Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)
-   -   Jamming Cellphones in prison (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/149462-jamming-cellphones-prison.html)

Cynthetiq 07-14-2009 01:31 PM
Jamming Cellphones in prison
 
Quote:
Jamming Prison Phones Will Backfire, Groups Warn Congress | Epicenter | Wired.com
Epicenter The Business of Tech
Jamming Prison Phones Will Backfire, Groups Warn Congress

  • By Ryan Singel July 14, 2009 | 3:17 pm | Categories: Miscellaneous

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/ep..._f-115x300.jpgLetting the nation’s prisons jam wireless signals to stop inmates from using contraband mobile phones sets a dangerous precedent and is the wrong solution to a vexing problem, public interests groups told a Senate committee Tuesday, just a day before a hearing to consider a jamming bill.

Mobile phones in prisons became a national issue after a convicted murderer on death row used a smuggled mobile phone to call Texas state Sen. John Whitmire to complain about his treatment. The inmate mentioned that he knew the name, addresses and ages of his kids, scaring the senator, who heads a criminal justice committee. Gang members have also used mobile phones to keep running rackets from inside prison walls and to order the killing of witnesses, leading to the current drive to install mobile phone jamming equipment inside prisons and jails.

Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce committee, has introduced a bill that would, for the first time ever, legalize cellphone jammers use in prisons.

One company CellAntenna hopes to capitalize on the rogue dialing. It has developed a jammer it claims will block only cellphones within a prison and not interfere with public safety equipment and the prisons’ own wireless communication signals.

But public interest groups, including Public Knowledge, the New America Foundation, and the Main Street Project, told the committee in a letter that cited a Wired magazine story that blocking technology is unproven and that blocking is not possible without causing collateral damage.

“Allowing the legal manufacture, importation and sale of jamming equipment will create a loophole that history shows the FCC will find impossible to close,” the groups wrote.

“Jamming prison cellphones would jeopardize public safety because there is no way to jam only phones used by prisoners,” said Harold Feld, legal director for Public Knowledge. “All wireless communications could be shut down within a prison.”

Prisons have used cellphone trackers and mobile phone sniffing dogs to try to find rogue mobile phones, but the devices are in high demand and supply is hard to clamp down on since a guard can makes thousands sneaking in a single cellphone.

Moreover, the large majority of calls and texts are from prisoners to their families — a way to get around the usurious rates that telecoms charge prisoners and their families to stay in touch via payphones.

And since prisoners that keep in touch with their family are less likely to break the law again when they get out, there’s a good public policy reason to find a better solution to the problem — such as cheap phone rates for inmates.

Or as Vince Beiser put it in his Wired magazine story about the problem:
Whatever their crimes, most convicts have parents, children, and others they’re desperate to stay in touch with. Letters are slow, and personal visits often involve expensive, time-sucking travel. Some prisons have public phones for making collect calls, but access is limited, conversations are often monitored, and phone companies often charge much higher rates than on the outside.

A Virginia woman whose husband is six years into a 40-year sentence says she won’t let him use a cellphone because she doesn’t want him to get in any more trouble. As a result, “my phone bill last December was $800,” she says. “That was my whole Christmas bonus.” Between calls she drives seven hours each way, twice a month, to see him in person.

“Cellphones are the best thing since conjugal visits,” says a California con I’ll call Jack. “And being a lifer, I don’t get those.” Jack doesn’t want his real name printed because I spoke to him—several times—on a contraband handset he had procured in the pen, where he’s doing time for second-degree murder. “I call my mom three or four times a week,” he says. “And I text my daughter every night.”
Feld also noted that the blanket prohibition has kept cell phone jammers out of the mainstream, and argued that a single exception could lead to unforeseen circumstances.

“Once such a jamming device is built, it will inevitably become available on a wider basis. Who knows what chaos that will cause?” Feld said.

Sen. Hutchinson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The bill is called the Safe Prisons Communication Act of 2009 and the Senate Commerce committee will hold a hearing on the cell jamming bill Wednesday at 10 a.m. Eastern time.

