Slashdot Mirror


Ban Sale of Mini Mobiles, Says Justice Minister (cnet.com)

Online retail companies should ban the sale of mini mobile phones designed to be smuggled into prisons, said justice secretary David Lidington on Monday. From a report: Often marketed as "Beat the Boss phones", the tiny feature phones can be bought for around $25 to $40 online on sites including Amazon, Ebay and Gumtree. On the inside, they can change hands for up to $670. The phones, which can be as small as lipsticks, are popular with prison inmates due to their discreet size and lack of metal, which allows them to beat metal detectors. Mobile phones are banned in prisons, in part because they allow inmates to continue criminal activities while they're locked up. But around 20,000 phones and SIM cards were seized by prison guards in 2016, with mini mobiles making up around a third of these.

192 comments

  1. How about... by nightfire-unique · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... fuck off, and do your job?

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    1. Re:How about... by sabri · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah, spoiler alert: it's about the Great Police State formerly part of the EUSSR...

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    2. Re:How about... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I'm having trouble understanding a) why these phones aren't seen as an intelligence asset rather than a threat b) what is so hard about detecting the transmissions?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And which country is going on straight up witch hunts? Yeah, it ain't in europe! #metoo

    4. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A) Explain how they can be "an intelligence asset "
      B) What good is detecting the transmission when one can't here the conversation?

    5. Re:How about... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 0

      It would help if the "witches" weren't engaged in a socially-accepted and normalized behavior of trying to force their dicks into any subordinate co-workers, staff or others that they have control or power over for the last few hundred years or so.

      Give it a rest, dumbfuck. They deserve all they get. Probably more.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    6. Re:How about... by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're not worried about people calling home, they're worried about people calling home without paying the astronomical costs charged by prison phone operators, who bribed the government for those exclusive contracts fair and square.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:How about... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      And which country is going on straight up witch hunts?

      Which has already flamed out into absurdity. It's all over now except for the Saturday Night Live sketches.

    8. Re:How about... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Run a cell. Mobile phones don't do end-to-end encryption for calls, they are encrypted to the cell site, but are then not encrypted past that. This is how Stingray works: you run a small cell, phones connect to it, and you record the calls that they make. Do the same in prisons. You'll then be able to get complete records of all calls made by inmates.

      For added fun, you can MITM all TLS connections over the data network and block anything that you can't MITM.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He IS doing his job. It's called "rule over little people".

    10. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it will not catch just inmate calls. It will catch calls from guards, staff, contractors, visitors, possibly even people driving by and that would be illegal wire tapping.

    11. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you do this. It's against the rules to have a cell phone in prison so we KNOW that nobody has a phone and nobody will connect to the cell.....At least that's the logic used for gun control.

    12. Re:How about... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      You know, the 4th Amendment is a thing.

    13. Re:How about... by torkus · · Score: 1

      No no no...don't you read the propaganda? It's because criminals can still "conduct criminal enterprise" while in jail if they have a cell phone.

      Calling your babymama, kids, parents, or whoever else doesn't matter because someone might do something bad.

      The astronomical costs of collect calls from jails is justified by...uhm...erm...well i'm sure there's something.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    14. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And since prisons are run by private corporations, there's no warrant bullshit necessary. (If these weren't prisoners, I wouldn't call it "warrant bullshit". But for someone who has already been deemed untrustworthy by law, there's little reason to continue keeping up appearances. It's not like they wouldn't just stringray+parallel-construct your ass on the outside anyway. There should be no expectation of privacy on the inside, even as a baseline.)

    15. Re:How about... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You are asking people that found that "prison guard" or "justice secretary" were their calling in life to actually understand technology, even if only a little bit. It is far easier for them to call for restrictive laws, they were probably just waiting for a pretext anyways.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    16. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in the UK.

    17. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, the 4th Amendment is a thing.

      Not in the UK it isn't. The clue should have been the word "minister" at the top, but apparently you were in so much of a hurry to share that little contribution that you couldn't be bothered to read to the end of the end of the title.

    18. Re:How about... by SB5407 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that those brib--er, I mean contracts, usually include an agreement to close the on-site visitor center, therefore making phone calls--expensive phone calls--the only way to visit with an inmate. Oh, and at least one jail/prison has been found recording attorney-client calls illegally.

    19. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, they are worried about people calling home and saying "How's my business doing? Have you picked up that shipment of heroine? Good job killing that snitch. Now, rape this motherfucker's wife for disrespecting me. Also, this guard needs money and that guard has a kid we can use to turn her."

      Or, did you forget we are talking about criminals?

    20. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I don't think so. Stingray use is rampant in the U.S. and court cases are mixed. This is a solvable problem, but the will isn't there.

    21. Re:How about... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Except it will not catch just inmate calls. It will catch calls from guards, staff, contractors, visitors, possibly even people driving by and that would be illegal wire tapping.

      Unless, of course, they get a secret warrant (in the USA) allowing it, then the police can run a Stingray to intercept calls.

      Or, they can have the cellular company's install a microcell on-site, then ask for call records from that cell (which they can generally get without a warrant), subtract out all of the known employee numbers, tell visitors that cell phones are banned, then any remaining number is suspicious and they can get a wire tap order for it.

    22. Re:How about... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Well, he could be referring to the Great Charter of 1297, the fourth and latest amendment to the Magna Carta...

    23. Re:How about... by MikeMo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ok, my wife is an ex-prison guard, and, believe me, prisoners do conduct criminal activity from their cells with their phones. It's so bad in California that correctional officers have to drive "evasion" routes when going to or leaving the prison, are required to carry a gun for self-protection, and are not allowed to wear uniforms outside the prison. The reason is that inmates manage their "peeps" outside the prison to follow, harass, blackmail and extort prison employees.

      As a placement counselor, she also dealt with lots of inbound cases of perps convicted of doing bad things for inmates. It's real, and, given conjugal visits where Mama brings in mini phones hidden in, shall we say "personal" locations, it's impossible to stop.

      The government has also tried to implement cell phone blockers on prison grounds, but this was shot down for constitutional reasons.

    24. Re: How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, because everyone in prison is willing to hire out a rapist. Did you know the majority of the prison population is in there for relatively minor crimes?

