Slashdot Mirror


Prison Cell Phone Smuggling Out of Control

Hugh Pickens writes writes "KCRA reports that the number of contraband cell phones discovered in California state prisons has exploded as prison guards, staff and vendors are cashing in on smuggled phones that can fetch between $200 and $800. Although the large majority of inmates are using the phones to stay in contact with loved ones, there have been documented cases of escape attempts, drug deals and conference calls coordinated via smuggled cell phones. 'The potential is there for the worst kind of activity,' says Folsom Prison Warden Rick Hill. Even Charles Manson has been caught with a cellphone smuggled to him. 'We know the problem is out of control,' says State Senator Alex Padilla, who has proposed making such smuggling illegal in hopes of stopping the continued rise of contraband cell phones in prison."

428 comments

  1. Proposed? by Coy0t3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wait... does this mean that it's not illegal to smuggle certain things into prisons?

    --
    Maybe you'll return to Minagua, You could go unnoticed in such a place. -FZ
    1. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait... does this mean that it's not illegal to smuggle certain things into prisons?

      They can't keep cell phones and other items too, like drugs out of prisons. Out of PRISONS. Yet we really think we can have a War on (some) Drugs applied to the general population. Idiocy. Unlike a cell phone, drugs have a flexible shape, don't broadcast electromagnetic radiation, and don't have an attached account with somebody's name on it.

    2. Re:Proposed? by perpenso · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wait... does this mean that it's not illegal to smuggle certain things into prisons?

      In general there are three categories of laws. Infractions, misdemeanors and felonies. At the lower categories the penalty may only be a fine, maybe a relatively small one. Perhaps the legislation is upping the category and/or the penalty.

    3. Re:Proposed? by mellon · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could RTFA... :)

      It's not illegal to possess cell phones or bring them into California prisons, although it is illegal for federal prisons.

    4. Re:Proposed? by lxs · · Score: 0

      The weekend is coming up and you must have scored some of those newfangled pre-paid drugs. Lucky bastard.

    5. Re:Proposed? by radtea · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps the legislation is upping the category and/or the penalty.

      I wonder why they would do that, given the known lack of correlation between the harshness of penalties and the occurence of crimes.

      Texas, for example, has one of the highest murder rates in the US, and also has extremely harsh penalties, including the frequent use of killing convicted murderers.

      North Dakota, in contrast, has one of the lowest murder rates in the US, and has never employed the practice of killing convicted murderers.

      I don't know what the relevant difference is between Texas and North Dakota, but given the murder rates are anti-correlated with the harshness of the penalties it seems unlikely that the two are related at all. There is quite a bit of research to back this notion up, that after a certain point the marginal decline in a criminal behaviour for a marginal increase in penalty decreases, a fact that should come as no suprise to anyone who has been paying attention to ecnomics for, say, the past 200 years. The law of diminishing returns is a pretty fundamental result of human preference functions.

      Now it may be that in the present case there are data to suggest that the point of diminishing returns has not been met with regard to cell phone smuggling in prisons, but the very first question that should be asked of people proposing legal changes of this kind is, "Where are the data to show that this new and harsher law will result in a reduction in the penalized behaviour sufficient to justify the change?"

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    6. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the relevant difference is minorities.

    7. Re:Proposed? by puterg33k · · Score: 0

      Not if you're a real man!

      Then again, that would suggest a real man could easly smuggle a HTC EVO in his butt o.O

    8. Re:Proposed? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait... does this mean that it's not illegal to smuggle certain things into prisons?

      They can't keep cell phones and other items too, like drugs out of prisons. Out of PRISONS. Yet we really think we can have a War on (some) Drugs applied to the general population. Idiocy. Unlike a cell phone, drugs have a flexible shape, don't broadcast electromagnetic radiation, and don't have an attached account with somebody's name on it.

      Prisons are designed to keep people in, not keep stuff out.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    9. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's be realistic.

      Texas is culturally diverse.

      North Dakotan cultural diversity comes from either you're Swedish or Norwegian.

      Cultural homogeneity leads to a peaceful society.

    10. Re:Proposed? by yodleboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i'd think population and density has something to do with it...

      Population (2009 est)
      Texas - 24,782,302
      North Dakota - 646,844

      Density - Persons per sq mile (2000 est)
      Texas - 79.6
      North Dakota - 9.3

      Dallas has 2x the population of North Dakota. More people, closer together, more chance for crime. Texas also has many more people below the poverty level. src: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

    11. Re:Proposed? by nospam007 · · Score: 0

      "Unlike a cell phone, drugs have a flexible shape,"

      In prison, your body cavities get used to inflexible, large, hard shapes rather quickly.

      PS. Don't try it with iPhones though.

    12. Re:Proposed? by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the legislation is upping the category and/or the penalty.

      I wonder why they would do that, given the known lack of correlation between the harshness of penalties and the occurence of crimes.

      You are misusing statistics. The statistics you quote are for large diverse populations. The sample of the population being targeted here is quite small and it is not random. It is a highly screened segment of the population that has been determined to be "more" law abiding than a random selection. The "sample" being targeted are the guards/staff, a key component in this smuggling.

    13. Re:Proposed? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      It is obvious that the death penalty is the cause of murders and harsh penalties cause other crimes. /sarcasm

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    14. Re:Proposed? by causality · · Score: 1

      I wonder why they would do that, given the known lack of correlation between the harshness of penalties and the occurence of crimes.

      Because mandatory minimum sentences and other "crackdown" measures mean more business for your lobbyist buddies in the private prison industry. They, in turn, will show their gratitude the next time you run a campaign.

      Any effect on the crime rate or the recidivism rate is incidental.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    15. Re:Proposed? by hardburn · · Score: 1

      They are designed to keep stuff out, e.g. guns, knives, etc. They're just not very good at doing that, even though you might think it's a completely controlled environment. Nature finds a way . . .

      --
      Not a typewriter
    16. Re:Proposed? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Wait... does this mean that it's not illegal to smuggle certain things into prisons?

      They can't keep cell phones and other items too, like drugs out of prisons. Out of PRISONS. Yet we really think we can have a War on (some) Drugs applied to the general population. Idiocy. Unlike a cell phone, drugs have a flexible shape, don't broadcast electromagnetic radiation, and don't have an attached account with somebody's name on it.

      Prisons are designed to keep people in, not keep stuff out.

      You are, of course, correct. However - the same walls, and tools that keep people IN could be used to keep stuff OUT. Unfortunately, no one has the brass to use the tools at their disposal. To much inconvenience - kinda like Windows users who click through dozens of warnings that opening some attachment will cause their computer to burst into flames, consuming everything within a 100 yard radius.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    17. Re:Proposed? by Coy0t3 · · Score: 1

      From Merriam-Webster:
      Definition of SMUGGLE
      transitive verb
      1: to import or export secretly contrary to the law and especially without paying duties imposed by law
      2: to convey or introduce surreptitiously
      intransitive verb
      : to import or export something in violation of the customs laws

      Sorry, my inner 'grammar nazi' must be coming out today....

      --
      Maybe you'll return to Minagua, You could go unnoticed in such a place. -FZ
    18. Re:Proposed? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Hooray for Yodelboy. The guy has a few clues to understanding real life. My hat is off to you, for seeing through the smoke and mirrors!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    19. Re:Proposed? by adamdoyle · · Score: 0

      Cultural homogeneity leads to a peaceful society.

      Hitler would agree with you.

    20. Re:Proposed? by wjousts · · Score: 1, Funny

      Bravo! A masterful anti-Windows troll slipped into a completely unrelated topic. I doff my hat to you sir.

    21. Re:Proposed? by mangu · · Score: 1

      I wonder why they would do that, given the known lack of correlation between the harshness of penalties and the occurrence of crimes.

      Texas, for example, has one of the highest murder rates in the US, and also has extremely harsh penalties, including the frequent use of killing convicted murderers.

      North Dakota, in contrast, has one of the lowest murder rates in the US, and has never employed the practice of killing convicted murderers.

      Ah, the old cherry-picking anecdotes and calling it "data", never missing in political discussions...

      Claiming "lack of correlation" is somewhat like claiming the inexistence of something, you have to present complete data to prove it. Otherwise it's like claiming the Amazon river does not exist because it's not in Texas or North Dakota.

    22. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the relevant difference is between Texas and North Dakota, but given the murder rates are anti-correlated with the harshness of the penalties it seems unlikely that the two are related at all.

      You're probably correct about the two not being related, but your analysis and reasoning seems to be off the rails.

      The two examples you provided did show a correlation: A high murder rate correlates with harsh murder penalties. Now that doesn't mean that one caused the other (since correlation does not imply causation). Furthermore, that correlation may not hold over a larger sample (since just picking 2 states is an absurdly small sample). However, that doesn't change the fact that your artificially selective sample does show a correlation between the two factors. Of course it also shows other meaningless correlations (such as states ending in "-a" tend to have much lower murder rates) which certainly won't hold for a proper sample and which certainly don't have any real world causation.

    23. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't know what the relevant difference is between Texas and North Dakota"

      Probably the fact that no one lives in North Dakota

    24. Re:Proposed? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      You could RTFA... :)

      Huh? I thought I was reading slashdot.

      It's not illegal to possess cell phones or bring them into California prisons, although it is illegal for federal prisons.

      Then how is giving a phone to a prisoner "smuggling"?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    25. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could also say that North Dakota is colder then Texas therefor there are less murders. It has been proven that enactment of death penalties (even without using it) causes felonies to drop.

    26. Re:Proposed? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0

      Troll? I didn't think so. Maybe you missed the precise language I used. Here, let me quote myself: "kinda like Windows users who click through dozens of warnings". See? I didn't say that ALL Windows users are like that. I clearly pointed out that this is one type of Windows user. Yeah, sure, there are some of those people who use Unix-like systems - but they are so few and far between, that we can mostly ignore them.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    27. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Being against the rules of the penitentiary, and being illegal, are two completely different things.

      Violate a rule, you get scolded. Violate a law, that's got teeth...

    28. Re:Proposed? by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Perhaps cohesive and cooperative would have been a better choice of words. But the GP is essentially correct.

    29. Re:Proposed? by Silfax · · Score: 2

      I don't know what the relevant difference is between Texas and North Dakota, but given the murder rates are anti-correlated with the harshness of the penalties it seems unlikely that the two are related at all.

      You are only looking at one factor here, another possible reason is population density. I don't have the most recent statistics handy, but the version I have (2006) has TX @ 86 people/sq mi & ND @ 9 people/sq mi.
      In ND, finding a person to who pisses you off enough to kill means you have to go a bit of a distance, in TX, that person is just across the street.

    30. Re:Proposed? by Stradivarius · · Score: 2

      Dallas has 2x the population of North Dakota. More people, closer together, more chance for crime. Texas also has many more people below the poverty level

      Density is almost certainly a factor.

      Poverty level, though - is the poverty the cause of the crime, or crime the cause of the poverty? Or are both the result of a 3rd factor, such as people with poor self-control? A lot of folks assume the first, but the other two seem just as, if not more, likely.

    31. Re:Proposed? by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

      they are so few and far between, that we can mostly ignore them.

      And we do.

      --
      Loading...
    32. Re:Proposed? by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Oh please. If you don't want to be labeled as a troll, maybe you should consider changing your sig. You're trolling and you know it.

    33. Re:Proposed? by yodleboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      well, many of the high poverty areas in dallas/houston/san antonio also have high gang activity which leads to higher violence. a lot of senseless killing for "respect" or lack of, payback, or debts (real or perceived).

      take a look at this map of dallas homicides in 2010. South and South East Dallas is predominately minority and low income with high gang activity.

      I've included a heat map of home prices just so you know I'm not guessing about those areas economically.
      It's a chicken and egg question though as to crime/poverty and I won't even go there.

      http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/graphics/homicides/
      http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Texas/Dallas-heat_map/

    34. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent AWESOME!

    35. Re:Proposed? by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Because it's still against the rules for the prison, but there's no legal ramifications. If you're a vendor or a staff member you'll likely get fired, if you're a visitor you might no longer be welcome on the premises or something like that, but there's no legal backing for which you could be fined or put in jail yourself. Sort of like 'smuggling' snacks into a movie theater. You might get kicked out or banned if they're super serious but they can't call the police and get you charged with anything.

    36. Re:Proposed? by stonewallred · · Score: 1
      Huh? Nature finds a way?

      No, what finds a way are corrupt officials.

    37. Re:Proposed? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      As for the phone problem - locate the prisons in areas without phone coverage and the problem will be solved.

      And if the prisons are in an area with a low population density the chance of a successful prison break is a lot lower.

      And why not add a solitary confinement penalty for anyone caught with unapproved items? One month in isolation would be a deterrent for most.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    38. Re:Proposed? by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      I would think areas that have harsher penalties for crimes would correlate to areas that have more crime in the same way areas that have more snow plows correlate to areas that have more snow. The more people get victimized the more they are willing to vote in tough on crime representatives.

    39. Re:Proposed? by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      Unlike a cell phone, drugs have a flexible shape, don't broadcast electromagnetic radiation, and don't have an attached account with somebody's name on it.

      Another difference: cell phones can be defeated with a simple faraday cage.

      Wouldn't putting more metal into the prison walls make them more secure, as well as blocking cell phone signals?

    40. Re:Proposed? by gid · · Score: 1

      On the first point, just put up aluminum siding, which seems to work pretty well at blocking signal for most residential homes.

    41. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Population (2010 est):
      Germany - 81,757,60
      Texas - 24,782,302

      Density - Persons per sq mile (2010 est)
      Germany - 593
      Texas - 79.6

      Germany has three times the population of Texas. More people, closer together, more chance for crime.

      Granted, there's less people living below the poverty line there, though: 11% (2001 est from the CIA World Factbook), compared to 15.8% (2008) for Texas and 13.2% (2008) for the USA. So you might be on to something there, but I don't think population density has much to do with it.

      Oh, and Germany hasn't had capital punishment since the nazi era. In fact, even life without parole is unconstitutional.

    42. Re:Proposed? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2
      Forget Faraday cages. Unless someone is locked down, they're allowed out in the yard for exercise.

      Instead of trying to get every single phone, just jam them all. Surely the whiners who prevent that in theatres can't have any say in how a prison is run?

    43. Re:Proposed? by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, they have a lot of things they do to try to find contraband and keep it out. They do cavity searches on prisoners before and after visiting time. They have drug/cell phone sniffing dogs go through their cells in random searches, and officers will toss the cells. Hell, a lot of prisoners don't even have cells, they've got a cot on an open gymnasium floor. Yet contraband still flows in and gets used (prisoners will wire up cell phone chargers into lights, radios, even directly into the prison electrical system). Charles Manson has been in Corcoran's protective housing unit under solitary confinement, yet even he managed to get a cell phone.

    44. Re:Proposed? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Prision guards are paid very little for what they do.

      Step 1 - DOUBLE guard pay.
      Step 2 - get some real prision oversight in there.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    45. Re:Proposed? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Claiming "lack of correlation" is somewhat like claiming the inexistence of something, you have to present complete data to prove it.

      Not to chime in on the specific topic, but your statement is wrong. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster is not controlling the universe. Rational people, however, require evidence that something is happening or they cannot rationally believe that it is. You don't just go believing random things willy nilly until someone can do the logically impossible and prove they aren't happening. Lack of evidence for a correlation means logical people, scientists, do not believe that there is a correlation, even if they don't dismiss the possibility that future evidence could cause them to form that opinion.

    46. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guards are already paid 6 digits. Doubling their pay during this budget crisis would be the biggest epic fail in Californian history.

    47. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. Move all the prisons in the entire country to the remaining patch in Eastern Oregon or Central Nevada that still doesn't have any cell coverage. That's such a simple, economically sound answer!

    48. Re:Proposed? by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      Nah, it's all about heat. The further south you go, the further down the chakra chain you go. Mexico and texas are about in the stomach region, all full of desires and hungers which the heat just amplifies. Brazil is about the genital area. Canada of course, is both heart and mind, kinda squished together because the brain is so smart it doesn't want to live in the freezing cold. Of course, NA and SA are on the right side of the body, so dealing with the physical aspects of these chakras, until the switch over at the head and canada is quite leftist in it's thinking, but physical in it's love of others, and the willingness to physically give up their lives to help others.

      Wait, we are making groundless statements here right? ...well, except that mine is true... haha

    49. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the cell phones being smuggled in are the ones someone got when they signed up for a 2 year contract in their name. These are throwaways from convenience stores.

    50. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? They're walking around in plain sight, in broad daylight, talking on their cell phones? Cell phones that they're not even supposed to have?
      Your second suggestion is better, but guards and staff probably want to be able to use their phones.

    51. Re:Proposed? by stillnotelf · · Score: 1

      You'd think all the metal bars would work as a Faraday cage.

    52. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Living in North Dakota is punishment enough.

    53. Re:Proposed? by mangu · · Score: 1

      Lack of evidence for a correlation means logical people, scientists, do not believe that there is a correlation

      That's not how it works, at least not for scientific purposes. Correlation is a mathematical term. To prove correlation or absence of among two variables you need to have a statistically significant sample set of each variable and calculate the covariance between them.

      Given two variables, crime rate and harshness of penalties, you need a statistically significant number of cases in order to prove or disprove a correlation between them. If you did have a significant number of samples and took care to eliminate any bias you would be able to prove non-correlation among them, if they really were non-correlated variables.

    54. Re:Proposed? by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      As Bernie, various stars/athletes, politicians, etc.. show, increasing pay isn't necessarily going to solve the problem.

      Real prison oversight might help. Heck, getting most of the minor offenders OUT of prison might help.

      For that matter, fixing the problem of prisoner communication with their families by providing authorized phones at reasonable rates might help.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    55. Re:Proposed? by James+McGuigan · · Score: 1

      Suppose that for crimes such as murder, the level of punishment for getting caught is already so high that the difference between them (life in prision vs execution) has negligible additional deterrence effect. If you are a contract killer or serial armed robber, you might think about the consequences in advance, but I recon that most murderers don't tend to think about the consequences of their actions until after the fact, at which point its too late, or they simply believe that they will never get caught.

      Instead the people who think most about crime and punishment are the politicians, and they are the ones who make the laws. In North Dakota, murder is not an issue on most peoples minds, so politicians tend to leave the issue alone, assuming the existing system is doing its job. In Texas, the murder rate is obviously much more of an issue, and if people keep murdering each other, it obviously means the existing system isn't providing enough of a deterrence. So the obvious solution, and an election winning platform is to be "tough on crime", and lets just keep raising the penalties until people start to paying attention to them.

    56. Re:Proposed? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Lack of evidence for a correlation means logical people, scientists, do not believe that there is a correlation

      That's not how it works, at least not for scientific purposes. Correlation [wikipedia.org] is a mathematical term.

      Correct so far.

      To prove correlation or absence of among two variables you need to have a statistically significant sample set of each variable and calculate the covariance between them.

      In the real world you can never collect a perfect data set so you can never prove the lack of a correlation. Rather, you can only perform an extrapolation based upon the data you can collect. Thus while you can show with certainty there is a correlation, you can never disprove the possibility of a correlation.

      Given two variables, crime rate and harshness of penalties

      Okay now look at your variables. Notice how you cannot get an exact figure on crime rate. Notice how "harshness" is a subjective term and not easily quantifiable?

      If you did have a significant number of samples and took care to eliminate any bias you would be able to prove non-correlation among them, if they really were non-correlated variables.

      Except since there is no formal definition of "harshness" and since much crime is undetected, that's pretty hard to do. The best you can do is approximate crime levels based upon reported crimes and assign agreed upon metrics to various levels of punishment for specific types of crimes to approximate an answer. Doing such a study and not finding a correlation does NOT however prove that a correlation does not exist, just that your sample set and methodology did not show any such correlation.

      As such, if there is no study that shows some correlation (given reasonable methodology and sample) a logical person does not form the belief that such a correlation exists; much the same way they don't form the belief that the flying spaghetti monster exists.

    57. Re:Proposed? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Granted, there's less (sic) people living below the poverty line there, though...

      I think we're getting closer to the actual link.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    58. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true. Rules, inside a government incarceration facility (jail or prison), do have the possibility of turning into a crime before a judge.