Sen. Whitmire will be among the witnesses.
I'm not happy that communication with the outside is completely legal. Now for the most part, we have differences in various types of criminals and they have various types of "benefits". I think that the most hardened criminals in maximum security should be subject to such things. John Gotti's empire was broken because could no longer run it from inside the prison. Yes, he was able to do somethings, but for the most part he was unable to. This brings me to "terrorists" if they were to be included in the general population and could still communicate with the outside, well those coded messages in the videos (I'm not sure I believe they are truly coded) will be able to get out just as much.

I think that they can and should do tests to see just what collateral damage is done to other wireless signals and services.

What do you think about such things?

Jinn 07-14-2009 01:55 PM
Once again the age of our legislators is showing. Just about every 'technology' issue that comes before Congress is decided by technologically illiterate old white men. I'm sorry to say, but they're way behind the curve.

It sounds like a great idea, until you consider that "jamming" a signal, even in the military sense, is nearly impossible. From a general policy standpoint, I think preventing cell phone use by inmates is a good thing. But from a technological standpoint, I think that it is just not feasible. Perhaps that money should be spent on getting less crooked guards?

The real WTF is "Prisons have used cellphone trackers and mobile phone sniffing dogs to try to find rogue mobile phones".. phone sniffing DOGS? What?!

ratbastid 07-14-2009 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinn (Post 2669333)
The real WTF is "Prisons have used cellphone trackers and mobile phone sniffing dogs to try to find rogue mobile phones".. phone sniffing DOGS? What?!
Yup. Trained to smell electronic components. Which are, obviously, not as smelly as, say, drugs, and so the dogs are much less reliable. But better than nothing.

Psycho Dad 07-14-2009 02:12 PM
WTF? We can jam Bunny the Fister's cell phone in the state pen, but the asshole that uses his in the theater goes unchecked?

Walt 07-14-2009 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinn (Post 2669333)
The real WTF is "Prisons have used cellphone trackers and mobile phone sniffing dogs to try to find rogue mobile phones".. phone sniffing DOGS? What?!
Yeah....I'm calling bullshit on that.

ratbastid 07-14-2009 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Dad (Post 2669335)
WTF? We can jam Bunny the Fister's cell phone in the state pen, but the asshole that uses his in the theater goes unchecked?
Hence: slippery slope.

This is a thorny problem. It's a massive setting of precedent to allow any jamming of electronic signal in the US at all. How long until theaters and then private homes jam certain frequencies?

On the other hand, prison's a pretty good place for a criminal boss to work from--three squares, you're relatively safe, you don't have to do anything to get along, and you can direct traffic outside via text messages.

On the other other hand, I wish it was easier for most inmates to be in contact with their families. I want that guy texting his daughter every night to be able to do that. It'll be better for him, and it'll be WAY better for his daughter.

I don't have a good answer for this.

Willravel 07-14-2009 02:19 PM
How much wireless technology, other than CB, which operates in a different frequency to cell phones, do prisons use? Do they all have wifi or something?

ratbastid 07-14-2009 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak (Post 2669337)
Yeah....I'm calling bullshit on that.
No, really!

Walt 07-14-2009 02:38 PM
I'm still skeptical. I wanted to see the dog respond on the protocol box, the handler open the box and reveal to the camera nothing but a phone. How do we know that there was a phone in the box and not a one-pound bag of weed? Because the guys running the deterrence program told us so.

A dog can be trained to detect just about anything...but cell phones? I cant imagine what unique odor they would give off. Plastics are common in prisons, as are electrical components (electronic key pads, computer systems, locks, CCTV). Maybe the lithium/nickel batteries...but most hacks carry Surefire flashlights (especially during a cell search) that use 123v lithium batteries.

I'm more inclined to believe that the cell phones that are being found were hidden alongside the prisoners drug stash. The dog responds on the drugs and cell phone is discovered along with it. The dog handler tells the prisoner that the dog was actually detecting the cell phone. That misinformation is then spread throughout the inmate population, thus deterring the inmates from trying to get away with an illegal phone.