      Nah, you figure if they will steal a chocolate bar for 3 hots and a cot, they'll kill their mothers.

    25. Re:How about... by yodleboy · · Score: 2

      "You know, the 4th Amendment is a thing."
       
      I think you give that one up as soon as you go to U.S. prison. You can be searched at any time for any reason, your cell can be inspected, your communications with the outside world are subject to inspection/eavesdropping. If there was ever a place where use of stingrays was on reasonably solid ground, it would be in a prison setting. If you're worried about employee/visitor privacy, how hard would it be to have the stingray reject connections by their phones? A list of cell phone numbers and/or IMEI should do the trick and you don't even have to associate a name to the number. Anything else connecting to the stingray should be considered fair game. If an employee is using more than one phone, or refuses to provide number, that might be a bad sign.

    26. Re:How about... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Nobody can here conversations. You can, however, hear conversations.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    27. Re:How about... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Visitors exist also.

    28. Re:How about... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Make sure your stingray is kept inside the prison, which is itself inside a huge faraday cage. You'll catch all the inmate calls, tell guards and visitors to only make calls from outside and you won't catch drivers passing by either.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    29. Re:How about... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I was led to believe Europeans had stronger privacy laws.

    30. Re:How about... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      where exactly is that "normalized"??

      can we stop trying to make that phrasing a thing? it doesnt mean what you and all these other morons on the net think it does.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    31. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A large cage around the prison should do the trick. Most of that cage is probably already built; just need to finish the top.

    32. Re: How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bird, it's a plane, it's a woooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    33. Re:How about... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      You can't here it if you're there.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    34. Re:How about... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Make sure your stingray is kept inside the prison, which is itself inside a huge faraday cage.

      If that were the case, inmates wouldn't be going through the trouble of acquiring these phones in the first place.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    35. Re: How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will find that the claim is women cannot harrass, and any suggestion they do will end you being shouted down for being "sexist". The media certainly knows the game.

    36. Re:How about... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to work out which EU country uses dollars.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    37. Re:How about... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Just look at all these stories:

      https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/n...

      https://news.vice.com/en_ca/ar...

      https://dondivamag.com/ndicted...

      If these people could run a legal courier or import/export business, they would be wealthy.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    38. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      inmates can have their assholes ripped open on a whim to search for contraband, and without a warrant needed; so i don't think there would be any constitutional protection against spoofing a tower.

    39. Re:How about... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 2

      No, we can't. Here's why. Merriam-Webster's 1st (1st, mind you) definition for "normalize":

      transitive verb
      1 : to make conform to or reduce to a norm or standard

      So that's why we use the words we do.

      Nice try to deflect from the main point, though. Oh, also I'm not a "moron" and I do quite understand the mathematical definition of normalize but we are not talking about math, genius.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    40. Re:How about... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously you don't tell them, duh.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    41. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is the 2nd. But we don't let prisoners open carry in the yard.

    42. Re:How about... by slashrio · · Score: 1

      You're a genious! If the prison is a Faraday cage, then how are the inmates able to make phone calls at all?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    43. Re:How about... by sheramil · · Score: 2

      For added fun, you can MITM all TLS connections over the data network and block anything that you can't MITM.

      For extra added fun you can call them during the day and make their asses vibrate, assuming that's where the phones are hidden.

    44. Re:How about... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      You can direct the signal so that only users inside the jail will connect to it...
      Staff in jail shouldn't be using their phones while on duty, they shouldn't even be in possession of phones while on duty because they could easily get stolen by inmates.
      And it's not illegal wiretapping if someone agrees to it, inform staff and visitors of the system and require that they agree to monitoring if they wish to use their phones inside the jail, or perhaps also require that visitors not bring phones into the jail (which is probably already the case).

      Also phones give off signals, you can detect when one is being used, with the right equipment you could track them down quite easily.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    45. Re:How about... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Installing grounded wire mesh to the building will block cellphone calls, or you could use radio direction finding and serveilance cameras to find them.

    46. Re:How about... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      They connect to the stingray which is inside the faraday cage. And the stingray connects to the outside via a cable and an external antenna.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    47. Re: How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure let's ban some mobile phones because they cause some sort of trouble to a minor part of government that is too overly concerned with making enough revenue from extremely overpriced inmate phone systems.

      Here, I have a better idea, let's limit the total cash value of the private estate of anyone in government to $80,000.

    48. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed...

      by that logic everything should be banned...
      specially guns and knives (serial killers can use those to do harm)
      but also cars (a criminal/terrorist can use a car to commit serious crimes)

      and how about computers? ban those too.. you can commit cyber crime with a computer

    49. Re:How about... by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      You have a big sign at the door saying "do not use your mobile phones in this prison because we are monitoring all calls". In fact, you could make visitors surrender their phones at the entrance to be retrieved when they leave. In fact, they probably already do.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    50. Re:How about... by coofercat · · Score: 1

      This is for the UK - some UK prisons are right in the middle of towns or residential areas. That makes singrays a considerable problem, since the likelihood is that you'll pick up passers by, local residents or whomever else.

      I am wondering why they can't have more RF shielding though (although I'd imagine it's hard to put in, some of the prisons we've got were built by the Victorians). Unless that shielding is covered over by a decent brick/concrete wall, the chances are the bored inmates will find a way through it.

      I'm sure there must be a 'mobile phone detector' that prisons could use. They'd get false positives for phones outside the walls, but they'd presumably be able to find them inside when they were being used. I guess though, it's possible that a call or text to a known accomplice to say "it's done" is so short that by then the phone's been passed to three other people and is busy getting buried behind a loose brick in the wall in another wing.

      As for searches, much the same is true in UK prisons too - but the point is that these phones are now so small that you can shove it up your back side. A finger up there won't find it, and neither will a metal detector. An x-ray or ultrasound probably would, but having to do one of those on every inmate once a week or once a month is a bit tiresome.

    51. Re:How about... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      no one thinks sexual assault should be normalized, so stop trying to claim that it is

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    52. Re:How about... by slashrio · · Score: 1

      So the stingray is already practice. :)

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    53. Re:How about... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      There is potential to catch more then just prisoners with blanket wireless monitoring. It's virtually a certainty.

