of such a valuable commodity?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    10. Re:One obvious question... by xlation · · Score: 1

      Are there other tech solutions?

      Cell phones emit RF... can radio direction finding gear be used?

    11. Re:One obvious question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean aluminum foil?

    12. Re:One obvious question... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      In fact, if the owner is letting other inmates make calls on it, they have an incentive to help keep it hidden.

    13. Re:One obvious question... by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      In an environment where even the smallest improvised weapon can be found and confiscated

      OK, so if you ever go to the slammer, don't worry about getting shanked. After all, little improvised weapons are easy to find and confiscate...

      rj

    14. Re:One obvious question... by teh+kurisu · · Score: 1

      Any inmate caught with one gets n weeks/months added to their sentence... problem solved.

      This is being proposed as a solution to the same problem in Scotland, from and article today. They're also looking at prison sentences for anybody caught smuggling in a phone or SIM card.

      I think the best approach is to detect when a call is taking place, or even to detect the phones themselves. GCHQ operate this type of technology at their headquarters already, there's no reason why it couldn't be rolled out.

    15. Re:One obvious question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just might turn them off. That also safes the battery.

    16. Re:One obvious question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really don't have a clue. Small weapons can be found but they're not always found. Lots of contraband can be smuggled in. If you're in the US, you should watch some of the documentaries about prison life.

    17. Re:One obvious question... by xlation · · Score: 1

      They no doubt will be off most of the time, but a field strenght meter should be able to determine when one is turned on.

    18. Re:One obvious question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in the hell are inmates doing with cell phones in the first place?

      Did you even RTFS or RTFA? It is all described in there.

    19. Re:One obvious question... by Cosmostrator · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard smuggling other stuff is done pretty much the exact same way.

    20. Re:One obvious question... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I know you were trying to be funny, and I hate to burst your bubble, bit it isn't smuggling when everyone knows it is there :-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    21. Re:One obvious question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine having nothing to do for 24 hours a day other than think of ways to smuggle shit past the guards. Think you might come up with a few ideas?

      I don't know why you'd smuggle that into prison, but I suppose bringing it in in your ass would be too obvious.

    22. Re:One obvious question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course not - takes half that long just to smoke a cigarette afterwards.

    23. Re:One obvious question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet we pay for ours every time we get on a plane.

      Why just stop cell phones? Why not have metal detectors and xray machines in key bottle necks such as cell block and cafeteria/yard. This way we stop a lot of things... especially crap stuck up someone's ass.

      We can design malls, airports, and schools to be "reasonably safe" yet we can't do something similar for controlled environments where we know far more variables?

    24. Re:One obvious question... by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      More likely, imagine the guards bringing it in for the inmate.

    25. Re:One obvious question... by Opr33Opr33 · · Score: 1

      You've never been in prison have you? ;)

      Imagine having nothing to do for 24 hours a day other than think of ways to smuggle shit past the guards. Think you might come up with a few ideas?

      You forgot an important detail - nothing to do for 24 hours a day without /. access!

    26. Re:One obvious question... by PPH · · Score: 1

      In an environment where even the smallest improvised weapon can be found and confiscated, you'd think it would be drop-easy for the prison to find and confiscate a cell phone. Any inmate caught with one gets n weeks/months added to their sentence... problem solved.

      Their very presence in prison demonstrates that these individuals to not respond to such a system of rules and consequences. The n week/month sentence for sticking a shiv in somebody didn't deter them. Do you really think the cellphone rule will work?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    27. Re:One obvious question... by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      Any inmate caught with one gets n weeks/months added to their sentence... problem solved.

      I don't think that would deter the ones who have one on death row

    28. Re:One obvious question... by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      Seems like they could just ask the local TELCO to isolate any calls originating from inside the prison and de-authorize those SIMs.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  7. Careful what you wish for... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    Don't jail guards and prison official also use cell phones? They might enjoy being able to make a quick call for reinforcements when a riot starts or when someone breaks out.

    1. Re:Careful what you wish for... by ishmalius · · Score: 1

      Then using a cell phone rather than a radio would be very unwise.

    2. Re:Careful what you wish for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoilsport !!!!

    3. Re:Careful what you wish for... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      They have systems in place to deal with that.

      Can you imagine if they didn't, you would have the guy who's phone broke for whatever reason on the floor with absolutely no protection. Radios, intercoms, closed circuit TV and all sorts of things are in place. They even have panic switches that they can activate or becomes activated automatically when they fall down (as if attacked).

    4. Re:Careful what you wish for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because cops never use cell phones for on-duty related tasks, so why would prison guards?

      Get real. The last time I called the cops via 911 due to a neighbor fanning a pistol around in an unsafe manner I was called back within seconds by the cop on a cell phone who was rolling up on the scene. It was a quick way for him to gather timely intel and tell the inbound backup what to expect.

      I'm sure there are valid applications for prison guards as well.

    5. Re:Careful what you wish for... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Any prison that uses cellphones for comms is run by retarted morons. you use police or commercial radios.

      an inmate is violent... do you want to.....

      "flip open the phone, dial 333-123-4566 wait for the ring dial extension 3434 wait for the answer and talk to the guard station..."

      or...

      "grab the radio and scream HELP in hallway 3-B!!!!"

      I'll take the commercial radio on 420mhz or even 158 mhz over a useless cellphone any day in emergency situations. And no I do not like the 900mhz trunking radio systems.

      plus a big fat motorola radio is a great blunt weapon in your hand.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Careful what you wish for... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Your example is completely unrelated to the prison environment.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    7. Re:Careful what you wish for... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Any prison that uses cellphones for comms is run by retarted morons"

      You wasted the first ten words. You could put anyhting in there, e.g: Any prison with walls and doors is run by retarded morons. It still works, see (or maybe you haven't met the kind of people who run prisons?)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    8. Re:Careful what you wish for... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Use a radio (Walkie Talkie) since it is in the prison communicating to someone else in the prison the faraday cage is irrelevant - if you want to extend it outside the prison then a a simple relay can rebroadcast the only the specific radio signals in and out

      Ditto if you are using active blocking since the blocking can be designed to only block mobile phone signals and not the warder radio signals

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  8. The whole idea of prison is by chiangovitch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    you do NOT get to do whatever you want whenever you want. Those rights were temporarily forfeited upon conviction. Sounds like a good idea to me.

    1. Re:The whole idea of prison is by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The only problem I would have with an active jammer is the interference it could cause in unintended areas. And for the costs of the tech, they might be just as well off using less of the jammers and some sort of radio frequency location just to take them from the prisoners.

    2. Re:The whole idea of prison is by proverbialcow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you do NOT get to do whatever you want whenever you want. Those rights were temporarily forfeited upon conviction.

      Um, I've never been convicted and I still don't get to do whatever I want whenever I want. In fact, if I did that, I could go to jail!

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
    3. Re:The whole idea of prison is by flajann · · Score: 1
      harsh attitude that does not take into account that most are in prison for victimless crimes. Only a fraction are in for what prisons are really there for -- criminals that hurt other people. Most are in because they had some drugs, or their spouse lied about being assulted, or because they could not pay the overburdensome child support.

      Not all in jail are theives, robbers, and murderers, you know.

    4. Re:The whole idea of prison is by nycguy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      ...or their spouse lied about being assulted, or because they could not pay the overburdensome child support.

      Any issues at home, friend?

    5. Re:The whole idea of prison is by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      Try committing a (non-violent) felony, the forfeited isn't always so temporary.

    6. Re:The whole idea of prison is by barzok · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm a free man and I haven't had a conjugal visit in 6 months.

    7. Re:The whole idea of prison is by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

      "The whole idea of prison" is a bit messed up though, let's be honest. It's basically a society of people enforcing its rules on every individual, yet if you're an individual who doesn't particularly wish to abide by the rules of society you don't exactly have a choice to not be a part of society and be free from "the law".

      Prison has a couple of purposes:
      * Remove people who would endanger a society from it
      * Punishment

      The latter doesn't necessarily have to mean locking someone up for years of their life in a tiny concrete room. The latter, well this is really just the punishment we've created.

      And when you try to place societies punishment on those who have already been outcast and didn't even play by "the rules" beforehand, well.. what do you expect?

      I wouldn't call prison "fair" in any sense of the word. "Cruel" in many cases certainly.

      Unless they're actually using cell phones to do harm the ability to communicate is something that I would think improves their rehabilitation. Inmates are afterall human beings.

      On the other hand maybe we should just chain them all to the wall, feed them gruel and have them shit in a bucket. Afterall, the whole idea of prison is you do not get to do whatever you want, right?

  9. why not? by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Funny

    After all, they already jammed the phone up someone's asshole to get it into prison.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  10. Oh yea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Like they're really going to refurb that super-max prison as condos for the elderly.

  11. Prison by mfh · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I just realized what they mean by smuggling them in. I'm guessing I wouldn't want one of those phones close to my mouth/nose.

    That's not all. In prison, other things can get close to your mouth and nose you wouldn't want. That's why it's prison. Be smarter than everyone you know and you might stay out of jail. Besides, most white collar crimes require too much effort to be even worth your time. (although bailouts seem to be the new bank-heist, and you get away with it!)

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Prison by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      Besides, most white collar crimes require too much effort to be even worth your time.

      Prision is full of criminals that don't agree with you

      --
      -- dnl
    2. Re:Prison by janrinok · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not all. In prison, other things can get close to your mouth and nose you wouldn't want. That's why it's prison.

      And do you think that it is acceptable? The punishment of prison is to remove a person's liberty, not to have them subjected to sexual and/or physical assualt while turning a blind eye. Don't you think that, as a nation, you ought to be protecting individuals who are on the receiving end of such treatment or are you going to advocate torture, gladiatorial contests and being thrown to the lions as acceptable punishments?

      I am continually astounded that an advanced nation can condone such barbaric behaviour and then be affronted when other nations do not choose to follow the 'American' way. You know, things like 'If you are not with us, then you are against us....'. This behaviour actually makes terrorists look civilised.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    3. Re:Prison by mfh · · Score: 1

      Prision is full of criminals that don't agree with you

      Well they didn't at one point but I'm pretty sure they are hopeful they'll find a new angle the next time. One thing that seems to be found in most of the white collar criminals is their belief or hope in getting away with something as being foolproof. Cutting off the cell phones will require them to find new forms of technologies that bypass such signal noise barriers.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    4. Re:Prison by gnick · · Score: 1

      Besides, most white collar crimes require too much effort to be even worth your time.

      Prision is full of criminals that don't agree with you

      As are many of the nicer resorts/penthouses around the globe...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:Prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically the best punishment would be to release the perps in the wilderness: after all, if you're not taking revenge into account (which one shouldn't) removing a person's liberty is a really cruel punishment and way beyond the powers of the society (if someone doesn't want to live in a society, the correct action is to kick that someone out, not to imprison him)

    6. Re:Prison by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 3, Funny

      advocate torture, gladiatorial contests and being thrown to the lions as acceptable punishments

      Give it time. The Romans didn't think of these things on day 1 either.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    7. Re:Prison by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      No, prision if full of other kinds of criminals. White-collar criminals are in government and corporation boards.

    8. Re:Prison by msromike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a fallacy to assume that because there is sexual predation in some American prisons that the next logical step is to have wild animals maul prisoners for sport. In fact, in US Federal prison it is actually quite unusual. Are you sure that sexual predation is not a problem around the world as well? What about Turkish prisons for instance?

      In the case of your argument your anti-American bias is quite clear. However, it does not logically follow that because there is sexual predation in some American prisons that the American people individually or as a nation are concerned one way or another how other countries choose to punish their criminals.

      Even though it is moderated as insightful it comes across as a rant that comes to conclusions with fallacious reasoning. I am not sure if that was your intent or not.

    9. Re:Prison by msromike · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A 4+ insightful troll making the fallacious argument that since there is sexual predation in some American prisons that the American people naturally would like to see wild animals mauling inmates as well.

    10. Re:Prison by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      This behaviour actually makes terrorists look civilised.

      You're saying stonings and beheadings are more civilized that inmate violence? Actually I think you may be right. It would be more humane to just execute the violent ones and get it over with (not necessarily with stonings). Better than having them locked up for decades to come, much better for the nonviolent criminals, cheaper, and no chance of them hurting someone else (which, as anyone who reads the paper can tell, is not uncommon). Of course, that's not as politically correct as dancing and a circle and convincing yourself that this time the homicidal wackos won't try to kill anyone.

    11. Re:Prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a nation, you ought to

      Does not compute. There's no collective ought.

      First let's get the innocents out of prison, then let's worry about putting the guilty in prison, last let's worry about the guilty in prison.

    12. Re:Prison by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And do you think that it is acceptable? The punishment of prison is to remove a person's liberty, not to have them subjected to sexual and/or physical assualt while turning a blind eye.

      Don't be silly. The government wouldn't be able to keep so many decent people in line if jail was just a time-out. Ordinary people might actually be willing to practice civil disobedience or other forms of protest if the worst that would happen is they'd spend time in a cage isolated from society. No, to let prison really keep people in line, the authorities rely on two things -- prison rape is #1, and your complete isolation from decent society even once you're out of prison is #2.

    13. Re:Prison by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Colonial American times, prison didn't exist, because it was considered cruel and unusual punishment. Jails (gaols) existed, but only to hold accused people for a short time (not years) until their trial. After they were found guilty, their punishments were quick: hanging, branding, having fruit thrown at them, etc. Generally a lot better IMO than sitting in prison, rotting, for years or decades.

      The big problem with American prisons is that they put non-violent and violent inmates in the same prisons. Rapists and murderers should be executed, and until their appeals are exhausted, they should be kept separate from others, not allowed to create their own lawless society where they rape other inmates. Drug offenders should be released and have their records expunged.

    14. Re:Prison by domatic · · Score: 1

      But how is this punishment for the rapists? Prison rapists are usually the most dangerously violent people in prison. It boggles my mind that giving such people a smorgasbord of victims is punishment.

      Ah, you said it was punishment for decent people.........

    15. Re:Prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "an advanced nation"

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha-wipes eyes

      oh, stop it, I will die laughing soon.

      Advanced nation? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      The US is the first empire to go from rise to decay without an intervening period of civilization.

      There seems to be no concept of the states duty of care and a legal system that punishes the poor and allows the rich to go free.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    16. Re:Prison by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You did not really understand what the OP said. He never said that prison was about punishing people. He said it was about keeping the non-incarcerated under control through fear of rape. The fact that the most violent and brutal rapists are not suffering is irrelevant. They are locked up doing a 'service' for the establishment.

    17. Re:Prison by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It is a fallacy to assume that because there is sexual predation in some American prisons that the next logical step is to have wild animals maul prisoners for sport.

      It is not a fallacy, however, to suggest that because someone seems to approve of a prisoner getting raped "because it is a punishment", he might not object to having said prisoner mauled by wild animals either, especially since his country does execute people already, so the strongest objection against throwing someone to lions - that they die - has already been overcome.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    18. Re:Prison by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The reason why sexual abuse in prisons is most relevant for Americans is because your country has the largest absolute prison population on the planet (and also highest per capita). This means that you have the largest number of people exposed to this kind of abuse. The sheer scale of it is a problem in and of itself.

  12. Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by The+Iconoclast · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Hopefully movie theaters and restaurants do it next.

    Yes, because if there is one thing that I would wish of my theatre- and restaurant- going experiences, would be that they be more like prison. :P

    --
    Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
    1. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      Yes, because if there is one thing that I would wish of my theatre- and restaurant- going experiences, would be that they be more like prison. :P

      The Taiwanese have answered your desires:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/610485.stm

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    2. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Sinistar2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What people want to jam is not cell phones in movie theaters and restaurants. What they want to ban are the people that abuse cell phone use in those environments.

      I mention this because it seems like I'm the one guy that always has to pop into "ban the phones" threads to remind people that some of us use cell phones for emergency purposes and would rather not have to give up eating at local establishments or seeing first-run movies just because not everybody is good enough to put the phone on vibrate and leave the company of others when they get a call.

      So, hopefully movie theaters and restaurants never do it. My wife and I go out very infrequently as it is because of our son's medical needs. I wouldn't want to lose what little opportunity we have to enjoy an evening out.

    3. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, since prioners get fed and are housed, lets hope you go to sleep outside and hungry tonight, because God forbid your life be like you're in prison.

      Nobody's making you go to the theater. If you can't live without a cell phone for two hours, 1. stay the hell out of the theater and 2. get some psychological help; you have mental problems.

    4. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Neoprofin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No kidding.

      If all of these holier than thou smartasses want a good movie watching experience where is the cry to ban children? People with colds? People who breathe too loudly or wear the swishy coats? There are plenty of things that can annoy me when I go to a movie, and cellphones have never been one of them.

      I came to the realization long ago that my absolute guaranteed comfort does not trump the basic day to day existence of other people. While we're at it why don't we ban them is stores so that people can't talk in line, and ban them in public so people don't drive with them. In fact I find other people on cellphones annoying where ever I am, so why not just ban them altogether?

      Right.

    5. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Part of me thinks Taco was simply hoping to start a flame war for his entertainment. It seems like any time there is an article that discusses banning cellphones on /. the comments get very ugly, very fast.

      But just in case he was serious: I attend at least 10 flicks a year. Also, I live in a pretty dense metro area with all manner of obnoxious people. I have never gone to a movie or restaurant and ever been interrupted by anyone's pager or phone going off let alone them carrying on some loud conversation.

      I'm of the opinion that this is such an over blown topic and that all the whiners that do go on about it are talking about one time 10 years ago when mobile devices started becoming ubiquitous.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    6. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      While we're wishing, perhaps they could put the "Can you hear me now?" guy in prison.

    7. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      What annoys people the most is the ringtone, and that can be turned off. Stopping them from yapping is where ushers come in - if theyre going to yap on a cell phone, they will do the same with another person sitting next to them.

      If we really wanted to take care of this "problem", there is a simple solution. The FCC mandates that all cell phones, when they receive a certain signal, switch to vibrate. When that signal goes away, they switch back. Then you license the signal transmitters on an individual basis with a substantial fee. That way, it is unlikely for Joe Jokester to get one, but businesses that think it is worth it will spend the money.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    8. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I don't think I've heard a cell phone in a movie theater in about five years, and not from lack of going to movies.

      The only annoying thing left is the ten minutes of "Don't be an ass with a cell phone, but if you ARE an ass, buy your cell phone from AT&T or Best Buy, ours are the assyest." ads at the beginning of every film.

      If you really are having a problem at your local theater perhaps you should consider upgrading your neighborhood.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by joebagodonuts · · Score: 1

      OK, so what constitutes abuse? Hmm, things just got even more complicated...:)

      The problem I see in this has nothing to do with technology (way off topic of the original submission, but oh well). The problem here is people want other people to do things their way, without having the courage to demand their way. It's better to just stew in resentment of how unfair things are... Someone bugs you with their cellphone in a movie? Confront them, or demand a manager do so. Is that inconvenient? Welcome to life.

      Don't want to do that? Then quit your complaining. Wanting someone else to stand up for you is dishonest and cowardly.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    10. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by joneil · · Score: 1

      Cell phone jammers have made me a second class citizen today. I too am one of those people who carry a cell phone for the specific reason of being on call for emergencies.

          I seldom go to theaters or restaurants unless I know my cell phone works. I am amazed at how many places the cell phone does not work. I suspect three are more (possibly illegal) jammers out there in use that people admit too. That means I cannot go many places the rest of you take for granted.

          You would be amazed at how many of us are on emergency call. Car break down in the middle of nowhere and you need a tow truck at 3:00 a.m? Did a thunder storm take down a tree on your house, and you need an emergency patch on your roof on a Sunday? These are just a few small examples. Point is, not everyone on "emergency call" is a police officer, doctor or fire fighter.

          I can think of at least 8 different occasions I have used my cell phone to call 911, everything from car accidents with injuries, fires, a lost child, car breakdown, and more. Not having a cell phone useable at these times might of created a lot more harm for either myself & my family or for another person.

            Even witnessing a heart attack in a restaurant is not as clear cut and dry as it seems. An allergic reaction can mimic the conditions of a heart attack if you don't know any better, so if somebody keels over at a table in a restaurant you do NOT wait for the restaurant staff to call 911, you do it yourself, and while on the phone you fill in the people at 911 with background detials such as food allergies or other medical conditions that the staff at the restaurant cannot possibly know about.

          Or you do like I do, you just don't go to these places anymore.

           

    11. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh hey, how is your son R3.0 doing, you fucking ROBOT???

    12. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I guess there was absolutely no way to get a hold of someone in a theater/restaurant/whatever before cellphones were invented.

      Get a clue.

      If it's really an emergency, they can call the establishment and have you paged.

    13. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of me thinks Taco was simply hoping to start a flame war for his entertainment.

      CmdrTaco is an elitist lefty who feels rather than thinks through the positions he seeks to impose on others.