Willravel 07-14-2009 02:41 PM
If they can smell cancer, they can smell pretty much anything.

QuasiMondo 07-14-2009 02:44 PM
All cell phone towers operate on three uni-directional sectors that that are roughly separated at 120*. These prisons could've just gone to the cell phone companies and ask them to swich off or reduce the footprint of the sectors of any site that points at the prison. It's not 100% effective, as a cell could possibly reach the remaining sectors pointing away from a prison (but have poor call quality), but it's much less disruptive than jamming.

Certain technologies, such as CDMA are also more resistant to jamming because they operate simultaneously on multiple frequences rather than just one frequency. The amount of power needed to jam a CDMA signal would be disruptive a more than just cell phones.

Xerxys 07-14-2009 02:49 PM
Are you fucking kidding me?? Prisoners have cell phones? I say kill them all. Forget spending money on expensive technology to jam frequencies. Yeah, you know that guy who stole a shitload of money and we should sing "kumbaya" for him because he is "doing his time" ... kill him too.

What the fuck is wrong with the people against this? Staying in touch with their families? What?! Yeah, career criminals also enjoy long walks on the beach, candle light dinners and reading romantic novels.

How is a prison safe if the inmate has a cell phone?

Walt 07-14-2009 02:51 PM
Im with you Will. But from what I understand, cancer and the bodies reaction substantially alters ones chemical composition - thats what dogs hit on. Dogs aren't trained to detect marijuana and heroin per se, they are trained to detect the unique chemical compounds in THC and opiates.

Nerds unite and help me out. Does anyone know what would make a cell phone chemically unique in an environment full of plastics, hand held radios and electronics components?

/sorry for the thread jack

Baraka_Guru 07-14-2009 02:51 PM
Yeah, dogs can categorize items by the combination of odors an item emits. Cell phones have a unique scent compared to televisions or radios. Each type of electronic requires a different combination of materials--at different proportions--for them to work. Dogs can be trained to sort that kind of thing out.

I think prisons should control the use of cell phones, as its a matter of public safety.

Halx 07-14-2009 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuasiMondo (Post 2669356)
All cell phone towers operate on three uni-directional sectors that that are roughly separated at 120*. These prisons could've just gone to the cell phone companies and ask them to swich off or reduce the footprint of the sectors of any site that points at the prison. It's not 100% effective, as a cell could possibly reach the remaining sectors pointing away from a prison (but have poor call quality), but it's much less disruptive than jamming.

Certain technologies, such as CDMA are also more resistant to jamming because they operate simultaneously on multiple frequences rather than just one frequency. The amount of power needed to jam a CDMA signal would be disruptive a more than just cell phones.
Listen to this guy.

Manic_Skafe 07-14-2009 03:10 PM
I know nothing of the technology required to jam a cell signal but I can't imagine that the cost of implementation and maintenance would be cheaper than stepping up security to crack down on smuggled phones and expanding the preexisting means of communication.

I also don't think it reasonable to expect inmates not to have any contact with the outside world beyond the allowed means of communication - where there's a will there's a way. And also, am I the only one who sees this becoming a Movie of The Week involving a prison riot, trapped guards and blocked cell signals?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxys (Post 2669359)
Are you fucking kidding me?? Prisoners have cell phones? I say kill them all. Forget spending money on expensive technology to jam frequencies. Yeah, you know that guy who stole a shitload of money and we should sing "kumbaya" for him because he is "doing his time" ... kill him too.

What the fuck is wrong with the people against this? Staying in touch with their families? What?! Yeah, career criminals also enjoy long walks on the beach, candle light dinners and reading romantic novels.

How is a prison safe if the inmate has a cell phone?
Is there no filter at all between what pops into your head and what you post here?

Xerxys 07-14-2009 03:24 PM
^^ No not really.

Charlatan 07-14-2009 04:06 PM
This really comes down to cost. The costs involved in policing the situation (i.e. making sure that prisoners don't have mobile phones) versus simply making the mobile phones inoperable are incomparable. It's much cheaper to just switch off the signal.