    54. Re:How about... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      You do realize blanket wireless interception would affect more then prisoners. Guards, visitors, anyone passing near the prison.

    55. Re:How about... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it _should_ be normalized, I'm merely observing that is _is_. There's a big difference, and I'm certainly not advocating it, if you haven't been able to tell from the words in my posts. Sexual Harassment and Assault = BAD, Sexual Harassment and Assault ALSO = the societal norm in many places where men have power over women around them. Now do you understand?

      A hundred years or more of the boss slapping the ass of the secretaries that work for him, or the VERY famous Hollywood "Casting Couch", are only two extremely well-known examples of this behavior. People have looked the other way for many, many years. If you deny facts like this, you are part of the problem.

      I'm not saying it's right and DEFINITELY not advocating it, but it exists, has for a long time, and women who have been sick of it for quite some time are finally feeling safe enough and empowered to speak up against the abuses they have been enduring.

      Naturally, the accused are engaging in exactly what the women feared all along would happen, victim shaming/blaming and attempting to lie about it, and dealing with people such as yourself who choose not to see that is IS indeed happening. This is what kept them silent for so long, the fear of retaliation or character assassination and mud-slinging.

      So, I don't know why you think this is not happening, or at least think it has not been a well-known, even famous part of the seedy side of our culture for many years, but that is simply flat-out denial and refusal to accept facts on your part.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    56. Re:How about... by beastofburdon · · Score: 0

      I see, we have another man hating sjw on our hands.
      You go into a uncontrollable convulsions when you see straight white man speak don't you.

    57. Re:How about... by beastofburdon · · Score: 0

      You are a lying sack of shit. Do you really believe all that bullshit you just spewed? If so, you really need to go see a psychiatrist because you are suffering from severe delusions.

    58. Re:How about... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Prove me wrong, trolling fucktard. I'm tired of arguing with assholes and idiots now, go play in traffic, little one.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    59. Re:How about... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Gee, I'm a white man, so I'm not even sure how that works in your little brain. And definitely not an SJW. So go suck a dick or something, you impotent failed troll.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  2. Banning them won't work by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They'll be half that size in a couple years. And then half as small again a few years after that. Why fight a battle you already know you're going to lose?

    1. Re:Banning them won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why fight a battle you already know you're going to lose?

      because you both like to bring attention to yourselves by posting banal bullshit

    2. Re:Banning them won't work by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 0

      Or better: banning things because they might be used for something illegal or something you don't approve of is just ridiculous.

      I understand keeping phones out of prison, but that's an uphill battle regardless of this particular issue. And from the article, even a ban here doesn't suppress the majority of cases.

      Every OTHER use for this phone seems like nobody else's business, and flat out wrong. Even if you do not wish your employees to use mobile phones on the job, and I can understand that, you don't have the authority to rob them of the devices. People have real lives outside of the job, some of those demands require access to telecommunications in an emergency. And honestly if it comes to that choice, I'd throw the job out the window any day of the week. If employees are unreliable and overly distracted by anything, you should fire them... but taking options away from them and monopolizing them isn't employment, it's slavery.

    3. Re:Banning them won't work by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? Who is robbing employees of their phones? Did I read a different article?

    4. Re:Banning them won't work by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Why keep phones out of prisons? I'd like inmates to have robust access to the outside world—the capacity to talk to others, to keep up on the news, to stay in touch with the world outside their concrete walls.

      When inmates exit prison, they have to go to a halfway house. They're so out-of-touch with reality that they need to be re-introduced to society--reintegration. That's ridiculous. Okay, maybe we don't buy you a Sega Saturn for your birthday; but you should be able to stay in contact with family, friends, the like. You should be able to keep track of politics and current events.

      Yes, I know: keeping them from somehow gaming all day while allowing access to not-gaming material is hard. We can probably get away with locking down access to 80 and 443, using a robust Web filter, and generally letting the collective game of whack-a-mole packaged into an off-the-shelf product suffice. It's not like it's hard to block Steam; they'll have to struggle to find little flash games and such.

      If you're committing criminal activities inside prison using a cell phone, you're ... I mean, you're in prison, you're identifiable, and you're organizing crime using a cell phone. You're a high risk and at risk of scrutiny, which makes criminal activity harder to conceal (this is also a good Constitutional argument: a lot of rights against search and seizure or self-incrimination make it easy to commit crimes that nobody really cares about, whereas loud and visible crimes draw attention and are harder to conceal).

      Prison is hard. On the one hand, you want people to be in prison. On the other, you want them to come out of prison capable of engaging in society. You don't want them in a nice little luxury hotel where they can relax--just penned in--and you don't want shoplifters coming out as hardened criminals with no capacity to engage with civil society.

      At this junction, we have a question: can we keep cell phones away from inmates? It's become harder, so we should ask another question: should we keep cell phones away from inmates? We may have learned things about rehabilitation and prison management which would change the answers to these questions. I've heard that some countries have less-terrible prisons and also have lower recidivism rates--Norway is bewildering and god damn I need to update my platform on criminal justice reform.

    5. Re:Banning them won't work by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why keep phones out of prisons?

      Because there is a very expensive monopolistic racket charging sky high prices for people to be able to call inmates using the official channels. The one I know of from experience charges $3 just to load money onto the account, $5 flat fee for a call, and around $15 dollars for 10-15 minute call. That's a local call to a number registered with the system on which funds are loaded (cheapest way to go in that particular jail).

      I'm sure the jail gets a kickback one way or another. If not in actual money (sharing part of the profits), then at least in the form of all of the hardware being provided by the phone service company.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    6. Re:Banning them won't work by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      It's actually quite easy to hide criminal activity conducted through a tiny, concealed, "burner" phone that can't be traced to you and can be quickly disposed of. I understand your argument about how isolation from society makes re-integration more difficult (and thus probably increases recidivism), but there is a strong need to prevent criminal activity as well.

      The solution is probably prison-provided internet access with strong monitoring (i.e. a proxy that logs sites, blocks access to restricted sites, and VNC running showing everyone's screen at a central guard station). To make that work, you still need to make sure unauthorized cell phones aren't making it into prisons.

      It sounds like these phones also have a semi-legitimate purpose - allowing people to use phones at workplaces that try to ban them. Of course, there's probably also people that want these phones just for the novelty of it, but that's probably not a big enough market to make manufacture worthwhile.