    14. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I mention this because it seems like I'm the one guy that always has to pop into "ban the phones" threads to remind people that some of us use cell phones for emergency purposes

      Same here. The normal reply from kids who've never had a responsible job is that I should just stay home whenever I'm on call. I reply that as a sysadmin I'm pretty much always on call, and then the teen rebuts that I must get paid $BIGNUM so I should suck it up. Have I missed steps here?

      Fortunately, businesses are smarter than kids who want to force everyone else to live their way, and realize that cell-phone carrying professionals have more spending money for things like movies and nice dinners than most.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    15. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were parents of kids with medical needs before cell phones.

      (says the parent of a kid with medical needs)

    16. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If all of these holier than thou smartasses want a good movie watching experience where is the cry to ban children?

      If you bother to ask, there are quite a few people who would pay extra for a theater or dining experience without children.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      He's fine, and yes, that is his nickname in short correspondence. Thanks for asking.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    18. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by amck · · Score: 1

      Don't jam; intercept. The theatre runs a micro-cell that intercepts the call. Incoming calls get diverted
      to "the person you are seeking is in a quiet zone; if this is an emergency press # to call an operator" and the call is diverted to a receptionist, etc.

      Outgoing calls, ditto.

      These days too many people depend on mobile phone coverage in emergencies. Thirty years ago our parents would give explicit directions of
      their planned location to the babysitter, and not deviate. Now we meet up with friends in "a pub" and not even arrange where we'll be
      until we get into town in an evening.

      --
      Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
    19. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Jerrry · · Score: 1

      "If you bother to ask, there are quite a few people who would pay extra for a theater or dining experience without children."

      Me too. I'd gladly pay extra for theaters and restaurants without: children, cell phones, loud obnoxious people, etc.

      In theaters, the thing about cell phones that bother me more than the sound is the light. The blue glow from the cell phone display of an idiot texting during a movie is *very* distracting in a dark theater.

    20. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What people want to jam is not cell phones in movie theaters and restaurants. What they want to ban are the people that abuse cell phone use in those environments.

      Your use of the word "abuse" implies there is some reasonable use of a cell phone in a theater. There isn't. The closest things are leaving when some notification arrives on vibrate or goving your head and phone in your coat so no one else can see the glow while you check. Either of these is still disruptive.

      I mention this because it seems like I'm the one guy that always has to pop into "ban the phones" threads to remind people that some of us use cell phones for emergency purposes and would rather not have to give up eating at local establishments or seeing first-run movies just because not everybody is good enough to put the phone on vibrate and leave the company of others when they get a call.

      All two of you. How many people out there when not on a limited on-call status, would get fired or otherwise disciplined for not returning a call or page at 11:00 p.m. on a weekend? If you are on emergency on-call for a limited time, then you *don't* see movies that week. Go see them next week. If you are on call 100% of the time and would get fired if you saw one and ignored a call, then quit. Either way, your inability to turn off your cell phone in a movie theater is *never* an excuse to disrupt others.

      So, hopefully movie theaters and restaurants never do it.


      I don't see the deal with restaurants. People talk loud all the time anyway, and that's expected. If someone is using a phone abusively, then they can be asked to adjust without any additional disruption. The same is not true in a movie theater.

      My wife and I go out very infrequently as it is because of our son's medical needs.

      I see you as saying that you know it is rude, but you will do it anyway because it's the only way you get something that everyone else gets to take for granted. What is your "responsible use" of a phone in a theater? It buzzes, so you stand up in front of the person behind you, step on a few toes to go out and check it in the lobby, and you claim that's unobtrusive? If you are out at all, either your son is self sufficient enough to be alone and trusted to call, of you left him in the care of someone else that is. In either case, if he needs help, 911 would be more appropriate than your number. If it isn't an emergency, then leave it for the time of the movie. Turn it off, or you are a rude jackass. Period. Those are the only two choices.

    21. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Frogbert · · Score: 1

      If all of these holier than thou smartasses want a good movie watching experience where is the cry to ban children? People with colds? People who breathe too loudly or wear the swishy coats?

      Right fucking here!

    22. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      My point is that there's no way to get rid of everything obnoxious. What happened when someone pays extra for one of these preferred experiences but they have a nose wistle? What if they have a small bladder and have to get up too much for your liking?

      There's no practical way to ensure that no one will do anything to annoy you in a public setting so why not just get over it? If someone is doing something they can control either ask them to stop or live with it, no rules will ever satisfy every need for every person.

    23. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The best part is I'd be willing to bet money you, like everyone else, have probably annoyed someone in a theater or restaurant. Consider your ass banned.

    24. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      You may want to invest in a home theater system and a person chef then, because I don't see theaters, restaurants, airlines, banks, or any other public place banning children any time soon.

      That's not the point though. Everyone can find a reason to be annoyed about something at any given time. You can't fix everything about everyone so you may as well just suck it up.

    25. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Nothing's perfect so just don't try. Is that what you're trying to say?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    26. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Nothing is even a plausible effective solution, so don't try. The solution "Let's ban x" not only doesn't solve the problem of x, it doesn't solve a hundred other problems that are completely unrelated. So yes, stop flailing at flies with sledgehammers.

    27. Re:Theatre's & restaurants next, huh? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If all of these holier than thou smartasses want a good movie watching experience where is the cry to ban children? People with colds? People who breathe too loudly or wear the swishy coats? There are plenty of things that can annoy me when I go to a movie, and cellphones have never been one of them.

      Cellphones are the single biggest annoyance these days, though. I do remember what it was like when cellphones were still expensive toys and few people had them, and it was much better.

      I came to the realization long ago that my absolute guaranteed comfort does not trump the basic day to day existence of other people.

      Going to a cinema is not "day to day existence" - it's a specific form of public mass entertainment, in which use of cellphones is guaranteed to cause disturbance. If you are so bothered that there might be some sort of absolute emergency to which you must be able to respond at any minute, then you should avoid such public venues.

  13. Monitor by Joebert · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it make more sense to just monitor the airwaves in prison than outright block the signals ?

    Setup smaller receivers around the prison that for one, would let officers get the drop on anything inmates try to plan out, surely there's no wiretapping laws in prison considering phones are surely contraband, and for two with a few smaller receivers they could at least triangulate the position down to a cell block and perform a shakedown.

    I'm just worried about what is going to happen when inmates take over the prison, how is Bruce Willas supposed to communicate with the guys outside if they simply block the signals ?

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Monitor by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Setup smaller receivers around the prison that for one, would let officers get the drop on anything inmates try to plan out, surely there's no wiretapping laws in prison considering phones are surely contraband

      Umm, it's not that easy to wiretap cell phones over the air as you suggest. My understanding is that with GSM it requires very specialized (i.e: expensive) equipment and that with CDMA it may be nearly impossible for anyone who lacks the resources of the Federal Government.

      A better idea would be to just retrofit the cell blocks with a Faraday cage. Of course that might pose a problem with the guards with radios -- so they'd probably need some sort of repeater system that only worked on the frequencies of whatever communications system they use.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Monitor by Walpurgiss · · Score: 1

      But equipment to monitor signals, detect signals, locate signal sources, and trained personnel cost money that the prison system does not have. It costs more to hire a few people full time to maintain and operate all that gear, compared to just contracting out installation of a jammer, or a foily paint job.

      In cost vs. benefit, I would say preventing signals is less costly than monitoring, detection, and confiscation.

      Blocking removes the benefit of inmates smuggling in phones.

    3. Re:Monitor by dword · · Score: 1

      What about legitimate phone calls? If I was working in a prison (guard / janitor / warden / whatever), I wouldn't like to know that my phone is being sniffed. There are many situations when you need to have a mobile phone with you while you're in prison (visiting lawyer). How can you prove that the trackers won't be easily fine-tuned to listen to phone calls in the near-by area? There will always be idiots that will want to tune in on the neighborhood and there might be important companies around prisons where a no-signal is A LOT cheaper than someone finding out secret conversations. What if these sniffers are portable and someone takes them out of the prison and moves them next to an important government facility or company hq and listens to their conversations?

      That being said, I think a jam is less bad than listening to conversations.

    4. Re:Monitor by Joebert · · Score: 1

      The cell blocks are constructed out of steel re-bar meshes and concrete, just like my appartment complex. If inmates are getting better reception in jail than I am at home I'm going to be pissed.

      I'm thinking that inmates aren't using them in the cells as much as in other areas of the prison. So my cellblock trinagulation probably wouldn't be as effective come to think of it.

      I still think monitoring instead of blocking is the way to go though.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    5. Re:Monitor by Joebert · · Score: 1

      What about when you figure in the inside information that could be gathered by monitoring these places ?

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    6. Re:Monitor by Joebert · · Score: 1

      The answer is simple, anything gathered from the surrounding neighborhood by the prisons monitoring system wouldn't hold up in court because of how it was obtained.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    7. Re:Monitor by b96miata · · Score: 1

      I'd certainly be upset if I lived/worked/frequently drove nearby a prison. I don't want my private communications monitored because *gasp* some inmate might be making a phone call.

      I think it would make more sense to forget about this whole stupid idea. The last thing we need to do is give prison guards more power. Letting them jam cell signals is bad. Giving them the power to arbitrarily monitor them is far worse.

    8. Re:Monitor by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I still think monitoring instead of blocking is the way to go though.

      Are you suggesting just monitoring to see where the cell phones are being used or actually trying to monitor the conversations? If you are suggesting the former then it's quite doable -- the latter is a lot more complicated and expensive and might not even be possible with CDMA phones.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:Monitor by Joebert · · Score: 0, Troll

      Only if you have something to hide.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    10. Re:Monitor by dword · · Score: 1

      It's not about what can be done with the recordings, it's that there will be random people (prison guards) snooping in on important phone calls.

    11. Re:Monitor by Walpurgiss · · Score: 1

      Cost wise, probably still cheaper. I'd think that aside from in-prison crimes, the hacks don't themselves care about catching their prisoners on other crimes (like unsolved crimes from the outside, whatever) Only outside investigators would care. Guards are just working jobs, not really law enforcement with combating crime as a goal. I would think.

      While it is enticing perhaps, to essentially wire tap the criminals who you know are committing a crime just by having the phones, other than specific targets of high profile people, the overall gain of listening in probably would not outweigh the cost.

      I don't know, but I still have a gut feeling it'd be better to prevent all calls than try to capture them all to listen in. Anyone really sophisticated, like an organized crime boss, probably would not rely on cell phones anyway to make hits or anything. And those would be the people probably would have been worth listening in on.

    12. Re:Monitor by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      better yet, instead of jamming, put up a cell tower in the prison, allow only authorized esn numbers unmonitored access and monitor the rest. That way guards get privacy and everyone else gets monitored for illegal activity and identification.

      I personally think the effects are way overblown. A cellphone is for communication. There's payphones, writing letters, visits in which anything can be conveyed to another person. A cellphone doesn't change any of that.

    13. Re:Monitor by flajann · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it make more sense to just monitor the airwaves in prison than outright block the signals ? Setup smaller receivers around the prison that for one, would let officers get the drop on anything inmates try to plan out, surely there's no wiretapping laws in prison considering phones are surely contraband, and for two with a few smaller receivers they could at least triangulate the position down to a cell block and perform a shakedown. I'm just worried about what is going to happen when inmates take over the prison, how is Bruce Willas supposed to communicate with the guys outside if they simply block the signals ?

      Monitoring the airwaves might and definitely would pick up transmissions outside of the prison, unless the prison was faraday-shielded. And if it were, monitoring would become a moot issue anyway, since the cell phones would fail to function.

    14. Re:Monitor by flajann · · Score: 1

      Setup smaller receivers around the prison that for one, would let officers get the drop on anything inmates try to plan out, surely there's no wiretapping laws in prison considering phones are surely contraband

      Umm, it's not that easy to wiretap cell phones over the air as you suggest. My understanding is that with GSM it requires very specialized (i.e: expensive) equipment and that with CDMA it may be nearly impossible for anyone who lacks the resources of the Federal Government.

      A better idea would be to just retrofit the cell blocks with a Faraday cage. Of course that might pose a problem with the guards with radios -- so they'd probably need some sort of repeater system that only worked on the frequencies of whatever communications system they use.

      Or just don't worry about it, sinc the vast majority of these calls are going to be to loved ones and family anyway.

      Those really up to doing dealings of an illicit nature will find a way to do it, no matter what you do.

    15. Re:Monitor by flajann · · Score: 1

      The answer is simple, anything gathered from the surrounding neighborhood by the prisons monitoring system wouldn't hold up in court because of how it was obtained.

      It is still an invasion of privacy and a violation of federal wiretap laws.

    16. Re:Monitor by Joebert · · Score: 1

      How can it go wrong ? Because I'm not seeing a downside other than "they can hear me !" which by itself is nonsense.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    17. Re:Monitor by Joebert · · Score: 1

      citation needed.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    18. Re:Monitor by dword · · Score: 1

      How can it go wrong ? Because I'm not seeing a downside other than "they can hear me !" which by itself is nonsense.

      You must be new here...

    19. Re:Monitor by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Mail is monitored, read and censored. Visits are monitored. The payphone is monitored and conversations recorded.

      The cell phone is the only way for prisoners to communicate without the overbearing presence of the corrections system. How can they do things that aren't allowed in prison without a communications channel that sidesteps the corrections system?

  14. What about emergency personnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, let's not consider the fact that emergency personnel such as firefighters, policeman, and paramedics may have legitimate uses in theaters and restaurants for emergency radios, pagers, and cell phones. When your house goes up in flames because the firefighter doesn't get the call, you can at least be glad you didn't have to listen to his phone go off :).

    1. Re:What about emergency personnel? by DigitalReverend · · Score: 1

      I can guarantee you that any of the people you mentioned above, if they were on call, would not be sitting in a theater taking the chance on losing out on their $20. They would either be off duty and not susceptible to being paged. or would have told whomever to not page them for X amount of time.

      --
      I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
    2. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell that you live in an area fortunate enough to afford paid fire protection. Consider the rest of the state/nation/world when posting, you ignorant clod.

    3. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So anyone who works in the medical field should just have to forgo going to the movies? What about people with kids and a babysitter at home that needs to reach them? Wouldn't a better solution be for the fucking theaters to employ ushers again, whom could presumably stop people from abusing their cell phones while the movie is playing?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      I can guarantee you that any of the people you mentioned above, if they were on call, would not be sitting in a theater taking the chance on losing out on their $20. They would either be off duty and not susceptible to being paged. or would have told whomever to not page them for X amount of time.

      Yes, a specialist heart surgeon who makes a quarter-million a year wouldn't take the chance that he might lose out on $20 in exchange for saving someone's life. You're a brilliant, brilliant man, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    5. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Trahloc · · Score: 1

      Really? You can guarantee that? Please do.

      Jammers are a bad idea, as one of the above posters said, yell at them to take it outside or go complain to the manager. Some folks need to be on call but would still like to go out and enjoy themselves on occasion. A few annoying loud mouths shouldn't ruin an entire subset of professions from going to the theater. Specially considering they are most likely not the ones causing the disturbances your complaining about.

      I'm actually surprised so many people are for jamming these places on slashdot. I thought many of us were on call 24/7.

      --
      The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
    6. Re:What about emergency personnel? by dword · · Score: 1

      I can guarantee that there are firemen that are off-duty but that are still paged when there's an emergency. Being an off-duty fireman means that you're not reliable during that period but if there's an emergency (9/11 anyone?), you can bet they'll try to call you in immediately. If you fail to respond, nothing happens. If you respond and go to work, you might save some lives.

      Fire doesn't give a shit about the firemen's schedule and criminals try to take advantage of the policemen's schedule. When there's a REAL emergency, I doubt they won't bother to call in off-duty workers.

    7. Re:What about emergency personnel? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      How about they don't go to the movies when they are on call and need to be reached.

      Also, I find it strange that with all the people who have had kids, babysitters and all that jazz long before cell phones were invented got along just fine and even went to the movies but something with today's parents makes it completely impossible. I would think it is even easier now because the cell phone has voice mail so if something pops up, you'll get the message 2 hours later when you leave the theater.

      Ask your mom what she did when you were a kid, hell ask her how they changed the channels on TV before the remote was popular too.

    8. Re:What about emergency personnel? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Unless you're a single stop light town, any one doctor, firefighter, etc aren't on call 24/7. They have other people working for them. Hell even in my single stop light town with a volunteer fire department, one of my teachers was a FF. Some days he'd forget to turn down his radio and you'd hear a big call come through and he'd just turn it down.

      And that's why baby sitters need to be responsible. If the kid is injured, teach the babysitter how to call 911 or the medic. Have an 'emergency contact' of the neighbors or your parents.

      I bet a large portion of slashdot grew up before cell phones and their babysitters seemed to do just fine.

      And what would be even more annoying than a guy on a cell phone? A guy with a flashlight walking down to tell him to shut up.

    9. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      How about they don't go to the movies when they are on call and need to be reached.

      So anyone who works a job where they are on call 24/7 should just forget about having a social life because some asshole teenyboppers abuse their cell phone at the movies and piss you off?

      Ask your mom what she did when you were a kid

      She managed, but that's not the point. My great-grandparents also managed to raise their kids without electricity -- should we give up that modern convenience too just because we know we can live without it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And what would be even more annoying than a guy on a cell phone? A guy with a flashlight walking down to tell him to shut up.

      I don't think you'd need the guy to do that very often once it became known that the theater is willing to kick you out if you abuse your cell phone. And really, is the guy on his cell phone any more annoying than the asshole three seats down who is talking to his friends? Ushers could solve both problems -- without blocking legitimate uses.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:What about emergency personnel? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. Off duty fire fighters have radios for when they are on call. It's the same setup that the volunteer fire used. If they are needed, they send one code out, it sets the radios off and it's all good to go.

      But something that your not looking at is that when someone is on call, they are just that. You can't be going off and doing a bunch of things that tie you up when your on call, especially if it is something like emergency response. Think about that, if your on call, and you decide to go to your inlaws 2 hours away, how the fuck are you going to respond in time to save a life? How about if your out water skiing in the summer time, 20 minutes in the middle of the lake, 20 minutes to load the boat up, and 30 -40 minutes to get back to town... Yea right.

      And no it doesn't mean that doctors or firefighters or whoever can't go to the movies, it means they can't do it when they are on call. They took their job knowing what was expected of them. They are just as fine with the money they make, they can get by with jammers in movie theaters.

    12. Re:What about emergency personnel? by dword · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be on call to be called in. What about doctors? Should all doctors have radio stations? If a building collapses, the hospital needs all the help they can get!

      What's wrong with you people? In a couple of days I might be receiving postcards from Utopia where "off-duty" means that you can shit on your work, no matter what happens. The real world is a lot different than you might imagine.

      Your username says it all, anyway.

    13. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow - you have obviously never had a job where you had to be on call. I can guarantee you that this is not the case from personal experience. What do you think people who are on call 24/7 do when they aren't at work? Sit at home waiting to get calls or try to have as close to a normal life as possible?

    14. Re:What about emergency personnel? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      So anyone who works a job where they are on call 24/7 should just forget about having a social life because some asshole teenyboppers abuse their cell phone at the movies and piss you off?

      No, it means they can't take their cell phones to the theaters because if the on-call cell phone rings / lights up / vibrates loudly it will piss me off. Even if they don't answer and walk out.

      Yes, it sucks for them, but that's what being on call MEANS. It means you can't go to theaters, because you're not guaranteed to be there for the whole movie, you might have to leave. It means you can't drink alcohol because you'll be impaired. It means that anywhere you go with your friends, you will have to drive your own car because you might have to leave.

      There's a reason people who are on call get paid more than those who are not. It places restrictions on your goddamn social life. Don't take a job where you're required to be on call if you can't do that.

    15. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      No, it means they can't take their cell phones to the theaters because if the on-call cell phone rings / lights up / vibrates loudly it will piss me off.

      If a vibrating cell phone is all it takes to piss you off then I'd say that you are the one who has issues.

      Even if they don't answer and walk out.

      Do people who answer the call of nature during the movie similarly piss you off?

      It means you can't go to theaters, because you're not guaranteed to be there for the whole movie, you might have to leave.

      What law says I can't go to a theater if I might have to leave before the movie is done?

      It means you can't drink alcohol because you'll be impaired

      Depends on what your job is. Doctor, probably not. IT person? Probably yes. I drink when I'm on call -- because I'm on call to answer problems over the phone and not to come to work.

      Don't take a job where you're required to be on call if you can't do that.

      How about you stay at home and leave the rest of us whom don't get pissed off and self-righteous over a vibrating cell phone alone?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:What about emergency personnel? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So anyone who works a job where they are on call 24/7 should just forget about having a social life because some asshole teenyboppers abuse their cell phone at the movies and piss you off?