    59. Re:Proposed? by Normal+Dan · · Score: 1

      One month in isolation would be a deterrent for most.

      This would likely make things worse. A month of isolation it horrible torture for some. I'd rather have my teeth ripped out. And all for having contriband? The punishment doesn't fit the crime there.

      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    60. Re:Proposed? by frozentier · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you do that, then the guards and prison administration can't use THEIR phones, and that would be too much of an inconvenience. Plus, if you've got guards and such making money from smuggling them phones, they aren't going to want to hamper that market, either.

    61. Re:Proposed? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Northern Alaska would be fine - even if you escape you may have to cross an area where polar bears roam.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    62. Re:Proposed? by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      That plan sounds ingenious, you wouldn't even have to build walls for the place, and the cute polar bears wouldn't have to swim across the oceans for food anymore.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    63. Re:Proposed? by skegg · · Score: 1

      Prisons are designed to keep people in, not keep stuff out.

      Granted. But you must admit that, on average, you will experience more checkpoints / random searches in a week at a typical prison than you would in a week outside of prison ... I would hope, anyway.

    64. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poverty level, though - is the poverty the cause of the crime, or crime the cause of the poverty?

      That's a little easier to get a handle on. Reducing poverty has been observed to closely precede a reduction in crime. But the opposite isn't true (we haven't found a way to reduce crime without addressing poverty).

      Going in the opposite direction, it's been observed that an increase in poverty generally precedes an increase in crime (though it doesn't ALWAYS lead to increased crime). You generally won't see crime go up all by itself.

      Once you have both poverty and crime, they do reinforce each other.

    65. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think it's population density and not temperature? People get hot and bothered, and next thing you know, someone's been murdered. In North Dakota it's too cold for six months of the year to bother killing anyone.

      Why do you think it's population density and not the number of hot-headed Latinos? According to Hollywood, Latinos are highly emotional and prone to murdering each other. This is also Hollywood's version of native Americans, but they are a similar proportion of the population in both TX and ND.

      Frankly, I find your claim that North Dakotans are too lazy to drive a few miles to murder each other insulting.

    66. Re:Proposed? by slashqwerty · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the relevant difference is between Texas and North Dakota

      Crime correlates with temperature. North Dakota is much colder than Texas. Not that I disagree with your post. It's just that North Dakota and Texas are not really the best comparison.

      North Dakota, in contrast, has one of the lowest murder rates in the US, and has never employed the practice of killing convicted murderers.

      North Dakota executed eight people from 1880 to 1905. They repealed the death penalty in 1915.

    67. Re:Proposed? by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      I highly doubt just because they screen them that they are more law abiding then the average. In fact it could be argued that the sample you are talking about is more polarized between 'good' and 'evil' than the greater population. After all, what are the motivations for entering into penal system workforce? The possibility of making money as a guard or staff is huge, and apparently there's enough people that do it that it's a problem. There's also that the job gives you an 'appropriate' outlet for aggression. Cops, guards, etc... are some of the most violent, aggressive, corrupt people i've ever met (well, met some, mostly been on the receiving end), and they've far outweighed the few exemplary humans with compassion, understanding, and a genuine willingness to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

      Isn't it cool how i can respond to something you haven't actually stated, just like you responded to something the parent didn't really imply either?

    68. Re:Proposed? by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      If you study any psychology, then yes, you're actually correct. All of science says punishment doesn't work and it just causes more friction between the punisher and the punishee.

      The penal system has nothing to do with correction/integration, etc... it's just an ancient system that they haven't found anything to replace with, but have turned into a cash cow.

      Last time i checked in Canada, if you abolished the whole penal system, you could give a minimum wage that's double the poverty line to the whole population. I'm sure it would be much greater in the US since they profit way more than canada off of their prisoners.

      I'm pretty sure this wouldn't stop white collar crime, or passion crimes, but every single criminal i've ever met was somebody who grew up in a poor family or on the streets with barely enough to eat everyday and no opportunities for education. And yes, i've met a lot of criminals, Montreal has a huge diverse gang population.

      It's really sad when you hear teenagers saying that they commit crimes just to get sent to juvy so that they have a place to sleep in the winter and 3 meals a day (with seconds if you want! I gained 10 pounds in 1 week! [This was in the 80's when in certain parts you'd be brought back to the station if you spoke english to police, and heaven forbid that you try and speak english in the courtroom which is what got me sent away...oh, that and the province supplied lawyer who didn't speak a word of english and entered a plea of guilty without talking to me... ok, ok, i might have yelled some english at that point :))

    69. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why.... Why don't they just install radio interference equipment to prevent cellphone signals getting in and out? Would that not solve the problem?

    70. Re:Proposed? by WarmNoodles · · Score: 1

      Well when you have to put the phone in a balloon and swallow to start the process it kinda doesn't matter whats in the balloon now does it.

    71. Re:Proposed? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      the very first question that should be asked of people proposing legal changes of this kind is, "Where are the data to show that this new and harsher law will result in a reduction in the penalized behaviour sufficient to justify the change?"

      You assume that reducing the behavior in question is the goal of the criminal justice system. More and more, I doubt this is the case.

      For the prison-industrial complex, it's all about money; there's money to be had building and running prisons, and prison guard groups like CCPOA have clout and want to keep their members employed. For the masses, it's all about satisfying an irrational, almost ritual, need for revenge -- right up to the ritual human sacrifice that is capital punishment. (Just look at how many comments here are calling for tougher treatment of prisoners, without any rational argument involved.) For politicians, it's about pandering to all these groups with "tough on crime" rhetoric.

      Actually reducing violent or fraudulent behavior is a pretty low priority.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    72. Re:Proposed? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The US prison system was basically crippled by a shift from rehabilitation to sadistic punishment (the punishment is not even applied as rehabilitation, simply as a punitive measure).

      This altered the nature of officials in charge of prisons, they shifted from being trained 'correctional' services officers with pay reflecting their training and skills, to dumbed down thugs with pay reflecting their absolute lack of training and their only skill, brutality.

      Net result the psychology of the prison guards in the US prison system is pretty much the same as the inmates, so corruption is guaranteed.

      Good example they are either too stupid or corrupt, likely both, to be able to track a device that emits a readily detectable or jam able signal. Of course give those idiots torture grade pepper spray and tasers and they can quite readily brutalise prisoners into being violent habitual criminals (in some kind of insane private prison for profit scheme, got to keep them coming back and get that three strike bonus, bugger the victims).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    73. Re:Proposed? by webserf256 · · Score: 1

      That's true. I met a guy who was shot in prison. That kinda puts cell phone smuggling in perspective.

    74. Re:Proposed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Dakota has the highest per capita education spending.
      FWIW ...Lorenzo

    75. Re:Proposed? by hardburn · · Score: 1

      What I mean by "nature finds a way" is that individual actors, working in their own self-interest, will find ways to do things that the system expressly forbids, given enough incentive. It's exactly like trying to artificially impose limitations on nature (e.g., use a lot of antibiotics and end up generating antibiotic-resistant bacteria). "Corrupt officials" are just one example of the actors involved.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    76. Re:Proposed? by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Wait, I got me an idea. Don't allow throw away phones, make it okay to have a regular phone and have someone review the phone call records, thereby eliminating "escape attempts, drug deals and conference calls coordinated via smuggled cell phones." and allowing "the phones to stay in contact with loved ones,"

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    77. Re:Proposed? by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      Prison Trivia: It costs $1.50 per minute for a collect call from a Prison in East Tennessee to Nashville. (and no, 800 numbers don't work.)

      Said differently, that weekly 15 minute call home from your pot smoking relative is going to set you back a hundred bucks a month.

      Cut the rates and _some_ of this problem will go away.

  2. Cell Phone Jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not just install cell phone jammers in all prisons? Is there honestly any "right" to have cell phone signal in the prison?.

    1. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by dougmc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Cell phone jammers are illegal. Federal law, state law can't override it.

      Granted, the law could be changed (with an exception added for cell phone jammers in jails), but it hasn't happened yet. It might soon, if there's enough of a cry out for it.

    2. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not just install cell phone jammers in all prisons?

      Because that would be a logical, one-shot solution that would end the problem. That's no good for a politician. They want an ongoing issue they can pull out from time to time, whenever they need a distraction. There's little profit for your buddies and political capital for yourself from solving problems; there's lots to be made from prolonging them.

      They'll integrate the prison guards into the DHS and hire thousands more of them to look for cell phones before they'll do something as simple and effective as installing jammers.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jammers? But that'll make them use other methods of communications which may be harder to tap, intercept or block on demand.

      Why don't they just install cellphone towers specifically for prisons ;). If you do it right, the phones will always use your towers in preference to others.

      If there are pesky laws against this maybe you could get away by having some "fine print" which "informs" the prisoners (who are unlikely to read it) that they are not allowed to use cellphones in the prison, and if they do, the comms may be tapped or even modified as the prison sees fit.

      When opportunity knocks stop complaining about the noise.

      --
    4. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True but Faraday cages are not. Lets just spend billions of dollars lining prisons with Faraday mesh.

      A plus side to Faraday cages also is that at least if a massive solar storm ever does hit us, at least the prisoners cell phones will still work...

    5. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Anrego · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What about cellphone detectors. I’m sure there is a technology that can detect and triangulate the radiation spewing from those things. And they are probably less illegal than jammers.

      I suspect a lot of the stuff that gets smuggled into prisons comes from or is aided by underpaid prison staff (I really think it’s amazing how little they make considering the risk they take) either directly or indirectly. I don’t see how this kind of stuff could make it in, in the quantities that it does, without at least a little help. Even if you came up with a good technical way to stop the cellphone problem, all it takes is one guard to look the other way, and it’s defeated.

      Then again I’ve never been to prison nor been a corrections officer... so I admit I have no clue how stuff actually works there.

    6. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      They have materials that absorb cell signals. These materials are not illegal as they don't block the signal. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6479140.html

    7. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by datapharmer · · Score: 2

      That's a little extreme isn't it? It is cell phones we are trying to stop, not spies. Use some good boat hull paint and call it a day. The copper will lower the signal, they'll blame AT&T and we're done.

      --
      Get a web developer
    8. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The trouble with the Faraday solution is that it would also stop radios from working, which means communications between the guards inside the building and outside in the yard would be impossible.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    9. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      Illegal for Joe Public to block signals in public areas perhaps. But not for the Feds to block them in restricted areas.

      Prisons don't tend to be very near private residences so there wouldn't be much issue of blocked area bleeding outside the walls of the prison. And the FCC can issue a waiver for certain cases.

      There isn't any reason they can't do this in a *prison*.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    10. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      My mod points appear to have expired, otherwise you'd be on the recieving end by now. This seems like a fairly good idea. Even if the equipment builders hugely overcharge (And, on a government contract, they will) it's still cheaper than hireing more guards or renovating buildings with EM shielding.

    11. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some "fine print" which "informs" the prisoners (who are unlikely to read it)

      And even unlikelier to be able to do anything about it.

    12. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just install cellphone towers specifically for prisons ;). If you do it right, the phones will always use your towers in preference to others.

      Extending this principle: 1. Give out cell phones to any prisoner who wants one. Secretly configure them to talk only to a special tower you control (not even the guards can know about that part). 2. All calls on those phones will be wiretapped. (prisoners have a lot less 4th Amendment protection than folks out of prison) This solves a couple of problems at once - giving out cell phones dries up the black market and allows those who want to talk to their loved ones, but since you're wiretapping them anyone who's trying to organize and escape or crime actually unwittingly helps the police catch and prosecute their accomplices.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    13. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2

      Detectors definitely sound like a decent idea, although the guards would need to respond quickly enough (and the locator would need to be accurate enough) that the inmate didn't have time to conceal the phone and move away or merge with a group of other prisoners.

      I don’t see how this kind of stuff could make it in, in the quantities that it does, without at least a little help.

      Although I don't doubt that staff are part of the problem, I've heard that the common vector for smuggling is simply throwing stuff over the walls. A good arm or a simple catapult is plenty to get over even a significant fence, it's relatively low risk, and even if some packages do get intercepted, it's economical to just keep going (especially if phones are selling at a markup like that).

    14. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by muzicman · · Score: 1

      They do use cellphone detectors in jails. It is the extraction of the phone that is the problem. And yes extraction is the correct term. As soon as the cell door is opened the phone disappears. It can't be the most hygienic of phone calls.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flamebait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    15. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by egyas · · Score: 1

      I agree. Criminals are criminals because they have no regard for the law. So more laws saying call-phone use/possession by criminals are useless because they won't follow them any more than they did the laws that got them in prison in the first place. Just install jammers through the prison complex (where they will not interfere with guard stations, etc) and be done with it. "What's that Charlie Manson, your cell phone isn't working? Ahhh, too bad."

    16. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by plover · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just install cellphone towers specifically for prisons ;). If you do it right, the phones will always use your towers in preference to others.

      Extending this principle: 1. Give out cell phones to any prisoner who wants one. Secretly configure them to talk only to a special tower you control (not even the guards can know about that part). 2. All calls on those phones will be wiretapped. (prisoners have a lot less 4th Amendment protection than folks out of prison) This solves a couple of problems at once - giving out cell phones dries up the black market and allows those who want to talk to their loved ones, but since you're wiretapping them anyone who's trying to organize and escape or crime actually unwittingly helps the police catch and prosecute their accomplices.

      Won't help. They'll still smuggle in their own phones for doing deals or other crimes. Everyone will quickly learn that the "free" phones are tapped. The first time they prosecute a guy using wiretapped evidence from one of those phones he'd tell everyone else in prison, and the secret is dead. It's like cryptography: you can't base the security on keeping the algorithm a secret.

      The prisons could certainly install cells inside the walls that wouldn't serve the community outside the walls. Managing signal level is pretty well understood by those engineers.

      They'd have to post a sign at the gate that says "STOP! NO CELL PHONES! For security reasons all cell phone calls within this fence line are intercepted, monitored, recorded, and possibly blocked. This includes all cell phones including those belonging to visitors, attorneys, guards, doctors, and court officials. If you need to make an official confidential call while within the prison, please ask the warden and a secure wired land line will be made available to you."

      --
      John
    17. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Jammers? But that'll make them use other methods of communications which may be harder to tap, intercept or block on demand.

      IANAL, but I think, attorney-client privilege is the problem there. If they call their attorney, you can't tap it.

    18. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Difficult not impossible. one would resort to hardlines. Which would be better anyways in most cases.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    19. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      All you need is a couple of burly hardcore guards to "extract" the phone from whichever orifice is transmitting. In fact, I'm sure you can find at least one guard in each prison who would enjoy doing that nasty job. Reach up there, grab hold, turn it SIDEWAYS, and twist as you drag it into the daylight again. Whoo-hooo! Good redneck fun - especially considering it's against the law to take your frustrations out on the wife, the kids, or even the family dog!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    20. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by MBCook · · Score: 1

      The point of the tower is that since it will have the strongest signal, any nearby phones would connect to it. You'd have to put up a radio for each network type, but it would work.

      So when your buddy goes and buys a disposable phone and sneaks it in to you... it still uses the monitored tower. No secret calls for you.

      I'd imagine having a locked up population of thousands of people in one place all with nothing to do but make calls would be a recipe for disaster. There is no way they could monitor that volume of calls, or cut off individuals from having access as a form of punishment (since they could just borrow Joe's phone).

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    21. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by schnell · · Score: 1

      Why not just install cell phone jammers in all prisons? ... Because that would be a logical, one-shot solution that would end the problem. That's no good for a politician.

      Unfortunately, it's just not that simple. Consider that jamming all cellphones in prisons is:

      • a violation of Federal law
      • also going to disable the phones of guards and visitors, possibly also creating interference with emergency communications for said guards
      • likely to create interference with legitimate users outside the prisons (many of these are in populated areas)
      • in nobody's interest because it sets a precedent allowing the government to start jamming cellular signals in other "essential" areas as well... and watch how quickly those might multiply.

      Seriously, as much as you distrust politicians, think about it that there might be reasons this is not a cut-and-dried issue. Sometimes there are just more complexities to things than "bad politicians want more money/power/whatever."

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    22. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      And thus why I am still confused as to why it hasn't happened yet. The FCC can issue an amendment exempting jails from the law, and providing FCC guided jammers.

      You don't even have to cover large areas, If you can jam say a 100 square meter area and provide damaging interference for another 100 meters then you are covering huge spots. They don't have to run 24/7 only when the inmates are in their cells. (they aren't going to talk on the phone while eating or working out in the yard as that is easy to spot.) So 2 jammers for every 400 odd meters of prison. That will work for most of the prisions, there are a few that won't work well for who might still get a partial signal.

      But what you want is a deterrent anyways. Make most of the phones useless and the smuggling lightens up.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    23. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      3rd party phone could just encrypt the conversation... Well, it's not trivial without data access (which could be blocked at said tower) - but even then, plenty of time and opportunities to speak & text in code.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    24. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say Faraday Cages for prisons, its not a cell phone jammer per say but it does block most radio waves.

      Only flaw to my plan is prisons would have to get rid of prison yard time and keep the inmates inside throughout the entire sentence.

      Though one benefit if a solar store ever knocks out electronic equipment worldwide the prisoners cell phones would still work.

    25. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      One of my pal's dads used to be a corrections officer. He liked to tell us that the only difference between a prisoner and a guard was which person was holding a billy-club. For those of you that are heard pressed on understanding, he was trying to communicate the idea that his fellow co-workers were often a bunch of morally corrupt, brutish thugs with little sense of justice, good, bad, or anything else relevant to the matter. Apparently, that kind of living wears on a person pretty hard, pretty quickly.

    26. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      A detector would only work once the phone is already inside and on and/or in use. During the actual transport/smuggling, turn the phone off, and no detection.
      It would help in finding a phone, but not prevent it coming in.

    27. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Of course. Obviously it would be better to have to only be able to communicate when next to the hardline, instead of being able to get in touch with guards wherever they are on their rounds instantly. It's not like there are any important reasons to distinguish between someone being incommunicado because they aren't near a fixed phone, versus some other reason, in a prison.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    28. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      not likely in most US prisons which typically have a very large restricted area around them as well as patrols outside the fence. someone getting close enough to throw something inside is going to be the only person standing around in an area where no one should be standing around. Would be easier to just hang on to the item and give it to someone personally once you're escorted in for questioning about your prison interest.

      yeah, detectors do seem to be a fast interim solution. I wonder do cell phones have an EM "fingerprint"? If so maybe you could whitelist staff phones to avoid false detections.

    29. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing a pair of repeaters wouldn't be able to take care of

    30. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      No it wouldn't Just install a relay between "inside" and "outside". Only prison-issued devices can communicate through the relay.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    31. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      Adding to the already massive expense to drape the building in faraday nets. How will you pay for it? Prison budgets are tight as it is.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    32. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Stradivarius · · Score: 2

      IANAL, but it seems there are things the prisons could do:

      1. For existing facilities: Pay the licensed carriers (AT&T, Verizon, etc) to install custom cells at the prison. Give the base station low power, and program it to only allow pre-determined cell numbers to connect to anything other than 911. Because it is low power, cells outside the prison will choose to use higher-power signals from nearby real cells instead, so there is no interference with neighbors. Yet inside the prison, it will still be the highest power signal, and thus all the prison phones will use lock to it. Because it's a real cell operated by the licensed operators in that spectrum, there shouldn't be the legal issues associated with jamming.

      You've now rendered all the smuggled phones useless to prisoners. Guards can still use cell phones by having their phone registered (and calls monitored so they don't just sell/rent the phone to prisoners).

      2. For new prisons, you could build shielding in. The government knows how to make facilities that block a lof of radio-frequency transmissions - they use it for national security all the time. So you keep landlines for the guards, and the prisoners can't get cell reception. Less flexible than solution #1, but it'd probably be sufficient.

      3. At least use detection devices to locate cell phones as they enter the grounds. Such things do exist.

    33. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by rudeboy1 · · Score: 1

      ...Or you could just install a Faraday cage (or metallic paint) inside prisoner cells. I would think a 5 sided coating (plus coating on the bars) would eliminate most of the signal, depending on the direction of the cell tower. I don't know much about the effects of metallic paint on cell signal, but I would guess signal reflection would do more damage than absorption (if it works anything like 802.11 networks). In which case, 5 way reflection should be sufficient.