      I doubt the EU actually try to ban these phones, prisons will probably have to come up with a more technical solution - like using something similar to Stingrays to essentially MITM the cell network.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    7. Re:Banning them won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be much more effective to have a specialized frequency watching device. Set off a loud siren and point to the location as soon as a cellular phone is turned on.

    8. Re:Banning them won't work by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      You know though, give those inmates access to an internal only WoW server or something similar, and the real problems in prisons would probably be relieved a bit. Basically giving them something to do with the hours and hours and hours of intense boredom. Other than you know; plan escapes, how to murder each other or a guard.. that sort of stuff.

      (In before prison should be a literal hell on earth and that prisoners should be made to suffer and be sodomized 24/7 regardless of their original crime.)

    9. Re:Banning them won't work by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Because there is a very expensive monopolistic racket charging sky high prices for people to be able to call inmates using the official channels.

      Yes but I don't care about that. It's like when we tried to reform our criminal justice system here in Baltimore because bail was always set way high d00d!!! and small-time, non-violent criminals considered no flight risk were forced to sit in jail when they could be working and maintaining their households and stuff. The delegates said, "Oh wait a minute, the bail bondsmen are going to lose a lot of profitability for this!" They then worked with them to make sure that bails were set low enough that people could make bail, but not so low as to hurt the bondsmen.

      ... because we need to change this as it's unfairly hurting people, but we should keep it set up to unfairly hurt accused but not convicted to a degree they can handle and bleed their money (you know, the scarce life-blood of people in poverty) toward rich bondsmen.

      How about the bondsmen pack up and move to Chicago? I can understand a phase-out or some such to try to not drop anyone too hard, but come on, man.

      No, I don't care to ensure the next hundred years of the prison racket either. I care to ensure the operational safety of the prison guards, the prison staff, the administrators; but the things that are just there to suck money when we could just do it cheaply, no, get that out of here.

    10. Re: Banning them won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't trump just fucking pardon you? Come on man, give it up already.

    11. Re:Banning them won't work by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You can dispose of phones quickly, yes. The problem is that you're usually not being tailed actively, and go unnoticed. You and the guy on the other end can have burners, and be hard to find. Not really true with a guy in prison.

      Part of the argument was also that this may be infeasible to tightly control. Part of it was that it increases risk of being caught using the phones for criminal purposes. Part of it was that maybe we should be thinking about rehabilitation, and exactly what that means changes depending on the world around you.

      Look at the whole situation. People can get phones easy... okay, maybe we need to accept that that's a thing. People might get phones for criminal purposes... that's a problem. People also will try to get phones to satisfy their need for contact with their friends and family outside, though, and do we punish them for that? How harshly? There's the big question: they can now do it casually, and punishment may be harmful to their rehabilitation; do we try to mitigate the criminal activity or the phone activity?

      A lot of variables have changed, both in the world itself and our model of it.

    12. Re: Banning them won't work by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yet the evidence says that this course of action leads to more violent crime and more harm to innocents. You're okay with more innocents dying and a more-crime-riddled society so you can get a rush from your sense of mob justice?

    13. Re: Banning them won't work by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      That's basically what happened under the Bloody Code. To show how well it worked, the penalty for repeated pickpocketing was hanging, yet pickpockets were quite active at public hangings.

    14. Re:Banning them won't work by mikael · · Score: 1

      We need to help them find an alternative way to use those organizational skills legally.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    15. Re:Banning them won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't need cell phone functionality, there are tiny _radios_ that have been around since before most people alive now were born. They're not exactly high-tech, either, especially compared to a cell phone. There are exceptions like the ones that record several seconds of audio and then send it in a tiny burst. This entire "ban this!" statement is bull-ogny, since they seem to care not one bit for the 999999 legitimate uses, if they can prevent the 1 bad use in a million even when there's a more effective way (say, amendment allowing technological countermeasures to violating policies of prisons, which is an 'easy win' for congressional-level[Federal] amendments).

      It would be hilarious if Morse code became a thing again, and it take years for them to notice the signals because very short and not a cell phone. XD

    16. Re:Banning them won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is about the UK, where there has been a bit of controversy over the cost of phone calls in prisons, as some of them are as high as 11 pence per minute.

      A 15 minute phone call from a UK prison would set you back about $2, which seems pretty good compared to the US, but given that inmates that maintain connections with friends and family on the outside exhibit less recidivism to a statistically significant degree, personally I support free (monitored) phone calls for inmates.

      Banning these devices (which - let's be honest - are squarely aimed at people with things to hide) isn't a great solution, but short of building a faraday cage around every prison I can't think of a technical solution that wouldn't effect people living and working near prisons, would allow wardens to use two-way radios and couldn't be trivially defeated by some scrunched up tinfoil (goodbye, geofencing).

      The only possible "legitimate" use for orifice-storable phones I can think of is abused spouses, and as genuinely horrifying as that possibility is, I think the cost of removing that legitimate but (thankfully) niche use-case has to be weighed against the costs of building massive faraday cages, the security of prisons and the effectiveness of the justice system. It's not an easy call.

    17. Re:Banning them won't work by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      They'll be half that size in a couple years. And then half as small again a few years after that. Why fight a battle you already know you're going to lose?

      At that rate after 30 years they will be subatomic (assuming current size 5cm and atom size .1 nm)

    18. Re:Banning them won't work by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      At fair pay and with humane treatment?

    19. Re:Banning them won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why fight a battle you already know you're going to lose?

      Ask the GOP. Nonwhites will outnumber whites in the US by 2050, and yet the GOP is pretending that all of the old white people will live forever.

  3. Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh who am I kidding clearly the rest of the population should suffer because it would be inconvenient for prisons to take any sort of active measure to prevent cellular communications between inmates and the outside world....

    1. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This. It's relatively trivial to prevent unauthorized cell phone communications out of prisons. They don't even need jammers, just a ring of femtocells that forward the traffic of whitelisted cell phones, and isolate and triangulate phones with IMEIs not on the whitelist.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      They shouldn't just ban cell phones. Files, too, should be banned because inmates can use them to saw through bars. And chisels and shovels which can be used to tunnel out of the prison. All illegal for sale from now on!