You aren't going to get the funding for the former.

They need to develop a system where they can effectively turn off the coverage for a prison. It will have to do with the placement of cellular towers rather than jamming.

QuasiMondo 07-14-2009 04:11 PM
Quote:
I know nothing of the technology required to jam a cell signal but I can't imagine that the cost of implementation and maintenance would be cheaper than stepping up security to crack down on smuggled phones and expanding the preexisting means of communication.
implementation is cheap. Just plug it in and turn it on. That's why prisons want them. Hammers are "dumb" devices. They take a signal and amplify it so that it's strong enough to overpower the signal you want to block.

The problem is that cell phone technologies don't rely on a single transmit and recieve frequency. You'd have to either buy multiple jammers for each frequency or one jammer powerful enough to block out a block of frequencies. The problem with the former is the unintended harmonics that are generated will cause inteference. The latter will knock damn near everything off the air. And something that powerful you don't want to be in the vicinity of.

Seaver 07-14-2009 05:29 PM
I don't understand the arguments. The whole "it's hard to jam" does not stand up. It's hard to go through every letter every time too make sure nothing gets through, but it still does and always will. It does, however, make it more difficult and will stop the majority of communication.

Jam the hell out of cell phones as it combats the communication of gang leaders who still control operations on the streets.

ASU2003 07-14-2009 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuasiMondo (Post 2669414)
The problem is that cell phone technologies don't rely on a single transmit and recieve frequency. You'd have to either buy multiple jammers for each frequency or one jammer powerful enough to block out a block of frequencies. The problem with the former is the unintended harmonics that are generated will cause inteference. The latter will knock damn near everything off the air. And something that powerful you don't want to be in the vicinity of.
RF jammer & bomb jammer - Netline

Portable cell phone jammer cellular phones jamming for blocking mobile phones

I'm all for them at SuperMax prisons.

But I think that phone calls and real world information/news should be used as a reward for good behavior in a typical prison with non-violent criminals.

flat5 07-14-2009 05:35 PM
AFAIK cell phones operate on about 3 defined freq. bands.
Why can't the prison monitor for local activity on those bands?
On a cell block basis. Equipment informs staff and blocks that freq. band with a low power signal
that is wideband or sweeps the band confusing the trunking.
Just a thought.

Manic_Skafe 07-14-2009 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxys (Post 2669382)
^^ No not really.
Well it's one thing to talk out of your ass and another feat entirely to fit a whole keyboard up there - lends a whole new meaning to your location details.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuasiMondo (Post 2669414)
implementation is cheap. Just plug it in and turn it on. That's why prisons want them. Hammers are "dumb" devices. They take a signal and amplify it so that it's strong enough to overpower the signal you want to block.
Well I'm still not convinced that wide implementation of such a device would be more beneficial than increased policing. We're only talking cell phones here but they're only part of the problem. As I said earlier, where there's a will there's a way and I'm sure that even with signal killing devices in place, if they can smuggle in weapons, drugs, money and cell phones - they'll find a way to get their messages out.

Xerxys 07-14-2009 09:19 PM
^^ Sure, let's throw our hands up and not do anything then. I mean, they'll send messages out anyway, lets not even bother imprisoning them.

I still have no idea why there are folk against jamming the signal. CDMA does work on multiple frequencies but it also has to be a designated frequency. Let the inmates go back to codewords and notes. Besides the digital nature of these frequency transmissions will ensure all non-FM/HFM frequencies don't get through.

EDIT: I meant to say CDMA works on multiple channels of the same frequency.

Jozrael 07-14-2009 09:40 PM
Two words: collateral damage.

QuasiMondo 07-14-2009 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver (Post 2669453)
I don't understand the arguments. The whole "it's hard to jam" does not stand up. It's hard to go through every letter every time too make sure nothing gets through, but it still does and always will. It does, however, make it more difficult and will stop the majority of communication.

Jam the hell out of cell phones as it combats the communication of gang leaders who still control operations on the streets.
Let me clarify. It's not too difficult to jam a GSM network, if you find out the paging signal, you can jam that and prevent a cell from seeing the site to make a call.