      --
      Raging in an online forum won't do anything for the world around you. To see change, you must take action.
    34. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by HeavyDevelopment · · Score: 1

      Cell phone blocking devices are used by federal officials under certain circumstances. Privacy rights of property owners may affect the policy and application of law within buildings. The FCC may issue a permit that waivers the law for private use. For radio communications, it is illegal to operate, manufacture, import, or offer for sale, including advertising (Communications Act of 1934).[8] Blocking radio communications in public can carry fines of up to $11,000 or imprisonment of up to one year.[9] The Homeland Security Act of 2002 may override the Communications Act of 1934.[10]

      --
      Badges!?! We don't need no stinking badges!
    35. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by PRMan · · Score: 1
      • a violation of Federal law

      Get an exception or lobby hard for a new law.

      • also going to disable the phones of guards and visitors, possibly also creating interference with emergency communications for said guards

      Get them police radios that only work on a single, unjammed frequency.

      • likely to create interference with legitimate users outside the prisons (many of these are in populated areas)

      Almost all (if not all) prisons in California are separated from the public by a wide enough gap as to make this a non-issue.

      • in nobody's interest because it sets a precedent allowing the government to start jamming cellular signals in other "essential" areas as well... and watch how quickly those might multiply.

      Possibly. But since people are ordering murder hits from prison, I am in favor anyway.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    36. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Or just install picocells and snoop on all the traffic. Given it's a prison if you can work out how to stop phones outside the prison using the cell you might even have a end run around privacy rules and warrants and so on...

      Why block it when you can collect it all as evidence.

    37. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by airdweller · · Score: 0

      Well, they can just do what they do now - use the standard phones that every prison provides for communication.

    38. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Amouth · · Score: 1
      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    39. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      most simple jammers just overload the appropriate frequency band with excess noise. Phone signals go to heck when the SNR drops way down. But, and here's the crux of the matter, can you imagine all of the lawsuits that the state would have to deal with from prisoners claiming the excess radiation is causing them cancer? the minute they turn it on, I guarantee every inmate dials up his lawyer and gets the process started.

    40. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Difficult not impossible. one would resort to hardlines. Which would be better anyways in most cases.

      Which is why no one owns a cellphone in the first place, because hardlines are better in most cases right?

    41. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      The reflection works both ways though. Let's say your prison has the mess hall on the east end, then a bunch of cell blocks, then a guardroom, then more cell blocks, and then the infirmary.

      If a guard is in the infirmary and needs to radio for help, the cage/metallic paint could block his radio signal from getting to the guy in the guardroom or the mess hall. There isn't really a good way to block prisoner's radio transmissions without also blocking, or at least potentially blocking, the guards' radios as well.

      What we're kind of dancing around here is that no matter what you do, prisoners will generally find a way around it. They have nothing but time, and they're bored, so they sit in their cells all day and think about ways to buck the system. If you somehow blocked cell signals, I guarantee you that within a few months they would somehow get a wire to the outside so that they'd have an antenna outside of the Faraday cage.

      You might laugh and think "no way," but some of the crap prisoners come up with is nothing short of genius. No booze in prison? Hey, we can make booze with rotten fruit, a trash bag, and an old sock. No communicating between cells? We'll sit here and practice catching pieces of paper with paperclips on the end of fishing line, which we will have smuggled in for us (look up "kiting.") No drugs? We'll make a bong out of toilet paper (this actually happened). No weapons? We'll sharpen metal from our bedsprings and have a shiv, or we'll make (this also actually happened) nunchucks out of rolled up magazines, tape, and garbage bags twisted tightly together for the chain.

      They make tattoo guns out of batteries, a video game controller rumble pack, and sharpened wire. One prisoner made a shotgun out of iron bedposts, with lead bits from curtain rods mixed with match heads ignited by a plunger, that he used in a successful escape.

      They've even made bugs which they install in the guardroom so they can listen on a receiver hidden in a book to know when cell shakedowns are about to happen.

      In short, you're not going to stop them from figuring out how to get what they want, and if you up the ante in countermeasures, that just means they'll come up with something even harder to police.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    42. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have they filed for patents yet?

    43. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      automatic gun towers... when a cellphone is detected, it locks on and fires 50 rounds in that direction.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    44. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      At the prison I worked at if they didn't place an attorney call properly (including notifying the shift supervisor) then it was recorded and listened to. If they are using an illegal cell phone to place an attorney call improperly I'd be surprised if they could make any complaint when it was recorded. Of course acting on the information obtained from the call is a whole different matter.

    45. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      It is the 'cry out for it' that makes me wonder. When Charles Manson gets a cell phone, it reminds me of the story from the 90s where a rapist was able to get a camcorder, hormones supplements and make his own prison porn from his cell. Of course it ended up being that everyone from the warden on down was behind it in order to get public outrage and extra funding.

      It does lead to one interesting "what if" question. How do we deal with this problem when the cellphone is in your head? Granted the question is pure science fiction, but sooner or later, this will be the case.

      "Well we have the in-head jammer, but it causes random 'schizophrenic episodes'."

      "Awesome, we'll just ship em off to the psych hospital and when they get that cleared up 10 years from now, they'll ship 'em back and they'll have to serve out the rest of their sentence. We won't have to grovel for money for decades."

    46. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      A better option would be A pair of signal repeaters connected via a hardline to bridge the gap. Easy enough to only handle the radio signal, but not a cell phone/wifi/whatever signal.

    47. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by JonWan · · Score: 1

      Well where I worked the supervisors and warden carried cell phones as did the tower officers. I worked tower for almost two years and always had my cell phone with me. If I needed to call the supervisor I had a direct line. If you use the radio every inmate knows what is happening. So jamming wouldn't work, at least in my case.

    48. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure attorney-client privileges requires the attorney to identify themselves, otherwise any bloke could walk into a jail, claim to be somebody's attorney, and get a confidential conversation with them.

      This just in: slang-talking, bandanna wearing attorney visits to jails up 100000%!

    49. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Because it won't take long (think BEFORE the tower's are even installed) for the prisoners to figure out what is going on. Programming a cell-phone to only connect to certain towers is TRIVIAL if you know what you are doing. Guess who has enough money to pay people to re-program phones? DRUG DEALERS!

    50. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by izomiac · · Score: 1

      This seems like something the tenth amendment ought to cover. Or at least the convoluted explanation of how the interstate commerce clause applies should prove entertaining...

    51. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Oh, i'm pretty sure the US has no problem tracing and recording every single cell call in the area. PATRIOT act anyone?

    52. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by joelpt · · Score: 1

      One potential problem with your first idea is that some newer phones (e.g. Android) allow you to manually select your APN.

    53. Re:Cell Phone Jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guards should not be using something as undependable as a cell phone for emergency communication. They make these other things, called radios, for that. They only use them to make bets and order more contraband phones for the inmates.

      It's not a violation of federal law for the state to use jammers, just for individuals to do them.

  3. Break free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing more inspiring than playing angry birds while stuck in a cell...

  4. Great idea! by sudnshok · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure legislation will fix the problem... after all, inmates are in jail because they FOLLOW laws! Politicians are morons.

    --
    People who say "money does not buy happiness" are just people without money trying to make themselves feel better.
    1. Re:Great idea! by yincrash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      inmates get cellphones from people who are not in jail. internet commenters are morons.

    2. Re:Great idea! by perpenso · · Score: 3

      I'm sure legislation will fix the problem... after all, inmates are in jail because they FOLLOW laws! Politicians are morons.

      Note that the summary says "prison guards, staff and vendors are cashing in". These suppliers are the weak link and are somewhat likely to respond to the legislation.

    3. Re:Great idea! by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is to throw the people (like security guards) who supply inmates with cell phones in jail as well...

    4. Re:Great idea! by Hojima · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well of course it's not working, we haven't thrown enough money at it. Just like drugs.

      -The legislators

    5. Re:Great idea! by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Isn't that where they are now?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    6. Re:Great idea! by Darth_brooks · · Score: 2, Informative

      Legislation tends to just add a force multiplier to an existing crime. For instance; Drug free school zones don't magically stop drugs from being sold, but they add a nice "and" to the existing charges, which in turn makes it harder to plead down.

      In this case, legislation *is* needed. If I sneak a hundred cell phones into a prison at 800 bucks a pop, my only crime currently would be not declaring the additional $80,000 in income on my taxes. (Sorta like Al Capone. He was never nailed for bootlegging / extortion / murder, he was nailed for being a used furniture dealer who was making several hundred thousand dollars a year and not paying income tax on it.) As of now, the only person who gets punished is the inmate themselves. The smuggler did nothing illegal.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    7. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The later part could be fixed by a law to prohibit people from stating that Politicians are morons.

    8. Re:Great idea! by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Do you think people who are not in jail are forcing inmates to take or buy those phones? The inmate has to be a willing party in the process so I think sudnshok's rather clever point still stands.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    9. Re:Great idea! by onyxruby · · Score: 0

      Your not quite on track their. The legislation is needed to dissuade the guards and other workers from smuggling in the phones. After all they of all people ought to be following the law. I'm sure if they knew they could pass from jailer to inmate if they got caught it would have a chilling effect on currently rampant smuggling...

    10. Re:Great idea! by radtea · · Score: 2

      Note that the summary says "prison guards, staff and vendors are cashing in". These suppliers are the weak link and are somewhat likely to respond to the legislation.

      Right, so by increasing the penalties you are decreasing the competition, and therefore increasing the profit margins for those willing and able to continue the practice.

      But of course fewer (and richer) smugglers does not in any way imply fewer smuggled cell phones, so it isn't clear why anyone would suggest harsher penalties in this case, other than maybe organized criminals who want to use the law to "persuade" the more casual competition to exit the market.

      Only if you for some reason assume that "few smugglers" implies "less smuggling" would this position make any sense, but you'd have to be insane to believe that. It would be like claiming that the number of burgers sold has gone down since the '50's because back then there were zillions of independent burger joints but today the market is dominated by a few well-organized vendors like McDonald's.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    11. Re:Great idea! by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Your comparison to the outside world is flawed. The guards/staff are a critical component here, their active participation or looking the other way is key. If they could lose their jobs, generous union benefits, pensions and face incarceration themselves then their active or passive participation is far less likely. The problem would likely move from out of control to under control. Note that under control is not necessarily zero phones.

    12. Re:Great idea! by radtea · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if they knew they could pass from jailer to inmate if they got caught it would have a chilling effect on currently rampant smuggling...

      It will reduce the number of smugglers. Why do you believe that will reduce the amount of smuggling?

      That is, reducing supply without reducing demand cannot have any effect other than increasing the revenues of the remaining suppliers. Demand may drop due to increases in price, but by how much depends on the price elasticity of demand relative to supply. There are circumstances in which reducing the number of suppliers will result eventually in a lower equilibrium market price.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    13. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, if I were in prinson and it wasn't illegal, my sister might supply me with a cell phone; particularly so I could call my kids. Make it illegal and there's no way should would try (my brother-in-law in a police officer).

      While you could argue that since I don't even have a speeding ticket this isn't representative of your typical prisoner, my brother-in-law's brother (my sister's brother-in-law) is in prison (charges related to pictures of a 17 year old girl from what I understand) and thus her actions the possible deterent are relevant to the discussion.

    14. Re:Great idea! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      The smuggler did nothing illegal.

      Strictly speaking, if the smuggler was a prison guard, he did break the law. Prison guards are not allowed to do favors for prisoners like that.

      However, yes, it's not generally illegal for people to smuggle things in to a prisoner. (Unless it's part of a conspiracy to commit a crime, obviously. If you know they'll be running their gang out of prison and help them, that's illegal regardless of what the action was.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    15. Re:Great idea! by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      You're saying we need someone to watch the watchmen ?

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    16. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and education, and poverty (my personal favorite), and...

    17. Re:Great idea! by mspohr · · Score: 1
      It is already against the rules for prison guards and staff to supply cell phones to prisoners. Penalty is dismissal or other sanctions. Legislation will do nothing.

      Note the article said that most of the cell phones are used by inmates to communicate with loved-ones. This is actually a good thing since it helps in keeping up their ties to society and will help with rehabilitation. Why do inmates use cell phones when the prison provides pay phones? Prisons and telecoms companies make big bucks off of the prisoners by grossly overcharging for pay phone calls ($$ per minute). Cell phones are, of course, much cheaper and cut into the prison revenue. As usual, the is an economic problem and the "stop the terrorists" argument is just a smoke screen.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    18. Re:Great idea! by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      I'd be willing to bet that they're getting the phones the same way they're getting the drugs and other contraband.....from the guards.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    19. Re:Great idea! by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 2

      Just like the drug laws keep drugs under control, right? You can lose it all there, but people still do it anyways.

      --
      SSC
    20. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always felt that if safeguards aren't in place to keep the guards themselves from smuggling items in, then what the hell can you trust the system for?

      This sort of thing should be career-ending. Not just "your ass is fired" but "your ass is fired and I'm going to send your name to every security company in the country."

    21. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call it a hunch, but I'm pretty sure there's some law against bringing contraband into a prison through non-legal channels.

      By your reasoning, I could supply prisoners with a hundred cutting torches and not be found illegal if I reported my income of the sale.

    22. Re:Great idea! by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Just like the drug laws keep drugs under control, right? You can lose it all there, but people still do it anyways.

      That's not a very good analogy. Drugs have a physical addiction component that screws up the risk/reward evaluation. Phones won't have that sort of demand. Phones (and chargers) are also a bit larger and bulkier. They are more difficult to conceal and pass off than drugs.

    23. Re:Great idea! by Tuan121 · · Score: 1

      "One of the problems is that it is not illegal for someone to smuggle a cell phone into a state prison"

      Making it illegal will add time to people's jail time. That means something to most prisoners. Since it's not illegal at all right now (which is surprising..), then there's no reason for them NOT to try smuggling.

      So no, your joke was not funny.

    24. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah 'cause that's worked so well with drugs.

      Throwing more people in jail and increasing the demand cannot conceivably help. Other than by helping to elect 'conservative' politicians.

      Supply and demand works. It's called capitalism. Authoritarianism doesn't.

    25. Re:Great idea! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      But being able to put the person who supplied the phone in jail for doing so should cause some people not to do so. Of course it'll just drive the price up providing a bigger incentive for some people.

    26. Re:Great idea! by perpenso · · Score: 1

      It is already against the rules for prison guards and staff to supply cell phones to prisoners. Penalty is dismissal or other sanctions. Legislation will do nothing.

      Getting fired is one thing. A felony conviction for someone who is socially advantaged enough to be a prison guard is another thing, its a lifelong downgrade. Having a former prison guard wind up in prison is something that it is far beyond getting fired, its a potential death sentence. The legislation can drastically alter the risk/reward for the guards.

    27. Re:Great idea! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So what exactly is your plan? If prison time has no effect on crime as you suggest, are you saying we should get rid of prisons altogether? Or what? I hear a lot of criticism from you, but no solutions......at the very least, prisons keep criminals from hurting people while they are in prison (at least, people who aren't in the prison).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    28. Re:Great idea! by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I'm sure legislation will fix the problem... after all, inmates are in jail because they FOLLOW laws! Politicians are morons.

      Note that the summary says "prison guards, staff and vendors are cashing in". These suppliers are the weak link and are somewhat likely to respond to the legislation.

      Capitalism at it's finest. Isn't that the American way?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    29. Re:Great idea! by swb · · Score: 1

      You mean smuggling contraband to a prison isn't already illegal, regardless of what the contraband is?

    30. Re:Great idea! by Morkano · · Score: 1

      Not that I disagree with the main thrust of your argument, but if the price for smuggled cell phones does go up due to a smaller supply it would probably push it out of range of some prisoners. So there's that at least.

      --
      Victory or awesome!
    31. Re:Great idea! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Smuggling a phone into a prison isn't illegal, that's the entire point of the article which you obviously didn't even at look at. Hence the proposal to make it illegal.

    32. Re:Great idea! by swb · · Score: 1

      I find that surprising; I would think that there would be a blanket law making it illegal to smuggle prohibited items into a prison, with "prohibited" being whatever the warden or prison commissioner decided was prohibited.

      The notion that you have to smuggle an item into prison even though it is legal to posses in prison seems strange as well.

  5. Worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The potential is there for the worst kind of activity,' says Folsom Prison Warden Rick Hill

    Well, I guess someone could use one to trigger a release of lethal bacteria into the air killing us all. I expect mostly they're being used for sub-worst kinds of activity though.

  6. A "problem?" by crow_t_robot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they think that cell phones are a problem, they need to consider this situation carefully. Most/all cellphones are much larger than say a balloon filled with heroin. If they think that a cellphone is a "problem" and smuggling in a handheld device is easy, I wonder what they think of the drug situation. Also, the profit margin on bringing in a walnut-sized heroin balloon is orders of magnitude more profitable.

    1. Re:A "problem?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Most/all cellphones are much larger than say a balloon

      You must have had a terrible childhood!

    2. Re:A "problem?" by the_fat_kid · · Score: 0

      terrible? yes.
      but profitable.
      no pun intended

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    3. Re:A "problem?" by MaggieL · · Score: 4, Informative

      A guard caught with a cell phone gets administrative punishment under union rules. A guard caught with drugs goes down for a felony and loses his job.

      --
      -=Maggie Leber=-
    4. Re:A "problem?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the real problem, actually, is that the existing, legal phone system inside armerica's prisons is grossly corrupt. prison phone system providers are given a monopoly, charge exorbitant rates (a 630% markup over normal residential prices) and then actually kickback money to prison officials and politicians to keep their sweet contracts (57.5% of profits to the state of new york, for example).

      my source for these numbers is here

      add to that the fact that even if an inmate can get a prison job, the wages are usually in the dollar-or-less per hour range, sometimes as low as 20c/hr, and you have a situation where the legal phone system is financially unusable. the result is that the economic impulse to get a black market cellphone -- even a $200 one -- is strong.

      if america really wanted to stop black market cellphones, they'd cancel verizon's prison phone contract and offer reasonably-priced access to phone systems to inmates.

      my source for the prison wages info is: here

    5. Re:A "problem?" by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      I think the penalty for a cellphone is a tad different than for the heroin.

    6. Re:A "problem?" by need4mospd · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is, how is it that criminals have no problems smuggling whatever they want into prison, when good law abiding citizens can't take a fucking pair of nail clippers on an airplane without the swat team coming out?

    7. Re:A "problem?" by fermion · · Score: 1
      Cell phones are a symptom. The problem is the belief that security can be affected in highly sensitive areas using unskilled laborers. The employees are well paid for being unskilled labor, but they are with people who have all day to think about how to get around the rules. Likewise, the lack of professionalism means there is often no long term consequences for smuggling in a contraband, or more to the point, vigilantly insuring that such things are not smuggled in. After all if the inmates have a few generally harmless toys it makes them eiser to control. Certainly our rising prison population, along with unwillingness of tax payers to fund the population, while asking that more and more basically innocuous acts be criminalized, means that expecting any reasonable security is delusional.

      We see this same thing in the TSA. Low skilled labor, relatively high wages, yet what can be done is limited. We can collect water bottles, but we can't issue tickets that would minimize the possibility of repeated attempts. While more people would be OK with frisking by a professional police force, frisking by the equivalent of a meter reader seems unreasonable. One might wonder why we depend on semi-skilled labor for the safety of our airports? It is simply a jobs program, meant to keep unemployment down and win the 2004 election.

      There is also an analogy to public schools. Some people believe that a school can function with semi-skilled college graduates. But kids, like inmates, when combined with an unskilled teacher, have nothing to do but growing angry about having to follow orders all day and come up with ideas to disrupt the school, get the teachers fired, figure our how to get drugs and sex, and generally not learn. An experienced professional teaching force, though expensive, is much more likely to engage the kids in more meaningful activities.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    8. Re:A "problem?" by fabioalcor · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're being naive. This is a HUGE problem, you can't imagine the amount of crimes that can be done or aided by cell phone. Fake kidnapping scams, execution orders, prison escape orders, prison revolts, etc... Just talk with a brazilian about it.