      O, and the number one facilitator of illegal transactions in prison: cash. Should definitely be outlawed as well.

      O, and cakes. Often used to smuggle contraband into prison. No more cakes, anywhere, worldwide! Yeah, that will solve the problem.

    3. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just not have any cell towers within range of the prison?

    4. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      With prison budgets already stretched thin, and a general lack of IT support, we now expect they'll maintain a self-contained cell network?

      Nevermind that many phones today (not sure about the ones in TFA) allow the user to select the carrier they connect to, as well. It'd be trivial to bypass the femtocells and connect to the network service the community outside the prison walls.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by rsborg · · Score: 2

      This. It's relatively trivial to prevent unauthorized cell phone communications out of prisons. They don't even need jammers, just a ring of femtocells that forward the traffic of whitelisted cell phones, and isolate and triangulate phones with IMEIs not on the whitelist.

      This!
      I mean, this sounds like a fabricated issue when a purely technological issue can be had - they control the airspace around the prison. If someone is out of that airspace/territory and is unauthorized - *you have a bigger problem*.

      Is there some legislative or regulatory restriction that prevents prisons from setting up femtocells to capture all IMEI traffic?

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    6. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      O, and the number one facilitator of illegal transactions in prison: cash. Should definitely be outlawed as well.

      I was under the impression they were already working on that. (Like phasing out the 500€ Bill next year...)

      So on one hand they want to put a minimum-size limit on phones, on the other hand they work on a maximum-size limit for cash.....

    7. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by networkzombie · · Score: 2

      They should definitely ban those tiny rock hammers.

    8. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Phones that can connect to an arbitrary BTS in range, not necessarily the one that delivers the strongest signal, exist. You can blacklist the BTSs with the oddly strong signal.

    9. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) The correction systems at the state and federal level would love to jam them. Unfortunately, that is against FCC regulations and thus against federal law.
      B) The femtocell plan may or may not be feasible and/or legal and could be challenged on a variety of grounds by the guards, contractors, etc.
      C) Triangulation only works well for stationary objects or moving objects that are easily identifiable at distance. Trying to match a call to a specific inmate through triangulation would be effectively impossible.

    10. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      A) The correction systems at the state and federal level would love to jam them. Unfortunately, that is against FCC regulations and thus against federal law. B) The femtocell plan may or may not be feasible and/or legal and could be challenged on a variety of grounds by the guards, contractors, etc. C) Triangulation only works well for stationary objects or moving objects that are easily identifiable at distance. Trying to match a call to a specific inmate through triangulation would be effectively impossible.

      Why wouldn't you just monitor calls originating from in or around the prison? Surely the triangulation should be accurate enough to winnow out the "outliers" beyond the fence. Then you just get an agreement from *everybody* who carries a cell onto the premises to allow monitoring and a standing warrant for any calls involving a phone within the gates.

      By the way... For your point A, this is not exactly true. The FCC has exceptions to this no jammer rule for law enforcement and security use. I'm sure the FCC would allow a jammer to be used in and around a prison, especially if care was taken to limit the geographic area it was effective.

      I'm pretty sure triangulation speed isn't an issue. What would be the issue is resolution of a location due to the uncertainty of the bearing measurements from multiple stations. Doing the geometric calculations are not all that difficult or time consuming for an automated process

      Matching a cell call to an inmate would take some investigative work for sure, but just KNOWING there is a phone to be found and a general location where it was when used is a huge thing to know. It's like telling me there IS a needle in that one haystack, and not just in a field of hay. Yea, it doesn't get you the needle, but it sure narrows the field.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      True...here's an idea to work around it: Have some femtocells that use random IDs and perhaps even spoof the IDs of nearby public BTSes along with lower transmit power. If an unauthorized phone connects to one of those, BOOM, caught. This will defeat blacklisting and even whitelisting if used with the spoofing.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many prison landline telephone vendors will offer this service for free, so long as they are the sole provider of telephone service to the inmates in a prison. They do the cell phone filtering as a loss leader that they more than make up for with highly expensive telephone rates for the inmates.

    13. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you, Bubba?

    14. Re:Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe, and Raquel Welch posters.

    15. Re: Maybe prisons should think about jammers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure why not? Let's stretch them beyond their capabilities to the point where they have to concentrate on the stuff that is actually important. You're not looking at someone who is actually a valued member of society, but someone who is on an extended dole from the public when you look at a public "employee"

  4. Autoplay video warning next time? by sootman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    kthxbye

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Autoplay video warning next time? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Autoplay video warning next time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weakling warning!

  5. The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    ... in part ...

    But the real reason is the prison telephone company monopoly. That's a gravy train they do not want stopped.

    AC

    1. Re:The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by NettiWelho · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But the real reason is the prison telephone company monopoly. That's a gravy train they do not want stopped.

      Why do they do it in countries without prison telephone monopolies?

    2. Re:The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful, AC might actually have to think. Dangerous prospect, that is.

    3. Re:The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Why do they do it in countries without prison telephone monopolies?

      1. So they can make calls when they want.
      2. So they can receive calls as well as make them.
      3. So that nobody is listening in.

    4. Re:The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it is because the police want to monitor communications in and out of the prison by criminals. That can't be done simply with cell phones.

      I'm sure you are good with drug dealers ordering hits from prison, but I'm not. Personally, I prefer the penitentiary system, where prisoners are not allowed any luxuries at all.

    5. Re:The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason is that the phones are used for criminal activity: directing criminal empires, ordering bribes and assassinations, plotting jail breaks, the whole megilla.

    6. Re:The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      plotting jail breaks

      That's it. Once Apple hears of this, there'll be a shitstorm.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The reason is that the phones are used for criminal activity: directing criminal empires, ordering bribes and assassinations, plotting jail breaks, the whole megilla.

      So are hands and vocal chords.
      Communication is a human right, like breathing.

    8. Re:The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by PPH · · Score: 1

      Communication is a human right

      It's one you can lose when you get sentenced to prison.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Vocal cords. Unless you can sing three notes at the same time.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Only two notes are needed for a chord, and some people can do that with their vocal cords.