      First of all, no one is on call 24/7 who will be going to the movies. It just doesn't happen. Second, if you somehow think you are on call 24/7, you have more problems then going to the movies. Finally even for the people who do have the on call status, they have to use their discretion because it is their job. The world isn't going to fall apart if they aren't reachable to 2 hours and ever you perception that they wouldn't be the ones interrupting the movie shows that you don't even expect them to be needed during the two hours or whatever it takes to see a movie. Finally, if they are that important, they aren't going to be relying on cell phones and pagers, they are going to have radios that operate on different frequencies which won't be jammed. Think this through a little. And no, I don't consider some snot nosed punk willing to work all hours of the day on their bosses crap because they can't get a reliable system in place in the first place or they can't hire sound techs to keep it running. I have been on call at certain jobs, this is before cell phones were popular and we had to check in with an answering service every hour or so or stay home to take a phone call. The magic of cellphones have changed nothing in this regard.

      She managed, but that's not the point. My great-grandparents also managed to raise their kids without electricity -- should we give up that modern convenience too just because we know we can live without it?

      If your use of it starts intruding into other people's lives, then yes, maybe we should get rid of that. But hey, no one is saying get rid of the cell phone, I have several that I need and use. They are saying don't use it in a certain place and it just happens that this place is somewhere that phones in the hands of patrons have traditionally not been needed. It is a place that not having a phone in your hand has been common since the very beginning. Nothing has changes now that suggests it is needed or that anything is different. Perhaps you should stop looking after your own self interests and think about others. If more people did that, we probably wouldn't be talking about shit like this.

    17. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So anyone who works in the medical field should just have to forgo going to the movies?

      Interesting. So, quiz me this: Obviously, the doctors can go to the movies when they're not on call. So that blows up that theory!

      But, you say, what about doctors on call 24/7 in a one horse town?!

      a) If he's asleep (normal people *do* sleep 7 hours a day) it's reasonably likely he won't be in the hospital for at least 10 or 20 minutes. Patient is dead.

      b) If he's hurt, patient is dead.

      c) One horse towns don't have hospitals.

      d) One horse towns don't have movie theatres.

      e) Be serious, if your company's servers are so important that you need to respond within 5 minutes to a distress call, your company needs rotating on call shifts and way more than 1 admin--what about when you sleep?

      f) If your company sucks so much that they have just one admin 24 by 7, then it is time to look for other employment--that is ridiculous. If you're desperate enough for cash you need to keep the job, you're also desperate enough for cash YOU SHOULDN'T BE AT THE THEATRE WASTING IT!

    18. Re:What about emergency personnel? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be on call to be called in. What about doctors? Should all doctors have radio stations? If a building collapses, the hospital needs all the help they can get!

      Doctors use answering services that locate them. This so called problem has existed long before cell phone have been around and didn't automatically appear as soon as cell phones appeared on the scenes. I don't know why you think there isn't something else already in place, have we as a society not worried about this stuff until the advent of the cell phone? A doctor, especially with the liability associated with their profession won't rely on a single point of failure if they are on emergency call.

      What's wrong with you people? In a couple of days I might be receiving postcards from Utopia where "off-duty" means that you can shit on your work, no matter what happens. The real world is a lot different than you might imagine.

      The real world didn't appear over night, it didn't appear as soon as cell phones hit the scenes. Think this through before you "but, but, but, I think it should be this way" again. What did they do before cell phone and why is that not acceptable now?

      Your username says it all, anyway.

      Yes, and even with my user name, I just schooled you. Think with facts not emotions.

    19. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The world isn't going to fall apart if they aren't reachable to 2 hours

      And the world is going to fall apart if my phone vibrates in the middle of the movie and I get up and walk out?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy, that school sucked big time!

    21. Re:What about emergency personnel? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And the world is going to fall apart if my phone vibrates in the middle of the movie and I get up and walk out?

      lol.. Don't take this as a personal attack on you. Obviously if everyone had their phone on vibrate and left the theater to answer it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So _you_ really know that _you_ putting your phone on vibrate isn't the problem to this answer.

      I'm not so sure why your so pissed at people talking about solutions instead of being pissed at the people causing the problems the solutions are attempting to address.

    22. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Philip+Shaw · · Score: 1

      My phone's vibrator is quite loud, and is perfectly audible.

      --
      "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."- Winston Churchill
    23. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Philip+Shaw · · Score: 1

      Rephrasing that might have been a good idea.

      --
      "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."- Winston Churchill
    24. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Philip+Shaw · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, they can have a blacklist, which would be especially effective in a small town.

      --
      "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."- Winston Churchill
    25. Re:What about emergency personnel? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure why your so pissed at people talking about solutions instead of being pissed at the people causing the problems the solutions are attempting to address.

      The only reason I'm "pissed" (I think annoyed would be a better word, but whatever) is because people are suggesting that we punish all cell phone users for the actions of an annoying minority. I offered a solution -- bring back ushers in the movie theaters -- it has the advantage of solving a few other problems too (people who talk to their friends throughout the movie for instance -- which is at least as annoying as somebody texting on his phone). Somebody shot it down whilst whining that somebody walking around with a flashlight would be more annoying than somebody using a cell phone.

      I don't have a better suggestion than that. What I will say is that any theater that blocks cell phone signals is a theater that won't see another dime of my money. Not all of us have the luxury of being out of contact for 2+ hours. We can debate the reasons for that until the cows come home but that's a fact of life for a lot of people. Saying that people lived before cell phones misses the point -- they exist nowadays and a lot of us are forced to rely upon them.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. Re:What about emergency personnel? by DigitalReverend · · Score: 1

      I have had jobs where I had to be on call, in fact I do have a job where I need to be on call, and I am an ex-volunteer firefighter, and in those times where I was on call, both for my job and as a firefighter, I wasn't going to go sit in a movie theater, on the off chance that I would be paged, and have wasted my money, missed the movie, and not get to where I needed to be in a timely manner. I went to the movies when I wasn't on call, when my scheduled allowed it and I was able to turn the cell phone/pager off.

      --
      I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
    27. Re:What about emergency personnel? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The only reason I'm "pissed" (I think annoyed would be a better word, but whatever) is because people are suggesting that we punish all cell phone users for the actions of an annoying minority. I offered a solution -- bring back ushers in the movie theaters -- it has the advantage of solving a few other problems too (people who talk to their friends throughout the movie for instance -- which is at least as annoying as somebody texting on his phone). Somebody shot it down whilst whining that somebody walking around with a flashlight would be more annoying than somebody using a cell phone.

      Well, if you think about it, your probably paying too much for a movie in the first place. But if the theaters have to hire ushers for eacher showing, your probably going to have to pay a lot more anyways. Think about this, depending on the size of the theator, it will take one to three ushers per screen. Lets average that to two people per screne needing to be hired. Now, the cinema closest to my house has 16 screens so that would be roughly 32 people all making at least minimum wage. Minimum wage in my state is $7.00 and hour (and they wonder why companies are relocating to other states). So that would make their costs around $224 an hour just in direct compensation, add on worker comp insurance, employment taxes, and all the other BS associated with employing a person and that rate can increase by as much as 20%. Now we are looking at something like $268 for those users each hour, while a movie usually lasts about 1.5-2 hours. So now we are looking at around $400 to $536 or so per movie/per showing. Each movie is showed around 6 or more times a night so skipping the idea that a few of those users will be standing idle waiting for the next showing, we are looking at around $2,400 a day in extra operating costs.

      A jammer can be had in Ebay for less then $200, supposing that they need to buy one from a certain company, we are probably looking at $500. Fitting one in 16 areas would be around 8000 plus the labor to install it. Lets triple the cost of the equipment for the labor and we are looking at something along the order of $18,000 to put the jammers up. When we look at our previous number, we find it can be paid for with just 7-8 of the busy days with the costs of hiring ushers. Which one is likely to increase the costs of a ticket, which one is more practice assuming both were legal?

      I don't have a better suggestion than that. What I will say is that any theater that blocks cell phone signals is a theater that won't see another dime of my money. Not all of us have the luxury of being out of contact for 2+ hours. We can debate the reasons for that until the cows come home but that's a fact of life for a lot of people. Saying that people lived before cell phones misses the point -- they exist nowadays and a lot of us are forced to rely upon them.

      Well, that is your choice. You can go somewhere else or not at all, it was you choice to get the job that can't live without your or to hire the incompetent babysitter or whatever happened that causes you to need to be in touch so much. Like wise, it is up to you to balance your agenda in accordance with the choices you made. Professionals like firefighters, doctors and so on, have dealt with this problem long before there were cell phones and they have alternates, I suggest you look into how they work it.

  15. Hold on there... by chaboud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully movie theaters and restaurants do it next.

    If the problem is the noise or the light from the screens, kick people out for breaking the rules (one warning for light, no warnings for talking, for example), but I really don't want us to make a habit of jamming RF devices. That's a bit like banning alcohol to keep people from driving drunk. What if there's a fire? A crime? A doctor with an emergency who knows how to stand up and walk out when he gets a call?

    Heavy-handed solutions create tons of problems. Ask people to behave like respectful adults and kick them out the moment they fail to do so.

    1. Re:Hold on there... by Shados · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. The issue with a lot of rules (especially rules that aren't laws, such as the ones mentionned above) is that they aren't enforced, and people don't seem to care about enforcing them. If there's a HUGE "No cellphone" sign in the theater, and someone is talking their ass off in front of me during a movie, and I politely (seriously) ask them to be a little more quiet (not even stop!), I get told to fuck off. If there's a no smoking sign in the bus stop's shelter and someone is smoking, and I ask them to take 2 steps outside of it (on a sunny day!), I'll also get told to mind my own business. And with all of these, if I tell the people in CHARGE of enforcing those rules, they'll ignore me.

      Result? People ask for more laws, or for draconian measures, like the grandparent.

    2. Re:Hold on there... by houghi · · Score: 1

      About the fire, crime and emergency. Please look up the numbers of that happening when there were no cell phones available and compare them with how often they are used now in those cases where it was legit.
      Remember that there still can be a fixed phone or even a dect available on the premises.

      Now if there is a fire in a movie theater, you guide the people out. It could be even a GOOD thing that not 1.000 people are starting to call 911 at the same time, but just the employees.
      The same for a restaurant. Let the restaurant owner or the waiters go to the fixed phone and call whomever needs to be called.

      There could even be a button or automatic device that if the fire alarm goes off, the blocking is disabled. And another button that it can disable it whenever it is needed. You could even enable it during the film itself and disable it in between and only in the room where the movie is shown.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Hold on there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      **news flash!** people waiting at a bus stop are not always courteous and polite!

      spend a grand or two to buy a beater car and then you can breathe the scent of molding vinyl instead of tobacco smoke. and as an added bonus, you can stop waiting an extra 45 minutes to make a 15 minute commute. or just haul your ass upwind of the smoke. you are responsible for the environment you put yourself into, so change it if you find it not to your liking.

    4. Re:Hold on there... by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's a bit like banning alcohol to keep people from driving drunk.

      In what way? Jamming inside the theater doesn't affect anything outside the theater. Nobody's takking about banning cell phones, just blocking them in theaters.

      What if there's a fire?

      The fire fighters in my town are at the firehouse when on duty. Aren't yours?

      A crime?

      You live in Mayberry? If an on-duty Springfield cop is watching movies I would hope there would be disciplinary action against him.

      A doctor with an emergency who knows how to stand up and walk out when he gets a call?

      Again, your hick town only has one doctor? You kids (understandably) act as if cell phones have always existed and everyone always had one. The doctor can let management know he's there and where he's sitting, if someone needs to get hold of the doctor they can call the theater's phone, and the management can fetch the doctor, just like they used to do before we had cell phones.

    5. Re:Hold on there... by Tom · · Score: 1

      What if there's a fire?

      Then you get the fuck out instead of calling your best friend to tell him "dude, you won't believe this, but I'm at the movies and there's a fire! No a real fire, not like on the screen, yaknow?"

      A crime?

      Go outside, tell the crew to call police. You know, like we did back in the days when there were no cell phones (and when people actually cared about crimes happening next to them).

      A doctor with an emergency who knows how to stand up and walk out when he gets a call?

      If the quota of those to "what the fuck are you thinking?" were even 1:1000 we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. As it is, the doctor is a strawman because compared to the non-necessary mobile phone action going on, he's rarer than Yeti.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    6. Re:Hold on there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they jammed cell phones I wouldn't go. What if the baby sitter needs to get a hold of us? I don't want a teenager having to spend 10 minutes to get a hold of a theater manager, wait another 10 for them to come in and disrupt the theater, etc.

      Not to mention we may not have detailed plans when we leave. If something awful happened a simple text message and we could be on our way to the hospital to meet them.

      If you manage to stop cell phones I'm sure the masses will still find a way to annoy you.

    7. Re:Hold on there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... What is that I hear? The voice of reason? I hardly recognized you being /. and all.

      Jolly Good Thinking!

    8. Re:Hold on there... by flajann · · Score: 1

      I agree. The issue with a lot of rules (especially rules that aren't laws, such as the ones mentionned above) is that they aren't enforced, and people don't seem to care about enforcing them. If there's a HUGE "No cellphone" sign in the theater, and someone is talking their ass off in front of me during a movie, and I politely (seriously) ask them to be a little more quiet (not even stop!), I get told to fuck off. If there's a no smoking sign in the bus stop's shelter and someone is smoking, and I ask them to take 2 steps outside of it (on a sunny day!), I'll also get told to mind my own business. And with all of these, if I tell the people in CHARGE of enforcing those rules, they'll ignore me.

      Result? People ask for more laws, or for draconian measures, like the grandparent.

      It's all in the attitude. It may be also that you dont' look "threatening" enough. I have the opposite problem. I'm a "teddy bear" at heart, but many don't see the "teddy" part. Usually a stern look is all that it takes, though I'm more afraid they may call the cops on me and claim that I was "harrassing" them. So usually I do nothing.

    9. Re:Hold on there... by Shados · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about personal experience :) I'm talking "in general", that is how things are in the western world.

    10. Re:Hold on there... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      If the problem is the noise or the light from the screens, kick people out for breaking the rules (one warning for light, no warnings for talking, for example)

      Movie theater "ushers" are 17-year-old kids who need some pocket cash. People who insist on using their cell phones during a movie are belligerent assholes.

      What motivation does the former have to confront the latter? In the BEST case scenario, they further disrupt the rest of the audience's enjoyment of the movie throwing the asshole out; in the worst case, they get punched in the face.

    11. Re:Hold on there... by cdrguru · · Score: 0

      Simple. Who elected you to tell people what to do? So there is a rule and it is being ignored. So what? There are lots of rules that get ignored. Can you blame people for being offended and insulted when you take liberties that are not yours to take?

      And as far as telling someone about some rule infraction, well, everyone loves a snitch. Sorry, ratting on people isn't going to get you any friends, anywhere.

      I'd say it is better to join in the rulebreaking than try to get someone in trouble. It works in the inner city that way. It is clearly the way society is moving.

    12. Re:Hold on there... by Shados · · Score: 1

      Really now, its the way society is moving? No, not really. The way I'm seeing it (and you see so many articles on slashdot bitching about it, and rightly so), is that there is a small minority of people breaking the rules and screwing it for everyone else... until pissy purists (who could not just politely ask, or did so but got shoved a new one) bitch and whine until things like "all cellphones are banned at a theater" or "smoking 10 feet from a bus shelter is a civil offence" (which actually happened where I live) comes into play, and make things even worse.

      THAT is the way society is moving. And I don't know about you, but I don't think its a good thing.

      That said, "joining in on the rulebreaking" is rediculous... lets take the above example again... if -EVERYONE- used cells freely in theaters... well, there would be no point in going to the theater anymore... net loss. If it was an extremely large portion of people (let say, with the piracy subject), you'd have a point, but for things that a minority does (but spoils it for everyone), I'll pass, thanks. I do enjoy the hypocrisy though... "Can you blame people for being offended and insulted when you take liberties that are not yours to take". You mean, like breaking commonly accepted rules? :)

    13. Re:Hold on there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The doctor can let management know he's there and where he's sitting, if someone needs to get hold of the doctor they can call the theater's phone, and the management can fetch the doctor, just like they used to do before we had cell phones.

      Yeah, good idea! Better yet, let's make someone actually go to the theater to notify them, just like they used to do before we had any phones at all. And, make the doctor leave in a horse and carriage, just like they used to do before we had cars. And make the doctor use leeches, just like they used to do before we knew anything about medicine.

      You are trolling or just not thinking.

    14. Re:Hold on there... by j-beda · · Score: 1
      And as far as telling someone about some rule infraction, well, everyone loves a snitch. Sorry, ratting on people isn't going to get you any friends, anywhere.

      Sure, you have to "pick your battles", but one of the ways society functions is by social pressures - people need to know (hopefully learned when they are young and impressionable) what are considered acceptable behaviours and that only works when significant numbers of the members of society work towards that end. Thus we glare a people who are rude, and we let people know when they are steping outside acceptable boundaries.

      Should I turn in my neighbour for spitting on the sidewalk? Having their dog shit on your lawn? Target practice in their back yard? Growing pot in their garden? Brewing meth in their garage? Kicking their dog? Assaulting their spouse? Assaulting their kids? Poisoning the Halloween candy? At some point I hope the "stain" for being a snitch will be outweighed by the seriousness of teh infraction you observe.

    15. Re:Hold on there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, I meta-modded it as unfair. I don't necessarily agree with what you wrote, but I don't think it was flamebait.

    16. Re:Hold on there... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      There is good reason to NOT have cell phones going off inside the theater (I don't want to hear it and neither does anybody else), and NO good reason that a doctor can't have theater staff give him a message.

      Your examples are retarded. For what purpose have someone travel to the theater to fetch him? What does that solve? Or making him use horses???

      "Trolling or not thinking?" WTF? And you with your trollishly stupid (make em use horses indeed) reasons whay they SHOULD use cell phones? I don't want to hear your god damned cell phone in a theater! I think I should have the right to a phone-free theater experience. If you can't shut it off, stay away. You have no right to disrupt my enjoyment, and neither does your damned doctor.

    17. Re:Hold on there... by flajann · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about personal experience :) I'm talking "in general", that is how things are in the western world.

      Ah...

      Well, there's lots to the "Western World". Many different countries, cultures, and degrees of coolness (and not-so-cool).

    18. Re:Hold on there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if there's a fire?

      The fire fighters in my town are at the firehouse when on duty. Aren't yours?

      Volunteer firefighters are your average citizens who respond as needed. Not all places can afford a full staff that sits at the station. Sometimes these will only get called out in a big emergency, but I'd rather them be able to get the call.

      A crime?

      You live in Mayberry? If an on-duty Springfield cop is watching movies I would hope there would be disciplinary action against him.

      What if a something awful happens and they need to call in off-duty cops?

      A doctor with an emergency who knows how to stand up and walk out when he gets a call?

      Again, your hick town only has one doctor? You kids (understandably) act as if cell phones have always existed and everyone always had one. The doctor can let management know he's there and where he's sitting, if someone needs to get hold of the doctor they can call the theater's phone, and the management can fetch the doctor, just like they used to do before we had cell phones.

      Again, something awful happens, they need people at the hospital yesterday to deal with it. Where I grew up, the hospital was pretty big and there were a lot of doctors at theaters. I can only imagine the mayhem.

    19. Re:Hold on there... by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1

      That's a bit like banning alcohol to keep people from driving drunk. What if there's a fire? A crime?

      Yeah! Draconian nazis. We need alcohol for those situations!

    20. Re:Hold on there... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What if there's a fire? A crime? A doctor with an emergency who knows how to stand up and walk out when he gets a call?

      If there's a fire in the theater, I will not call 911 while still in that theater. I will leave, and call from outside. If there's a crime, I will do the same, though I wonder how many times such a thing has happened. And if someone gets up and walks out every time their phone buzzes, and everyone else in the theater is doing the same, and there are quite a few people, it will be one big revolving door. Walking out is a disruption itself, and though possibly the best way of dealing with it, is still unacceptable to me.

      Ask people to behave like respectful adults and kick them out the moment they fail to do so.

      Punishing people pisses them off. Preventing them from doing bad they will do anyway doesn't. Don't ask my why, but that's the way it is. If theaters starting kicking out people that violated the rules, they'd lose a lot of customers (more than allowing the bad behavior). But if they mechanically prevented it, then they would make many happy and not piss off the people that would have been violators.

    21. Re:Hold on there... by Philip+Shaw · · Score: 1

      Rules should be enforced or repealed, not simply ignored as this harms the public's respect for the law and makes a mockery of the system.

      For example, where I live, smoking is banned inside pubs, restaurants, etc. (it has been banned in shops and so on for a long time under H&S rules), but is permitted in beer gardens and other such outside areas. However, many pubs have beer gardens which have roofs, heating, and some even have complete walls made of roller blinds, which are rarely wound up even when police or, in one case I saw, the health minister, walked in. Whilst the letter of the law may be being obeyed, the intent is blatantly ignored.

      --
      "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."- Winston Churchill
    22. Re:Hold on there... by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

      That's a bit like banning alcohol to keep people from driving drunk.