    9. Re:A "problem?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "real problem" necessarily presumes that prisoners should be able to use a phone and only pay a reasonable price to do so.

      I'm not so sure that I agree with that. While I can understand that it might make sense for prisons (and possibly society) to support that position I don't believe that it's safe to presume that everybody agrees.

      Granted, I'm biased. My daughter was murdered in 2006 and the killer is currently serving 35 years in a Texas prison. As far as I'm concerned if anything makes his stay less painful then I'm against it ... but that's just me.

      Others might want prisoners to have affordable phone calls; cable TV; free health care; etc.

    10. Re:A "problem?" by Nyder · · Score: 1

      If they think that cell phones are a problem, they need to consider this situation carefully. Most/all cellphones are much larger than say a balloon filled with heroin. If they think that a cellphone is a "problem" and smuggling in a handheld device is easy, I wonder what they think of the drug situation. Also, the profit margin on bringing in a walnut-sized heroin balloon is orders of magnitude more profitable.

      So what if the inmates are getting drugs. Obviously you've never been addicted to herion, since you don't understand how hellish it would be.

      You are in prison. You can't leave. The drugs cost way more then they do outside. So, if you get addicted to the dope, not only are you paying way more money then you would of been, your ways of making money are very, very smaller. In fact, chances are, you'll be sucking dick and getting fucked in the ass to get your dope.

      And that's not even talking what you'll do when your dope sick. sheesh. Yes, Jail is fun place to kick dope in. Since you can't go anyways, your stuck for the ride.

      Let the inmates do herion, because it's only going to be hell for them.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    11. Re:A "problem?" by iamhigh · · Score: 1

      You are biased, and far too emotionally attached. You should not be making decisions on this issue.

      I think most people realize that prisoners have a need to contact *some* people on the outside. Much better than unregulated cell phone use, is to only let them use the internal phone system that can be easily tracked. The real issues cited by the article are issues where the inmates are doing things they shouldn't be doing on the phone; not simply wanting to hear their daughter's voice (remember, they didn't all kill your daughter, or anyone).

      Your solution to "fuck'em over" simply adds to the desire to find some alternative method to accomplish a rather innocent task of talking to one's kid. This also means those that want to use that service for something not-so-innocent, have a much better change of succeeding.

      Now do you see how your anger and emotions do nothing but exacerbate the problem.

      PS. Prisoners already have free cable and health care.

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    12. Re:A "problem?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my source for these numbers is here northcountrygazette.org
      Northcountrygazette ... that's the 'newspaper' that was featured on Slashdot for threatening to "trackdown" readers who read more than one article on their site: Pay or Else News Site Threatens.

    13. Re:A "problem?" by scribblej · · Score: 1

      I can tell you this is true; my brother tried calling me from Prison here in Illinois. There's only one way to do it, you have to work through this company that the state contracts with, and the fees they charge are INSANE. I wrote it all down at the time but I've lost it... it was something like $6 to connect and $.75/minute to talk.

      They put the wrong people in the jail! Those folks are ROBBERS, pure and simple.

    14. Re:A "problem?" by Alok · · Score: 1

      Unlike GP, I am not emotionally attached and have (thankfully) not had any relatives murdered etc. - but I would still side with making life difficult for those guilty of really serious crimes like murder. I do agree that all the others in for minor crimes should have far better facilities, even though I do not buy the whole 'this guy is a breadwinner, so reduce his sentence' argument that defense seems to be fond of making (atleast from some of the news articles I come across, again no personal experience of this).

    15. Re:A "problem?" by Pootie+Tang · · Score: 1

      Perhaps biased to the point of blindness in this case.

      Expensive "official" phones drives a black market. One so prolific that killers can still make calls. Except it's a matter of economics, not law. Prison officials can't monitor or restrict those calls as effectively.

      Cable TV is probably economics as well. TV is cheaper than more guards. Better paid guards that are less likely to sell a cell phone to an inmate are way more expensive than TVs. But who WANTS to be a prison guard?

      I won't pretend to have any easy answers to solve prison problems. I don't want to dismiss your pain either, I'd be biased too if so directly affected. Nonetheless in this case (phones) I think the prison system isn't working in societies best interest and it is fixable.

    16. Re:A "problem?" by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      My guess would be that one of the reasons drugs are so prevalent in prisons is that they are useful.

      Look drugs out in society is bad for the society (well, US viewpoint anyway) because it usually removes people from the work force and/or slows their productivity down.

      Within the penal system there's huge advantages to having the population on depressants. It would be interesting to see what the ratio of stimulants/depressants is outside in society and then within the penal system.

  7. OR by MadUndergrad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or.... don't let the signal from the towers penetrate to the prison? Surely the guards can do without when they're on duty?

    1. Re:OR by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Informative

      They kinda do that here in Florida. Some prisons have their own microcell that grabs the signal from any cell phone in use on the prison grounds. If you aren't using an authorized phone, the signal doesn't go out & the guards are alerted.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:OR by jaeric · · Score: 1

      They could just build faraday cages around the more secluded/private areas of the prison.

    3. Re:OR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice. Better than what I was thinking.

      Personally, I'm astounded people talk about putting up cell phone blockers in movie theaters, yet we don't have this already implemented on prison grounds where the consequences are far worse.

      Yes, don't like the US prison system at all, but I also don't think allowing a criminal to run his operations from his prison cell is right either.

      The reason I like the picocell idea is that you can also let calls through, and still wiretap who calls who if it's an unauthorized phone.

    4. Re:OR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They kinda do that here in Florida. Some prisons have their own microcell that grabs the signal from any cell phone in use on the prison grounds. If you aren't using an authorized phone, the signal doesn't go out & the guards are alerted.

      And the FCC is okay with this?

      And what if I happen to be a visiting contractor, and I have an emergency while on the grounds, without a guard in line of sight? What if I'm driving by and break down right in front, and the prison microcell is more powerful than ATT's nearest tower?

    5. Re:OR by Ernesto+Alvarez · · Score: 1

      And what if I happen to be a visiting contractor, and I have an emergency while on the grounds, without a guard in line of sight? What if I'm driving by and break down right in front, and the prison microcell is more powerful than ATT's nearest tower?

      Then the guards would be alerted to your activities and that "no guard in sight" situation would change. Problem solved.

      Anyway, why would they let you into a prison as a contractor with restricted items, unguarded?

    6. Re:OR by Geminii · · Score: 1

      I like it. Of course, if the guards are in on it, there's no reason their SIM cards (or copies) couldn't find their way to prisoners, who would then be able to phone out.

      Perhaps if the conversations going through those microcells were recorded for (say) a month, the destination numbers scrutinized, and passive voice recognition used on the stream coming from the registered phone, this might cut down on it a bit. At least until someone starts bribing the auditors...

  8. Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have the highest paid prison guard union in the country and it still isn't enough.

  9. Jam them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be simpler to make cell phone useless within the prison perimeter? I know there would be technical challenges to doing that, and prison staff would have to do without too (they can use the regular phones), but it might be easier. It would probably be more effective than "making them illegal" (like that will stop people already in jail).

    Another step would be to make regular phone easier and less restricted (i.e. more phones/hours), albeit still monitored. Then there would be less reason for having a cell phone to "stay in contact with loved ones".

    1. Re:Jam them? by lxs · · Score: 2

      Sure but who's going to pay to put up that many t-mobile towers?

  10. jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it not possible to jam the cell phone signals? And anyway, the "cell" base station near the prison can listen to the calls, yeah?

  11. Put them in a cage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage wouldn't be too hard to stop them from being effective ...

  12. Why not just install some phones? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    How about installing some 'regular' phones that inmates can use, but monitor all calls? "Hi honey, I miss, how're the kids?" calls are ignored/allowed, but "I need you to go WHACK that bitch!" calls result in punishment...

    1. Re:Why not just install some phones? by kieran · · Score: 1

      Because people are capable of talking in code, or just being subtle.

    2. Re:Why not just install some phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Prisons have regular phones, that they charge exorbitant rates to use. This is about protecting a monopoly and gouging a segment of the population that nobody gives a damn about.

    3. Re:Why not just install some phones? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      How about installing some 'regular' phones that inmates can use, but monitor all calls?

      That sounds very expensive, as in you have to hire people to listen to the calls and other people to double check or at least spot check the first group. Also, if a lifer does call someone and tell his buddies to kill someone, what are you going to do to them? So you can't give everyone access, but then you still have the worst of the cell phone problem having eliminated it only for those people who would normally not be a real problem.

    4. Re:Why not just install some phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This right here.
      They gave up their right to privacy when they decided to break the law, for the terms they have been sentenced to.

      Outside of those really smart people, it is very unlikely that your average inmate will have created some code to use with friends / family / "business" partners.

      People break the rules, then you disallow them contact for a period of time.
      Outright ban physical contact, as well as visual, for more serious cases. (as it should be)

    5. Re:Why not just install some phones? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Because "honey, I miss you, kiss little Suzy for me." could mean "Green light to kill Suzy"

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Why not just install some phones? by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 1

      dingdingding

    7. Re:Why not just install some phones? by r00t · · Score: 1

      Also, if a lifer does call someone and tell his buddies to kill someone, what are you going to do to them?

      Death penalty, obviously.

      This would mean more if we had the balls to do it old-style of course. (stoning, flaying, crucification, burning, etc.)

    8. Re:Why not just install some phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no ! Wake up little Suzie, wake up.

    9. Re:Why not just install some phones? by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Outside of those really smart people, it is very unlikely that your average inmate will have created some code to use with friends / family / "business" partners.

      Wrong. Encoded messages flow through prisons like drugs.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    10. Re:Why not just install some phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is about protecting a monopoly and gouging a segment of the population that nobody gives a damn about.

      Why should we? It's prison.

      Punishment is a bitch.

    11. Re:Why not just install some phones? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Also, if a lifer does call someone and tell his buddies to kill someone, what are you going to do to them? Death penalty, obviously.

      In a different thread of this discussion I think I did a good job of explaining why the death penalty is not really useful to our society and is, in fact, unjust in our current system.

    12. Re:Why not just install some phones? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      It's attitudes like that that make our prisons' resounding success in rehabilitating prisoners possible. *eyeroll*

      Do the rest of us a favor and get a fucking clue before you speak next time, would you? People like you are more of a problem than the average prisoner.

    13. Re:Why not just install some phones? by r00t · · Score: 1

      OK, we do it at their home and we mandate that the whole neighborhood be there to watch. The deterrent is more "real" if it's right there, pronto, gruesome, and humiliating. Think "naked and covered in stinging insects". The criminal needs to dies screaming in agony while all his buddies watch. Maybe add some sexual or religious humiliation too, like getting butt-raped by a pig or dog.

  13. This again? by kieran · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Install jammers (probably with a whitelist of allowed phones) or STFU.

    1. Re:This again? by radtea · · Score: 1

      Install jammers (probably with a whitelist of allowed phones) or STFU.

      But that would prevent criminal gangs from maximizing their smuggling profits after the casual competition is eliminated! You have to ask who benefits from a proposed legal change, and in this case it is obvious the only beneficiaries are the criminal organizations who will be willing and able to take the risk of continued smuggling.

      The volume of smuggling will not change, but the number of smugglers will go down, increasing the profitability of the remaining smugglers by a great deal.

      Installing jammers would do nothing like that, and so is obviously pointless!

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:This again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 on the jammers.

      Laws do not prevent things from happening, they only allow you to punish the perpetrators. This is exactly the same as thinking laws will protect the privacy of your email. If you want your email to be private, encrypt it!

    3. Re:This again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as a "selective jammer" other than a cell tower that drops unauthorized calls. Said tower would interfere with everything around the prison too.

      If you want to keep relying on such thinking, you could just ask them to cast the spell that fries all the cellphones of bad guys.

    4. Re:This again? by WarmNoodles · · Score: 1

      Thinking once a month, show up to provide mobile EMP service would jusst do the trick.

    5. Re:This again? by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      going through the block with huge magnet while prisoners have the magnetic resonance done would also do it, but yes, EMP would be probably more effort-efficient.
      But it should be done not by the prison staff, but some other body, pehhaps by DoJ, FCC or some other body

  14. It is NOT illegal?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF? I thought smuggling in even a bag of chips into a prison was illegal.

    1. Re:It is NOT illegal?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The one guy in prison that I've ever corresponded with pointed out that he was allowed to have TWO pieces of stationery, two envelopes, and two stamps at any given time. Apparently having any more than that supply was a *serious* infraction. He wasn't even in prison for anything violent. I can imagine that having a cell phone or anything else not approved (i.e., not issued to the prison by the prison) could lead to really serious consequences.

  15. 8th Amendment by Darth_brooks · · Score: 5, Funny

    "there have been documented cases of escape attempts, drug deals and conference calls coordinated via smuggled cell phones."

    Not conference calls! Anything but that! Isn't it bad enough that they're in jail? Now they're being subjected to conference calls. That is surely a violation of an inmate's rights against cruel and unusual punishment.

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    1. Re:8th Amendment by phreakmonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not conference calls! Anything but that! Isn't it bad enough that they're in jail? Now they're being subjected to conference calls. That is surely a violatin of an inmate's rights against cruel and unusual punishment.

      I thought the same thing! I imagined this tough, tattoo-decorated guy on his smuggled cellphone, hunching down behind the cot so as not to be obvious...

      [Boop-beep!]
      "Hello, who just joined?"
      "Uhh, this is Tommy 'The Blade', on the call..."

    2. Re:8th Amendment by Darth_brooks · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Hi Tommy, we're just waiting for a few more people to join."

      "I've got time......"

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    3. Re:8th Amendment by chiph · · Score: 2

      Well, at least they don't have access to PowerPoint.

    4. Re:8th Amendment by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      [Boop-beep!]
      "Hello, who just joined?"
      "Jimmy, "The Jacker", Sanderson. Is this the "Crime Scene Cleanup Review Committee" meeting?
      "Jimmy, that meeting is held on Thursdays. This is the "Sleeping with the Fish Lessons Learned" meeting."
      "Sorry."
      [Beep-boop!]

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    5. Re:8th Amendment by Nyder · · Score: 1

      "there have been documented cases of escape attempts, drug deals and conference calls coordinated via smuggled cell phones."

      Not conference calls! Anything but that! Isn't it bad enough that they're in jail? Now they're being subjected to conference calls. That is surely a violation of an inmate's rights against cruel and unusual punishment.

      While you joke, alot of times when leaders of gangs/mob goes to jail, they just keep working from inside.

      So ya, conference calls makes sense.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    6. Re:8th Amendment by WarmNoodles · · Score: 1

      You do realize Windows 7 smart phone do include power point. Right?

  16. Please Take My Money by jimmerz28 · · Score: 0

    So now not only are we having our tax dollars wasted on a "war on drugs" we're also going to start a new "war on cellphones (in prison)".

    Sounds absolutely fabulous

    1. Re:Please Take My Money by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      So now not only are we having our tax dollars wasted on a "war on drugs" we're also going to start a new "war on cellphones (in prison)".

      Sounds absolutely fabulous

      The line between "starting a war on cellphones in prison" and "proposing a law to it illegal to smuggle cellphones to prison inmates" is pretty clear and wide.

      The attempt to turn this example of state legislators attempting to actually do their jobs into a "govmit wasting my hard-earned money" story is unjustified.

  17. A better solution ... by dougmc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop screwing prisoners who try to use the prison phone to contact loved ones.

    Prisons have been seeing their phones as a profit center lately, charging a dollar per minute or more to contact loved ones. And loved ones can't call the prisoner -- the prisoner has to make the call. And often they can't call cell phones, only land lines -- but not everybody has a land line any more.

    Make the prices more reasonable, drop the "no cell phones" thing, and have some way for people to call the prisoners (or at least tell them to call home beyond sending them a letter) and the demand for cell phones will drop.

    Beyond that, simply get a scanner that detects the frequencies used by cell phones, install a few of them around the prison, and when they go off if the system is properly designed it could tell a guard immediately and tell them approximately where the phone is in the jail.

    1. Re:A better solution ... by the_olo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Better yet, make the prison a non-GSM zone, deinstalling BTS-es and/or screening/jamming the radio signals. Make the staff and inmates use landlines for phone communication.

    2. Re:A better solution ... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I used to work for a telephone company, calling people who had rang up too many charges. Half the time, the recipient was grateful to be blocked, as her husband/boyfriend in prison called her incessantly, as well as racked up hundreds of dollars in collect telephone call fees.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:A better solution ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Informative

      Make the prices more reasonable, drop the "no cell phones" thing, and have some way for people to call the prisoners (or at least tell them to call home beyond sending them a letter) and the demand for cell phones will drop.

      Dropping the restriction on cellular phones is not the answer, because they can be (and are) used for illegal activities and that should simply not be permitted while in prison.

      Beyond that, simply get a scanner that detects the frequencies used by cell phones, install a few of them around the prison, and when they go off if the system is properly designed it could tell a guard immediately and tell them approximately where the phone is in the jail.

      Better yet: a handful of microcells deployed in the prison could ensure that phones connect to them first and betray their precise location. But it would probably be sufficient simply to use jamming. Guards don't need cellphones while they're at work; they can receive emergency calls via the prison phone system, they don't need to be making personal calls on your time, and they can use radios to communicate with one another inside the prison in a way that won't provide a prisoner with a cellphone should they lose it or have it stolen.

      I agree with what you say about prisons treating prisoners as a cost center, but our society is very much going the other direction, with more private prisons and even privatization of existing prisons: unabashed state-sponsored slavery.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:A better solution ... by NoSig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That. If prison is "we'll take your social circle and replace them with all these other criminals and you don't get to have any contact with the people you knew", then we shouldn't be surprised when people exit prison as hardened and more-proficient criminals than when they entered.

    5. Re:A better solution ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is just a symptom, a prison is meant to be a correction facility first and detention second. Cutting off peoples social contact isn't healthy, it's a very bad thing,

      You should be thinking why the prisons are so full that they need to tax calls and rely on confiscated phones to make some extra money.

    6. Re:A better solution ... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2

      I will second the above. At first blush people will say too bad, we're punishing the prisoners. But in reality, who is being punished? The family and friends of the prisoner/detainee. It is they who must pay $9 for a 15 minute collect call. It is they who must pay a $10 'service fee' to put up to (but not exceeding) $50 on a prepaid account via TouchPay for use on the Global Telink phone system. It is, for all intents, robbery. Prisons can limit the frequency and duration of phone calls - there is no need to extort the failies too. In an age of 1c/min phone calls and google voice there are many better ways to do things. But none of them would line the pockets of the few companies who are 'authorized' to be in this game.

    7. Re:A better solution ... by BBTaeKwonDo · · Score: 1

      It's been a while since I've made or received a collect call, but IIRC the person who received the call was given the option to decline the call and the charge, correct? So if they couldn't afford to take the call, why didn't they refuse it?

    8. Re:A better solution ... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Stop screwing prisoners who try to use the prison phone to contact loved ones.

      Prisons have been seeing their phones as a profit center lately, charging a dollar per minute or more to contact loved ones. And loved ones can't call the prisoner -- the prisoner has to make the call. And often they can't call cell phones, only land lines -- but not everybody has a land line any more.

      Make the prices more reasonable, drop the "no cell phones" thing, and have some way for people to call the prisoners (or at least tell them to call home beyond sending them a letter) and the demand for cell phones will drop.

      This is quite true. But having some experience in this particular business -- albeit a while back -- I should add that the jail phone companies are not actually screwing the prisoners themselves, but rather the people they call. This usually means their Moms, wives, girlfriends and kids. The calls go through as collect calls billed at the highest allowable rate. Fifteen years ago it wasn't uncommon to see someone billed hundreds of dollars for an hour or two of conversation with her husband in jail.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    9. Re:A better solution ... by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      agree with what you say about prisons treating prisoners as a cost center, but our society is very much going the other direction, with more private prisons and even privatization of existing prisons: unabashed state-sponsored slavery.