    11. Re:The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to think what the phone looks like after that.

    12. Re:The Real Reason cellphones are banned in prison by arth1 · · Score: 1

      That depends on the country. Some are less barbaric than others.

  6. "Designed to..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, because no one besides prisoners could possibly be interested in a small, simple phone. Here's an idea, stop allowing stuff to be smuggled into prisons. Or do random sweeps for them (its very hard to hide anything with a transistor if you have the right equipment) and punish those caught with them (added prison terms, revocation of privileges, etc). Society shouldn't be punished because the government can't keep people IN PRISON from getting contraband.

    1. Re:"Designed to..." by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's an idea, stop allowing stuff to be smuggled into prisons.

      Most contraband is brought in by the guards. So who is going to watch the watchers?

      Or do random sweeps for them

      So who is going to run the sweep? The guards?

      Your simplistic solutions are all based on the presumption that there are "good people" working in the prisons. Some employees may start off good, but they rarely stay that way.

      Here's a better solution: Stop locking up so many people. Find more appropriate forms of punishment, such as wearing an ankle tracker while cleaning bedpans in nursing homes. Prison is expensive and often just hardens people to a life of crime.

    2. Re:"Designed to..." by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is about the UK, which has a per-capita incarceration rate 10-20% that of the USA. Though it was subject to the same "tough on crime" trends in the 1990s as the US, unfortunately, so the rate is 50-60% higher than it should be.

    3. Re: "Designed to..." by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Trump troll/Koolaid drinker spotted.

    4. Re: "Designed to..." by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It says a lot about your mental health that you truly believe only trump followers are familiar with crime statistics.

    5. Re: "Designed to..." by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Devil is in the details -- US only counts violent felonies as violent crimes, whereas UK counts even simple assault as violent crimes. UK has it right -- tightly control availability of firearms to civilians, so most police don't have to go armed. This limits the ability of UK police to push around and outright murder members of the public.

      (As recently happened in Mesa, AZ, if you've followed that case.)

    6. Re: "Designed to..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The crime rate in the UK is pretty average for a western democracy.

    7. Re:"Designed to..." by PPH · · Score: 1

      Most contraband is brought in by the guards.

      .....

      So who is going to run the sweep? The guards?

      Of course. These phones sell for almost $700 inside the prison. Guard sells you one. The next shift confiscates it.

      Rinse, repeat.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  7. Basic economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Maybe if prison calling didn't cost 15 dollars a fucking minute there would not be incentive to smuggle phones in.

  8. Cheap landline calls for inmates might help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They would not be so popular if the criminal enterprise hadn't shifted to the prison/phone service extorting the inmates when using provided phones. When it makes economic sense to pay $670 for a $30 phone someone is screwing somebody else. When it makes economic sense after 20,000 have been confiscated makes this even clearer.

    For a criminal justice system to receive the acceptance of the ruled it's important to be able to distinguish the scum incarcerated from the scum incarcerating. The line gets very thin a times although saying so is frowned upon. But that scum for you.

  9. IMEI catchers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... how about put them to work for the greater good, instead of god-knows-what they're doing with them now?

  10. So, why didn't TFS mention that... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This was about British prisons?

    I mean, "Justice Minister" was a pretty solid clue they weren't talking American prisons, but we'd like enough info in TFS to know where the problem is appearing, at least....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:So, why didn't TFS mention that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just jam the signal? It is fairly trivial to do so in a localized area. Alternatively, you can triangulate the position of any cell phone that is powered on from the local tower. Thus you can go to the phone and confiscate it. Another option is to use a "Stingray" to listen in on the illegal communications.

  11. Insertion sized by Dan+East · · Score: 2

    I had no idea these existed. They seem insertion-sized, if you get my drift.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Insertion sized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They must have a vibrate mode for silence. Although the prisoner using the device might not be so silent during the call connection phase.

    2. Re:Insertion sized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They seem insertion-sized

      That is absolutely intended. It leads to some weird reviews on Amazon, where it's clear they are discussing how suitable the phone is for insertion.

      https://boingboing.net/2017/02/27/ring-ring-buttphone.html

    3. Re:Insertion sized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder politicians want to ban them. They want a monopoly on talking out of one's ass.

    4. Re:Insertion sized by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

      Make sure to set it on vibrate first.

  12. Legit uses... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3

    I'd honestly love something that's light, unbreakable (no glass touch screen, just plastic display), and fits in any of my pockets easily. I don't need smartphone functionality most of the time.

    As far as prison phone monopolies, I have no idea whether the British (what this article is about) have them or not.

  13. Do It The Easy Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Block all phone signals with active jammers. No fingers up visitor rectums needed.

  14. The link in TFS by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    If you mouse over the link in TFS, you'll see it refer to cnet/uk. Granted, I'd prefer a tag, but it was actually noticeable this time.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  15. Phones Not Just For Calling Loved Ones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's bad for bored prison criminals to have unsupervised access to phones:

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/virtual-kidnapping
    http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/kidnapping-scam-explodes-across-america/

  16. Corollary: by guygo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why aren't they allowed to use jammers?

    1. Re:Corollary: by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Because they're illegal and indiscriminate. If you could jam perfectly to within the prison walls (specifically the prisoner areas), while still allowing radios to work without issue, (oh, and also do this cheaply), then the problem might be solved.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Corollary: by guygo · · Score: 1

      why are they illegal?

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

      Because the prison doesn't hold the license from the regulatory committee for the licensed spectrum space used by the cell phones. See: pirate radio

    4. Re: Corollary: by c6gunner · · Score: 0

      It's illegal to lock someone up against their will, too. Guess they better stop doing that before they get in trouble.

  17. as a runner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a runner, I've been thinking about getting one of the tiny phones. Put it in a shoe wallet.

  18. Faraday Cage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like this is a good reason to build all new prisons as a Faraday cage and retrofit old ones to be one as well. they already spend the money on a cage around the outside to keep people in/out, why not the same for RF as well? Just clad entire buildings with grounded mesh.

    Prison guard radios would still work within the cage, If they needed their radios to keep contact outside the cage a repeater could be setup inside. Same could be done for guard/employee cell phones. Setup pico cells on the inside and whitelist IMEIs

    The other option is cellular jammers, prisons typically have some buffer space around them, and also the building itself would attenuate a lot of the jammer. Multiple jammers setup with 100 ft radiuses would likely cause little interference to the outside world.