CDMA is a different animal. It's developmed from frequency hopping technology pioneered in WW2 that was designed to circumvent enemy jamming techniques. CDMA is difficult to jam because those six CDMA bands that the FCC licenses out is between 25 and 60 MHz wide and that signal uses all of that single band to transmit. To jam a CDMA signal, you'd have to jam the entire band that it operates on.

With that said, I have to question the effectiveness of any broadband jammer (especially the portable unit ASU2003 showed me) to effectively interfere with a CDMA signal (such effectiveness at preventing an IED from being triggered has already been called into question by some in the defense field). As a jammer's bandwidth increases, it's effective power decreases without significant amplification. If a signal is too powerful, rest assured it's mucking up other forms of wireless communication through the introduction of excessive noise.

I'lll give a better explaination tomorrow, because I'm dead tired.

Nisses 07-15-2009 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic_Skafe (Post 2669513)
Well it's one thing to talk out of your ass and another feat entirely to fit a whole keyboard up there - lends a whole new meaning to your location details.

Such civility.


I have to admit that the first thought that popped in my head was pretty much the same as Xerxys'.

However, I do have a filter in my head :)

dksuddeth 07-15-2009 08:24 AM
says a whole lot about prison security when a death row inmate can get hold of a cell phone. i feel safer already.

Baraka_Guru 07-15-2009 08:39 AM
Well, when you have a system that incarcerates 1 out of every 100 citizens, it does get a bit challenging to manage down to the last detail, doesn't it?

dksuddeth 07-15-2009 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2669766)
Well, when you have a system that incarcerates 1 out of every 100 citizens, it does get a bit challenging to manage down to the last detail, doesn't it?
you're preaching to the choir about the number of people we put in prison, but we are also talking about death row inmates. separate wing of prison where prisoners only get an hour a day in the yard for exercise.....by themselves. what security?

MSD 07-15-2009 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuasiMondo (Post 2669414)
The problem is that cell phone technologies don't rely on a single transmit and recieve frequency. You'd have to either buy multiple jammers for each frequency or one jammer powerful enough to block out a block of frequencies. The problem with the former is the unintended harmonics that are generated will cause inteference. The latter will knock damn near everything off the air. And something that powerful you don't want to be in the vicinity of.
Good thing it's non-ionizing radiation, which means all you have to do is move if you start feeling warm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuasiMondo (Post 2669576)
CDMA is a different animal. It's developmed from frequency hopping technology pioneered in WW2 that was designed to circumvent enemy jamming techniques. CDMA is difficult to jam because those six CDMA bands that the FCC licenses out is between 25 and 60 MHz wide and that signal uses all of that single band to transmit. To jam a CDMA signal, you'd have to jam the entire band that it operates on.
I know it's not as simple to deal with a frequency hopping system, but for under $10 I can build you a transmitter the size of a deck of cards that operates off 3 AA batteries and will silence the FM Radio spectrum within a radius of about 20-30 feet. If cell phones in prison are such a serious problem, they can invest a few hundred thousand dollars in a large number of short-range jamming units and put them in. Or, they can get a few EMF meters calibrated to GSM and CDMA bands and either walk around with them or install them in fixed positions.

Baraka_Guru 07-15-2009 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
you're preaching to the choir about the number of people we put in prison, but we are also talking about death row inmates. separate wing of prison where prisoners only get an hour a day in the yard for exercise.....by themselves. what security?
What you're asking for is more resources to make the system more secure. What I'm saying is that you have a huge penal system, and these things take time and money to fix. It's not that they don't want to.

biznatch 07-15-2009 10:36 AM
How much would it cost to make the whole damn building a giant Faraday cage? I don't know, and it's probably too expensive, but I don't think jammers would do the job well.
I think the problem is the same one that's existed for years: inmates can still have contraband in their cells, and are quite creative with the way the smuggle/hide it. The corrupt COs don't help either, since they're the reason people can get stuff in and out of the system.