      I think according to the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, using prisoners as slaves seems to be perfectly legal:

      Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

      In fact, there are prisons in the US that are still run essentially as old slave plantations.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    10. Re:A better solution ... by David_W · · Score: 1

      So if they couldn't afford to take the call, why didn't they refuse it?

      Because they'd have to explain it later and would probably end up in an argument about "aren't I worth the money", etc. On the other hand, "*beep beep beep* We're sorry, this number cannot accept collect calls" can be blamed on the phone company.

    11. Re:A better solution ... by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      Make the prices more reasonable, drop the "no cell phones" thing, and have some way for people to call the prisoners (or at least tell them to call home beyond sending them a letter) and the demand for cell phones will drop.

      Dropping the restriction on cellular phones is not the answer, because they can be (and are) used for illegal activities and that should simply not be permitted while in prison.

      Mod parent up. I know a lot of cases in which kidnappings and other criminal acts were orchestrated by imprisoned gang leaders.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    12. Re:A better solution ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Constitutional != Moral, Ethical, et cetera. The deprivation of the rights of the convicted is not only wrong on its own, but is also often abused by those in power to torment those who do not deserve it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:A better solution ... by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness Verison is still CDMA then!

    14. Re:A better solution ... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      Some years ago, we had a babysitter who, unbeknownst to us, had a boyfriend in prison. "Press 1 to accept this call" The next phone bill was a real WTF! moment. Needless to say, we didn't use her anymore.
      Years later, a neighborhood kid who was in juvie for child molestation (diddling his 5 yr old cousin) had taken a shine to my twin daughters. Would attempt to call collect several times a week, all refused. Called the facility, and they could not prevent him from those outgoing calls. Had to call Verizon to have all numbers from that facility blocked.

    15. Re:A better solution ... by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      Constitutional != Moral, Ethical, et cetera. The deprivation of the rights of the convicted is not only wrong on its own, but is also often abused by those in power to torment those who do not deserve it.

      I agree with you 100%, but it's a tough battle since it's apparently legal to enslave the imprisoned, and defending rights of prisoners isn't exactly a popular political move.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    16. Re:A better solution ... by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What exactly the U.S. Prison system is doing has not been discussed much, and sure has not been SETTLED.

      It's all lost in "tough on crime" and "humanitarian" bullshit.

      What prisons could be doing:

      • Punishment (revenge type to make the folks wronged or those who care about the wrong feel better)
      • Detention (to keep the prisoners away from people they may harm)
      • Correction (to teach prisoners (reprogram) them to participate in society without committing crimes)
      • Correction (to chew them up to the point they are helpless to harm others when they get out)
      • Eugenics (women only, to keep them from breeding or raising more of their type of trash, this doesn't work for men because they need not be out of prison very long to breed)
      • Profit (let's face it, some big companies and big politicians make huge money off them)
      • Profit (simple industry above the board profit)
      • Political (focusing on a crime to garner votes "tough on crime")
      • etc.

      Depending on the discussion, and who you are discussing it with the prison system bounces around between all of these purposes legitimately and illegitimately.

    17. Re:A better solution ... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you 100%, but it's a tough battle since it's apparently legal to enslave the imprisoned, and defending rights of prisoners isn't exactly a popular political move.

      Not disagreeing, but it's another Larry Flynt argument: protect the prisoners, because if the laws can protect prisoners, you know they will protect everyone.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    18. Re:A better solution ... by makomk · · Score: 1

      I agree with you 100%, but it's a tough battle since it's apparently legal to enslave the imprisoned, and defending rights of prisoners isn't exactly a popular political move.

      Defending the rights of male prisoners isn't a popular political move. Female prisoners are probably different. At least here in the UK, the government was seriously considering abolishing prisons for women altogether and this apparently polled quite well. (Serious female offenders would still be held in secure facilities that were effectively prisons, but weren't called that for political reasons.)

      Out of interest, are female prisoners actually used as slave labour in the US?

    19. Re:A better solution ... by Pootie+Tang · · Score: 1

      Beyond that, simply get a scanner that detects the frequencies used by cell phones, install a few of them around the prison, and when they go off if the system is properly designed it could tell a guard immediately and tell them approximately where the phone is in the jail.

      I was going to argue against this, then I realized how genius it is.

      The "problem" is that the guards are the ones selling the prisoners the cell phones. Alerting them wouldn't do any good... or...

      Since the corrections officers like the cell phones business, the inmates utilize it (and probably hate the prices they pay, but the demand is there), and only the politicians "care". The solution is just that simple.

      Sell the state/prisons a cell phone locator device (doesn't need to work, just look fancy and have proprietary/secret documentation). Politicians get to "do something". Guards get to quickly locate and resell contraband phones. Rich get richer. And if the prisoners get all uppity about human rights? Threat level red!!! Our device says someone is being bad in prison, lockdown!

      And before you question my business plan, ask yourself, are you licensed by your state to provide an engineering-level quality assessment?

    20. Re:A better solution ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That. If prison is "we'll take your social circle and replace them with all these other criminals and you don't get to have any contact with the people you knew", then we shouldn't be surprised when people exit prison as hardened and more-proficient criminals than when they entered.

      You are under the assumption that their "social circle" prior to being imprisoned were outstanding, law-abiding citizens. Chances are it's the social circle they were associating with of outside of prison that got them there in the first place. There's an old Proverb (13:20) - "He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm." The real question is how to you rehabilitate a fool when surrounded by a concentration of fools?

    21. Re:A better solution ... by NoSig · · Score: 1

      I don't assume that criminals had a high quality social circle prior to going to jail. I do assume that often their social circle will not be 100% criminals the way it will be in prison.

    22. Re:A better solution ... by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Solution: make cellphone charges apply to the callers, not the recipients. That way, the responsibility for charges is in the hands of the people who pay the bill, not the hands of ten thousand random telemarketers.

      Y'know, the way other countries already do it.

      I know the argument for doing it this way is that callers shouldn't be charged more for calling a cell phone over a landline, but why not? It's added convenience and more likely to get a specific person, so charge away. To get the functionality without charging callers, a landline can be auto-forwarded to a cell phone - the caller pays the cost to call the landline and the person who owns the landline (and therefore presumably set the auto-forward) pays the cost of the call from the landline to the cellphone.

      Simple. Obvious. Already implemented elsewhere to great success. No wonder the US telcos don't want it.

    23. Re:A better solution ... by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Is it so strange that it might be slightly more difficult to contact someone who is imprisoned - ie forcibly removed from society? A couple extra dollars on a phone call seems not that much, considering that it wasn't that long ago the only method of real-time contact was to physically travel to the prison. And letters still work just as well as they always did.

      Perhaps making contact with an imprisoned person is deliberately more expensive/difficult so that non-imprisoned people are implicitly encouraged to shift more of their social interaction away from the prisoner and towards people who have not been deemed criminals. This not only encourages them to form more and deeper social bonds with people who are less likely to be criminals, but weakens the existing social bonds (and therefore social power) of people more likely to be criminals.

      OK, yes, it also weakens bonds all around between prisoners and people outside, and this is not always a good thing, particularly when the outside folks have so few resources they are unable to regularly overcome the deliberate (if low) barriers to socialising with prisoners.

    24. Re:A better solution ... by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Good point. I daresay there will come a time when prisoners are simply plugged into a virtual world for their term, where all the social interactions are geared towards rehabilitation. And a hospital bed or sleep cube takes up less space than a prison cell and amenities.

      Of course, there are those who will go crazy interacting with no-one but plastic-brained Sims for years, those who manipulate the Simworld into chaos and anarchy just for something to do, and those who are so crippled by the artificial experience that they wouldn't be able to handle the real world when released. Or simply those who curl up in a corner and refuse to move, since there is no point in trying to achieve anything in Simworld.

    25. Re:A better solution ... by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Perhaps making contact with an imprisoned person is deliberately more expensive/difficult so that non-imprisoned people are implicitly encouraged to shift more of their social interaction away from the prisoner and towards people who have not been deemed criminals. This not only encourages them to form more and deeper social bonds with people who are less likely to be criminals, but weakens the existing social bonds (and therefore social power) of people more likely to be criminals.

      What you suggest would be an illegal and unconstitutional infringement on rights of association of those not in prison. As to the only method of contact 'not long ago' being to travel to the prison - are you speaking of 100 years ago? And what is your definition of a few dollars more? I suspect for the majority of people in the world a 15 minute phone call will cost less than 50 cents. At one call a month that would be $6 a year as compared to $128 minimum using systems like global telink.

    26. Re:A better solution ... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Even if you jam all standard cell frequencies, that still leaves VoIP over Wifi. And while cell towers are fairly uniform, anybody could setup a powerful WiFi hotspot immediately outside the prison walls, and maybe even aim it with directional antennas. It would be extremely difficult to cut off prisoners next to an outside wall from all radio signals.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    27. Re:A better solution ... by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Has it been the case recently that prisoners were allowed to make/take phone calls whenever they wanted?

      No, really, I'm actually curious about this.

      Is it an infringement on the rights of association to put a bloody big prison wall up between prisoners and those wanting to associate with them? No, it just makes getting in to talk to them harder. Likewise, making phone calls more inconvenient doesn't prevent the association, merely makes it less likely to be exercised as often or as casually.

    28. Re:A better solution ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, the problem is NOT prisoners contacting their loved ones because they are lonely, unhappy, etc.

      It is continuing to run crime operations from jail.

      Yes, this happens.

      If it was a simple matter of phoning loved ones, who cares? But that's not it.

      Now as for lowering prison phone rates for legal phone calls, I'm all in favor of that!

  18. Deregulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A thought:

    Stop making it difficult and expensive for inmates to make regular phone calls. Then the only people left wanting cell phones will be those who want it for criminal activities, which will make your investigations more effective (even if they are successful less often).

    In addition, though I'm no economist, I have to wonder if that wouldn't cause the remaining cell phone prices to go up, hopefully out of the accessibility range of at least a few people who would use them for criminal purposes (discounting the idea that contacting your family in a manner not approved by the prison might be illegal).

    That's the part I care about. Now, the rant:

    As someone living in the U.S., I think we need a dialogue on what we believe prison should be *for*, especially if there's some data to back up various methods in light of our desired goals. For example, we know that there is a high rate of re-offence among people who have been in prison. How does restricting contact among family and friends affect that? Does it prevent the inmate from seeking connections anywhere but among fellow criminals? Does having access raise people's sense of injustice and make them more likely to re-offend? Is there an interaction between this and some other social factor?

    This dialogue needs to extend to treatment of prisoners. What do we really want the outcome to be? Is it overall better for our society to focus on discouraging people to go to prison, rehabilitation once they are there, or a combination (and in what proportions?).

    Perhaps most importantly, the dialogue needs to contain the topic of whether the current system is working, and if the outcomes we get are on par with our desires and what we see in other countries.

    m!

    1. Re:Deregulation by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your rant is spot on. Unfortunately, shouting about being "tough on crime" leads to getting elected, which leads to the "lock them in jail and make jail Hell on Earth" attitude.

      Of course, that does nothing to actually rehabilitate criminals or actually reduce crime -- it just makes you look good come election time. Combine that with a prison system that mostly exists to increase its own profits (q.v. Arizona SB1070) and you've got a recipe for disaster.

    2. Re:Deregulation by HBI · · Score: 1

      If the death penalty was executed (heh heh) in a reasonable timeframe - ie, without a gazillion appeals and stays, then you'd probably find conservatives more willing to discuss lightening up on prison treatment.

      It's a Gordian knot - as long as the ACLU and the Left keep fucking up the system to protest the death penalty, you'll get no progress on this front.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    3. Re:Deregulation by RogerWilco · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are correct.

      The USA has by far the highest percentage of it's population in prison, the longest and toughest penalties (Including the death penalty!) of anywhere in the civilized world.

      It also has some of the highest crime and murder rates in the world.

      But statistics doesn't get you votes.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    4. Re:Deregulation by Entropius · · Score: 2

      What's the death penalty have to do with anything? Red herring alert.

      Advocating replacing all sentences of execution with sentences of life in prison has nothing at all to do with the course of imprisonment for the vast majority of inmates. It certainly has nothing at all to do with rehabilitation, since by definition we have given up on rehabilitation of people who are executed or imprisoned for life.

    5. Re:Deregulation by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the concept that our prison systems are based on was not thought up as a punishment system. It was thought up as a rehabilitation system. It is a failure as a rehabilitation system and not the most efficient means of punishment. The punishment for most crimes should be swift and over after a short period of time. I am going to give an example. I am not sure this particular punishment is a good idea. This is just an example of what a punishment should look like. Someone is convicted of aggravated assault. They receive a caning and are released. The only reason they are held in prison is from the time of arrest until conviction and then until the sentence can be carried out. If they wish, they may delay the punishment (and remain in prison) until their appeals are finished. However, they can also accept the punishment and continue their appeal to overturn the conviction.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:Deregulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HOW THE FUCK DOES 1070 INCREASE ITS OWN PROFITS.

      SIGNS PISSED

      stupid lower case words because i meant to yell. fucking filter

    7. Re:Deregulation by Entropius · · Score: 1

      SB1070 was written by representatives of the prison industry, and documents have surfaced saying that one motivation for its design was to increase incarceration rates.

    8. Re:Deregulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should have thought about that before you did whatever you did to get into that prison, whether it was refusing to pay a fine for not wearing a seat belt, whether it was possession of half a gram of pot in 1982 and you're still serving your 30 year sentence for it, or whether you killed the clerk at the jewelry store you robbed.

      Why do we assume that such people should be allowed to contact the outside world in the first place?

    9. Re:Deregulation by sznupi · · Score: 1

      And you, sir, nicely demonstrate attitudes causing your system to be so broken. Even the simple number of prisoners on death row is basically insignificant / that's essentially a separate penitentiary system altogether!

      But...you just had to throw in this political drivel. Well, I'm sure you expect it to look good among like-minded people.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    10. Re:Deregulation by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the death penalty was executed (heh heh) in a reasonable timeframe - ie, without a gazillion appeals and stays, then you'd probably find conservatives more willing to discuss lightening up on prison treatment.

      The death penalty is idiotic. First, it simply doesn't work as an effective deterrent to crime as numerous studies have shown. People are too stupidly optimistic so the death penalty results in increased rates of murder and violent crime because stupidly optimistic criminals suddenly believe they have nothing to lose by trying to shoot their way out of bad situations and kill anyone who could be a witness. Second, while from a "justice" standpoint and a "cost effective" standpoint it could be supported, that assumes out legal system is actually effective at convicting the right person and that is clearly not the case. When fingerprints came into general use by law enforcement, we were able to show many people had been wrongly convicted including a significant number of supposed murderers. When DNA testing became affordable, again, dozens of convicted murderers, some on death row, some already executed are proved innocent. Why then would any reasonable person assume that our criminal justice system in general is not regularly convicting a significant number of innocent people? You think it is okay then, to kill those people knowing that later on they may be proved innocent?

      If the police and lawyers and forensic scientists in our criminal justice system were honest and obeyed the law and proper procedure in obtaining convictions, then maybe we could implement the death penalty in a just fashion, but the truth is, we regularly convict innocent people because the system is designed to reward convictions and not punish convictions of the innocent. Hell, groups like the Innocence Project are fighting the courts for the right to test the DNA of convicted persons. Why would anyone interested in justice oppose more accurate forensic investigation of serious crime? Now that DNA evidence is a known quantity, it is certainly fabricated or falsified just like fingerprints were and we will have to wait for the next disruptive forensic technology the police don't know about yet to exonerate those innocent people in prison more recently. With such a broken legal system, I find it dishonorable and unjust to advocate for the death penalty. Doing so is quite clearly advocating for the murder of innocent people convicted by corrupt or simply lazy law enforcement.

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

      If you think our prison system is "Hell on Earth" realize that our prison system is probably one of the best systems to be sent to. If it weren't for the inmates doing inappropriate things to each other I have to say I would have no problem going to prison and living off tax payer money.

      I have to be honest I think our prison system needs some major modifications to even begin to be effective. First of all the prison systems should treat prisoners a little more like bad children. Instead of three square meals of the same food that we feed school children, prisoners should probably be fed substances that are nutritionally ok but taste like crap, it was always good punishment for me and my siblings (food is a powerful motivator, plus this would lower the amount of tax payer money going toward prison food budgets). Its not to say don't reward them with something good when they do some good. We should also consider more solitary confinement (if prison systems had the space), if a kid does something bad you put them in timeout this is the same idea just a little bit more extreme.

      I also think it would be beneficial to require counseling for prisoners and mandatory education if they do not have a college degree (maybe even require them to get certain grades to shorten their sentences).

      It is sad that currently prison systems are a lock them up and forget them system when really we should be treating it as a punishment/reward system. It is the same idea as raising a child you punish them for bad things and reward them for good things.

    12. Re:Deregulation by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I think the very first thing we should do, after we figure out who committed a crime, is try to figure out why.

      There are people who break the law because that is, in fact, their 'job', and there are people who break the law because they were stupid once, and there are people who break the law because they are sociopaths.

      If someone is breaking the law because it's their job, we can probably solve the problem with tracking anklets. 'Oh, you've decided to make money by breaking into houses? Well, now you get GPS monitored for 5 years, and your location will be compared to every single crime that happens.'.

      And then we just let them go adn point them to the employment office. They don't really need prison, they just need to be stopped from that activity, or caught if they continue it. And now we actually have the technology to do that.

      There are a few cases where this doesn't work, where crimes do not get reported, like being an enforcer for organized crime, or drug dealer, but in general it works. (And I'd suggest what we should do there is additionally give a restraining order. They cannot go stand around on the street where they sold drugs.)

      The short and quick punishments you suggested (Although I don't know about that specific one) would be ideal for people who just 'got stupid', and decided to punch someone in the face or drive drunk. Certainly better than the system we have now.

      Considering how giant the prison system is at this point, and how expensive it is, I think it's past time to start asking ourselves 'How can we do this sanely?'.

      Prison should be reserved for people who are either sociopaths or who have demonstrated that they are repeatedly going to commit crimes. 95% of prisoners could function just fine in society, either as is, or with a little bit of restraint and monitoring.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    13. Re:Deregulation by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

      I went to high school in the humid southern U.S. in a non-airconditioned school. The heat was stifling. During the same time period, a nearby prison was closed because it was not air conditioned.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    14. Re:Deregulation by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of a death penalty as an ultimate punishment, but you are correct: There have been too many mistakes in the past. Too many innocent people have been killed and later found to be innocent. I haven't seen the studies that show the death penalty having no effect on crime rates, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.

      After all, the people who commit offenses heinous enough to be eligible for the death penalty probably don't care. Those that do are very likely not to commit the crime in the first place. Just personal speculation, mind you.

      As you mentioned, matching DNA can fabricated now in a lab. There was a story on /. a while ago, I believe. It is now possible for someone with enough money and connections to plant DNA evidence somewhere - and we want to use this as a reliable basis to put someone to death? Granted, I don't see this happening in a bar fight situation, but still. The fact that it is possible is something that should be considered.

      It just doesn't make sense.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    15. Re:Deregulation by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Shows the lack of imagination in most politicians, doesn't it? Campaign on reducing crime and lowering spending by tying the prison payouts recividism rates. Get the Tea Party and Conservative vote in one swing.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    16. Re:Deregulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should crime be punished? Or, is it enough to send criminals to forced rehab? As it stands now, US laws are based on the idea of punishing criminals AND rehabilitating them. Many people seem to like the idea of making prison more rehab and less punishment, but that is not the way the system is implemented.

      Phones are not a right, they are an amazing modern convienence. Prisoners have no business using phones except infrequently. "Not having a phone" is merely a small part of the prison experience, along with the larger parts such as "being forced to stay in this building complex" and "not having much privacy". A normal person is allowed to be private, move freely, and use a phone. People who break the law are not, because they are likely to use those freedoms to tread on the rights of others. It is a very simple thing, and it has double effect - it is a deterrent for people who consider breaking the law, and it actively keeps those who have been shown to break the law from doing so again.