      It's more like wiring breathalyzers to the vehicles' ignition systems as a service to drivers, because both are restricted in specific scenarios, not "banned" which means totally prohibited. At a four-course dinner, you don't have the option of a separate drink with each course then driving yourself [probably, depending on body weight, blah, blah]. In a theater, don't use your phone. At all. If being without any of its functions -- phone, TXT, video camera, PDA, whatever -- is onerous to somebody, going to the cinema is not an unalienable human right and waiting for the DVD release is not cruel or unusual punishment.

      What if there's a fire?

      Then some heat will be released while some carbon-containing matter will combine with oxygen and be converted to CO2 and H2O, and probably significant quantities of CO, except in the rare case of complete combustion. Seriously, I don't know why you think the possibility of a fire would make it OK to leave on your cell phone. If there's a fire in the theater, you depend on their alarm system to work either way so that shouldn't be what you mean. Let's see. Do you mean, what if there's a fire at home, where you left your kids? If you left them with a trustworthy babysitter, the house will still be just as destroyed, and your kids will still be just as safely rescued, when you return after the movie. If you can't leave them out of contact for two hours you can't leave them at home while you go to the movies. Should have used condoms if you can't handle that.

      A doctor with an emergency who knows how to stand up and walk out when he gets a call?

      If he got through medical school, he can find his way around Netflix.

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
    23. Re:Hold on there... by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      "liberties that are not yours to take" WTF are you talking about. The parent wasn't talking about enforcing the laws himself. He was talking about addressing someone who was breaking the law and requesting they stop doing such. Enforcing the law would be to issue a citation or arrest the individual. Unless the behaviour is a felony offense civilians don't usually have the liberty to enforce the law but they always have the liberty to call out the asshats breaking the law. That is the entire point of society.

      And so far as snitching goes, I'll do it any time any place you want. I have plenty of friends that would do like wise and if I ever have the chance I hope I can snitch on you. Tolerance of crime because some other criminal thinks it's cool is clearly retarded.

  16. Jail house blocked by rodney+dill · · Score: 3, Funny


    Everybody in the whole cell block
    They was jammed' up 'cause the cellphones blocked

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
    1. Re:Jail house blocked by deniable · · Score: 1

      I prefer 10CC's "Load up with cellphone jammers."

  17. what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in South Carolina, and although I have no plans to go to jail/prison, this still bugs me. South Carolina is hard on every single law, except the age of consent which is 16. Bah.

  18. Active Jamming vs. Faraday Cage by Aram+Fingal · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's a restaurant in my area which accidentally set up at Faraday Cage with the wire mesh used in their stucco exterior. Cell phones don't work inside.

    I suppose with a prison like this they have multiple buildings and the prisoners might have time outside where they could use cell phones. Then, of course, they want their own guard's radios to work.

    1. Re:Active Jamming vs. Faraday Cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Faraday Cage with the wire mesh used in their stucco exterior"

      BS

      Re-read the how a Faraday Cage really works, that would not be a real Faraday Cage just potentialy kill signals not be impervious to an EMP.

  19. But they are _cell_ phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where the cell phones are supposed to be used then, if not in cells?

  20. Lone Star!! by supersoundguy · · Score: 1

    Only one man would DARE give me the raspberry...

  21. Prison Phone Phreaks by WmLGann · · Score: 1

    I used to work for a software company that provided automated telephone operator software. Among their clients was a small local phone company that provided pay phones to the SCDC for use in prison. Well, I shouldn't say "pay phones" exactly, they provided the ruggedized husks of pay phones without coin boxen and with the coin acceptors removed or welded shut. This was because the only kind of call allowed in prison is an outbound collect call of 5 minutes' duration. In theory. The prisoners would do an unbelievably competent phreaking job and we had to patch the software that controlled these phones every three to six months on account of new ways the prisoners would find to get around the calling restrictions. My favorite was where the prisoner would say something incoherent when prompted for a name that the phone switch would present to the call recipient. After a few tries they would often get someone gullible to accept the charges, and then they would somehow get this random person to set up a 3-way call with the person the prisoner really wanted to talk to, and have the whole thing billed to the random person's phone. Way back in the day, they used to use live human operators to set up the collect calls. The humans were slightly easier to take advantage of than the automated system that replaced them, and more likely to sue their employer for subjecting them to phone conversations with prisoners.

  22. I still don't get it though. by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK they claim they're smuggling cellphones into prisons somehow (heh I wonder if they put them in vibrate mode ;) ).

    To me the big problem really is that if they can smuggle in stuff the size of a cellphone they can smuggle in lots of other more dangerous stuff.

    I don't get why are cellphones themselves a problem, and why the solution is jamming them. After all:

    1) If you're actually going to use the cellphones to communicate wirelessly (rather than use them to play games or other stuff), they will emit a very detectable signal.

    So it's trivial to find them if they're on.

    2) It's a prison, if prisoners are not allowed cellphones, guards can probably walk in at any time, and confiscate them after detecting them by whatever means. And the culprits involved get the usual punishment stuff.

    3) The prison could put their own cell stations and listen in. For typical GSM stuff, while the comms between the phone and the base stations are encrypted (albeit intentionally weakened crypto), the comms from the base station to the rest of the network is in plaintext. No really expensive fancy stuff needed.

    --
    1. Re:I still don't get it though. by Puls4r · · Score: 1

      Yeah... we could put them in prison to punish them. Uh-oh....

    2. Re:I still don't get it though. by Rary · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Regarding your second point, I suspect that part of the problem is that, while guards are supposed to be the ones enforcing the rules, the sad reality is that guards are often part of the problem. It's well known that much of the prison drug supply comes from guards selling to prisoners, so it's not much of a stretch to think that guards might be supplying cell phones to prisoners as well.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    3. Re:I still don't get it though. by hrieke · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you need to watch a few PBS documentaries on prisons to understand how they work and the stresses that the guards are under.
      Also, the money that it takes to run a prison is rather high, you don't have unlimited manpower, and it's dangerous stuff. So item #2 isn't likely to happen with out about 5 other guards with you, in full gear. #3 isn't really feasible since a guard could sell access to his phone, which potentially wouldn't be closely watched.
      Your statement about the other dangerous stuff is 100% correct.

      --
      III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    4. Re:I still don't get it though. by Intron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I don't get why are cellphones themselves a problem, and why the solution is jamming them."

      http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/grants/funded-projects/prison-phone-service-provider-contracts-kickbacks-and-fiscal-impact-on-prisoners2019-families

      The state makes a fortune off prison telephones. All of the talk about "planning crimes" or "drug deals" is total BS.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    5. Re:I still don't get it though. by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Guards don't need to be able to bring their phones into prisoner areas.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:I still don't get it though. by flajann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Regarding your second point, I suspect that part of the problem is that, while guards are supposed to be the ones enforcing the rules, the sad reality is that guards are often part of the problem. It's well known that much of the prison drug supply comes from guards selling to prisoners, so it's not much of a stretch to think that guards might be supplying cell phones to prisoners as well.

      Whenever there's a market, a way will be found.

      Actually, if they stopped locking people up for victimless crimes, this would be less of a problem! You thow someone in for a victimless "crime", and he gets educated to do real crime when he's released.

    7. Re:I still don't get it though. by Insightfill · · Score: 5, Informative

      The state makes a fortune off prison telephones. All of the talk about "planning crimes" or "drug deals" is total BS.

      In Illinois, the collect call rate for the prison system is $2.00 to accept a call, then 25cents/min thereafter. Criminal. The fact is, contact with outside family is the only thing keeping some of these inmates sane, and helps reduce the recidivism rate as well. These collect call rates tend to lead to phone service disconnects for the people who accept them.

      A half hour call with my brother costs more than it would cost to add another line to my cell phone plan.

    8. Re:I still don't get it though. by superflippy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not so much that, it's that our prison system is severely underfunded. SC spends less per prisoner than any other state and has a higher per capita prison population than most. We just don't have enough guards to properly enforce rules.

      It's gotten so bad that the head of the Dept. of Corrections wants to let nonviolent offenders go early to save money and ease the crowding.

      --
      Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
    9. Re:I still don't get it though. by BaronHethorSamedi · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't get why are cellphones themselves a problem, and why the solution is jamming them.

      An inmate's personal liberties are restricted in several ways. One of those restrictions is that, while you can talk on the phone in prison, you're not allowed to do so without the prison listening in. There are lots of good reasons for this. Prisoners who know they're being listened to are unlikely to place phone calls to do things like intimidate witnesses, arrange for perjured testimony, and so forth. This can be especially important where the prisoners are gangsters; an incarcerated gang member with a discreet line to the outside can conduct business as usual through contacts outside the prison.

      Cell phones are generally confiscated when they're discovered. Listening in might be feasible, but it's done already through the prison phones to which the inmates are generally restricted. While it's possible to set up wireless listening stations, prison resources are limited. I suspect it's easier just to jam all wireless signals, period, than to set up a station keyed to listed only to signals originating from within the prison walls.

    10. Re:I still don't get it though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a gritty BBC drama recently in which this was explored. I assume it was well researched but take this with a grain of salt.

      It's assault if a prison officer removes a cellphone from the arse of a prisoner when they are searching him on entry to the prison. So anything concealed in the arse is fair game. In theory they can put the guy in solitary and let nature take its course. In practice they don't have space in solitary for such a minor infraction.

      The obvious step is to make it not be assault but it's pretty clear where that would lead ...

      The drama also made it quite plain that having a cellphone was a good way to survive prison. You rent it out in return for cigs and favours.

      BTW I think you're underestimating the cost and sophistication of your base station scheme by a factor of about a hundred.

    11. Re:I still don't get it though. by Rary · · Score: 1

      You thow someone in for a victimless "crime", and he gets educated to do real crime when he's released.

      You're preachin' to the choir, brother.

      Although, even if the prison population was reduced to only those who really need to be removed from society, there would still be a market for contraband in the prison, and there would still be shady opportunistic guards willing to supply it.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    12. Re:I still don't get it though. by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "I don't get why are cellphones themselves a problem, and why the solution is jamming them."

      http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/grants/funded-projects/prison-phone-service-provider-contracts-kickbacks-and-fiscal-impact-on-prisoners2019-families

      The state makes a fortune off prison telephones. All of the talk about "planning crimes" or "drug deals" is total BS.

      You got that right. I worked in the inmate phone racket (as a peon engineer) many years ago, when the market first opened up. In the beginning, county jails and smaller prisons were served by independent phone companies. These companies were mostly local pay-telephone operators -- a market created with the AT&T breakup -- who discovered that it was far more profitable to operate jail-phones than coin operated pay phones. For one thing, you didn't need to go around collecting the coin: inmate phones were collect call only. Secondly, they charged the highest tariffed rate: person-to-person, operator-assisted, collect with sugar on top rates.

      There was no actual operator to pay, the inmate just dialed and said his name at the voice prompt and the phone called up his mom/wife/girlfriend with the recorded message: "Will you accept a collect call from inmate x in the county jail? Dial 'one' to accept, 'two' to refuse." Even a local call would cost at least 25 cents plus $1.50 to $3.00 in fees. If the applicable tariff allowed, even these local calls were charged by the minute. An inmate's loved ones could easily get charged hundreds of dollars a month just to keep in touch. There was no warning that these calls would be that expensive.

      The jails were happy to provide this service, since the commissions they would receive really helped the jail budget. The jail operators weren't too concerned with the ethics of taking kickbacks, since it was common practice for pay telephone operators to pay a site commission to the property manager in exchange for allowing the placement of the pay phone in the store/bar/restaurant/office building/etc. Of course, the inmates were literally captive consumers. There was no other legal method of real-time communication with the outside world.

      Some places had laws that required that the commissions be used for inmate welfare and education only. And there were some particularly ethical jail administrators that also used site commissions only for benefit of the prisoners even without a law requiring it. But usually the commissions went right back into the general fund operating the facility, with the benefit that the administrator or his/her boss could spend it as they pleased, whereas government provided (tax) funding had to be spent where the governing authority specified.

      There were also "gifts" provided to sheriffs and jail administrators. These were usually "in-kind", to provide some cover from bribery laws. An in-kind gift could be an artist-signed wildlife lithograph by a well-known, first-class illustrator.

      I've long since been out of that field, and the small operators have consolidated and many have sold out to big communications firms, but the business model remains the same.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    13. Re:I still don't get it though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) It's a prison, if prisoners are not allowed cellphones, guards can probably walk in at any time, and confiscate them after detecting them by whatever means. And the culprits involved get the usual punishment stuff.

      Of course, they use another, yet unconfiscated cellphone, and call their friends outside, telling them to kill the guard's family...

    14. Re:I still don't get it though. by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      obviously there are some really determined inmates in the prison system. perhaps we just need to redirect or refocus their drive towards productive tasks. for instance:

      1. if they want unfettered access to communication with the outside world, give them a computer with just a basic OS installed and an internet connection. no browser, no e-mail client, no instant messenger. just offer voluntary classes on Java, C++, Perl, or whatever, and give them books on TCP/IP and socket programming.
      2. erect a firewall to block access to all websites except a whitelist of online resources on network security, firewalls, the OSI model, NAT traversal, etc. so if they want access to porn, e-mail, Myspace, whatever, they'll need to learn how to bypass the firewall.
      3. once they've mastered the above topics and overcome the obstacles put in place, take away their computer and reformat it. this time install the OS without any networking drivers. do this only after they've gotten used to having free internet access, being able to chat or webcam with their friends/relatives, surfing the web 12 hours a day, etc.--basically, wait until they've developed an internet/information addiction.
      4. repeat step 3 using new obstacles until inmates are able to build a computer from scratch out of a blank PCB, a paper clip, a chunk of quartz, some toilet paper, and a few strands of dental floss.

      in addition to keeping inmates occupied (rather than just having them shank one another all day) and mentally stimulated through environmental enrichment, they'll also develop useful skills helping to rehabilitate them for reintegration with society. a convict who knows how to reverse engineer hardware, write their own device drivers, understands tunneling protocols, and has other advanced technical skills/knowledge is not likely to go back to petty crimes or even associate with petty criminals who don't know a compiler from a screen saver.

      and there are probably other ways to motivate different types of inmates. for instance, rather than trying to stop inmates from smuggling drugs into the prison, just give them some raw opium and a chemistry set, and have them learn how to extract/purify the morphine themselves. once they've mastered basic alkaloid extraction from plant matter, stop giving them raw opium and just have them synthesize synthetic opioids from scratch, etc. by the time an inmate finishes a 15 year sentence they should have a PhD in organic/biochemistry.

    15. Re:I still don't get it though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What that doesn't explain, though, is just WHY cell phones are forbidden in the first place.

      I mean, it's obvious for drugs, yes, but cell phones? All I've seen so far is "inmates could use them to do $BADTHING", but let's face it, that's not a very strong argument - you could say the same thing about literally every random person on the street -, and holding people incommunicado isn't exactly nice, either.

    16. Re:I still don't get it though. by Intron · · Score: 2

      USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world; mostly due to stupid, zero-tolerance drug laws.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    17. Re:I still don't get it though. by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 4, Informative

      A long time ago I saw a TV documentary on military prisons. It included interviews with the prisoners. The military prisons didn't seem to have any of the problems that plague civilian prisons. Maybe it had something to do with all the prison personal being trained soldiers but I also remember one of the prisoners saying "we're just too tired to cause problems."

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    18. Re:I still don't get it though. by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      They aren't held "incommunicado". They have access to landlines, but the access is tightly controlled and monitored.

      We are talking CRIMINALS here. CONVICTED criminals. They do illegal stuff for a living. And, they don't tend to be "nice".

    19. Re:I still don't get it though. by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      I agree, but with such a large amount of people in prison, the amount of funds to goto prisons get diluted. I'm not saying "throw more money at the problem," but with more money, you have more things you can do.

      I saw a documentary on the current state of low security prisons in CA, US (because they are overflowing because of the war-on-drugs. They are set up in cubicals! You will never be able to set up safe, let alone secure prisons like that.

    20. Re:I still don't get it though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and they can get through phones that block reverse charge services (collect calls, etc). A family member of mine has a friend in jail call them and never realized they were charged the call until they got the bill. The phone company told them they aren't allowed to block those kinds of calls, so if they don't want to pay any further ones not to answer the phone.

    21. Re:I still don't get it though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Situation 1:
      Prisoner - I'll be on trash cleanup tomorrow afternoon on Interstate 95 between Route 216 and the Capital Beltway
      Friend - We'll leave a white "broken down" van on the South bound side with the key under the back bumper

      Situation 2:
      Prisoner - Please take care of that SOB that snitched
      Friend - Consider it done. We'll see you when they lose their witness.

    22. Re:I still don't get it though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point #3 is incorrect. All information is encrypted from the handset to the BSC (actually unencryption happens in the TCSM, which could be considered a seperate entity than the BSC). It is encrypted to prevent eavesdropping between the BTS and the BSC, where the signal travels via a LEC/CLEC.

    23. Re:I still don't get it though. by Rary · · Score: 1

      They have access to landlines, but the access is tightly controlled and monitored.

      Not only is it tightly controlled and monitored, but it's also a privilege that can be revoked as a punishment. The threat of losing privileges is essential to running a peaceful prison.

      We are talking CRIMINALS here. CONVICTED criminals. They do illegal stuff for a living. And, they don't tend to be "nice".

      As an aside, I'd just like to point out that not all convicted criminals are career criminals, nor are they necessarily not nice. The violent psychos are actually a minority in most prisons.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    24. Re:I still don't get it though. by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      Cell phones, as well as many other items, are prohibited for anyone in prison (at least in MD), including the staff that work there. My wife works as a nurse in a detention center and she goes through a screening process like any visitor.

    25. Re:I still don't get it though. by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      No, they aren't under-funded, they are over-populated. Stop locking people up for non-violent drug offenses and the problem goes away.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    26. Re:I still don't get it though. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So why is it a problem if some rapists and murderers get their hands on drugs? If anything, the prison system should be selling these things to the prisoners at a profit.

      Of course, this should only be for the ones who really do need to be removed from society, permanently.

    27. Re:I still don't get it though. by flajann · · Score: 1

      I agree, but with such a large amount of people in prison, the amount of funds to goto prisons get diluted. I'm not saying "throw more money at the problem," but with more money, you have more things you can do.

      Throw more money? That's the problem. We need to throw LESS money at the problem, so states can go back to locking up JUST violent, dangerous types.

    28. Re:I still don't get it though. by Rary · · Score: 1

      So why is it a problem if some rapists and murderers get their hands on drugs?

      Well, mostly because they're illegal.

      The purpose of prison isn't to say, "hey, you broke the law, so now we're going to send you somewhere where you're allowed to break the law". That's not how it works. Especially when the laws that most of the inmates are guilty of breaking are drug laws (less than 25% of State prisoners and 4% of Federal prisoners are "rapists and murderers", while under 20% of State prisoners and more than 53% of Federal prisoners are in on drug charges). That would really be brilliant. Lock someone up for possession of drugs, and then allow them to possess drugs in prison.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    29. Re:I still don't get it though. by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      I think (I could be wrong) you misunderstand me. I was expanding by saying because of the overcrowding of prisons which in great part is due to the war-on-drugs, the resources in prisons will not accomplish the task of security, safety, and rehabilitation.

    30. Re:I still don't get it though. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So maybe they should decriminalize drugs in the first place, and then taxpayers wouldn't have to pay to lock up so many people for victimless crimes, and we wouldn't have so many problems with prison guards making extra money through smuggling.

      I guess that would make too much sense.

    31. Re:I still don't get it though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't get why are cellphones themselves a problem, and why the solution is jamming them."

      http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/grants/funded-projects/prison-phone-service-provider-contracts-kickbacks-and-fiscal-impact-on-prisoners2019-families

      The state makes a fortune off prison telephones. All of the talk about "planning crimes" or "drug deals" is total BS.

      The mission statements of the majority of correctional facilities in the U.S. require these facilities to protect the public while inmates are incarcerated. From 1996-1998 the Office of The Inspector General (a branch of the U.S. Department of Justice) conducted the most extensive investigation into criminal calls originating out of federal prisons ever undertaken. The report cataloged more than 200 different cases of inmates using inmate telephones to order the execution of witnesses, continue their drug dealing operations, continue fraud activities, conduct death threats, and several other criminal activities.

      The report stated that the number of criminal calls originating out of the prisons were far greater than what the OIG report cataloged. OIG only reported on calls which eventually resulted in convictions.

      The high level problem is that only a small fraction of inmates are placing criminal phone calls while they are incarcerated. However, that small fraction forces the industry to spend millions of dollars a year on technology to prevent and detect the small minority that are continuing their criminal activities.

      Jamming cellphones is one small step towards helping assure that inmates are placing their phone calls on the existing facilities inmate phone systems which contain technology that records and tracks inmate phone calls.