Glory's Sun 07-15-2009 10:57 AM
eh.. put me in the camp that thinks we should focus on real rehabilitation rather than "break them down as much as possible". Sure, it's a prison. There are bad people there. I get it.. but really.. how does a bad person full of evil thoughts and hate turn those thoughts around? By being hated on and screwed for however long they are in there? Doesn't make sense to me.

Xerxys. Kill them all? really?? Please.. PLEASE call me first if you ever get arrested and put in jail.

Xerxys 07-15-2009 11:49 AM
^^ Dude you don't understand, it's not the inmates that "keep in touch with their families" that have cell phones. Think about the value of a cell phone and tell me if it's going to be used to keep in touch with their families. A cell phone has to be up there with money and availability of procuring goods in time for demands.

An inmate with a cell phone has to be just as dangerous as one on the loose.

Glory's Sun 07-15-2009 11:57 AM
right..but if we focused on actually rehabilitating people instead of treating them worse than dogs, we wouldn't have issues such as these now would we?

QuasiMondo 07-15-2009 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSD (Post 2669790)
Good thing it's non-ionizing radiation, which means all you have to do is move if you start feeling warm.

I know it's not as simple to deal with a frequency hopping system, but for under $10 I can build you a transmitter the size of a deck of cards that operates off 3 AA batteries and will silence the FM Radio spectrum within a radius of about 20-30 feet. If cell phones in prison are such a serious problem, they can invest a few hundred thousand dollars in a large number of short-range jamming units and put them in. Or, they can get a few EMF meters calibrated to GSM and CDMA bands and either walk around with them or install them in fixed positions.
a single frequency transmitter is not enough to effectively jam a cell phone signal.

Problem 1: CDMA is too resistant to jamming. I can't explain this enough. CDMA broadcasts on such a wide band that any rf detector trying to pick up a CDMA signal will not distinguish it from background noise. It would look like an elevated noise floor. Since a broadband jammer puts out white noise, a CDMA phone and tower would have no problem filtering through it. Btw, good luck trying to power a 1.9 - 2.1 ghz jammer with a 4.5v power source.

Problem 2: while there are 3 gsm bands licensed by the FCC, each band holds approx 250 channels. Provided you do find what frequency the paging channel is operating on, once the carrier discovers that it's being actively jammed, they'll change the frequency of that paging channel. It'll be an endless cat and mouse game until you're slapped with an injunction to stop intefering with their operations. And good luck trying to power an 850 or 1900 MHz signal with only 4.5 volts of power.

Cynthetiq 07-15-2009 12:45 PM
Oddly enough in my office right now I get no cell signal because I'm in a cast iron building in the dead center. sucks up my battery like you wouldn't believe!

Agreed, you'll need some hefty wattage to stamp out the other signals.

dksuddeth 07-15-2009 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guccilvr (Post 2669860)
right..but if we focused on actually rehabilitating people instead of treating them worse than dogs, we wouldn't have issues such as these now would we?
how does one rehabilitate charles manson? or anyone like him? any street gang leader?

you don't. they are not interested in rehabilitation.

stevie667 07-15-2009 12:52 PM
TBH, the military possess electronic warfare technology that can inhibit mobile phone signals (i.e. to stop bomb detonation), it's not going to be hard to get something along the same lines for prisons. I have no doubt that a government department will have plenty of co-operation from phone companies in how to block their signals.

Failing that, you can brute force deny the operation with transmitters. If your only trying to deny access to a small area, it's not overly hard.

To everyone saying they should beef up security, don't you think they've already tried that? I can understand the toleration of illicit phones to non-dangerous or rehabilitating prisoners, but the kind of people that this article is aimed about are end of the line convicts. An answer for non-risk prisoners might be to supply mobile phones with a pre-programmed set of numbers that they receive for good behaviour, which can be externally monitored. I also suspect that new high tech prisons will employ some sort of faraday cage design to prevent this in the future.