      Perhaps you disagree with the very idea of prisons. You think that they do more harm than good, for example causing repeat offenders. There may be a valid argument there. There is a snag along that line of thinking though: it makes no sense to say: "prison is the wrong way to prevent crime" and also say "we need to reform our prison system" - if it doesn't work, reforms won't help. Perhaps there should be something similar to prison that isn't as strict or confining (parole). Of course, parole is also unfair, right? Maybe public beatings are the best punishment - any injustice will be over quickly!

    17. Re:Deregulation by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      I note that you have made a call for dialog. This does not work, you should try a different method. The problem is, most people have already decided on the solution, and that is 'punish criminals more.' Thus we have policies like "three strikes you're out" in California. You clearly don't like this solution, which is why you want to have a dialog. But you want to have a dialog on a subject no one else wants to talk about, because they've already decided. And you've already decided too, you don't like that way of doing things because you think it doesn't work. You're trying to convince them of your opinion. Note this is similar to Obama calling for a dialog on end of life planning. Nobody really wanted to talk about it because they already had their minds made up, and they didn't like Obama's solution (or they did).

      So if you actually want to make a difference, your goal needs to be convincing. You need to come up with a concrete solution, and concrete data. Something that will convince reasonable people on both sides (yes, there are some, on both sides). If it is an especially good solution, it will start to spread, and people will start talking about it. But note that what you are saying now, that we need to have a dialog, is saying in effect, "This doesn't work, and you guys need to talk about fixing it!" Not cool.

      if the outcomes we get are on par with our desires and what we see in other countries.

      Also, if you want to convince people, don't start by saying 'other countries are better.' Other countries are different in so many ways, that looking at one factor alone doesn't even make sense. Beyond that, some people will think you are a socialist when you start talking like that. Saying 'other countries do it better' rarely convinces anyone, and often alienates many.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Deregulation by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Of course, that does nothing to actually rehabilitate criminals or actually reduce crime -- it just makes you look good come election time.

      I see this a lot, but there is a reason it works, that it makes people look good at election time. It makes them look good because enough voters want to lock people in jail and make jail a miserable place. If you want to make a difference, you'll need to convince voters to change their opinion, not politicians. Politicians are slimy weasels who will do/say what it takes to get elected.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Deregulation by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Your rant is spot on. Unfortunately, shouting about being "tough on crime" leads to getting elected, which leads to the "lock them in jail and make jail Hell on Earth" attitude.

      Of course, that does nothing to actually rehabilitate criminals or actually reduce crime -- it just makes you look good come election time. Combine that with a prison system that mostly exists to increase its own profits (q.v. Arizona SB1070) and you've got a recipe for disaster.

      Sorry, you mean the American Way there at the end, right?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    20. Re:Deregulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep but people who are for the death penalty really shouldn't want it sped up. The quicker and easier it is to execute somebody the more likely a mistake will be made. Execute just one innocent regular joe type person from the right side of the tracks and prove it solidly then it will most likely be game over for the death penalty.

      I have no doubt it has happened already but probably to minorities and poor people mostly. Which, of course, is fine with most death penalty supporters "since they probably did something else to deserve it anyway."

    21. Re:Deregulation by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen the studies that show the death penalty having no effect on crime rates, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.

      There are actually quite a few studies, but showing wildly disparate results. Sadly most such studies are funded by political action committees and highly biased in one direction or another and papers regarding the methodological and statistical failures of these papers is common fair in criminology journals. If you want expert opinions the study, "Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists," published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Crimonology, concludes, “There is overwhelming consensus among America’s top criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question fails to support the threat or use of the death penalty.” I believe 88% of criminologists surveyed answered that it was not a deterrent while only 5% answered that it was. This is in line with several similar surveys to criminology professors over the years.

      As you mentioned, matching DNA can fabricated now in a lab.

      While true, this is not really the major problem right now. Law enforcement is aware of DNA as a forensic tool, so if they want to make it appear as though a crime was committed by a particular individual they go to the effort to falsify the evidence, either by planting real DNA from the suspect taken from a different location or by getting rid of DNA evidence collected altogether. Often I imagine law enforcement working a case are convinced they know who is guilty so they justify falsifying evidence to get a conviction. t is only when law enforcement is unaware of the tools that can be applied to determine guilt and innocence, that they cannot account for those factors when falsifying evidence.

    22. Re:Deregulation by 517714 · · Score: 1

      For example, we know that there is a high rate of re-offence among people who have been in prison. How does restricting contact among family and friends affect that?

      We know that the influences of family and friends were insufficient to keep the prisoner on the straight and narrow in the first place. Why would we expect those influences to be better the second time around? Isn't that expectation the definition of insanity?

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    23. Re:Deregulation by makomk · · Score: 2

      It makes them look good because enough voters want to lock people in jail and make jail a miserable place.

      Again, not people, voters specifically want to lock men up in jail. You can actually get quite a lot of support for not locking up women. Gender roles are a funny thing...

    24. Re:Deregulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A thought:

      Stop making it difficult and expensive for inmates to make regular phone calls. Then the only people left wanting cell phones will be those who want it for criminal activities, which will make your investigations more effective (even if they are successful less often).

      A thought: stop making it difficult and expensive for inmates to sleep outside the prison. Then the only people left trying to break out will be those who want to do so for criminal activities, which will make your investigations more effective.

    25. Re:Deregulation by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Punishment doesn't work unless it's within milliseconds to seconds of the incident. Anything after that and you'll just get fear and resentment.

    26. Re:Deregulation by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      The Canadian system uses lots of trackers and home arrest, mainly because the government isn't so big on exploiting their population like the States and unwilling to invest in a system that has been proven ineffectual.

      In Mexico, you could die in jail because your food and everything needs to be supplied by the outside. Now this type of jail system, where the prisoner has to pay for everything (unlike Canada paying 70-100k per prisoner per annum) would probably be more of a detterent to crime if it was the actual criminals that got sent to jail and not innocent people in the wrong place, innocent people refusing to pay bribes, and innocent people trying to fight the corruption in the government.

    27. Re:Deregulation by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Being convincing has nothing to do with it. Science has known that punishment does not work for 40-50 years now. Having a concrete solution in which people still profit off of the criminals is what will get your solution into place. Remember, the US way is to profit off your population by getting them to consume things they don't need.

    28. Re:Deregulation by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I am not quite sure what you mean by "Punishment doesn't work." There may be nothing that will deter you from committing a crime, but I am quite confident if you are punished for it, you will have been punished for it. The purpose of punishment is punishment.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    29. Re:Deregulation by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Read the scientific studies. Learn the scientific definition of punishment. Are we not on slashdot here?

    30. Re:Deregulation by DCFusor · · Score: 1
      Strange, I agree with most of your rant - particularly that we really ought to re evaluate what prison is for.
      .

      Sadly, perhaps, there is another possibility. Many people in prison are there for pretty good reasons (note qualifier there). I've met a lot of people (Old fart here) and you know, some are just bad, not many, but some. They're going to do any bad stuff they find is fun if they can. I might argue that this is a smaller number than the prison population -- pretty sure that's true.
      .

      But what if the recidivism rate is kind of related to a selection bias, or in other words, could it be true that some people just belong in prison and sometimes the system gets it right? Nope, not stating the bigger picture well enough here.
      .

      Where do we decide that line? I've seen all manner of "criminal" behavior. Most of the people who did it were reasonably good people, they just ignored some laws in ways that were fun for them, but hurt or endangered no one, or even close. I'd argue those people probably don't belong in prison, only the real asshats who put hurt on others do. And those we might not be too surprised about when they do something bad again. It sucks, because some you "just know" shouldn't come out, but the alternative is much worse -- CS Lewis "That Hideous Strength" kinda speaks to that. Yeah, not a Heinlein this time. I'm sure Bob also said stuff that's relevant.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    31. Re:Deregulation by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Science has known that punishment does not work for 40-50 years now.

      That's dumb, punishment absolutely does work. At the very least it gets disreputable characters off the street. In some cases, it keeps them from committing crime again. And in some cases, it keeps them from committing crime to begin with. Is there something that works better? Maybe, but that's not what you said.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Deregulation by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Read the scientific studies. Learn the scientific definition of punishment. Are we not on slashdot here?

      Punishment: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
      That is the definition of punishment.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    33. Re:Deregulation by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      No, it doesn't. Learn the scientific definition of punishment. Learn how to read scientific studies. Research statistics.

      Hell, placebo's are more effective than punishment.

    34. Re:Deregulation by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok, you're dumb.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    35. Re:Deregulation by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      I was considering adding 'learn to read' to the list but thought that might be a bit condescending.

      Learn how to read.

    36. Re:Deregulation by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      Where the hell am i??? Since when does using scientific definitions and science = being dumb???

      Please don't reply again, i can't stand ignorance.

    37. Re:Deregulation by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      I was considering adding 'learn how to read' to the list but thought that might be a bit condescending and probably not necessary.

      Learn how to read. That is NOT the SCIENTIFIC definition. See, i'm helping you learn how to read by emphasizing the important parts of the sentence.

    38. Re:Deregulation by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      When you can explain how to administer a placebo punishment, you can be moved out of the dumb category.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    39. Re:Deregulation by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      No, it is not the "scientific" definition of the word punishment. It is merely the definition of the word punishment. You appear to be confusing "punishment" with "negative reinforcement". (BTW, if you think negative reinforcement doesn't work, I hope you are never a parent.)
      Additionally, since none of the fields that would create a definition of "punishment" are sciences it really doesn't matter.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    40. Re:Deregulation by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      No. Apparently YOU don't know what the difference is. Nor do you seem to know what science is. Please go away layperson.

    41. Re:Deregulation by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Once again, punishment is punishment. It is not something intended to accomplish something else. Some people may wish to use punishment to accomplish other goals and we can discuss whether or not punishment is effective at accomplishing those other goals, but the statement that "punishment doesn't work" only makes sense once one has defined that one is doing punishment to accomplish some other goal. That is not something I ever said.
      "Social sciences" are not science, never have been, hopefully never will. The various "social sciences" can only be real science in a completely evil society.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  19. Don't capture phones, capture the concersations! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think the government should not try to stop these smuggled cell phones. Instead it should set up a cell tower and capture all communications. Phones registered to prison guards and verified may be exempted from this surveillance. Knowing how dumb criminals are, we are sure to gather tons of incriminating evidence even if they know they are being monitored.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  20. Easy solution by lpchouinard · · Score: 0

    Install signal jammers? Will probably cost much less than trying to stop the smugling...

    1. Re:Easy solution by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you just don't understand the way the system works. You need to make it illegal to smuggle stuff in so even more people are sent to jail, thus increasing your free labor centers' profit.

  21. Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all ... it's called a cell phone ...

  22. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    The problem is, what happens if someone else (not a prisoner, not a guard) is near the facility and their phone starts communicating with the prison's tower? Monitoring their conversation would be an inadvertent violation of their rights. There would be a great potential for liability, right down to the point where people would *try* to make this happen just so they could sue.

  23. Seems like an easy solution by ryanw · · Score: 0

    Jam wifi & cellphone frequencies or put material on the outer walls to not allow the frequencies in.

  24. Cell Phone Blues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I hear that train a-comin, it's rollin' around the bend, and I ain't seen the sunsh......

    Oh, hang on a sec, I need to take this.

  25. Dammit by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

    First they take away my Dungeons and Dragons and now it's my Cellphone. What next discourage urban exploration on prison grounds?

  26. Not Jelly by J4 · · Score: 0

    How about they jam cell frequencies inside the prison. Don't they do that is some movie theatres?

    1. Re:Not Jelly by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Jammers are illegal, so no theater does. Some of them use EM screening, which works too - no phones work inside. But it's only good for enclosed areas (cells blocks yes, exercise yards no) and would also be quite expensive. Also, if there is just one tiny crack somewhere that a signal can get in, word will get around.

  27. Texas' Murder rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't know what the relevant difference is between Texas and North Dakota, but given the murder rates are anti-correlated with the harshness of the penalties it seems unlikely that the two are related at all.

    The "relevant difference" is blatantly obvious here, and I know this is going to sound racist as hell but it's the cold harsh truth.
    Texas has large concentrated population centers (D/FW, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Austin) that are full of Black and Mexican gangs whose entire world is centered around violence. How many big cities full of Bloods, Crips, MS13 and Nortenos are there in North Dakota?

    1. Re:Texas' Murder rates by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      Yeah!, well ND has VIKINGS and they make the Texas gangs seem like sewing circles!
      So there ;^)

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  28. It is opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is opportunity not a problem, you have convicted people that are using a phone. Put a BTS in a prison and scramble all other signals. You can record and listen to every conversation.

    Intercept call - prevent next crime - simple!

  29. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cell towers can detect the distance of the phone to them and reject the call. Put it in the centre of the prison, and ensure that the call rejection happens if the phone is off the property. Yes, there'll be a few dead spots. It's prison. Not a funfair.

  30. There is a no Jamming solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could use a low level microwave emission devices tuned to be optimally absorbed by cell phones antennae to purge each cell block and require prisoners to walk through a field or choose to remove all clothes which will exposed and to submit to a cavity search. Visitors can be asked to pass through a field or they will need to stay behind glass during visits. The devices would be placed at various passages to make it harder for such items to move. The electronics in phones would be destroyed by such a device while not affecting a person or most ordinary items in a cell, anything special that might be prone to react like Televisions, can always be taken out examined and returned. This technology would burn antennae they cannot protect the phones because in so doing you block its reception so using spot scans means at some point they will be fried. In addition, the protective devices they would need to make would scream on metal detectors so they could not hide them in cells easily.

  31. 9/11? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    doesn't everyone remember how the cellphone companies were able to locate cellphones in the rubble of 9/11, even while they were turned off? Maybe bring some of that tech into play?

  32. If you can't beat 'em, hack 'em. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    This cries out for prisons setting up open source GSM cells.

    Now to find a CDMA solution. That, they may have to rely on the commercial manufacturers, but with a bit of work and some money, prisons could run their own cell networks and if nothing else listen in on the inmates' plans. Could be worse. Actually, it IS worse.

    We can't seem to keep them out of the prisons, so just subvert them. I know this continues a war of escalation, but that's inevitable.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  33. The point of being in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Being in prison is being isolated from the rest of the society. This is the purpose : if you don't want to be isolated from the rest of the society, especially your loved ones, don't break the law.

    1. Re:The point of being in prison by royallthefourth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Creating monsters out of somewhat dysfunctional people only makes the problem worse. "Tough on crime" is an intellectually lazy approach that doesn't help anyone but private prison operators.

    2. Re:The point of being in prison by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      So the way we rehabilitate people is take away all previous contacts and allow them only contact with criminals.

      Seems reasonable to me.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  34. Smuggling vs. Possession - Clarification by Lashat · · Score: 1

    The summary and TFA refer to smuggling cell phones which is techincally correct. It is currently a crime for inmates to possess a cell phone and it is a crime to provide an inmate with a cell phone.

    However, the proposed bill/law would make is a crime for ANYBODY to possess a phone inside of a California Department of Corrections facility. This is a huge difference for prison employees. Guards, nurses, adminstrators, maintainence, possibly even delivery drivers will not longer be allowed to carry personal cell phones.

    We can agree that this is a problem. The soilution is up for debate. Employees and everyone entering a facility are already subject to TSA type searches, but personal cell phones are allowed. Even if they "banned" personal cell phones, I'm sure they would still get through just like the mass quantities of commercial alcohol and illicit drugs.

    The most effective measure would be to install cell phone jammers in the facilities. Keep the human element out of the equation.

    --
    For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
  35. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by NoSig · · Score: 1

    Post signs saying "phone conversations not allowed near prison." After that, the situation is much like a suspects friend borrowing his tapped phone to make an unrelated personal call - it'll be picked up and that's the way it goes. It should be deleted and be in-admissible for any unrelated case.

  36. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    A few sensors, some triangulation... could easily locate a phone with sub-meter precision to determine if it's inside prison walls or not. Expensive, though.

  37. it will never stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as long as the prison/jail itself is profiting from the super over-inflated cost of making a phone call to family members.
    yes, those services are outsourced to some shitty company, such as offenderconnect.com, but they give a cut back to the prison system.
    not only is the service grossly bad, the restrictions and COST to make a call is outrageous.

    i personally could afford the over priced calls.... but most of the families during "visiting hours" would tell me they couldn't afford to send money either for "Canteen Money" or Telephone Calls, not both.

    When a coffee is like $7-$8 and Ramen Noodles are like $5, do you think they can afford a phone call for $3?

    1. Re:it will never stop by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Wah...

      If you are in prison, then you have no reason to bitch.... unless you are someones bitch....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:it will never stop by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Wow, you sure have a lot of faith in the idea that people who are incarcerated deserve to be there. Why don't you take a look over the laws that affect you -- local, state, and federal -- and make sure that you are not in violation of any of them before making those sorts of comments?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  38. $100 fix by dhollist · · Score: 1

    Just install a cell phone blocker. Problem solved. I'm sure the prison system can arrange an FCC exemption to use this. http://www.dealextreme.com/p/cell-phone-signal-blocker-40m-range-mountable-7709

  39. Isn't smuggling always illegal? by sdh · · Score: 1

    This sounds like another law that will be too specific to cellphones. Do they have separate laws covering cakes, hacksaws, knives, guns, explosives, drugs, cigarettes, .... ?

    How about one law that covers generic smuggling, which already sounds illegal?

  40. why not just... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not just buid a sort of rf faraday cage around the larger prisons blocking and hence making the cell phone nothing more then a blocks of plastic?

  41. Wouldn't it be easier and more cost effective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be easier and more cost effective to simply install cell phone jammers in the prisons?

    I mean if the problem us the inmates using cell phones to communicate, why not just kill their signal so they become useless for that purpose?

  42. Why not... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Simply set up directional cellphone jammers around the facility? let the criminals have their phones , they wont work.

    Or set up a pair of cellular towers like they do at big arenas, suddenly you are on XYZ network roaming where all calls get routed to the prison operator..

    Prisoner 167.... bring me that phone.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  43. rate of re-offence by r00t · · Score: 1

    Look, this isn't a problem in Russia. There is a very low recidivism rate because people actually fear going back to prison. Our prisons are just comfy free room and board by comparison.

    Russian prison guards beat the prisoners, often for no serious reason. For example, a new guard gets a job and all the prisoners get beaten as a way of introducing the new guard. Russian prisons are thousands of miles from home out in Siberia, despite legislation to the contrary. Russian guards assign some prisoners the job of keeping order in exchange for better treatment. If one of these prisoners gets killed, his killer often replaces him. Prison is normally not heated enough. The food is truly crap.

    Our prison just isn't prison. It's almost house arrest, but in a hotel with TV and video games. We even offer fun education. Going back to prison just isn't terrifying.

    1. Re:rate of re-offence by drsquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah Russia's prison system must be effective. That's why there's no crime whatsoever, especially not organised crime.

    2. Re:rate of re-offence by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Russian system still hasn't snapped out of being (also) largely geared towards political prisoners / enemies of the state.

      But I might start to see why you'd want it like that...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:rate of re-offence by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Don't forget they come out all musclebound, pumped up, with new criminal knowledge from their peers, new connections, and most definitely in a gang.

      Just the kind of thing we need, basically a manufacturing plant for aggressive asshole primates.

      Instead, they should come out looking like humbled AIDS patients, ready to work at some menial job for low pay the rest of their lives. Prisons should be producing non-aggressive labor, not gangsters. If they don't fit the description, they don't get out.

  44. No, not jammers. by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    Just write legislation saying all cellphone signals to or from prisons are monitored. The legal precedent is easy: all prison mail is subject to inspection. Then you can not only catch idiots ordering hits or whatever, you can profile the guy behind bars: his contacts and associates. Useful information if he is a recidivist. Why jam useful criminal information?

    It's the same problem with cracking down in child pornography: it doesn't actually stop it. Instead, let it flow freely. And now you have easy way to catch creators and distributors.

    Real criminal investigation is not about cracking skulls, its about watching and learning. So you need a giant honeypot. So let the honeypot naturally grow, and catch the flies that fall in. Criminals are human, they make mistakes. Give them opportunities to make mistakes. If they freely use cell phones in prison, they will screw up, eventually, and maybe in subtle ways they don't even realize.