    32. Re:I still don't get it though. by flajann · · Score: 1

      I think (I could be wrong) you misunderstand me. I was expanding by saying because of the overcrowding of prisons which in great part is due to the war-on-drugs, the resources in prisons will not accomplish the task of security, safety, and rehabilitation.

      Ok.

      As far as rehabilitation, every time there is an effective program, like giving prisoners an option to earn degrees, there's always a backlash, despite the fact such polit programs have been proven effective by a marked reduction in recidivism rates.

      The US Public, as a whole, is rather mean-spirited. Rather than see the immates truly become rehabilitated, they'd rather see them suffer back on the streets with nothing to fall back on other than the very crime they were incarcerated for in the first place.

      The real sad thing is that educating the inmates would also cost less than the current way of doing things in the long run; and even beyond that, would create new tax payers than tax lechers.

      I personally find it frustrating. The real solutions would cost less and improve society in the long run, but society is dead sent against it. Go figure.

    33. Re:I still don't get it though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't know much about the prison system here in texas, but know that not to long ago i went to visit a friend in prison, i couldn't. the whole state was on lock down because somebody got caught with a cell phone.

    34. Re:I still don't get it though. by superflippy · · Score: 1

      Not going to argue with that. Yes, SC definitely locks up too many people.

      --
      Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
  23. Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prisoners are notoriously good at smuggling in and hiding contraband (they have all day to think of little else and very little to lose if they get caught). And it doesn't help that SCDC is SERIOUSLY understaffed right now (thanks to years of budget cuts and neglect).

    Solution: All prisoners cells get searched 100% exhaustively thoroughly. All prisoners are required to go thru a security screening corridor single file with a full-body X-ray scanner like airports have, in case they try to smuggle a cellphone up their rectum.

    1. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Prisoners still have rights. Its easy to fight for the rights of people you like. Its important to fight for the rights of people you don't like.

    2. Re:Homeland Security by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Are you going to pay for the staff to do this "100% exhaustive" searching? Because the citizens of South Carolina sure aren't going to accept a tax increase to pay for it. At this point SCDC can't even staff most of its guard towers. And even more budget cuts are on the way.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Homeland Security by crakbone · · Score: 1

      Buy a couple of old luggage xray machines and run the inmates through them. Worst case scenario you remove a bunch of them from the gene pool when you nuke their nethers. But then again there nethers might already be baked from the cell phone that's being smuggled.

    4. Re:Homeland Security by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Uh.. You also have to search the Guards.

      Where do you think the prisoners are getting the contraband? Taking a detour during their daily Starbucks run?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prisoners do NOT have the "right" to have a cell phone, you idiot.

      And I have, unlike you, BEEN to prison, and I can tell you from
      firsthand experience that the guards are dishonest pieces of human waste who are more often than not a lower quality of
      human being than the prisoners themselves.

      The fact that the original post was modded +5 insightful proves that Slashdot is now the province of fools. You people make me
      want to puke.

  24. Disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is most disturbing about this is one of the keywords for the story, "fuckthepolice". What is that? It says a lot about the original poster methinks.

    1. Re:Disturbing by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You ARE new here, officer. Tags aren't put there by the submitter. AND a lot of people have never EVER had a good experience with cops. Someone breaks into your house, your stuff's gone but the cops aren't getting it back. Then they pull you over for DWB or DWY (driving while black or driving while young) the next day.

      After my home was burglarized in 1978 and I later found that the theif was a police informant, and the cops let him keep MY property, I cultivated a "fuck the police" attitude myself. If law enforcement personnel had better ethics, people wouldn't have a "fuck the police" attitude.

      You reap what you sow.

  25. Sensational by j_166 · · Score: 1

    That's kind of a sensational headline isn't it? I mean, the entire state of South Carolina is going to jam cell phones!? My god that is Fascist! Oh wait. They want to do it in prisons. Snore. I mean, I guess the sensational headline did its job, because if they would have added 'in prisons' to the end of it, I would have thought 'big deal, prisoners aren't supposed to have mobile phones anyway'.

    Its sort of like writing a headline that says 'US To Mandate Switch to Nuclear Fission Powered Cars', and then in the summary say (by the year 4062).

  26. Waaaaaa!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Of course, some may use it to just talk to a loved one any time they can."

    Oh, don't you just feel so bad for those poor prisoners who just want to talk to a loved one? Quick, someone cue the sad violin music! Next time try not to commit a felony jackass. It really isn't that hard. All it takes is demonstrating a little concern for those around you rather than focusing on satisfying your needs at all costs.

    1. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by Enki+X · · Score: 2, Funny

      Haven't you heard? Everyone in prison is innocent!

      --
      On second thought, let's not go to the internet. 'Tis a silly place.
    2. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I agree with the premise that "it's prison, it's not meant to be fun", I disagree with your "prisoners are all criminals so lets disregard their welfare" attitude.

      In this day and age, where the legal definition of a criminal and the moral definition of one are so far divorced from one another, it really can't be taken for granted that prisoners deserve to be where they are. Remember, the RIAA wants jail time for college file sharers.

      So, unless you've never shared a copyrighted song or movie with a friend, I'd lose the attitude.

      --
      I hate printers.
    3. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by flajann · · Score: 1

      While I agree with the premise that "it's prison, it's not meant to be fun", I disagree with your "prisoners are all criminals so lets disregard their welfare" attitude.

      In this day and age, where the legal definition of a criminal and the moral definition of one are so far divorced from one another, it really can't be taken for granted that prisoners deserve to be where they are. Remember, the RIAA wants jail time for college file sharers.

      So, unless you've never shared a copyrighted song or movie with a friend, I'd lose the attitude.

      Finally, someone who sees the reality of this situation! Most prisoners in the US are in for victimless crimes, false accusations, or failure to pay child support. Since most courts order child support at rates beyond what the guy can easily afford, it's no surprise they are such high default rates.

      The US has a fine mess on its hands. Perhaps the economic downturn will bring some "reality" to the states so hell-bent on locking everyone up for the most inane reasons.

    4. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Most prisoners in the US are in for victimless crimes, false accusations, or failure to pay child support.

      Citation?

      The only statistics I can find suggest that most prisoners are in for violent crimes. And I've never heard of anyone being imprisoned for failure to pay child support.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you're right, many criminals are sociopaths who commit crimes because of a lack of consideration for others. you could almost say that this disregard for others results from their complete lack of empathy.

      but it's rather naive to think that everyone in prison is "bad," or that everyone who's free is "good." and the statistics would seem to suggest that, either the legal system is screwed up, or for some reason the United States has the highest population ratio of insensitive jackasses in the world.

      i personally would lean more towards the former. due to the "War on Drugs" the U.S. prison population has quadrupled since the 1980's (despite a decline in violent crime and property crime), causing a nation with only 5% of the world's population to have 25% of the world's incarcerated population. therefore it's doubtful that every prison inmate is a murderer, rapist, thief, or bank robber.

      so perhaps you should reconsider your holier than thou attitude and try not to be a jackass. it really isn't that hard.

    6. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Oh, don't you just feel so bad for those poor prisoners who just want to talk to a loved one? Quick, someone cue the sad violin music! Next time try not to commit a felony jackass. It really isn't that hard."

      I feel very bad for the one who were falsely convicted (and there are many ...)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, unless you've never shared a copyrighted song or movie with a friend, I'd lose the attitude.

      Copyright infringement is a civil offense, not a criminal one. Maybe try "So, unless you've never robbed a convenience store and shot the clerk, I'd lose the attitude."

    8. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Copyright infringement is a civil offense, not a criminal one.

      Which part of:

      Remember, the RIAA wants jail time for college file sharers.

      wasn't clear?

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    9. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by bugg · · Score: 3, Informative

      State prisons held a total of 1,274,600 inmates on all charges at yearend 2004. In absolute numbers an estimated 633,700 inmates in State prison at yearend 2004 (the latest year for which offense data is available) were held for violent offenses: 151,500 for murder, 178,900 for robbery, 129,400 for assault, and 153,800 for rape and other sexual assaults. In addition, 265,600 inmates were held for property offenses, 249,400 for drug offenses, and 88,900 for public-order offenses.

      Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 24, Appendix Table 9.

      1.2 million people in state prisons, .6 million in for violent offenses, and you'll see that it's around half.

      Federal prisons were estimated to hold 176,268 sentenced inmates as of Sept. 30, 2006. Of these, 16,507 were incarcerated for violent offenses, including 2,923 for homicide, 9,645 for robbery, and 3,939 for other violent crimes. In addition, 10,015 inmates were serving time for property crimes, including 519 for burglary, 6,437 for fraud, and 3,059 for other property offenses. A total of 93,751 were incarcerated for drug offenses. Also, 54,336 were incarcerated for public-order offenses, incluging 19,496 for immigration offenses and 24,298 for weapons offenses.

      Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 26, Appendix Table 13.

      These facts and others at http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/62

      176k people in federal prison, 16k for violent offenses, and it's about 90% of the people who are in for non-violent offenses.

      It's also very trivial to get charged with a violent offense, the sad reality is. Often police add on resisting arrest/misdemeanor assault on a police officer (in at least one jurisdiction I've lived in - DC - the crimes are the same) to just about any arrest where the person made any attempt at all to get away.

      The ridiculous prison industrial system that exists also creates a culture where violence makes more sense. If you're risking going to prison for decades, life, or more, for a nonviolent offense, you might as well use violence to get away. After all, if you aren't rich enough to afford a lawyer, being a good person - or even being innocent - might not keep you out of prison.

      --
      -bugg
    10. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by Sen.NullProcPntr · · Score: 1

      The only statistics I can find suggest that most prisoners are in for violent crimes. And I've never heard of anyone being imprisoned for failure to pay child support.

      Yes, as counterintuitive as it may be if you don't pay child support you can be taken away from your source of income and put in jail.

      Although this is probably limited to people who are caught after "disappearing" to avoid making the payments.
      As far as the GP assertion that not paying child support is "victim less" ask any single parent (male or female) if there are no victims when the money stops coming in.

    11. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      "Of course, some may use it to just talk to a loved one any time they can."

      Oh, don't you just feel so bad for those poor prisoners who just want to talk to a loved one? Quick, someone cue the sad violin music! Next time try not to commit a felony jackass. It really isn't that hard. All it takes is demonstrating a little concern for those around you rather than focusing on satisfying your needs at all costs.

      TFA also mentions extending the power to local governments, too. That means county and city jails. Inmates in those facilities are serving short sentences for minor crimes. Else, they are accused criminals who can't make bail while awaiting trial, and who are innocent until proven otherwise.

      Remember, too, that most inmates will eventually be released. Contact with their families outside may make their re-integration into society easier for them and for everyone else.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    12. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      %99 of all prisoners are there for drug-related charges. 1/3rd of the population of the US will have been through prison by the age of 35. Sadly I don't have the source at hand, but the US criminal system is a corporation. This was all encouraged of the privatization of the prisons, now on the stock exchange. Convicts have become commodities.

      http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=851

    13. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, there are a hell of a lot of innocent people in our prisons. As well as a hell of a lot of people in for things that shouldn't be crimes (minor drug offenses, prostitution, other consensual activities). The US has the world's highest per capita incarceration rate. Next time try to have some compassion.

    14. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by cparker15 · · Score: 1

      Right... because everybody in prison is guilty and has received a fair trial. </sarcasm>

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

    15. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many death-row prisoners were set free once DNA evidence came on the scene?

      What makes you think the percentage of jailed innocents is higher on death-row than for minor crimes?

      Fact is, once accused, if you can't prove yourself innocent well above and beyond any reasonable doubt, you will be jailed for a very long time!

      Juries believe prosecutors and police over you. Your innocence or guilt matters not to such people. They are the definition of lawful-evil. They advance their careers via convictions. Innocent. Guilty. Both work equally well.

      In the fullness of time, you will come to understand this. It is inevitable.

    16. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Although this is probably limited to people who are caught after "disappearing" to avoid making the payments.

      In New Jersey, you can be in the hospital with a life-threatening illness and they will put you in jail once you are released should you miss a payment. They know where you are, you are in no way capable of paying, you are not intentionally avoiding payment, but you will be jailed without due process of law as if you were an escaped criminal.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    17. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by operagost · · Score: 1

      i personally would lean more towards the former. due to the "War on Drugs" the U.S. prison population has quadrupled since the 1980's (despite a decline in violent crime and property crime), causing a nation with only 5% of the world's population to have 25% of the world's incarcerated population. therefore it's doubtful that every prison inmate is a murderer, rapist, thief, or bank robber.

      I tend to agree with you, but this is a bit of a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument. In addition, capital punishment was phased out (either de jure or de facto) in some states in the last two decades, increasing the general population. China doesn't have this problem because they keep their execution chambers busy.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    18. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by flajann · · Score: 1

      It's also very trivial to get charged with a violent offense, the sad reality is. Often police add on resisting arrest/misdemeanor assault on a police officer (in at least one jurisdiction I've lived in - DC - the crimes are the same) to just about any arrest where the person made any attempt at all to get away.

      The ridiculous prison industrial system that exists also creates a culture where violence makes more sense. If you're risking going to prison for decades, life, or more, for a nonviolent offense, you might as well use violence to get away. After all, if you aren't rich enough to afford a lawyer, being a good person - or even being innocent - might not keep you out of prison.

      Very true. I am told that police usually try to hit you with 2 charges, the second one usually "resisting arrest" or something else bogus, so they will have something on you to force you to plea bargain.

      I may not have cited references, but I know what I know from (painful) personal experience. Cops just hate it when you expose the truth about them to the press. And you know what? I'd do it every darn time.

    19. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      So, half of the people in State Prisons are in for violent crimes, 10% in federal prisons for the same.

      Which you think proves the assertion that "most" of them are in for "victimless crimes"?

      Try again.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    20. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And here, you can never pay child support and if the mother demands payment to see the kid, she can be put in jail for kidnapping.

      Yes, the poor abused men that don't want to pay support have it hard. Usually, it's men that don't want anything to do with the kid (well, one weekend a month to feel like they are a man) and resent losing income to the bitch that bore the children. Of course, those that receive child support don't have to pay a penny on actually supporting the child. The whole system is messed up, and it's the men that caused it. The ones that denied being a parent, refused to support their child, and when ordered to pay didn't that caused the mess we are in. So many bad laws were made to try to get all the deadbeat dads to pay something that created stupid laws everywhere.

      But your example is the only one I know of where a single missed payment could land you in jail. Your example is the only one I know of where proof of inability to pay will still land you in jail. Your example is extreme, and a few searches indicate that sending a letter from the hospital to the court would be sufficient to prevent any negative result at all, and that failing to pay a single payment will not result in jail, and at most could result in a lien against real estate. Perhaps it is written such that a single missed payment could result in jail without any other action, but I would challenge you to present a single case of a person that has missed one and only one payment in their life and was jailed because of it (and no, they needn't have been in the hospital or such). If you can't find such a person, I will assume that you are incorrect in your characterization of the situation. And, unless you have heard of something actually happening, you should refrain from "it could happen, even though it is infinetly unlikely and has never happened, ever."

    21. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by neomunk · · Score: 1

      If you're reaction to that post was smug superiority as opposed to shock and dismay at the number of non-violent offenders locked up with the vicious ones, then you surely and simply need to pull your head out of your ass.

      Yes, you're technically right, but the OPs point has been well made, at least to anyone with any shred of empathy, or even a good sense of scale. The long-term-incarceration level of non-violent offenders is staggering, not to mention the stupefying number of drug offenders in federal prisons, many of which ARE victimless criminals. This is the important fact to take away from this thread, not some random statistic that you pull for to show someone how smart you are.

    22. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by neomunk · · Score: 1

      I have an even worse example of child support system dysfunction, it could apply to any bureaucracy, but the jail-time for owing child support policy of the state in question makes the outcome a bit extreme...

      My half-sister's dad was paying child support in the 1980s, directly taken out of his check. For a few of those years he worked 2 jobs fulltime, and for some reason, the child support (full amount) was deducted from BOTH checks. Try as he might, he could not get the problem resolved, as it was always 'Someone Else's' department. The accounting program though, did in fact receive both payments, resulting in him having a net positive balance in the child-support database. By the time my sister turned 18, his balance was just over $30,000.

      Try as he might, he has yet to figure out how to get child support to cut him a check. Some of the routes he has taken has even led to people telling him that child support "doesn't do that". That's $30,000 of his own money (that wasn't sent to my sister (mom, really) , she got the prescribed 1x amount, not the 2x deduction) stolen by the state, but it gets worse.

      Apparently the function that checks the child support database so that it can automatically issue arrest warrants doesn't expect a positive balance. He's seriously been arrested 5 times for this! His last arrest was about a month and a half ago. As my sister has been an adult for over a decade now, the experience has been tiring to say the least.

    23. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      My wife's father is still paying child support on her, and there is no end in sight. He owes "back support" to the state, and no one will tell him how much, so he gets garnished and can't get it to stop or anyone to even say when it will. But no arrests for him.

      Apparently the function that checks the child support database so that it can automatically issue arrest warrants doesn't expect a positive balance. He's seriously been arrested 5 times for this! His last arrest was about a month and a half ago. As my sister has been an adult for over a decade now, the experience has been tiring to say the least.

      If that happened to me, I'd be filing all sorts of charges against the person that issued the warrant (at least where I am, a judge's name is attached) as well as the cop and such for kidnapping, illegal imprisonment, assault, and such.

    24. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      and the statistics would seem to suggest that, either the legal system is screwed up, or for some reason the United States has the highest population ratio of insensitive jackasses in the world.

      If you have a high population ratio of insensitive jackasses, then you'll likely end up with a screwed legal system. After all, everyone, from lawyers to judges, will be trying to game the system for personal gain; and simultaneously, those outside the prison will be trying to screw over those inside with the justification that they're felons and thus not deserving of any consideration.

      Of course, being an insensitive jackass is pretty much required to succeed in an excessively capitalistic society, since everything is a competition there; and failure to win means not getting things like basic healthcare either. So, I consider it yet another victory for free-market fundamentalism which nowadays plagues America and increasingly other western societies as well.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    25. Re:Waaaaaa!!! by bugg · · Score: 1

      Honestly I don't give a fuck about whether the people in jails and prisons are in there for "victimless" crimes or not, or "violent" crimes or not. Have you ever been locked up, or ever sit through arraignment court? While I wouldn't advise getting arrested for the educational value, I would recommend sitting through arraignment court for a day, so you get an idea of who the police are actually arresting and why.

      I can tell you this: a very large number of people who are arrested are released without charge, at their arraignment. I've heard estimates that at times- especially when for political reasons the police have an "all hands on deck" in DC it's around half of the people who are arrested are released without charge. They arrest them to boost their statistics (part of the reason I don't worry about the statistics too much: metrics can be gamed) for arrests and to keep people off of the street for a day or two. And I can tell you of those who are charged with crimes, most of them are there for some silly probation or parole violation (I saw a woman get her probation revoked because she violated a condition of her probation that she was not allowed to be in any automobile - what a condition!), or a nonviolent drug offense (typically simple possession), and once in awhile they'll bring around some sex workers on solicitation charges.

      There are people who get locked up for things that actually hurt people. There'll be a couple DUIs, and maybe a couple domestic violence cases. There may be a couple people who are there for the (nonviolent) offense of selling drugs. But, these are the minority.

      I will also tell you this: I don't think I've ever seen people go to jail for crimes that others don't get away with on a daily basis. They lock up people who use heroin but people who can afford to shop for a doctor can get oxycontin, which is basically the same damn thing but in pill form. The CEOs, managers, and stockholders of Endo and Purdue make a killing off of it, but they'll never get in trouble (especially the shareholders!), and the number of doctors who get in trouble is really low relative to the number of doctors that are engaged in the process. And when any of these people get in trouble, it'll usually be civil penalties, civil damage, perhaps probation, or criminal fines. Very very rarely would any of these people get sent to prison, which is where most of the people end up in the heroin world. Lend your car to someone who may end up using it to buy or sell heroin, however - and you may find yourself getting locked up on accessory or revocation charges.

      (I will add, because I'm unsure of how to work it into my post, that many people have an assumption that people turn to prescription drugs when they have a medical problem, and that therefore people who are abusing prescription drugs are more likely to have a "good" reason to be on drugs. I think that's bull: many, if not most, people who are addicted to any form of drugs turned to them as a way of medicating real physical or emotional problems. The rich can afford to find doctors who prescribe the pills. The poor are left to self-medicate. I don't believe self-medicating makes you any worse than finding a doctor who will medicate you in the way you want)

      It's not just the drug war where the system reeks of hypocrisy, either. People will get locked up for weapons charges while the weapons dealers rarely come under scrutiny. To say nothing of the amount of times around the world that the US itself functions as a weapons dealer to despots and ruthless killers. And I won't even talk about the level of hypocrisy with what will get you arrested for a "violent offense" versus what the police (or military) get away with doing in every city in the world, every day.

      Drug abuse and addiction is a problem, sure, and there are problems as well related to access and proliferation of weapons. But society has chosen to deal with some of these manifestations of these problems in some segments of society - typically the poor

      --
      -bugg
  27. If this goes through... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we'll get here is: failure to communicate.