    Another cheaper option might be frequency monitors within the prison areas. Guards would be unable to carry powered on personal cell phones. With enough of the monitors you would know roughly where the contraband is once it were used, and then do a good old fashioned prison cell search to find it

    Faraday cages are probably the best option for the long term, frequency monitors or jammers will have to be constantly updated as new cellular bands come into use. Faraday cage will block everything as long as the holes in the mesh are small enough. Typical metal window screen should block most of it except super high frequencies which are going to have line of sight issues anyways. Take a look at the mesh on your typical microwave oven door. such a mesh would block all typical frequencies used today.

    1. Re:Faraday Cage? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Faraday cages are probably the best option for the long term, frequency monitors or jammers will have to be constantly updated as new cellular bands come into use. Faraday cage will block everything as long as the holes in the mesh are small enough. Typical metal window screen should block most of it except super high frequencies which are going to have line of sight issues anyways. Take a look at the mesh on your typical microwave oven door. such a mesh would block all typical frequencies used today.

      Well, see, the problem is that the UK prison system isn't entirely like the US one. Prisoners are allowed to spend far more time outside, for one thing.
      And solicitors are allowed to use their phones and laptops.

  19. Beat the B.O.S.S. by nerdonamotorcycle · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, not "beat the boss". Beat the B.O.S.S., as in Bodily Orifice Security Scanner, a chair-type scanner used in U.K. prisons to find contraband smuggled up peoples' bums. https://boingboing.net/2017/02...

    1. Re:Beat the B.O.S.S. by torkus · · Score: 1

      So that wonderful video descrbing the operation of the BOSS scanner ... also gives the default passcode for the settings menu. Want to take odds that virtually 100% of those chairs out there still have the same passcode as my luggage?

      Change that sensitivity to 0 and go to town smuggling in whatever you want.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  20. Selective Prosecution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    The worst and most evil abuse of process is SELECTIVE PROSECUTION- ie a society where almost everything is illegal, but only the targets of the government are actually arrested and prosecuted. A common third world dictator tactic.

    So, in France, they tried to make VIEWING 'terrorist' videos 'illegal' so any muslim the french wanted to take out could be imprisoned for having viewed material that would never get a 'white' 'christian' or 'jew' arrested. The French Supreme Court just ruled this law a "fundamental abuse of process".

    What the demonic blairite filth that run Britain want is the right to arrest and prosecute anyone in possesion of a small phone- but ONLY people connected to the target group would be so treated. Ie., families of imprisoned muslims.

    Britain is now the land of selective prosecution. White middle-class males are target for 'rape' trials, for example, when they have affairs at university. One such trial collapsed (after two years) when it was revealed the the CROWN had hidden evidnece that PROVED the women's claim of rape was totally false. Next year they'll pass new laws making the hiding of such evidence LEGAL (the woman's texts where she happily admited sex was consensual, and that she had a desire for 'violent' sex were purposely described as 'PRIVATE' and thus inappropriate to give to the defense).

    The BBC runs output day and night stating that every white male is a rapist, and that every british child an obsese horror. If Orwell were alive today, he'd immediately put a gun to his head. In a land where inflation is out of control and wages collapsing, the BBC states that 'cheap' supermarket food is a SIN (British food prices are actually some of the highest in the world). No-one that doesn't live in the UK could comprehend just how insane things have become there since Blair's time.

       

    1. Re:Selective Prosecution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^One stop past East Ham on the District line

  21. Wrap the prison in faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just throw a metal net over the prison.

  22. Just when you think UK justice can't get weirder.. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You could prevent prisoners from using cellphones in the slammer by installing in-house jammers. Or you could ban small phones in the entire country and hope that it would be easier to keep this specific technology out of an island with thousands of miles of coastline, numerous airports and a domestic capability to make devices like this in a hundred different places.

    So guess which option the periwigged idiots take?

  23. Is it so hard to detect ? by romiz · · Score: 1

    Mobile phones by design broadcast their position all the time, with quite powerful signal and on a very specific band. A good directional antenna and a portable spectrum analyzer should be enough to pinpoint their location as long as they're on.

  24. Huh? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    How the hell hard could it be to either a) jam the shit out of them, or (better) b) use all that nifty Stingray hardware to put up a "cell tower" in the center of each prison unit, dominating the signal, and routing all the calls comfortably through police servers?

    This doesn't seem like a rocket-science problem.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Huh? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      jam the shit out of them

      I think that step is done by the inmates smuggling the phones inside the prison.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is about the UK. A number of UK prisons are in cities, or close by, so you'd be interfering with the phone signals of people walking around the city.

  25. That would not be useful. by tlambert · · Score: 2

    Mobile phones by design broadcast their position all the time, with quite powerful signal and on a very specific band.

    That would not be useful.

    Who wants to monitor 100's of cell phones, all broadcasting "Help! I'm up someone's ass! Help! Help me!"?

  26. Re:Blair's Britain is a literal hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You ... left out the part about bump stocks.

  27. Um, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new butt phone?

  28. Re:Just when you think UK justice can't get weirde by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or you could ban small phones in the entire country

    Make them as big as an old Motorola brick phone and people will still find a way to fit one in their anus.

  29. Lipstick? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    The phones, which can be as small as lipsticks [...]

    I'm sorry but I went to that page to see the phones in question and I have to say, it would have to be big-ass lipsticks.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Lipstick? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      The phones, which can be as small as lipsticks [...]

      I'm sorry but I went to that page to see the phones in question and I have to say, it would have to be big-ass lipsticks.

      If you're going to keister it into a prison, it might as well be a big ass-lipstick.

      https://xkcd.com/37/

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  30. Better solutions out there by raynet · · Score: 1

    Why not just setup a mini cell tower to prisons that will pickup all calls and either record all calls for further evidence or just drop them. Wouldn't matter how many phones they can smuggle in.

    --
    - Raynet --> .
    1. Re:Better solutions out there by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Better than that, you can get a micro cell set up that would cover the property but would block all calls from unregistered cells (thus allowing staff on the 'right' side of the bars to have cell phones) while recording their position so you can confiscate the contraband.