    Real punishment is not about being tough on criminals, its about monitoring. If someone predisposed to criminal activity think they can get away with shit, they'll do it. Opportunity. But if someone is watching, they'll think twice. That's psychologically rehabilitative, right there.

    A lot of us aren't criminals simply because we have a little voice in our head, from good parenting and empathy: "if you do that, someone will be badly hurt," or even more self-interested: "if you do that, they'll catch you." Criminals are usually just dumb, or people not dumb, but lacking that little voice in their head that makes them act responsibly. To rehabilitate such individuals, you need to provide that voice for them, not just sit on them in prison. So you monitor them, tell them when they are screwing up. Pretty soon, they'll get the knack, and develop their own little voice, if they are capable of being rehabilitated at all (and if not, by monitoring them, you have a good idea of where they might be when they screw up again: win-win).

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  45. It's Rife in the UK by ChunKing · · Score: 1

    We even have a slang term for the preferred method of concealment - the Chatham Pocket.

    --
    cogito ergo sig...
  46. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then the prison guard, for a hefty fee, rents his extra SIM card to the drug kingpin who wants to make a deal...

  47. Payrise for the guards? by drolli · · Score: 1

    It a shitty Job with a lot of stress and weird times. Train and pay the guards well. Establish the right culture there.

  48. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    That leaves a trail. Eventually if the drug kingpin is ever caught with the registered SIM of a prison guard with him, the guard goes into the slammer. No they would not risk it. Right now they slip in a phone for a fee and there is no spoor leading back to the crooked guard. That is what tempts them. Create a trail, most guards would not risk providing a SIM registered to them to a drug kingpin.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  49. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Yes, there are even highways that run close to the prisons. Notices could be posted saying, "cellphones will be monitored near prisons, unless registered" and we could create laws specifically enabling the prisons to do it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  50. There is only one problem with these solutions.... by tesla_reincarnated · · Score: 1

    ....they are intelligent ones. We need to remember that those that could implement a solution (previously mentioned: jammers, cheaper out-bound calls, monitoring of cell-phone bands,etc.), don't even have the mental capacity to conjure them up. Instead, they will just continue to waste the time of our government body [when it should be focused on the well-being of its citizens] on proposed laws which would "making such smuggling illegal". We need to cut the 'fat' out of the government, and replace them with engineers.

  51. Plan C by v1 · · Score: 1

    Plan A: make a rule that prisoners aren't allowed to have cell phones

    ok that didn't work. They're already in prison, some for life, with little to lose if they get caught with a cell phone

    Plan B: change the rule to a law

    how is that going to affect the problem discovered with Plan A?

    Seeing as people are willing to smuggle drugs/weapons/cell phones into prisons in their body cavities, you're not going to have an easy time stopping them from coming in. Seeing as they have little or nothing to lose by getting caught there's little deterrent in catching prisoners with contraband. If you can't stop them from getting them, can't discourage them from having them, the only solution is to make it less worth having them. This can be done one of two ways. The first is to reduce their usability, as many above have discussed, using faraday cages and jammers. I'm rather amazed that a cell phone works in a prison to begin with, with all the steel bars. But they probably get used out in the courtyard etc as law demands they get regular fresh air. Can't easily put a cage over the courtyard, and jammers are illegal on a federal level so that's out.

    The other option, we'll call it Plan C, is to get so good at quickly catching someone with a cell phone that it gets taken away so fast that it no longer is worth the effort to get it in the first place. Either the cost is too high or the sanctions (solitary confinement etc) become a bad trade. Equipment to detect cell phones isn't that expensive. Metal detectors at the limited number of doors to the courtyards where the cell phones will work wouldn't break the bank ether. A few sets of RF triangulating hardware would then very quickly start locating places indoors that cell phones were still usable. Placing a cheap static RF alarm in those rooms that goes off when a cell phone is used within 30 feet of it closes the last of the gaps.

    One of the fundamental problems the prisons are probably having here is that there will be a few guards that are SELLING cell phones the inmates. That's another problem that has to be handled by other means.

    I personally don't see why a prison cell needs to have an AC outlet. They're like a hotel nowadays. But that's another rant in itself. If they had no place to charge the cell phones the problem wouldn't be a tenth of what it is now. People are thinking about smuggling of cell phones, not many are considering the AC adapters also have to be smuggled in. How any of this gets past metal detectors at the door is also amazing. (again getting back to corrupt guards)

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:Plan C by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I like the RF detector part. Have it trigger a ear-piercing fire-alarm type device that would make it impossible to carry on a conversation. The other inmates will start beating the shit out of the guy with the phone for setting off "that damn alarm" again. No legal phone outside the prison gets jammed. Phones inside the prison are useless. And anyone trying to use one will be easily identified by the bloody clothes.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    2. Re:Plan C by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      One of the fundamental problems the prisons are probably having here is that there will be a few guards that are SELLING cell phones the inmates. That's another problem that has to be handled by other means.

      You mean like, say, making it a crime for officers or others to smuggle a cell phone to an inmate? The game changes a bit when the punishment goes from "I might get fired from a job I already fucking hate" to "I might get sent to jail."

      I personally don't see why a prison cell needs to have an AC outlet. They're like a hotel nowadays. But that's another rant in itself. If they had no place to charge the cell phones the problem wouldn't be a tenth of what it is now.

      Unless you've got a 'green' prison that doesn't use 110 anywhere at all, your cunning plan has flaws. Put another way: Alcatraz didn't have a 'rubber boat manufacturing lab', and other prisons don't have a 'prison-approved improvised stabbing weapons shop' or 'office of alcohol distillation', yet these things still happen. Take something away and prisoners will find a way to do it. They've got 24/7/365 to figure out a way. They're like hackers, but without the distractions of WoW. Besides, Alcatraz made it a policy to offer good food and hot showers to inmates for a simple reason: It gave them something to take away. I don't doubt that electrical outlets are used much the same way.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  52. Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to put cellphone signal jammer, it's low cost solution and work very well.

    Radius of 40 meters (10 watts) are 160$, just to put some in each prison.

    1. Re:Simple by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      > Kill anyone holding, having or transporting ANYTHING prohibited. The person carrying or the intended recipient.
      > Kill any guard or screener who allows contraband into the prison. It will calm down shortly.

      Right. And we'll start with the innocent four year old whose mother told him they're just going to see daddy, and continue with the guy who gets sent by some organized crime organization (not necessarily with his knowledge or free consent) on a suicide mission to deliver something for another prisoner who's a witness in a trial against someone in that organization (and kill him, too, since he was the intended recipient).

      The fundamental problem with simple zero-tolerance "solutions" is the fact that life is complicated, and they inevitably result in outcomes that are absurd at best and wholesale evil at worst.

      Oh, and if you're going to kill prison guards who allow something to slip through without ironclad proof that it was absolutely intentional, you're going to have a bit of a problem recruiting actual guards. Would YOU go to work every day, at any salary, knowing that the penalty for the slightest mistake was execution?

  53. Why not install cell phone jammers? by grapeape · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of products out there than can dampen cell phone coverage, why not just install those and just eliminate the issue?

  54. Brilliant plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, they want to make it *illegal* to smuggle cell phones. Into a PRISON.

    This idiot senator apparently hasn't figured out that the reason these people are in prison in the first place is that they did something ILLEGAL. Hell of a deterrent there. What are they gonna do? lock them up?

  55. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely directional antennas could make this a very limited possibility. Ie, antennas on 1 or 2 corners with around a 90 degree radiation pattern. Aimed in and down. Bonus points for doing something like comparing a phones signal strength as seen by both towers to do rough triangulation and know if its inside the target zone.

  56. Solution: by captor.tn · · Score: 1

    Jam the cellphones within prison/jail grounds. Problem solved.

    1. Re:Solution: by PPH · · Score: 1

      Not jam. Set up a series of femto cells covering the prison grounds. Authorized (guard, administrator, etc.) phones will be routed directly through to the appropriate carrier. All unknown cell calls can be blocked, or better yet monitored. Just calling your loved ones? Not a problem. Making connections for a drug deal or assassination? Law enforcement will be on top of it.

      As long as every illicit phone gets 5 bars of signal, how will they know who is listening in?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  57. Hospital system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That reminds me. I was at a hospital in the middle of a city. I pull out my cell phone and it shows "roaming". Walk out of the building and into the parking lot and the "roaming" icon goes away.

    Do they do anything special to discourage cell phone use at hospital?

  58. It's bad when they have cellphones by Superdarion · · Score: 1

    In Mexico, where I live, inmates having cellphones is a huge problem because they use it to commit more crimes. Not only do they do their old drug-related deals via phone from the "safety" of jail, but they actually got creative a few years ago.

    You will receive a phone call and they'll tell you that it's Captain Gonzalez (or whatever) from the Federal Police. They caught your niece (sometimes they even tell you the name of your niece, sometimes they just say niece) with drugs and unless you are willing to pay the Captain 5k pesos to let it go, she'll wind up in jail for years. Or they tell you they have your cousin, that was trying to cross the border into the US illegally and they'll have him jailed unless you pay up.

    Sometimes they wouldn't even pretend to be anything and just be straightforward about it: "We know you live at ADDRESS and your wife is NAME and you have 2 daughters who attend SCHOOL from SCHEDULE. If you don't deposit 10k pesos in my account, you will regret it".

    Most people payed up out of fear. It's easy enough to prove that your cousin or niece is free and about, but many people didn't do it. They just paid. My grandmather was victim of such a call, twoce. She didn't actually pay because my mother told her it was a scam, but that didn't remove the fear out of my grandma and she doesn't pick up the phone anymore.

    It took only a short while for police to realize that most of these calls (which were really common up until a few months ago, probably because people now know about them and just ignore them) came from prisons, with smuggled cell phones. Absurd measures were taken but of course they didn't work. Now the calls have ceased, I believe, but just because people's awareness of the issue.

    So yeah, inmates having cellphones IS dangerous and should be avoided at all costs.

  59. Legal prison phone calls by whitroth · · Score: 1

    I'd have less sympathy for smuggling in cellphones if the prison system itself wasn't set up to make a big profit... but it is.

    About seven years ago, I knew someone in jail in Florida. The way they could call out was:
          a) have someone outside pay money to a private company that
                          the jail had designated as their carrier, including a fee
        b) the prisoner could *only* call one number, and that did *not*
                        include cellphones, or work, it had to be a home number.

    Note, of course, that you can't call in. From what I was told, this kept many in there from having any contact with the outside world, one fact among many that contributed to recidivism: they loose contact with everyone, even their kids.

    And this is the the state that alleges it believes in free enterprise, etc.

                            mark
       

  60. FEAR!! by eepok · · Score: 1

    From the article and summary: "'The potential is there for the worst kind of activity,' says Folsom Prison Warden Rick Hill"

    Really? A prison warden is using a truism to invoke fear? Of course there is *potential* for the worst kind of activity. There's also *potential* for the *best* kind of activity... like calling your lawyer for consultation because you've been wrongly convicted. Say what you want about the likelihood of the cell phones being used for such things, but the point is that taken a prison warden's input on the danger of any prisoner activity is pretty silly.

    Why don't we take a video game approach to this?

    (1) Evaluate the bug exploit
    (2) Find out why people are exploiting the bug
    (3) Analyze current systems and check to see if official methods can be implemented to allow for controlled and sanctioned functions.
    (4) Implement such sanctioned functions.
    (5) Eliminate bug and institute severe penalties for those using a similar bug to a similar end.

    Always analyze your own system first to see if you can prevent the need for crime/exploiting. Translated for the prison situations:

    (1) People are smuggling in phones through orifices, mail, and corrupt delivery services.
    (2) Why do people want phones? To talk to family, friends and lawyers? To participate in crime?
    (3) Can additional phones and phone time be allowed? Would it be beneficial to rehabilitation (behavioral and addiction). Could there be exploits to this and how can they be prevented?
    (4) Implement workable ideas, measure results.
    (5) Severely punish anyone with a smuggled cell-phone.

  61. Escape attempts? by Syberz · · Score: 1

    "there have been documented cases of escape attempts"

    Wow, really? Last time it was cameras and now they have built-in picks and shovels? Cell phones are sure getting more and more like swiss army knives with every passing day...

    --
    ~Syberz
    1. Re:Escape attempts? by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      THINK, McFly! A phone can be used to communicate with a lookout who's keeping an eye out for guards.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    2. Re:Escape attempts? by Syberz · · Score: 1

      LOL, sorry Biff.

      --
      ~Syberz
    3. Re:Escape attempts? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I think it's more than just for lookouts. That can be done with more 'traditional' methods. Personally, Ithink the greatest use would be communicating with an outside party to arrange pickup.

      It's a lot easier to escape if you're picked up by some compatriots in a van within seconds after you've turned the corner around a building, while said van stops only long enough to pick you up, than if the van has to loiter, perhaps for hours.

      I say van for easier, quicker loading, greater passanger capacity, and the potential for hidden back area giving the escapees time to change out of prison clothing.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  62. Eeeeeeeeewww! by Xian97 · · Score: 1

    With the method that many items are smuggled into prisons I sure wouldn't be holding it up to my mouth to talk...

  63. Remove all the electrical outlets by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

    The problem would solve itself.

    Why does a prison cell need a power outlet?

    --
    Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    1. Re:Remove all the electrical outlets by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      Perfect plan, because nothing else inside a prison could possibly use 110v AC. Hell, all you need to know is what the charge controller is outputting to the phone. Then just spend some time in the prison library getting an education in basic electrical. Even if you get creative and do something like, say, change the lighting system to 12v DC, you just build yourself a handy little step up/down transformer.

      When you spend 24/7/365 someplace, the cracks in the system become very evident. There are kitchens, laundries, rec areas, etc. You're in for a dime by having a cell phone in the first place, why not go in for a dollar by stealing some electrons for it?

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  64. Don't think so... by fuzznutz · · Score: 2

    The population density of Singapore is 7,022 per square KILOMETER! The crime rate is one of the lowest in the world. Monaco has a population density of 39,217 per square mile. Their crime rate is low too,.You may not like the "racist" answers, but population density is just as big a pill to swallow. Culture and poverty (which are interrelated) has much more to do with it. Population density has about as much correlation as the phase of the moon.

    1. Re:Don't think so... by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      "Factor" != "sole actor"

      George Burns smoked like a chimney and lived to 100. Does that disprove smoking as a risk factor for cancer and shortened life span?

      Population density definitely is a factor. Homogeneity of culture probably is a bigger factor. Culture itself may be an even larger factor. Phase of the moon probably is a fairly minor factor, though I've read some curious claims that it, too, may be a factor (which allegedly explains the werewolf/full-moon mythology). Not sure how much I accept the latter one, but doubtfulness is not the same thing as nonacceptance of a possibility prior to actual proof.

    2. Re:Don't think so... by iamhigh · · Score: 1

      Monoco isn't even a square mile, so to say that they have a population density of x per square mile is misleading. Also that changes a whole lot about how the city is run... I imagine it is much easier to police a square mile than to police a few thousand.

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    3. Re:Don't think so... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      Monaco and Singapore have little in common with either Texas or North Dakota. Texas and North Dakota however, are culturally the same. Yes there are some differences, but you're not comparing Japan and Yemen here. If they are nearly the same culturally, I find it more likely that the fact that there are 4 times as many people in Texas and more of them are poor to be a more reasonable cause for a higher murder rate than whether a state has/does not have the death penalty. Which is what i was responding to originally. I certainly never said that population was the only reason or applied when comparing vastly different locations.

    4. Re:Don't think so... by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been to North Dakota or Texas? Speaking the same language (well, they're both considered english, but are very different), does not make them nearly the same culturally. Are you an US'ian, and if so, don't they teach you history at school? They've been culturally different since the beginning of time. And no the glut of available materialistic objects isn't it, because if you travel the world, that part isn't really to different anywhere in the world. Hiking through the himalayas, you see subsistence villages with cell phones, internet access, etc... Not too much tech, since everything has to be carried up by ponies or people.

    5. Re:Don't think so... by bungo · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been to North Dakota or Texas? ... does not make them nearly the same culturally.

      Hang on, are you really saying that you think that the differences between North Dakota and Texas are similar to the differences to Monaco and Singapore?

      Really?

      I've been to Singapore and Monaco, and I can tell you that an Asian culture is vastly different to a southern European culture. I've been to Texas, but I've never been to North Dakota, so you could be right, but I'm highly skeptical.

      --
      "The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
    6. Re:Don't think so... by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      No, there's absolutely no mention of Singapore or Monaco in my response. BTW, i know Asian cultures are very different EVEN if they share a lot of things like material goods, technology, and science, which was my point. That just illustrates the fact that North America in general shares the same materialistic/capitalist environment, however, not only does each country in NA react differently to this consumer culture, but so do individual states and provinces due to their past history and current geographical/environmental factors. So much easier to work all day in canada when it's freezing cold outside, now go to mexico and ... well, so much easier not to work hard when you can lounge all day in the sun and eat tropical fruit and fish in the ocean. Besides the hotter it gets the more your brain shuts down to prevent overheating, nobody wants to think down here :)

    7. Re:Don't think so... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      funny. i've been to ND, one parent from there and have family in minot and I have lived in Texas most of my life. I said minor differences and I meant it. Both Texas and ND share the same generic US culture 2011 AD. sure each one has local customs and flavor but you could take a resident of either state, drop them in the other and they wouldn't need a Fodor's guide to get around, understand the natives or stay out of trouble. Differences in accent don't account for crime rates.

    8. Re:Don't think so... by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      Oh, you could do that with someone from canada as well (like me), but there's no way you can say canadians have the same culture. Hell, the west coast of north america is a different culture then the east coast and canadians on the west coast are more like west coast US'ians (what the hell are US citizens called that isn't based out of stupidity?) than east coast canadians.

      I have no doubt that we are all converging into a similar environment, technological, economical, etc..., and we are starting to see that, but it in no way has erased the large body of culture that has been passed down in families and they are the ones that instruct you how to react to your environment. We're going to need a couple more generations with the ease of information access we currently have to change that. (though it'll be interesting to see if it ever happens as the differences between generations increases as we approach the singularity [if there will be one] we might have more of a horizontal culture transmission (world-wide single generation) as opposed to a vertical culture transmission (cross generational, same physical environment)

      ...um, that might be hard to understand because i think i just invented those terms.

    9. Re:Don't think so... by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Spoken as someone that has never lived in either Dallas or Fargo (i've lived in both) Calling them even close to culturaly similar is ridiculous. I have 4 words for you "Don't mess with texas". That's a way of life in that state.

    10. Re:Don't think so... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      whatever chief... let's recap...
      someone posts that the difference in murder rate between ND and TX is due to death penalty policies.
      I reply that it's more likely due to 4 times as many people living in TX.
      Someone else replies that Monaco and Singapore have higher pop. density but lower murder rates.
      I reply that's great but culturally they have nothing in common with ND and TX, or even each other.
      Now people are in this pissing match about whether ND and TX are culturally the same.
      My point originally and still is that ND and TX are virtually the same when compared to Monaco or Singapore.

      Anyway, it must be awesome for you to be able to tell where people live based on /. posts. Still posting from Dallas, and used to spend summers with family in ND and SD. So maybe your sniffer is out of tune...

    11. Re:Don't think so... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      and i'm just going to add, you're getting to granular with culture. I'm not talking about eating tex-mex or lefse. Yes, they have different customs, but that kind of crap has no bearing on whether or not someone will commit murder. when i say they are the same culturally, i mean they both share the same "we are american" worldview and many of the same values.

    12. Re:Don't think so... by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      I can't even begin to tell you the major cultural differences...

      For example, you would never see a place like Deep Ellum anywhere in the midwest. Not even Chicago.

      Texas feels the need to do everything their own way, from that bizarre frontage road culture (complete with confusing traffic signals, turn around lanes, and pretty much anything else you can think of) to the way the allow gas and oil companies to control everthing. They can put an oil or gas well right in the middle of a residential neighborhood and there's nothing you can do abou tit. They can even take your property to do it.

      None of that crap would fly in ND. The only thing similar is that they both have "ranch" mentalities.

      Texas thinks of itself as it's own country, and is only "american" when it's convenient for them to think so. When their governor became president, they were american. When someone else became president, they went back to wanting to secede from the union.