    Some phones you just won't reach.

    I don't like it any more than you men.

  28. Big problem on Texas Death Row by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Cell phones in prisons have been big news in Texas, after a Death Row inmate was stupid enough to make threatening calls to the chairman of the state Senate's Criminal Justice Committee. They're still being found, weeks after a supposed crackdown that turned up dozens of in-cell cell phones systemwide, along with an inordinate amount of drugs and weapons.

    The Grits For Breakfast criminal justice blog has been following the issue closely, asking questions like "Will we see prosecutions of staff who smuggle cell phones in addition to inmates and family members paying for their minutes?" Answer: probably not. Sen. Whitmire, whose family was the target of phoned-in threats from Death Row, summed it up pretty nicely at an emergency Senate hearing on the issue. TDCJ officials promised to implement a plan they'd been working on, to prevent guards from smuggling contraband to prisoners, to which Whitmire responded with a question: Why the hell weren't you doing that already?

    One story mentioned a phone that was only found by an abdominal X-ray. I wonder if it was this little bugger? Oh, sorry, bad choice of words.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Big problem on Texas Death Row by Hatta · · Score: 3, Funny

      One story mentioned a phone that was only found by an abdominal X-ray.

      Well that's one way to jam a cell phone.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  29. "Jamming" is such a misused term by Controlio · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Jamming" is not necessary. Everyone seems to think that blowing out a signal is the only way to get things done. That is way too short-sighted.

    It's easy to install a cell network of your own. Hell, Sprint sells 4-person personal cell towers in their stores in the US. So instead of "jamming" the frequencies, make a localized cell network that simply black-holes the unauthorized calls. This could even be adapted so the ESNs of legitimate users (guards, warden, etc) could be passed through, so everyone is happy.

    Or if you want to go the "Big Brother" route, make a localized network that snoops on all the unauthorized voice and data traffic. Seems like a great way to prove that criminals inside jails with cell phones are actually orchestrating crimes instead of just guessing about it.

    1. Re:"Jamming" is such a misused term by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, doing it this way opens up the possibility of triangulating the location of unauthorized cell phones. No need to start tossing every cell in the place, just wait for the system to register an out going call and narrow down where it's coming from and send guards to that location.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:"Jamming" is such a misused term by hrieke · · Score: 1

      Not a good solution- you're basis this on the fact that the guards aren't corruptible.
      A guard could sell access to his approved cell phone at the start of his shift, and have it returned by the end.

      --
      III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    3. Re:"Jamming" is such a misused term by starman97 · · Score: 1

      And with every call tracked, you don't think that there will be questions raised when a guard's phone is found to be calling Crips HQ ?

      --
      Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
    4. Re:"Jamming" is such a misused term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the warden would end up with a log of when and who the "guard" called during his shift.

    5. Re:"Jamming" is such a misused term by ReedYoung · · Score: 1
      "Jamming" is such a Hollywood gimmick.

      It's easy to install a cell network of your own. Hell, Sprint sells 4-person personal cell towers in their stores in the US. So instead of "jamming" the frequencies, make a localized cell network that simply black-holes the unauthorized calls.

      Even easier would be the Faraday Cage suggestion of mcgrew somewehere else in this thread. Provided that the building has wired phones, anybody who should have access will and zero effort has to go into restricting access.

      Security 101: default deny policies.

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
    6. Re:"Jamming" is such a misused term by hrieke · · Score: 1

      Pay as you go phone- not tied to anyone. Searches occur, phone not found. Use of drop numbers and 1-800 conference numbers so tracing is difficult to do, etc.

      --
      III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
  30. what is incarceration about? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    it should deprive you of rights, because you deprived someone else of theirs (stolen from them, took their life, raped them)

    prisoners shouldn't have television, computer access, or cellphones. what is the whole point of incarceration in the first place?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:what is incarceration about? by maxume · · Score: 1

      It's about punishment.

      Still, a simple cost benefit analysis suggests that rehabilitation is a good idea for the ones that you plan on releasing.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:what is incarceration about? by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 1

      what is the whole point of incarceration in the first place?

      It depends on who you ask. Some say rehabilitation, others say punishment, and there are those that think it should be somewhere in between. Deprivation of rights (though cell phones / T.V. are more a privilege) if anything, should be a consequence of rehabilitation, unless you plan on keeping the individual in there for life. Maybe that individual cannot be rehabilitated.

      I personally see no reason why a prisoner needs a cell phone anyhow. If they need to speak with their family or their lawyer, they can go through the prison system. ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that they're using the cell phones to intimidate witnesses, run drug deals, and order hits.

    3. Re:what is incarceration about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      prisoners shouldn't have television, computer access, or cellphones. what is the whole point of incarceration in the first place?

      Maybe you could consider that it's not in the interests of law-abiding society to deprive them of relatively harmless cheap entertainment (like selected TV)? Do you you want them to go mad with boredom? They'll be a lot more expensive to imprison and/or much more dangerous when released.

      And no, they shouldn't have cellphones.

    4. Re:what is incarceration about? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      That's a good questions and one that isn't as easy to answer as you'd think it is. In many places, prison is punishment to deter future crime. No one wants to go to prison and therefore no one should commit crimes that will send them there.

      In other places, prison is more about rehabilitation. It assumes prisoners have done something wrong for a reason and attempts to address that reason through education, anger managment, anti-drug programs etc. It also removes them from society, but it is more to force them into their rehabilitation and to protect society than it is punishment.

      It's interesting that two wildly disparate theories of criminal justice both produce the same basic concept of prisons. Personally, I believe that neither system is better or worse than the other, there are examples of both succeeding admirably. The problem in the US is that we don't implement either one. Unstead we try to combine the two, and end up sending contradictory messages.

    5. Re:what is incarceration about? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      what is the whole point of incarceration in the first place?

      No-one knows. Some say it's punishment, but then isn't it just a subtle form of mental torture (and wouldn't it be more fair to get back to the real kind, which is at least quick and short?). Some say it's rehabilitation, but, due to the specific prison subculture, we probably end up with more people who go through it turn from non-violent criminal to the violent kind (or at least the kind that's more prone towards breaking the law in the future, just so long as one doesn't get caught). Some say it's to isolate dangerous people from the society, but then prison terms shouldn't be predetermined, and confinement should be conditional on the person actually being a threat (now or likely in the immediate future) at any given moment of time - in which case a lot of cases that end up in prison sentences today should mean no prison tiem at all, and some other cases should effectively mean life sentence.

      Since, in the reality, it's none of the above, we can conclude that the existing prison system is essentially an extremely expensive and inefficient way to cause suffering in large groups of people with no particular goal.

  31. More Seriously though by itsenrique · · Score: 3, Insightful

    its not inmates with cellphones coming in at intake, and its probably unlikely that anyone other than a CORRECTIONS OFFICER gets a phone in for someone. the real issue is corruption here. i doubt a CO would smuggle a gun in for you at any cost, but a cell phone... well everyone has a price i guess. i think south carolinas first move should be to investigate how so many cell phones get inside in the first place.

    1. Re:More Seriously though by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I would do it, if I were a corrections officer. Why not? There's nothing morally wrong with it. All you do by smuggling cellphones in is to work against the corrupt system of charging insane telephone rates to the families of prisoners.

  32. You could always ask by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    Tony Cimo, Rudolph Tyner and Pee Wee Gaskins about smuggling.

    http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/gaskins/1.html

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  33. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  34. Some people need cell phone access. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully movie theaters and restaurants do it next.

    Hopefully people with your attitude never accomplish that. I have a cell phone with me at all times due to my daughter's extensive health problems. Am I not allowed to go to the movies or out to eat? If a cell phone bothers you that much then perhaps you need to be taking a closer look at yourself to see if you are the problem.

    1. Re:Some people need cell phone access. by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Troll

      I have a cell phone with me at all times due to my daughter's extensive health problems. Am I not allowed to go to the movies or out to eat?

      When you get to the theater, tell the manager about your situation, let him or her know where you're sitting and that there may be an emergency phone call.

      I'm sorry for your problems, but we all have problems. My roomate is in the hospital dying of cancer, but that's MY problem. Don't make YOUR problems mine as well.

    2. Re:Some people need cell phone access. by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      You are an edge case. For every person like you who has (benefit of the doubt, for arguments sake) a genuine need to be reachable by cell phone at all times, there are 10 people who's inflated sense of self importance leads them to think they need to be reachable at all times, when in truth they don't. And for every one of them, there are ten assholes who who think it's their god-given right to talk on a cell phone any time, any where. And for every one of them are a hundred people (all under 25) who have never even considered the possibility that talking on a cell phone might in some way annoy another person, and if you were to try to explain this concept to them would have dificulty grasping that other people might not feel the same way as they do about anything, never mind something as normal to them as talking on a phone.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  35. But, but.... by codeButcher · · Score: 1

    If I can't have a CELL phone in my prison CELL, what's the use????

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  36. Old fashioned pagers... by Joce640k · · Score: 1, Troll

    Somebody who's on-call could carry an old fashioned non-blocked pager.

    The cinema's phone blocker could easily detect 911 calls and turn off the the blocking if it detected one.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > The cinema's phone blocker could easily detect 911 calls and turn off the the blocking if it detected one.

      Really? Easily?

      Care to describe how it could easily detect 911 calls, without actually being a cellular base station in its own right?

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    2. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 2, Informative

      no it couldn't. have you looked at cell phone jamming technology at all? these are not complex, computer-driven, or selective. it would not be able to switch on and off depending on the phone number dialed. they broadcast white noise at the necessary frequencies to keep cellphones from being able to communicate with a tower. it is the wireless equivalent of screaming loudly to keep someone else from having a successful conversation.

    3. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Yep I'm sure that theaters who won't pay for someone to stay in the theater to prevent disruption from its patrons are going to expose themselves to the liability of what their blocker not letting an emergency call through.

    4. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by internerdj · · Score: 1

      That will teach me to respond to an email and respond to a post at the same time...
      should read: the liability of their blocker failing to let an emergency call through when they promise to let them through.

    5. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The cinema's phone blocker could easily detect 911 calls and turn off the the blocking if it detected one.

      No, they couldn't. Phone blockers don't magically decrypt the GSM/CDMA radio stream and parse it for a calling number.

    6. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 0

      So its a cellular base station in its own right. Why not?

    7. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all emergency Calls come via 911 either...

    8. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So its a cellular base station in its own right. Why not?

      And it's an alien radio reception array with mind reading capabilities. Why not?

    9. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Pfft. Shows what you know. The ones they are going to put into theatres will do that, as well as respond all incoming text messages letting the send know that you are in a movie and will respond when you get out!

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    10. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Don't emergency numbers have some special provision that allow them through even in overcrowded cells?

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    11. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      So there's an emergency and the doctor in the cinema is needed immediately.

      Who is going to tell him to break the glass?

    12. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Without the SIM they simply can't do that. It holds the encryption key for that conversation.

      On top of that it would probably be illegal as tapping phone conversations requires a court order normally.

    13. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Because theaters operate on pretty slim margins to begin with, and so there would need to be a fairly good financial justification to set one up, with all of the inevitable waiver fees and other legal costs involved.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    14. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "The cinema's phone blocker could easily detect 911 calls and turn off the the blocking if it detected one."

      Of course! Why didn't I think of that. All they have to do is analyzed the jammed sig... er. ah. wait. Never mind.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    15. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      I was being facetious

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    16. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by mordred99 · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is a troll. I agree whole heartedly with the pagers being used for on call with a cell phone call back. I think it is freaking stupid to use a cell phone for SMS messages. A pager is loud and you can turn it off when you are in the theater. Using SMS does not work when forwarding phones, so it makes things a lot harder when you want one number to page people (unless you carry two phones). If you were going to call someone, call their cell. So the only reason to have text received on a phone - which a pager can do infinitely better than any phone out there. I don't think the 911 calls things is valid - as you would have to be re-broadcasting the cell phone calls, after decrypting. Nope, most theaters wont install that technology.

    17. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      I could have sworn when I was at a Hospital, my cellphone was blocked SAVE for 911. I think my screen even said emergency-calls-only.

    18. Re:Old fashioned pagers... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      It may have said that, but whether or not it would work is another matter. When your cell is locked onto a base, but you have no access to the network, the network is supposed to allow emergency calls through. Now, if you're an AT&T customer who can only see a T-mobile tower, not a problem, but if you're connected to a dummy tower designed to do this, but with no network connectivity, you're out of luck.

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. It's a different sort of "jamming". by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    This isn't old-fashioned jamming where you broadcast white noise to drown out everything else in the area, it's installation of a dummy cell which the phones will lock onto instead of the real thing.

    If you control the cell you can do what you like with the calls.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:It's a different sort of "jamming". by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "This isn't old-fashioned jamming where you broadcast white noise to drown out everything else in the area, it's installation of a dummy cell which the phones will lock onto instead of the real thing."

      Well you just kind of pulled that claim out of your a$$ didn't you :-)

      The word jamming is used extensively, and while the reporter and prison officials could have been using the term wrong, the following excerpt FTA proves that they are doing exactly what you say they are not, to wit jamming the signal, not intercepting it and playing man-in-the-middle:

      "At Friday's demonstration, which was attended by representatives from the prison systems in Arkansas and North Carolina as well as by a representative of U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, cell phone signals were blocked inside a visitation room at the maximum-security prison but no interference was detected with signals outside the prison."

      [emphasis added]

      Yep. that's jamming not intercepting.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  39. Ask Network Providers to Drop calls from inside by Roenax · · Score: 0

    If every mobile phone location is known. Just drop any calls located within the prison cell phone grid reference. It can't be that hard to do.

  40. but will they think to block... by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

    ... the Banana Phone

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  41. Okay by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    Movie theaters I get. But restaurants? As long as you keep your voice down I could give a rat's ass if you talk on the phone.

    1. Re:Okay by j_sp_r · · Score: 1

      People don't keep their voice down. Just feed them peppers instead of blcoking the signal

    2. Re:Okay by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Movie theaters I get. But restaurants? As long as you keep your voice down I could give a rat's ass if you talk on the phone.

      What makes you think anyone rude enough to talk on their mobile phone during dinner will be considerate enough to keep their voice down?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Okay by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      "Rude" is subjective.

      Besides if I'm waiting for my food it's not my dinner time. I'm not sure that restaurants implicate some sort of collective "dinner" either.

    4. Re:Okay by mjwx · · Score: 1

      "Rude" is subjective.

      "rude" is not as subjective as you think

      Besides if I'm waiting for my food it's not my dinner time

      Because its not your dinner time its OK to make other patrons listen to you shout you boring conversation on the phone whist other people are trying to enjoy dinner?
      Rude can be described as having no consideration for those around you so "rude" can most definitely be applied to people who shout on the phone at restaurants.

      Also this brings up the point, if you are at a restaurant then it's reasonable to assume that you are there with friends, so why are you neglecting them by talking on the phone? Good sir "rude" is not nearly as subjective as you think.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  42. don't they have any geeks there? by Uzik2 · · Score: 1

    A little tin foil, or conductive paint, would fix the problem. It would be cheap, effective, and not require regulatory issues.
    Hey, you southern geeks! What's up? Don't any of you actually know any engineering any more?

    --
    -- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
  43. band aid by Thaelon · · Score: 1

    This is a bandaid on the real problem. The prisons failing to stop inmates from getting cell phones.

    It would probably be much cheaper and simpler just to set up cell phone signal detectors and catch the inmates red handed. The risks of inadvertently jamming innocent phones (those of prison employees or off-site phones) are too high. A lot of people don't have land lines, and cell phones are a wonderful thing in an emergency.

    Or, you know, they could learn to better prevent inmates from getting the phones in the first place.

    --

    Question everything

  44. Turning the place into a Faraday cage != good idea by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    Probably not possible, (they can always go outside), and maybe not good if your staff need to use phones / radios

  45. ban them in restaurants and theaters? by lembree · · Score: 1

    Evidently Corey Brook isn't a parent. Let me ask you this Corey, would you prefer that my babysitter call me on my silenced cell phone, or have the management use the PA system to get my attention when the kid throws up all over the place?

    1. Re:ban them in restaurants and theaters? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would rather you hire someone competent to watch your child, stay home when your child is sick, put your phone on vibrate, and leave the room before you answer the call. In other words, not be a self-absorbed asshole.

      As a comedian said, your private is invading our public.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:ban them in restaurants and theaters? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Evidently Corey Brook isn't a parent. Let me ask you this Corey, would you prefer that my babysitter call me on my silenced cell phone, or have the management use the PA system to get my attention when the kid throws up all over the place?
      Well, I don't know about Corey, but as a parent, I would rather have my babysitter clean up the mess and tell me about it (or not) when I get home. If there is a real emergency, I would rather that they deal with it appropriately rather than call me and tell me about it since I am X minutes away at a movie theater and can't do anything about it anyway.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:ban them in restaurants and theaters? by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      I would say that the self-absorbed assholes are the people who think that they're entitled to never hear another person carry on a conversation in a public place.

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    4. Re:ban them in restaurants and theaters? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, everyone expects to hear a phone conversation in a MOVIE THEATER. And, of course, it is appropriate to discuss color of one's baby's diarrhea or said baby's vomit in a restaurant at such a volume that people at other tables can hear. Oh, how could anyone be such a self-absorbed asshole as to think one should have some manners and a little fucking decorum.

      I would suggest you go breath yourself, but one must have a functioning nervous system and brain for nerve gas to have an effect.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    5. Re:ban them in restaurants and theaters? by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see. NONE of those things happen without cell phones.... right?

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    6. Re:ban them in restaurants and theaters? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Generally, no, they don't happen without cell phones. Maybe if you could remember back to when cell phones were incredibly rare you would know that.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    7. Re:ban them in restaurants and theaters? by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      If I could remember that far back? You sure make a lot of assumptions. You'll look like less of an idiot if you learn not to do that.

      Even back in the day before push-button phones, people talked too loudly. And talked in movie theaters and restaurants. And kicked the back of your seat. I do remember it.

      And even now, I am only occasionally irritated at someone talking on a cell phone, but more often irritated at people who aren't. They talk loudly, they talk about things you don't need to hear, and they just generally have no concern for other people.

      Stop blaming the device, and blame the general decline of manners in society. People used to take things like going out to a restaurant, movie, or event more seriously (Yes, I remember when that was the case). These days, you're lucky if people in the restaurant have their pants pulled up high enough to cover their cracks.

      Cell phone use is an easy, obvious scapegoat... but it's not the root of the problem.

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    8. Re:ban them in restaurants and theaters? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      ...

      Whatever. Just say it. Repeat after me.

      "Get off my goddamn lawn!"

  46. It's easy to get rid of them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just paint over!

  47. probably telcos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't be surprised if the telcos were behind this. They maintain pay phones in prisons that cost an arm and a leg for per minute charges, even if the call is local. Nice profit center for them.

    Allowing cell phones from rival carriers would cut into their business.

  48. Auto Silent Mode by esme · · Score: 1

    What I would really like to see is movie theaters and the like being able to broadcast a signal that would automatically force phones into silent mode. Because I really don't care if the guy on the other side of the theater is texting or talking. But the ringing and beeping carries through the whole theater. I would find this a useful service, too, since I sometimes forget to put my phone in silent mode. Or, more often, forget to take it out of silent mode when the movie's over and miss a call because I don't hear it. This seems like a much more reasonable balance to me. Considerate people can still take important calls discreetly. Assholes who talk and annoy people around them (whether a phone is involved or not) should be booted.

  49. scary! by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    The people holding the keys to the gate are too stupid to find radio transmitters working on known frequencies. Makes me wonder how they caught any criminals in the first place.

    1. Re:scary! by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes, it is so easy to find a moving transmitter than runs for 2 minutes somewhere in a 5 acre building. Why, I bet you could do it in 5 seconds.

      Remember, these criminals are not like you, walking around with the phone on waiting for a call. They turn the phone on, make a short call, then turn the phone off.

      Finding a transmitter is not as easy as you make it sound.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  50. Re: South Carolina Wants To Jam Cell Phone Signals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Hopefully movie theaters and restaurants do it next.

    Need to get rid of the smokers first phones dont give you lung cancer passive smoking does

  51. Ferriday cage by BillGod · · Score: 1

    Get rid of the steel barbed wire around the prison and replace it with copper wire and make a giant Ferriday cage. Signals inside will stay inside so walkie talkies would still function and no signal outside could get in.

    --
    MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
    1. Re:Ferriday cage by fotbr · · Score: 1

      And with the price of copper, that copper fence & copper barbed wire would get stolen by thieves wanting to sell it for scrap.

      It would take a special kind of stupid to steal the fencing from the jail, but I'm sure people would try anyway.