      It won't happen, though. Lots of stuff gets into prison, and until you eliminate the guards and any contact with visitors that isn't through a polycarbonate wall, you're not really going to stop it.

  31. But, they are Cell Phones by RockyMountain · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not allowed in prisons?
    Then why call them cell phones?

    1. Re:But, they are Cell Phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh I see what you did there...funny guy.

    2. Re:But, they are Cell Phones by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Not allowed in prisons?
      Then why call them cell phones?

      At work, end of the day; a quick look at /. to feed my jones. I find this; I return home knowing all is well in the world.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  32. Re:Just when you think UK justice can't get weirde by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how would you avoid the jamming signal jamming the phones of people walking down the street near the prison?

  33. Drugs Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Banning mini mobiles is going to work great, they banned the drugs and the prisons are full of drugs.

  34. Whats wrong with a mobile jammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats wrong with a mobile jammer?
    Something tied to a precise detector so that if it came from within the perimeter fence, its jammed immediately.
    May be even have a cell tower nearby to collect all calls, and disconnect any unregistered ones whilst recording the numbers dialing in and out.

  35. Re:Just when you think UK justice can't get weirde by PPH · · Score: 1

    You put up a sign that says "Sorry. This is a no phone zone."

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  36. Knives kill people by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    Let's ban the sale of all knives!

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  37. Apparently this is the UK by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Would have been nice of summary to tell us that, since if you don't know who the hell "David Lidington" is off the top of your head, it could have been Canada, Australia, or almost any place (but not the USA, since we have an Attorney General instead of a Justice Minister).

  38. Ban the phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ban the phones cos they're real dangerous, but sell as many guns as you like, because the more people who are armed with guns the safer everyone is.

  39. Re:Just when you think UK justice can't get weirde by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I at first assumed this was California... then saw "UK". XD

  40. Lack of Metal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm...how do electronics work without metal? Are they using tubes of salt water as conductors instead?

    1. Re:Lack of Metal by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Umm...how do electronics work without metal? Are they using tubes of salt water as conductors instead?

      They don't have ENOUGH metal - especially big enough pieces of thick, long, highly-conductive metal, to significantly affect the low, penetrating, radio signals used by the "metal detectors".

      A large coin might possibly set one of these detectors off. A piece of electronics the same size or smaller, with plastic case, fiberglass printed circuit board, and fine wires shorter than the circumference of that coin (on the board or even tinier from point to point within the chips) is a much harder to "see" target. If the battery isn't enough to set such a gadget off, the whole phone would be only slightly more "visible".

      The metal detector has to be INsensitive enough that it doesn't go off from dental fillings - or it would be going off all the time, and thus be ignored as useless. Make a phone that's a "smaller" target than a mouth full of metal and you can expect it to be missed, too.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  41. Banning? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Since when has the fact that something is banned stopped criminals from acquiring them?
    Mobile phones are already banned in jail, and yet they still smuggle them in...
    Clearly the guys in jail never cared that much about the law or they wouldn't be in jail...

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  42. Banning Microphones by Cesare+Ferrari · · Score: 1

    Given the level of incompetence exhibited by this government, i'd expect the bill to end up banning sales of all microphones.

  43. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally. I've been looking for a phone that fits in my pocket, currently I have a ten year old Sony Ericsson flip phone that I've already had to repair once, and all they sell in regular stores are those TV-sized iPhones and Galaxy phones that only fits in your pocket if you wear cargo pants.

    My current phone is a SE F100i and fits in my pocket perfectly, so I'm looking for something to bigger than that.

  44. How about eliminating cell phone reception? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Let them have their cell phones....but without service not much happens. Yes, I know that will impact visitors, lawyers, and personnel as well, but they can opt for hardwired alternatives.

  45. How about banning guns? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    What would be far more effective is banning guns. Makes committing crimes significantly harder and drastically reduces prison population.

    1. Re:How about banning guns? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      What would be far more effective is banning guns. Makes committing crimes significantly harder and drastically reduces prison population.

      I'd like to see where you are getting your information. Banning guns tends to drop the number of gun related deaths but does not affect actual number of homicides. Crime rates, if anything, tend to go up. After all, the criminal now knows that the other guy probably doesn't have a gun. The last big study on gun control showed a slight reduction in successful suicides, but that's about it.

    2. Re:How about banning guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would be far more effective is banning guns. Makes committing crimes significantly harder and drastically reduces prison population.

      This is an article about Great Briton. They've already done that. Didn't help.

  46. Re: Blair's Britain is a literal hell by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Na it's all Bitcoin now.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  47. Re:Blair's Britain is a literal hell by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    objects that can ONLY be used for self defense... sprays...extensible batons

    You don't think I could use a CS spray and a police asp baton to attack you with?

    Whatever the rights and wrongs of banning guns, knives etc, it is pretty meaningless to call something a 'purely defensive' weapon.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  48. They have an important legitimate use by Budenny · · Score: 1
    Older people fall over, all the time, and its a serious health problem. You can try and persuade them to have a push button alarm, but many will resist. You have zero chance of persuading them to carry a smartphone or even a normal sized feature phone all the time. You are trying, remember, to have them protected in the bathroom, in the garden, going to the door to pick up the post, out for a walk.

    One of these which measures about 2 or 3 inches long and one inch wide is perfect. Attach a lanyard, and you can actually persuade someone to carry it all the time. Its somehow more acceptable than an alarm push button because it feels more in control and more personal.

    There are two people, a bit frail after medical treatment, that we are thinking of getting one of them for. Banning the sale is not the right or fair answer - do something about mobile in prisons by all means, but it will be a great pity if the only people who can get them is the ones who want them for illegitimate purposes.

  49. A better idea by DevNull127 · · Score: 1

    There has to be a technical fix. How about installing those devices that block cellphones from working? Or better still, couldn't they just tap the phone calls? You could get a ton of useful information on what criminals are planning outside?

    Lawmakers are sometimes slow to understand exactly how new technology is impacting the world. But this argument boils down to "You can't have a mini phone, because then some prisoners might someday get them too."

  50. Thwart them. by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Why not employ cell signal killing measures at prisons? Anti-RF cells and common areas? Jammers in the yards?

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.