      Don't even get me started on the difference in climates, and the way that alters the culture, or how texas is so xenophobic and concerned about illegal aliens but ND welcomes their border neighbors. A good chunk of ND's economy is based on Canadians coming across the border to go shopping, and most of their farm labor is done by mexican migrant farm workers.

      Both are republican, and both are ranchers.. that's really about where the similarities end.

      By your definition, Manitoba and Texas have the same culture, and they most definitely do not.

  65. Idiots by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    Why is this even a issue? I can go buy a cell phone jammer from any number of places, and they are nto that expensive. If you really want to keep cell phones out of prisions, just put a jammer in each prison. If the phoes don't work, it really doesn't matter if anyone has them.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Idiots by a-zarkon! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Use a jammer, go to jail. Ironic isn't it. http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations_2&id=cellular

      OK so technically you could get a permit, but you have to wonder if prisons are relying on cellular for official communications at this point. It's become so cheap and prevalent - cellular is replacing radio for a lot of field operations comms requirements these days. (No I can't cite anything beyond what I see at my own job where some of the field crews are cellphone only at this point.) Anyway, if that is the case and prisons are using cellular for their own comms - jamming the prisoner comms becomes problematic and probably creates a safety issue for employees.

    2. Re:Idiots by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's why they should instead create a few microcells (or a few thousand picocells) that cover the prison grounds, then log everything that passes through those cells just like they do with calls from the phone on the wall.

      This has the advantage of significantly reducing the ability of inmates to use them for harm while not reducing their ability to use them for good (keeping in touch with family, etc.). Also, it's legal and doesn't put the staff at risk.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Idiots by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      Also, it's legal and doesn't put the staff at risk.

      I have some bozos living around here who might not agree.

      (Ok, these guys are fighting against power lines at 60Hz, not cellular bands - but their obvious cluelessness on simple science and statistics makes them prime candidates for opposing such "harmful" solutions.)

    4. Re:Idiots by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      Also, if we start folding their toilet paper ends up into cute shapes and leaving mints on their pillows while they're out in the yard, we could significantly cut down on injuries to corrections workers due to disgruntled inmates.

      This is prison, not time-out at daycare. You can't let these people have phones for use whenever they want.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    5. Re:Idiots by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I think you have to ask yourself whether the principle purpose of prison is punishment, rehabilitation, or keeping the people away from the public as a whole so that they cannot harm others.

      • If the purpose is punishment, then taking away their communication might do that to some degree, but only insofar as it limits the duration of their communication and makes them feel more isolated.
      • If the purpose is rehabilitation, taking away their communication is directly contrary to that goal. Making someone feel more isolated from society is the best way to increase recidivism.
      • If the purpose is keeping the people from being able to harm others, then it makes little difference with two exceptions:
        • When having cell phones allows them to plan crimes outside the walls. Using microcells to monitor the communication mitigates this problem.
        • When not having cell phones makes them feel more isolated, resulting in the inability to reintegrate themselves into society upon release.

      I think you'll find that in the grand scheme of things, letting inmates have cell phones does far more good than harm on the whole, and the few situations where the reverse is true are easily mitigated.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Idiots by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

      cellular is replacing radio for a lot of field operations comms requirements these days

      I can provide a small sample: My local fire department, as well as the recently-christened Pan Am Railways, use cell phones to supplement their radios. Mostly so they don't have to conduct extended converastions and monopolize the channel.

  66. Jail Criminal Guards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a different agency do random inspections of guards as they enter prisons. One shift a month at each prison, on average, decided by a random roll the dice by the agency, which should roll the dice after the guards have irrevocably reported for duty but before they enter the prison. Jail any guard bringing in contraband, and fire their superiors up the line. If the guard's union doesn't like it, this is the only situation I can think of where I believe a Reagan solution is appropriate.

    Guards are supposed to be trusted. If they are crooked and supported by a union, dump the union.

  67. One small problem with your bleeding heart by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Making jail easier, going soft on crime doesn't actually reduce crime either. You can't get further apart then Holland in how jails are run, with even rapists getting community service here and yet recidivism is still very high.

    Crime happens everywhere, regardless of the systems in place. The system isn't there to stop criminals but to stop non-criminals from joining the criminals because they might as well. Shoot the first sheep over the dam and the rest won't follow. That is law and order. If the first guy to use the safety lane to bypass a traffic jam isn't ticketted, soon everyone else will follow.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:One small problem with your bleeding heart by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Who's talking bleeding hearts here?

      It's a fucking waste of money to try to harden systems that won't ever be effective. Us "bleeding hearts" are generally just looking at the situation and calling a spade a spade, saying "well this clearly isn't working, why are we throwing good money after bad?"

      Your "solution" doesn't really have anything to do with prisons, and on top of that it's a perfect illustration of what doesn't work: to always, without fail, catch the first guy to use the safety lane, we'd have to spend an inordinate amount of resources monitoring and patrolling every safety lane ensuring that people always got caught. At some point, you have to look at the "cost" of a crime and see if it outweighs the cost of trying to prevent the crime. If you can't come out ahead, or at least break even, you're probably better off just learning to deal with a little crime.

      Retailers have it figured out: they all expect certain amounts of shoplifting will happen, deal with it, and budget for it accordingly. They *don't* put armed guards at every door and require everyone to subject to a strip search before they leave the building -- it would probably be 100% effective at stopping shoplifting, but the cost is obviously going to hugely outweigh the benefits.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  68. If the wireless carriers were smart... by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

    they'd build a separate network for the prison system and the prisons could offer the service to inmates who, at least according to Monopoly rules, can still transact money and therefore spend it on such a service. If not, then they could offer the service to the inmates' families and associates so they could keep in touch. Outside phones would have to be rendered useless in some way when brought inside the prison walls so that prisoners were forced to use the paid service. Then the prison could be free to control the service by listening/recording calls and web activity, limiting the times the service is available and how many minutes/kilobytes the inmates could use. They could even have another level of service for the prison guards and other workers.

    I'm sure this brings up a whole new list of issues but I feel like there's an opportunity here. Anyone with deep pockets want to help me develop the first Con-Tel provider?

    --
    Loading...
  69. If there was any interesting in finding them... by Corson · · Score: 1

    ...then they would find those phones. Airports have the solution. In the "old times" it was the metal detector, now it's the X-ray and body scanners.

  70. just install jammers an move on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    problem solved. and don't ask me to shed a tear over inmates phone issues (they don't have the right to use a phone, btw). In order for them to actually get into a jail in california they really have to try.

  71. Simple by zoomshorts · · Score: 0

    Kill anyone holding, having or transporting ANYTHING prohibited. The person carrying or the intended recipient. Kill any
    guard or screener who allows contraband into the prison. It will calm down shortly.

    They are in prison mostly for a reason.

  72. Very Easy SOLUTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The powers that be are allowing this issue to continue, who knows why. It's as simple as strategically placing cell phone jammers throughout the prison. Rendering smuggled cellphones useless. If my college can afford to do that, I'm sure the state of california can follow suit.

  73. Already done in Ireland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In a prizon in Ireland one notorios prisoner rang in to a radio talkshow and there was hell to pay afterwards. The communications regulator would not allow a jammer as many prisons are located in built up areas and they would cause issues with regular users just outside the walls.

    Instead they installed a cell tower inside the prison that captures all phones except those on the white list. There is still some problems in the fact that one prison is beside a hospital and at the entrance to A&E visitors cannot use their phones as the signal from the prizon reaches outside the walls. However at least the interference is limited to the frequencies that the prison mast uses. It does not generate noise on all frequencies.

    However being a ham I can think of ways around the system but I'll not give the solutions!

  74. cell blocking by alienzed · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just install cell phone signal jammers where there shouldn't be any cell phones. Without the ability to use the phones, the market will just disappear.

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
  75. Simple Solution by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    All you have to do is jam the cell phone frequencies and the problem is solved. Issue special cell phones to prison staff so they are unaffected.

    1. Re:Simple Solution by PPH · · Score: 1

      That will just increase the black market price for guard's phones. A small bump on the head and the guard's phone goes missing. Nobody saw anything. $1000 is exchanged quietly.

      Or a few innocent guards will get rolled IRL for the equipment.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  76. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. Why not just install landline/intercoms in all the cells?

  77. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that it is possible to buy phones which will let you select the tower you wish to connect to. Additionally, prisons are frequently close to cities (or a highway) so there will be more than prisoners and guards to worry about.

  78. With apologies to Johnny Cash by lilo_booter · · Score: 1

    I hear the phone a comin'
    It's ringin' 'round the cell,
    but I ain't seen the iPhone,
    Since I don't know when,
    I'm stuck in Folsom Prison,
    Android keeps draggin' on,
    But that phone keeps a-ringin',
    On down to my old Samsung.

  79. Its the guards by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 1

    A few years ago I got arrested because I didn't have ID on me it was in my truck, a few feet away, I told the cops "my ID is in my truck". She says "get in the back of my car". I said "why"? She proceeded to punch me several times in the stomach then another much larger cop bent me backwards over the roof of the car and then punched me in the face several times. I then demanded identification. Didn't get any but I got punched a few more times and forced into the back of the car. In the end I was charged with caring a concealed weapon it was a small knife with a belt clip clipped on the outside of my pocket. BTW I was on my way to my truck because I lost a contact and was going to get my glasses.
    Being a Friday evening I was sent to the Remand centre to wait for a justice of the peace on Monday. While there my cell mate got cocaine from a guard btw the guard was clearly intoxicated on gin. My cell mate explained to me that their were more drugs inside of jail than out. And other than an odd occasion where someone got away with sticking drugs up their ass (the known drug user are probed by a guy with blue rubber gloves) the drugs come from the guards.
    In the end the prosecutor would not take the case to trial after 8 months and 6 court appearances later due to the fact he had no case as I had done nothing wrong. But it did cost me $4000 for a lawyer.

  80. Losing battle - better formulate other defence by rcpitt · · Score: 1
    Away back in the mid 60's I took one of the at that time "proprietary" telephones apart and spread the bits and pieces throughout my desk so there was no single "phone".

    The guy from the local telco, when they finally figured out that I had it (not sure how - had the ringer turned off and that was typical way they found extra phones) he actually complimented me on what had been done - and slapped my hand fairly hard.

    Doing the same thing with cell technology, given the size of the various parts necessary and the fact of things like software radios and published standards and hacks, chances are that something that will communicate as a cell phone won't look anything like it soon.

    Even scanning for a phone might not find them as it is possible to make one only respond to the network if/when a call is being made, rather than all the time.

    Only some method of tapping/monitoring the cell sites will do much, if anything in this case - and of course there are always suitcase cell sites and such that can be aimed tightly from outside to allow calls despite such monitoring.

    all in all - I fear they're in a losing cause

    --
    Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
    and didn't get it
  81. How are they keeping the phones charged? by mezron · · Score: 1

    Do the individual cells all have their own electrical outlet? That bothers me if true.

    1. Re:How are they keeping the phones charged? by peter303 · · Score: 1

      Many inmates are allowed electric shavers, televisions, radios. They power them somehow.

  82. TX v ND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people don't sit back and contemplate violence or its probable consequence, but there was a paper written quite sometime ago that purported to show a correlation between inner and other directed aggression. The claim was made that humanity has a relatively constant rate of violence, but depending on your cultural influences, you are more or less likely to direct your aggressions inward, resulting in self-destructive behavior, or outward, resulting in criminal behaviors like assault or murder.

    Although the author never proposed it, I believe this research could be used to support the sucession of Texas from the Union.

    First, the rest of us should open the border by liberalizing international trade, then we subsidize super-Max prisons and elect a black man to the Presidency, then we redirect big-oil subsidies to a new energy economy... When the Cowboys lose the Superbowl and most Texans have become despondent, we invade and suppress their culture by outlawing pickup trucks and gentleman's clubs! (Hey, we're almost there!)

    Si! Se Puede!

  83. Just put up local nodes by Animats · · Score: 1

    Just put up local cell phone nodes as part of the prison telephone system. Have local cells for GSM, Sprint, and Verizon. Route calls through the usual prison phone monitoring system, with the canned outgoing message "This call is from XXX prison". Sell phones in the commissary.

    Prisons in urban areas might have some trouble with getting outside phones on their local cell, but most of the big prisons are in isolated areas.

  84. Huh? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Ok, these are CELL phones. Why aren't they allowed in CELLs? Where else are you going to use them?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  85. Just block them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can understand why the prisons want the cell phones out, a cell phone can communicate sensitive data of how a prison is operating at any given time to an outsider, or other inmates. Thus greatly increasing the chance of escape. While i don't agree with the current system that places inmates in prison or the way prisons are currently managed, I do agree that inmates shouldn't have constant access with each other or the outside world. A prison guard shouldn't have one of these devices either, as a guard can be corrupted or planted just as easily as any other individual.

    The simplest solution would be to simply jam the cell phone frequencies inside the prison, thus forcing all communication to be done via radio or land line. Sure this might cause some issues for lawyers, but they can just use prison land line phones. And sure some of the surrounding area will be effected as well. While they are at it they should also jam the 2.5ghz and 5ghz frequencies to prevent the use of internet enabled devices. But at least the problem will be quickly and effectively stopped.

  86. If cell phones are outlawed in prisons by dstone · · Score: 1

    then only outlaws will have cell phones in prisons.

  87. Femto cell by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Would it even be a technical 'femto cell'? Wouldn't 'most' prisons be large enough to get a full tower? Preferably one for each of the providers, of course.

    Heck, with 3 towers and some extra logic, not only can you make sure the phones will connect to YOURS, you can restrict their logging to phones actually ON the prison grounds with a fair degree of accuracy.

    I like this idea much more than jamming or trying to create farady cages.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Femto cell by PPH · · Score: 1

      I'll leave the implementation details of this up to the experts. Undoubtedly, this would require the cooperation of the carriers. Knowing AT&T (and now Verizon) they might not want anything that will cut into the sale of a few additional iPhones. Even if they have to be iKeystered to deliver them to their customers.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  88. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by scot4875 · · Score: 1

    "I don't know how he got my SIM. He must have stolen my phone and replaced it without my knowledge."

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  89. Human Nature trumps Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. 10 year old Jimmy from down the street gets abducted, etc; and killed. and/or Home invasion gone wrong ends up with 3 dead and 1 in coma, and/or repeat offender drunk driver kills family of 5, etc; etc;...
    2. Media frenzy begins highlighting said crimes, etc; etc.
    3. Offenders/perps of said crimes are apprehended and convicted (on a good day)
    4. Media frenzy continues, creating public outcry and pressure on DA's, Judges, etc;
    5. Judges, politicians and/or prison-industrial complex create and perpetuate illogical and short-sighted "tough on crime" penal system.
    6. More laws are passed every year criminalizing more and more behaviors, etc;

    To quote Dave Mustaine:
    "Kill a man and you're a murderer, kill many and you're a conqueror, kill them all, you're a god"

  90. Jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't some short range cell jammers take care of this?

  91. decrypt the calls? by inkhorn · · Score: 1

    Now that GSM encryption is publicly breakable, could the calls from IMEI's not registered as belonging to the prison staff be automatically decrypted and recorded?
    If they can't entirely prevent the problem of smuggling, at least this would help shed light on what was being discussed, and to whom. Perhaps useful at any parole board hearings?

  92. RF jammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RF jammers

  93. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by MattskEE · · Score: 1

    A nice idea, but in addition to other criticisms presented in above comments this would not prevent a criminal from using pre-arranged codewords to communicate with outside affiliates. If I was a mob boss or drug kingpin I would probably take the time to work out such a system with my subordinates just in case, not sure if all criminals would go through the trouble of course.

  94. The Cell Phones Need Squarer Edges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And no vibrate mode.

  95. er... Jamming? by Flaming+Cowpie · · Score: 1

    With the ease that a cell jamming technology (of even a building sized area) can be purchased online, how is it that a government sanctioned agency can't install them in the prison blocks and simply end the problem?

    --
    Sigs? We don't need no steekin Sigs!
  96. anti-Windows troll you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice try, you fake-linux Apologist, but the red Hat doesn't tip to anyone; so don't try your BSD-esque renice feature to ploy Linux users as apologizing to anyone with Windows. If ever there was a counterfeit fan needed, it would be in Hell to wave the flames of Theo the Rat since finding that FBI backdoor.

  97. All crime is political in nature. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jafiwam, you are getting ahead of yourself like a progressive warden.

    Prison prevents people from repaying or correcting the damages they cause, known as Corpus Delecti in Statutory Laws. Prison is a military operation, exposing more healthy individuals to disease and violence than anywhere else. Prison is better known as Abduction and involuntary Slavery; if someone is going to commit a violent activity, it is best mediated on the premise where it occurs by unteaching the State and other Romanized populous that the people have a right to open-carry their Arms.

    When you talk about "re-habilitiation", I want you to shut your fat unbrushed stinking mouth because prison has no course in usefulness: the courts wouldn't allow anyone to post a promisory notice of some kind to mitigate the damages caused, and a Prison is the PUNITIVE un-Justice that continually mis-prisons someone from correcting a matter.

    You forget, some things aren't a mistake: what you call Army is what I call a pack of wanton Murders and wanton Thieves trying to enslave anyone in their site. What you call a tax collecter is someone I think is nothing more than a lazy out-of-work buffoon more interested in keeping his standard of living while inflating government procedures to guaruntee their proprietary form of job security.

    I've never met a drug-dealer that forces me to buy drugs, until the attornies hit me up on "thought" crimes to throw me into a psycological Ward kind of "prison" because I re-associated to people in a society that have my values rather than associate with a Governed society of domesticated Criminals composed of thugs taxing anyone that interacts with their Police and Franchizing so-to guarding their monopolies while requiring my standard of living in their control at all times.

  98. alot of prisons are hosting cell towers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know about CA, but I have installed Cell Towers and MW Backbones in NYC prison's. Prisons make extra income renting tower space, most cell companies like this cause it is considered somewhat a secured facility over a reg shed tower sitting on an easily accessible roof.

    Cell jamming in prisons isn't the answer and won't work. need another solution.

  99. Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they really wanna solve the problem they need to be getting the staff and sheriffs for this shit there the ones bringing the stuff in and making some good money out of it. block fucken signal of any cell phones perfect for inmates to escape.lol any solution is not gonna work as long as you have crooket sheriffs.duh!there the ones commiting a crime now, not the inmates shit alll theyre trying to do is stay ahead of there game lol

  100. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yea you think they might all be stupid but really some have been there a long while and had much time to read many more books than you have in a lifetime!!!!i thought of that one but people find out things and end up using that to there benefit!have you thought about that? nope im sure you didnt .streetsmart.

  101. Re:Don't capture phones, capture the concersations by Geminii · · Score: 1

    Why exempt the guards' phones when they're within the prison and (presumably) on the clock? Record and audit them like any others, additionally recording which registered phone made what conversations. Should cut down on guards renting their phones to prisoners, guard-phone SIMS being copied and given to prisoners, and guards' phones being stolen.

    Guard wants to make a personal call on their break, well, the recording system deletes calls after howevermany weeks or months. Or they can step outside the prison and use an external cell tower. Or they can use a landline in the break room. Or they can wait until after their shift. Or someone can set up a nonmonitored microcell in a noise-damped Faraday room off (or being) the guards' break room and patch that through the prison PABX. People don't actually need to be 100% connected 24/7.

  102. Cell phone jamming. by cyclops-racing · · Score: 1

    There are publicly available cell phone jammers easily available online. Hello prison officials, who cares if they get cell phones you should control the airwaves inside your environment.

  103. ummmm by monkyyy · · Score: 1

    but its capitalism, its a system of capitalism in the prison
    WE MUST DEFEND IT AT ALL COSTS WHAT ARE THESE LAW MAKERS; COMMIES?

    "Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING."
    its really hard to to set up straw men of people who get their point but yelling otherwise(lawyers and politicsoins)

    --
    warning pointless sig
  104. Re:This again? Hmm mabe time to invest here :P_ by WarmNoodles · · Score: 1

    Thinking the new yard hot commodity in addition to cigarettes will include http://www.faradaybag.com/ 's

    Wonder if they are public or privately held, hehe