  52. they get drugs too by Shivetya · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    and in some co-ed prisons apparently sex by climbing through the ceiling, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8056440

    The point of it is, they cannot control easily what gets in because the punishment for doing so or being caught isn't severe enough to stop it. This trial in Atlanta http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/11/17/nichols_trial_atlanta.html shows all the sorts of things even prisoners can set into motion while locked up!

    The harsh fact is that prisons are anything but locked down. Too many "rights" give prisoners many opportunities to get around some of the rules. Don't bring up prison rape and such like that, that is not something the government sponsors or supports.

    Prison should be annoying and entirely scripted. Every moment of your day should be doing a required activity, from prison work, reading, education, and more. They should have only limited visitation - its prison.

    Yeah, never been to one and won't ever either because I am not stupid, thank you.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:they get drugs too by blueZ3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Modern prisons (especially lower security ones) aren't built like they used to be, where every prisoner is in a cell by themselves or with a single roommate. Oftentimes there are dormitory-like conditions where a dozen or so inmates are in a room together. In addition, there are frequently common-areas (other than the cafeteria) when inmates are gathered in groups. These types of situations make it easier for inmates to hide contraband, especially where other inmates have an interest in assisting or at least no interest in actively preventing it. Add to this modern construction techniques (drop ceilings in a prison? WTF?) and you're asking for trouble.

      You can argue all day long about whether sentences are supposed to be punitive or rehabilitative, but the current situation (with regards to prison rape, drug use, and other contraband) is a direct result of these modern innovations (dorms, common areas, etc.)

      An ideal prison (IMO) would be more like Alcatraz, where each individual prisoner was kept in an separate, concrete block cell. I think if you had this kind of control, you'd be more able to do rehabilitative things (like provide access to computers, etc) whereas now the risks are too high.

      Of course, that kind of facility wouldn't be cheap, and since we're running so many prisons I don't see it happening.

      --
      Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    2. Re:they get drugs too by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Don't bring up prison rape and such like that, that is not something the government sponsors or supports.

      No, but it is something the government sometimes will look the other way on, and not take reasonable measures to stop and prevent.

      For instance, there was an interesting case where an inmate escaped from prison (twice?), and when caught, took the argument to some high court (which eventually ruled against him) arguing that he was escaping out of necessity to avoid physical injury, sexual assault, etc. Turns out that it was well-known that it was actually pretty easy to (1) get out of your cell and (2) get into someone else's cell, and this would go on at night with groups of inmates roaming around. Furthermore, the only avenue that the inmates had to report rape was through the prison mail system, which was sorted by... inmates! Who would often open the mail and read it. And good luck if someone discovered you were a snitch. What did the state do to remedy this? By my reading of the story, basically nothing, at least until the suit hit the press. They installed some more locks that prisoners could latch from inside to keep others out (!), but these were also easily bypassed.

      This sort of event is an extreme as far as this sort of thing goes, but don't act like the prisons are doing what they can to prevent rape.

    3. Re:they get drugs too by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Eastern State (in Philedelphia) was set up along this system, but it became too expensive to maintain before too long. It's a neat tour if you're in the area.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  53. Some movie theaters in Israel already do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Specifically I've seen it in Haifa - there's signal in the building, except for the viewing halls themselves.

  54. Jamming is all fun and games... by Bubba · · Score: 0

    until you jam the signal of a doctor on-call.

    I'm not totally against jamming as long as it is clearly stated upon entering a facility that jamming is taking place. Not making such information available could cost lives.

  55. Use a faraday cage by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    I got it! We need to put prisoners in a special "cell" where they are surrounded by metal bars that block cell phone transmissions. Also, such a cage does not require FCC approval. Put them over the windows too. That'll show 'em!

  56. I think we're looking at this all wrong... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    Rather than focus on taking the cell phones away, we should ask ourselves: what good is a phone call if you can't talk?

    ...Well, I guess the answer to that is that you could still text somebody, or use a TDD device or a modem, maybe fax something, or play songs on the touch tones like in Short Circuit 2, etc...

    Oh yeah, and rigging it so prisoners can't speak might be slightly evil. We should examine the implications there before we do anything...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  57. Boy do I have a story for you! by flajann · · Score: 5, Interesting
    On the cell phone issue I have first hand experience at this. A few years back, sometime after I has pissed off the local police by calling them liars on the front page of the local newspaper (and I had good reason to do this, but that's a story for another time!), they sought every reason to give me hell for years, including anything they could find to arrest me on.

    So they found a nit to arrest me on -- some unpaid fine or some such -- and they were holding me pending release as soon as some friends could bring in the money I owned.

    Alas, Bush was visiting that day and they needed the local police station for security operations. And so everyone they were holding had to be carted off to the state correctional facility. Fun stuff.

    I has asked to use my cell phone so that I could make some calls to those trying to get me out, so that they would know where to go to get me out. It was a mad rush at that police station and many of the cops there looked very distracted and confused. Since I was polite to those who held me behind bars, they granted me this request.

    They were so distracted they forgot they actually gave me my cell phone! Well, I decided to just slip it in my pocket and hang on to it.

    When I arrived at the correctional facility, they knew that myself and the other guys were coming from the local police station, so they did not bother to "pat us down". It was simply a prisoner transfer. We were wearing our civilian clothes when we arrived, and they have this elaborate process of "processing" everyone. So into the waiting room we went. Before they put us in, they made us take off our coats and dump them in piles along a wall on the floor. Fortunately, I had thought to move my cell phone from my pants to my coat pocket en route to the facility, so I dropped my coat with cell phone nicely packed inside.

    The other immates were, for the most part, behaving like civilized people. It was the prison facility that had a lot of bad attitude towards us. Hell, you'd think they were the criminals! There were cameras everywhere, and I noted the position of each and every one of them.

    So, during the process, they put us into those horrid bright-orange jumpsuits, and back into the holding area. They would occasionally allow one or two of us out to make phone calls from the payphone on the wall. Though, you needed a special number to make any calls at all, and they would limit you to a minute or so. And they were very slective about whom they allowed to make phone calls, and not everyone got a chance.

    So, I was allowed out to make a phone call and ask a question or two. After I was done, I watched all the personell and they all looked busy doing things and weren't watching me. I decided, what the hell -- I boldly strode over to where my coat was dumped on the floor, and in one swift move that would make any slight-of-hand magician proud, I swooped down and snatched the cell phone from my coat pocket without anyone noticing! 3 seconds afterwards, I was told to go back to the holding area, and I did.

    I carefully noted the layout of the holding area, which had a very big window so the personell could see us, and there was also a camera. There were about 30 or so of us in that holding area. Ah, but there was a small area near the open toilet that the camera could not see and was not in the view of the guards. Perfect! I went to that area and made a couple of phone calls to those outside to tell them how to access my bank accounts to get the money to get me out of jail! Perfect!

    Of course, other innmates noticed I had a cell phone, and immediatly I was "everyone's friend". They all began asking me if they could borrow my cell to call a girlfriend, a wife, or a mother. I was so moved by this I lent them this. I had them all stand, one at a time, in that same "sweet spot" whilst others stood watch.

    Not one single person called to make a drug deal. Not one single person called to make a hit order. ALL called family, friends, loved ones, and the like. T

    1. Re:Boy do I have a story for you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the moral of this story is ...
      you can get anything you want
      at alice's resuraunt.

    2. Re:Boy do I have a story for you! by flajann · · Score: 1

      and the moral of this story is ... you can get anything you want at alice's resuraunt.

      Oh, gee, thanks. Now I've got that song stuck in my head now! :-)

    3. Re:Boy do I have a story for you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A few years back, sometime after I has pissed off the local police by calling them liars on the front page of the local newspaper (and I had good reason to do this, but that's a story for another time!),"

      Don't dilly dally with the story, man!

    4. Re:Boy do I have a story for you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make with the story already!

  58. Whoops! by flajann · · Score: 1

    I should go to jail for not catching my "has" when I should've put "had"! Off to grammar lockdown I go....

  59. Inmates should lose most of their rights... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inmates should lose most of their rights, that's why it is called prison.

  60. Re:Turning the place into a Faraday cage != good i by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 1

    Radios will still work so long as the base station and the radios are all inside the cage. As for cell phones, you can always go outside to use them.

  61. Um, it WOULD be a base station... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    ...because that's how you block cell phones.

    i.e. Not with some humongous ex-army transmitter which broadcasts white noise to drown everything out.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Um, it WOULD be a base station... by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 1

      no it is not.

      sample wide-area jammer

    2. Re:Um, it WOULD be a base station... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      There's a problem with that. If it interferes with any licenced service, then you get it shut down and taken away from you - along with any other piece of radio equipment you own. TV? Gone. Car stereo? Gone, but that's okay because you won't have the car keys with their RF alarm fob anyway. Mobile phone? Gone.

      Not such a good idea after all, is it?

    3. Re:Um, it WOULD be a base station... by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 1

      never said it was a good idea, okay? and i never said to use the damn thing. but the article is talking about prisons getting jamming gear licensed by the FCC. and the GP is spouting off nonsense about a jammer being a cell base station, which it is clearly not.

  62. Re:fp by clam666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd say don't bother with blocking cell phones, let the inmates have as many as they want.

    Just make it a death penalty to be caught in possession of a charger.

    --
    I'm a satanic clam.
  63. it is that inmates may by kubitus · · Score: 3, Funny

    take the words "cell phone" to literally?

  64. READ THE FINE PRINT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jamming Cellphones in prisons seem's somewhat reasonable but read what they are asking for. They want state and local law enforcement agencies to be able to jam cellphones in prisons AND in emergency situations. One has to wonder what would denote an emergency situation? And might this technology be used to squelch the press and the misconduct of the local law enforcement agencies involved? The order of "jam the cellphones and detain everyone and collect the handsets as "evidence"" could be issued to squelch a police beating. Now that all cellphones have video cameras and still cameras the police are afraid they can't get their regular beatings in.

  65. Next on the agenda: by reallyoldtimer · · Score: 1

    Build cars that jam cell phone signals when the car is moving!

  66. Lazy Prison Employees by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    I get tired of hearing of prisons that can't control this and can't control that. Prisoners get stabbed, alcohol and drugs are rampant and then there is the old rape for a topper.
          Frankly if I had that much trouble with inmates each would be standing alone and buck naked in a cell 24/7/365. But then again that might cut into the guards ability to sell dope.

    1. Re: Lazy Prison Employees by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      That might also get you involved in lots of lawsuits. Ever heard of this little rule against "cruel and unusual punishment?" This is something that is open to interpreation by courts. Because of this, it is great for lawsuits against anything that is even remotely contraversial.

      Unless you want to spend all your time in court, you can't control a prison any more so than you can control a mob in the street. Or tenants in a public housing complex. Failure to abide by these non-rules results in court time, and the history is the prisons lose.

  67. Actually...why not go with the flow... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    If having cell phones is a problem, let them have them but need to effectively earn the use to use them...that is for every 1 hour of cell phone you want....you need to give us 5 hours of labor
    This can be done with many virtual or special companies that offer work from home kits,
    like needing to lick envelops and stuff them full of advertising, etc.... stuff that can be done from home, then guess what the prisons become self sufficient, as they now have a bigger income from using the hours of labor to get contracts etc.

  68. but anonymous coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just wants to jam.

    get it on

  69. Great plot device! by Wyck · · Score: 1

    I'm picturing a movie plot where an inmate's conjugal visitor gets taken hostage and can't use her cellphone to call for help because THE PRISON JAMS THE SIGNALS! The inmate has to break his wife OUT of his own prison, and kick ass against the other prisoners.

    I'll take Jason Statham as the inmate.

  70. You haven't heard the rest of it. by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

    I hear Charleston Harbor is being turned into a giant TV-B-Gone.

  71. Analog hole by bdol · · Score: 1

    At the prison near my office, I often saw people waving their arms and hands around vigorously. I thought they were just more crazy homeless people asking for my change, but when I got closer I noticed they were using sign language to communicate with inmates on the upper floors of the prison. It is troubling that prisoners can smuggle something as large as a cellphone (I shudder to think *how* they do it), but inmates will no doubt find other ways to communicate with the outside world.

  72. WORST Corectional Facilities in the Nation by Jack9 · · Score: 1

    SC Correctional facilities have the lowest average per capita spending per resident (even undercutting the semi-famous Mason Texas' Sheriff, Clint Low's attempts). As of this year, the number of meals per day was reduced to 2 and you don't want to know what they serve. The conditions in a SC facility versus a California facility are so different, I would call the SC facilities barbaric. DONT get convicted of anything in SC.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
    1. Re:WORST Corectional Facilities in the Nation by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Wah. Prison is supposed to be unpleasant.

      I don't get this idea that prisoners should have access to things like refrigerators, TVs, cable, etc. When one is in prison, one should lose a few privileges. The reason they are called penitentiaries is because one is supposed to be forced to think about the harm one has caused and thus become penitent. Now, prisoners get to spend their time working out, reading (yeah right), watching TV, and learning new criminal skills.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:WORST Corectional Facilities in the Nation by Jack9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In male prisons there are tiers (usually 3) that range from white collar criminals (fraud, drug posession) to your serious felons (rape, murder). In female prisons, there is 1 tier (which is why there are more fights, injuries, and deaths per capita for females across the nation in state facilities). Declaring that prison should be unpleasant is small minded and truly an oversimplification of hard problems.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    3. Re:WORST Corectional Facilities in the Nation by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hard problems? It is people like you that have caused the hard problems with your bleeding heart whining about the poor criminal scum in prison. You are too busy trying to make the criminals comfortable that you have forgotten the punishment aspect. No doubt you don't believe in personal responsibility and believe all the criminals are actually victims of society.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    4. Re:WORST Corectional Facilities in the Nation by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      I fail to understand what you are trying to communicate. Absolutism is easy to get angry about, but juvenile and unrealistic. Simply spouting "bleeding heart" , "criminal scum", "punishment", "comfortable" are subjective terms and have no meaning without clarification. Are Russian style Gulags (where dysentary runs rampant) fair, heck why feed them at all? Your position makes no sense without context. Punishment has degrees of severity, as "criminal" behavior has on society. Until you show some comprehension about human behavior, rehabilitation, and most of all _parity_, you can't have a rational discussion about correctional facilities. 2 years in a state correctional facility isn't the definition of punishment, there are details and consequences for the population that must be considered. In California, the population can eat 8 times a day. This keeps the population docile and lethargic which is safer for the guards and inmates while keeping the inmates in shape to do their jobs (you do know about mandatory work programs?). Sanitation in South Carolina facilities is terrible. What you think is fair is undefined.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    5. Re:WORST Corectional Facilities in the Nation by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      You fail to understand, period. You are the one who shows no comprehension of human behavior, rehabilitation, and punishment. They are in prison as punishment. That should mean they lose some things, such as the right to set their own menus and meal times. Punishment does have degrees of severity, in the form of length of time in prison. I guess you forgot about that. You mention parity. Where is the parity of some one taking a life and getting 5 years?

      If sanitation is so terrible in South Carolina facilities, maybe the inmates shouldn't be trashing the place. Maybe, they should be punished for trashing the place. Let me guess, you would be against that too.

      What you think is "fair" is foolishness.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    6. Re:WORST Corectional Facilities in the Nation by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Again, the conditions of "loss of freedom" is not a description of punishment.. I've posed questions about food, living conditions, and rehabilitation that should at least elicit some thought, but you rather just insult than consider what you think is appropriate because it's too hard. This is typical. Playing indignant is just trolling.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    7. Re:WORST Corectional Facilities in the Nation by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Their food should be bland, tasteless, and cheap, but nutrious.
      Their living conditions should be bare, sparce, close, and alone most of the time and closely supervised the rest.
      Rehabilitation does not apply.

      I am not playing indignant. I am indignant. And, you are deserving of insults.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    8. Re:WORST Corectional Facilities in the Nation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll troll troll your boat...

  73. Law Enforcement for Dummies by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Of course, they could get off their lazy, fat asses and monitor some selected transmissions, and maybe nail a few felons with a few extra crimes.

    Oh, yeah...that might cut into doughnut time. Never mind.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Law Enforcement for Dummies by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      I suspect there are laws against monitoring cell phone conversattions. Might be a good thing, you think?

      Jamming the signals interfers with different regulations and no laws at all.

  74. If cell phones in theaters bother you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bring one of these with you:

    http://www.phonejammer.com/product.php?productid=16139&cat=249&page=1

  75. And time for the raspberry joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXKOsajNZY4

  76. UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For any Brits, UK prisons have been implementing mobile phone blockers for a little while now.

    >>http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease070708b.htm

  77. Why? by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    "Hopefully movie theaters and restaurants do it next."

    That would hold up until the first time somone dials 911 in an emergency then that would end any and all jamming. The only way it will fly is if it only blocking INCOMING calls. Otherwise see 911 example.

    Two prisons don't want them in there with cameras etc for two reasons: the reasons listed and the fact they don't want people to see what happens in a prison on a daily basis including but not limited to cell extractions and the mental state of many prisoners.

    The problem if the prison guards statement is to be believed is the smuggling of cell phones, jamming cell phones would cripple guards in an emergency when outside contact is needed.

    It's foolish, short sited, and knee-jerk reaction from guards frustrated by the inability to control cell phones being smuggled in.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  78. Not TOTAL BS, but close ... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You hit the nail on the head regarding much of the real issue. In jail/prison you have to use the very expensive phone service that the crooks^H^H^H^H^H^H warden and other powers that be have set up. They make a HUGE amount of money price gouging. If you ignored the profit aspect the other reason is that crimes get committed - such as no contact order violations, etc. - and the prison officials want to record every call made by a prisoner for this reason. Still, the reason they are trying to Jam it is much more about profit motive than public safety. I cannot prove it, I admit, but I guarantee it is true.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  79. Strawmen 101 by Explodicle · · Score: 1

    A doctor with an emergency who knows how to stand up and walk out when he gets a call?

    As it is, the doctor is a strawman because compared to the non-necessary mobile phone action going on, he's rarer than Yeti.

    The doctor example is not a straw man; the grandparent poster is not trying to describe someone else's claims in regards to doctors. Now, when he said:

    That's a bit like banning alcohol to keep people from driving drunk.

    That is a straw man argument, since it replaces someone's opinion with one that is superficially similar but easier to refute.

    1. Re:Strawmen 101 by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The doctor example is not a straw man

      Complete straw man. If a doctor wants to go see a movie while on call, he can do it just as they did before cell phones. He'll give the hospital the number for the movie theater and tell them which movie he'll be watching.

    2. Re:Strawmen 101 by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      That's just a potentially inadequate point. That's not what "straw man" means. A "straw man" is a very specific logical fallacy which involves responding to an argument which is different from the one which was actually made, generally in order to respond to an argument which is easier to refute.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    3. Re:Strawmen 101 by Fourpole · · Score: 1

      So that an usher can come in to the theater with a flashlight and ask around in an attempt to find the doctor and let him know he has a call? How is that any better than the doctor's phone vibrating in his pocket, prompting him to walk into the hallway to take the call if necessary? You'll probably just think he is getting up to piss, though I guess we should ban that too since it might require you to cope with a slight inconvenience.

    4. Re:Strawmen 101 by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Or, you could just sit by the aisle and tell the ushers where you are sitting. Duh.

    5. Re:Strawmen 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god, you are a fucking asshole.

    6. Re:Strawmen 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you say that to everyone who isn't as stupid as you are? Must be the only six words in your vocabulary...

  80. Re:fp by C_L_Lk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even easier - don't give them easy access to power outlets. Seriously.. they are in prison - do they really need a 120v outlet in their prison cell so they can charge their mobile phone?

  81. Follow the money. by Albert+Schueller · · Score: 1

    As with most things, follow the money. Without cell phones, the only way that a prisoner may communicate with loved ones outside is through collect phone calls. These collect phone calls are outrageously expensive--about $20 for 10 minutes. The reason is that the prisons sign exclusive contracts with phone providers and get a cut. It's wrong on a number of levels:

    1) Usually the families of prisoners can ill afford such rates.

    2) Families make reasonable economic choices to limit the calls that they take. This further isolates the prisoner from his family (and support system).

    3) We all know that legitimate companies are able to make money charging only 2 or 3 cents per minute on long distance calls. The 10,000% mark up is unconscionable.

    These anti-cell phone policies are really just an attempt to protect a lucrative revenue stream.

  82. If there's a 911 emergency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would suggest that the owner of such place would notice the problem and call.

    Total lost time: 2 minutes. Tops.

    On the one-in-a-million chance it is needed.

    Big whoo.

  83. Why a technology solution?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why throw technology at the problem?? Many corporations appraoch problems like this. Think about the "old-fashioned" method that really doesn't even cost that much.

    Why not put in equipment to detect where the cellular signals are coming from, and then find them, confiscate them, and actually PUNISH the inmate(s) for havign contraband.

    once an effective monitoring, detection, and disciplinary system is in place the behavior will stop. The key is good detection methods!

    Let's stop coddling everyone and start punsihing them for breaking the laws/rules.

  84. android hw hacks to create personal jammer by cellurl · · Score: 1

    Jamming ain't gonna happen. Too much liability.
    But personal jamming would fly!
    Someone make me an android-app that jams please! I know this would require some hardware-mods, so please provide them as well... I want to be the only one in the theater on the phone! ummmmm special me.

  85. Private Property Airwaves by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I shouldn't have to tolerate people's phones ringing in my private property, like my restaurant or my movie theater.

    Phones should have a radio API for notifying them to switch to vibrate only, and at least send a message to them (without needing to know their phone#) requesting their user switch off their ringer, or switch them off entirely. A really good system would let the user request a "Wake Up" message later to their disclosed phone# (or other address), which would wake their phone enough to show a message reminding the user to reactive the phone, like when the show ends and the audience is leaving.

    Failing that, I should have a jammer within my private property lines that prevents phones from calling in or out. If I were polite, the jammer would send a message to all phones in its reach warning them that calls are jammed, perhaps a 5 minute warning if it's an event like a movie starting (not a restaurant, jamming already in progress). Phones would need an API for that message.

    What gives the government, the FCC, the power to control low power signals contained entirely within my private property?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  86. Re:fp by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

    do they really need a 120v outlet in their prison cell so they can charge their mobile phone?

    No, but they may need a 120v outlet for an electric shaver or something, although we could give them razor blades.

    This sentiment is very common- always striving to make prison even more hellish than it might be now. Every so often voters and politicians increase the rate at which prisons are packed in order to express their disapproval of crime. The average American is much more likely to be in prison than citizens of most countries. And we always think of new ways to try to make people in there miserable, like feeding them nothing but Nutraloaf. The U.S. is moving toward a planned economy where everyone is in prison getting PTSD and having all their needs taken care of by the state. Plus the banks are nationalized.

  87. Re:fp by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Provide only 600V 400Hz AC inside the prison. That will render standard equipment unusable. And they can still toast their hot dogs if they are careful.

    And why not intercept all calls by setting up a prison-wide base-station? Use the ECHELON system or something to take care of the intercepted calls.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  88. Cogito ergo spud by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    No way, it's "Cogito ergo spud":

    I think, therefore I yam!

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  89. Theaters and restaurants by Rofii · · Score: 1

    Theaters and restaurants will never do this for one simple reason, we still have all of our rights. And when our grandmother is dying, and we miss the call because Red Lobster decided it wasn't worth disturbing the other customers over, they could easily have a 6 or 7 figure lawsuit on their hands.

  90. Batteries don't last forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How are these inmates able to recharge the phones?

  91. Re:fp by C_L_Lk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And why not intercept all calls by setting up a prison-wide base-station? Use the ECHELON system or something to take care of the intercepted calls.

    You know this is an idea I could really get behind - microcell equipment for office buildings, etc. has reached quite an affordable level and wouldn't really be more than a drop in the bucket when it comes to a prison budget. This way guards, staff, and visitors could still use their cell phones -- perhaps when you arrive at the prison check-in desk you give them your cell's ESN - they enable it for 8 or 12 hours through their microcell - you can make all the calls you want, etc. If you slip the phone to a prisoner or whatever, they are cutoff within the day and the phone is useless. Obviously all phone numbers "from and to" will be recorded - and you can be informed as such when you give them your ESN to get service within the prison.

  92. Best. Troll. Ever. by neonfrog · · Score: 1

    Hopefully movie theaters and restaurants do it next.

    Smart man, Mr. Malda. Knows exactly what he's doing. A very well done little editorial to make sure the article gets a few hundred more comments.

    I'm usually very tolerant of editors here, but this one caught me as blatant.

    http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml#cm2500

    Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses.

    --

    I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.

  93. Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. More RF energy for our poor cells. Arseholes.

  94. A "PITA" solution by SuperCharlie · · Score: 1

    Although locking down one facility, for better or worse, might be easier, it would seem that if we dont want cell use in prisons it would make more sense to make a federal law out of this, make "no cell zones" out of those GPS locations, and then create a white list of phones that are allowed. I am also quite sure the implementation of this would get screwed somewhere around step #2, get all the providers together. Ehh well...

  95. OK, two things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, two things about active cell phone jammers and phones in prisons:

    - As much as the cell phone industry lobbies hard against it, active jammers should be legal, but very tightly regulated: commercial use only, and no absolutely no jamming beyond property lines. My home burglar alarm uses GSM to report incidents, and I'd probably rather not have portable jammers out in the wild. :-)

    - Yes, it's been noted that prison phone calls are overcharged. How about this: charge standard payphone rates for those calls. Last I checked, what few payphones remain charge $0.50 for 10 minutes on local calls, and $1 for 10 minutes for domestic long-distance. Also, no charging at all [and no listening] for phone conversations with attorneys, of course.

  96. hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    guess now's a good time to mention jammer.
    developing into a jammer discussion

  97. checking time 75% of the time by peter303 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No young person wears watches anymore. Some of the newer cell phones now have secondary clock LEDs, mainly to save screen-lighting power beacuse this is the most popular cell-phone use.

    In a very engrossing movie, I rarely see cell phones opened. For example last week at the new James Bond move which mostly action.

  98. Needs to be done in schools too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This needs to be done in schools as well... kids are addicted to text messaging. No matter what the administration does it still exists... partly because the parents are the ones texting the kids during school!

    -brought to you by the husband of a high school teacher

  99. Already common place in some countries... by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    New Zealand has had cellphone jammers in prisons for some time now because of the issue.

    Linky: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4174128a11.html

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  100. Re:fp by goofy183 · · Score: 1

    Wish I had mod points for this, seems to be a much better idea than jamming and should let the prison track down offenders.

  101. I wish I would of had a cell.... by mace9984 · · Score: 1

    From previous experience I would say that the cell phones are being used more for communicating w/ family, and friends then for criminal activity. Only way to get a call out of jail is to call collect, at a huge expense to whoever is recieving the call. Being locked up is your own fault, but being denied contact w/ family because they can't afford a $300 dollar phone bill a month isn't part of the sentence ( I used $300 because thats how much my fiances bill ended up being) I say if a family member will foot the bill, then let them have as many cellphones as they want. (The kind that you only have access to pre-programmed numbers, that can be approved by prison staff before getting into the prisoners hands) Anyways, my 2 cents.

  102. I should not suffer from your career choice. by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    Your also one of those people who do 60 in the passing lane aren't you? I love those people! I hope it's not your kid, sister, spouse, or other close relative in the E.R. when the Radiologist, or cardiologist, or other ist is called in to work on them. I have seen it on the freeway too where people will "block" a pass. This isn't a race, and if someone is driving that fast, then let them bear the consequences, because they may just be saving your friend, child, or mother.

    Now, I know you weren't thinking of these types of things, so I'll cut you some slack. Sorry if the tone came/comes overly aggressive, but the the attitude that "I don't want to deal w/ xy or z so I am not going to let you do it." has allready killed people, and it's something that we have to learn to deal w/ better.

    From this sentance alone I know two things about your character (or the one you played in that post.)

    1. A minor irritation to you is more valuable than anothers life.
    2. You want all of the candy right now, but no stomach ache.

    Movies are social experiences. We actually go to hear others ooh and ahh, to laugh and cry with us.

    If you don't want that, don't go to the movies. Large groups will allways have a wild card that does something unexpected, but I think the big reminders to turn your cell off/vibrate is pretty fair. If someone doesn't take the call out, maybe the theater should charge them for the reimbursment of everyone else's ticket.

    Sometimes, a theater is actually closer to the hospital than the doctors own house. Sometimes, a Doctor might be in a developed area, but not have much for coverage. Talk to your employer for compensation? Uh most healthcare places can't afford the doctors they have.

    Doctors also specialize, and where I live (A capital city), we have 2 cardiac surgeons. They have to spend all year on call, . They work for 2 hospitals, and are on call for both They don't have the luxury of hollidays, because they are keeping your grandfather alive for 10 more years.

    Then there are other docs who are saving someone who got stabbed, or using an endoscope to get a coin out of an infant's trachea, or cutting out an infected apendix, or looking at an image to see if there is an anurysim about to burst, or threading a catheter up trough the artery in your R groin so they can clear a heart attack causing blockage.

    Real heroes don't have the speed of Flash, or Superman. They don't have bionic hearing or implants. They just have drive to help. If inconvieniencing a few people saves another than so be it!

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  103. Why Jam ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... when they can set up gear to locate them and possibly even intercept the calls?

    Then they'll get intel on prisoners' network of contacts and ongoing criminal activity. It would be possible for the inmates to prearrange a few numbers to be unmonitored, like those of family and lawyers. That might be sufficent to address privacy concerns.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  104. RE: Movie theaters and restaurants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jamming in prisons is one thing.

    But I thought movie theaters and restaurants were private property?

    Unless you can make an adequate case for improving safety hazards and stopping violence through cell phone jamming, I don't see any need for it in either place. Just because someone exhibits behavior annoying to me doesn't give me the right to legislate against that person.

    You've got a problem in a private business? Go to the manager. Almost always the manager will listen. And if he doesn't, you cease to be a customer and you tell everyone you know not to frequent that establishment.

  105. I'm lonely too... by swell · · Score: 1

    It's not surprising that lonely nerds & hackers resent those who have someone to talk to.

    Who could I call while shlepping through the supermarket? Who would readily receive my ring as I navigate the nasty rush hour? Who would call to ask about my aspirations in the twilight time?

    Don't you just hate those people who have caring friends and family? Even prisoners have friends dammit!

    'There but for the curse of God, go I'.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  106. The "Mental Problems" seem to be on your end by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    Nobody's making you go to the theater. If you can't live without a cell phone for two hours, 1. stay the hell out of the theater and 2. get some psychological help; you have mental problems.

    Or could it be perhaps that thousands to millions of dollars or even people's lives very often depend on you being able to be reached at any time of the day?

    Just because you're so unimportant that the world wouldn't notice you disappearing from it for a few hours doesn't mean the same is true for everyone else. The problem is not the fact that the cell phones are there, the problem is the people who refuse to leave a theater to use one.

    That said, I think people complaining about cell phone use in restaurants are being ridiculous.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    1. Re:The "Mental Problems" seem to be on your end by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If people's lives depend on you being reachable 24/7, then you need to stay out of theaters. You are being adequitaly compensated fro being deprived of going to the theater, or else you're a fool.

      As long as there are people who don't give a shit about your rights (and there are more every day) the theater needs to be in a Faraday cage. I daresay that would be a strong attraction for most people.

      As to cell phone use in a restaraunt, I agree -- with reservations.

  107. Faraday Cage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure what the gap size needs to be to block cell signals (I assume it's close to the size of the holes in your microwave door.) but being that a prison is already a cage anyway, wouldn't this be a potentially cheaper and less invasive way to go?

  108. Can't they just cover the walls with lead foil? by jbeach · · Score: 1

    Or some similar low-tech solution?

    --
    The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
  109. jam them in school by whitroth · · Score: 1

    I want every state to mandate jamming all cell phone signals in all schools (that is, under college). There is absolutely no need to anyone in class to use one. NONE.

          mark

    1. Re:jam them in school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...except for the annual gun massacres.

  110. Solution is simple by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 0

    The prisons should start making and selling cell phones that can only dial 3 predefined numbers that can be vetted for being family members. And two phones can have the same numbers unless the prisoners are family.

    All calls are routed through a cell tower on a designated frequency at the prison which the prison staff have authority to monitor. The prison can block all other frequencies.

    This an opportunity for the prison system to generate revenue AND control cell phone use.

    1. Re:Solution is simple by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      If you jam the signal and just require that inmates use landlines under prison control, you achieve the same thing at lower cost. There's no way they could sell enough one-off cell phones operating on a private cell network limited to the prison cell phones to recoup the costs of developing such a system. Jammers are cheap; building your own cell network - even a single node - and tying it into the PSTN infrastructure to complete the calls - is not.

  111. Charger, too! by chiph · · Score: 1

    Smuggling the phone in is probably painful enough. Don't forget they also have to smuggle in the charger.

    Chip H.

  112. Corporations == Highest authority? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    permission to block cell phone signals

    Have the phone companies become so powerful government institutions have to get permission from them?

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  113. Re:you achieve the same thing at lower cost? by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 0

    Well, no, you don't achieve the same thing. You don't achieve a new revenue stream. Cell phones come with monthly usage costs... its not a one time fee. By legalizing a controlled cell phone (contraband) you devalue the illegal cell phone. Jamming may accomplish this, but you are also interrupting legitimate communications for the staff of the prisons. Additionally, prisoners using the cells for legit reasons (although illegal) lose their connection to those who can help them cope with prison life and maintain ties to family. Our prisons disconnect people and make them less capable of living in society. Ultimately making them career criminals. There are already cell phones with designated phones. The technology already exists. This isnt an R&D issue, its a licensing and branding issue. ...And our prisons need money that taxes cannot provide.

  114. With all due respect, please STFU. by GuloGulo · · Score: 1

    Don't you think that, as a nation, you ought to be protecting individuals who are on the receiving end of such treatment or are you going to advocate torture, gladiatorial contests and being thrown to the lions as acceptable punishments?

    I am continually astounded that an advanced nation can condone such barbaric behaviour and then be affronted when other nations do not choose to follow the 'American' way.

    This makes me want to scream.

    Please, please find me a place on earth where prisons, which are usually populated by criminals, isn't a place where the inmates abuse each other in all manners imaginable.

    I'll wait.

    So I'll ass, why, exactly, are you leveling a criticism at America that is applicable to virtually every country on earth. You say

    "I am continually astounded that an advanced nation can condone such barbaric behaviour"

    I could examine any countries prison system and say this. And sadly I'd be right.

    But you level this criticism at "America" specifically, which leads to ignore that, overall, prison is a very, very unpleasant place to be.

    But you have confused losing to the inmates cunning with "condoning". The inmates are not cattle to be herded, they are actively working against the guards to find ways to exploit the system.

    But your final line made you out the troll you are

    "This behaviour actually makes terrorists look civilised."

    Right...

    --
    "The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
  115. a better solution than jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use the position location function inherent in modern cell systems to deny access to phones in a given geographical location.

  116. War On Drugs and the ACLU by antispam_ben · · Score: 2, Informative

    The reason one of every hundred US citizens is in prison is MOSTLY due to the War On Drugs. Furthermore, drug offendors get "good behavior points" toward earlier release for attending religious (not just "spiritual") 12-step based groups in prison, clearly against the First Amendment (even those on death row are guaranteed freedom of religion, yet many are required to attend Alcoholics Aonymous and other groups by Government agents), yet the ACLU wants every prisoner to have access an electrical power outlet.

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  117. Obligatory by natebarney · · Score: 1

    Can't stop the signal, Mal.

  118. The real reason of course is money by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    Prisons make a ton of money on pay phones for inmates. If the inmates evade that with cell phones, the prison loses money.

    Of course, it's hardly likely that enough inmates can smuggle enough cell phones in to really hurt the prison's revenue, but in prison the rule is "if it isn't mandatory, it's prohibited". So they overreact to everything.

    The excuse that inmates are using them for criminal purposes is just that - an excuse.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  119. pagers by markjhood2003 · · Score: 1

    If you absolutely need to be contacted in an emergency, why aren't you using a pager? They have much better penetration into buildings anyway, and they really vibrate quite well. As for socializing over food at a restaurant, that's fine and well as long as the public nature of the space is respected. The trouble with one-sided cell phone conversations is that the user is imposing his or her personal space onto the public.

  120. The "Mental Problems" continue! by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

    If people's lives depend on you being reachable 24/7, then you need to stay out of theaters.

    So Doctors, Firefighters, and Police Officers are not allowed to have lives outside of their work? Because some asshole MAY someday abuse his phone privileges at a theater? That's absurd.

    As others have pointed out, crying babies/sick people are much more disturbing to moviegoers on a much more common basis. Should we ban them, too?

    You are being adequitaly compensated fro being deprived of going to the theater, or else you're a fool.

    This is doubly absurd! You think first responders are "adequately compensated"!? Garbage men are generally paid better! (Never mind volunteer Firefighters, who's compensation for their trouble is in the negatives!).

    As long as there are people who don't give a shit about your rights (and there are more every day) the theater needs to be in a Faraday cage. I daresay that would be a strong attraction for most people.

    Rights!? RIGHTS!? Are you insane!? Do you even have any idea what that word MEANS!? You do not have a right to watch a movie in a public theater without being bothered! No such right exists! You do have a right to ask the manager to remove a person who's ruining your experience, and if they fail to, you have a right to demand a refund, but you don't have a RIGHT not to be bothered in the first place.

    If anything, Doctors/Firefighters/Police have a RIGHT to use the electromagnetic spectrum in a manner set forth by FCC regulation, and your proposal is the closest thing in this conversation to infringing on someone's RIGHTS. You're trying to justify this as doing something about people who don't care about their common man, but the truth of the matter is you're the one who doesn't give a damn about anyone but themselves--all that matters is whether you enjoy your movie.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    1. Re:The "Mental Problems" continue! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      So Doctors, Firefighters, and Police Officers are not allowed to have lives outside of their work?

      Your straw man is on fire. Firefighters and police officers shoule not be in a theater while on duty, and if a doctor is needed, theater management can get him.

      As others have pointed out, crying babies/sick people are much more disturbing to moviegoers on a much more common basis. Should we ban them, too?

      IMO yes. If you go to the theater with a screaming baby or a hacking cough, you're an asshole, plain and simple.

    2. Re:The "Mental Problems" continue! by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Your straw man is on fire. Firefighters and police officers shoule not be in a theater while on duty,

      Have you ever actually worked with emergency services? There's no such thing as "on duty" for volunteer firefighters, and some areas are ONLY served by volunteer fire companies. Likewise, in the case of emergency police officers and paid firefighters can be called in at any time, "off duty" be damned. Never mind if their work actually takes them INTO a theater, and now suddenly not only are their cell phones not working, but also their 2-way radios.

      and if a doctor is needed, theater management can get him.

      ... So now if a Doctor is needed in an emergency, and for some reason his or her cell phone doesn't seem to be working, we're supposed to start calling random theaters and the management is supposed to go into each movie and ask if said Doctor is there? And somehow interrupting EVERY movie looking for a Doctor is LESS disruptive than a Doctor walking out of a theater when his or her cell vibrates?

      You can bet the first time someone dies while a Doctor is incommunicado due to jamming equipment that those responsible for the jamming will find themselves on the receiving end of a pretty hefty wrongful death suit, and possibly even criminal charges.

      IMO yes. If you go to the theater with a screaming baby or a hacking cough, you're an asshole, plain and simple.

      And once again it comes down to "All that matters is my enjoyment of the movie, fsck everyone else."

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  121. GPS put in phones for our SAFETY. by WittyName · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If prisoners are doing UNSAFE things with the phone (calling in hits)
    then shouldn't the location of the phone be obvious. Prisons are fairly stationary.

    So, call your nearby phone providers, tell them your coords, and block
    the region.

    No need for expensive new machines to do this.

    --
    The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
  122. Gives new meaning to the words, cell phone. by mmwithpeanuts · · Score: 1

    I'm sure there are many ways to smuggle in cell phones. In part cheeky fun, I'd like to add in the word, Lube.

  123. Its all for kickbacks by scientus · · Score: 1

    They arnt doing this to stop illegal activities or contraband, they are doing this so they can have a monopoly on telephone services http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/grants/funded-projects/prison-phone-service-provider-contracts-kickbacks-and-fiscal-impact-on-prisoners2019-families

    they are just greedy fucks and think they can make shit up, not fallow the rules, and continue to make booku bucks, illegally off their inmates.
    http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/grants/funded-projects/prison-phone-service-provider-contracts-kickbacks-and-fiscal-impact-on-prisoners2019-families

  124. put the birds in a faraday cage by tisch · · Score: 1

    giant faraday cage will do the trick. line the roof with brass screening. don't forget the lightning pole.

  125. Dont go there at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    South Carolina is home of hard core conservatives. Its also PATRIOT act territory. If you go there as a someone who looks even remotely middle eastern you need to get your head examined.

  126. You have another problem, Bentonville. by cwcpetech · · Score: 1

    Also known as the home of a "Benedict Arnold" business that knows not of quality or anything made in the United States.

  127. ...and go directly to jail, do not pass go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and hope nobody figures out what you're doing and steps out to make a call to bust you.

  128. South Carolina == Sellout Carolina by cwcpetech · · Score: 1

    As of this year, the number of meals per day was reduced to 2 and you don't want to know what they serve.

    Nutraloaf? Or make sure the other 47 sane states (save for AZ/TX/SC) make it possible to pardon a crime just for it being in those 3 remaining ones.

  129. Re:fp by theMatrix777 · · Score: 1

    I'd say don't bother with blocking cell phones, let the inmates have as many as they want.

    Just make it a death penalty to be caught in possession of a charger.

    That makes too much sense and doesn't cost any money. So I doubt the government will do that.

    Personally, I think you have a great idea even though I know it was said sarcastically.