Glory's Sun 07-15-2009 12:53 PM
ahh I agree dk. I didn't mean to imply that everyone was capable of rehabilitation, but when our prisons are full of innocents and petty criminals who become hardened in prison because they are treated like shit, it makes sense to me to take that group and let them actually live a little bit and feel like they are worth something... who knows..it could even help the recidivism rates..

dksuddeth 07-15-2009 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guccilvr (Post 2669914)
ahh I agree dk. I didn't mean to imply that everyone was capable of rehabilitation, but when our prisons are full of innocents and petty criminals who become hardened in prison because they are treated like shit, it makes sense to me to take that group and let them actually live a little bit and feel like they are worth something... who knows..it could even help the recidivism rates..
i can understand wanting to do that, but we would be better served to stop sending people to prison for victimless crimes, like marijuana possession.

Glory's Sun 07-15-2009 01:04 PM
well I certainly won't argue with you on that one ;)

QuasiMondo 07-15-2009 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie667 (Post 2669913)
TBH, the military possess electronic warfare technology that can inhibit mobile phone signals (i.e. to stop bomb detonation), it's not going to be hard to get something along the same lines for prisons. I have no doubt that a government department will have plenty of co-operation from phone companies in how to block their signals.

Failing that, you can brute force deny the operation with transmitters. If your only trying to deny access to a small area, it's not overly hard.

To everyone saying they should beef up security, don't you think they've already tried that? I can understand the toleration of illicit phones to non-dangerous or rehabilitating prisoners, but the kind of people that this article is aimed about are end of the line convicts. An answer for non-risk prisoners might be to supply mobile phones with a pre-programmed set of numbers that they receive for good behaviour, which can be externally monitored. I also suspect that new high tech prisons will employ some sort of faraday cage design to prevent this in the future.
IED jammers have a bad side-effect of disrupting allied communications across the board when in use. This is because these jammers are nothing more than "dirty" transmitters that are blasting out unfiltered RF loaded with harmonics that disrupt frequencies well outside of their intended range. This renders them useless on the battlefield. They would have the same effect on a prison's radio network and there'd be hell to pay if a guard is put in unnecessary danger because these jammers prevented him from calling for assistance.

ASU2003 07-15-2009 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuasiMondo (Post 2669958)
IED jammers have a bad side-effect of disrupting allied communications across the board when in use. This is because these jammers are nothing more than "dirty" transmitters that are blasting out unfiltered RF loaded with harmonics that disrupt frequencies well outside of their intended range. This renders them useless on the battlefield. They would have the same effect on a prison's radio network and there'd be hell to pay if a guard is put in unnecessary danger because these jammers prevented him from calling for assistance.
But isn't it the milliamp output of these jammers that does the job. I thought that was the point, just flood the entire spectrum with white noise and your cell phone won't work.

It's kind of like the people who took apart a microwave to use the 2.4Ghz (1000W) to make a 5mW wifi network stop working. Now, while that isn't the safest thing, it does make it stop working.

The guard should just use their hand held radios that don't work on the wifi band.

QuasiMondo 07-15-2009 05:05 PM
I was going to put up this entire technical thing, but this article I found puts it down much better than I can:

Wetmachine: Harold Feld's Tales of the Sausage Factory

Quote:
CellAntenna Still Plugging Away on Cell Phone Jamming — And Why They Must Not Succeed.

I've been following the adventures of CellAntenna, the company that wants to sell cellphone jamming devices in the U.S., for awhile now. As lots of folks would love to jam cell phones — from hotels that hate losing the revenue from charging for use of their phones to theater venues that want customers to enjoy the show to schools trying to tamp down on texting in class — you would think there would be lots of these jammers on the market. The problem, of course, is that Section 333 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 333) makes cell phone jamming illegal. Just in case anyone missed this rather straightforward statutory prohibition, the FCC officially clarified that Section 333 means “no cell phone jammers” in 2005.

Enter CellAnntenna, determined to sell cell phone jammers legally. If you are going to develop a legal on something illegal, you either need something real clever (like magic cellphone blocking nanopaint), or a strategy for changing the law coupled with the sort of stubbornness that does not mind slamming into a brick wall 99 times because you might dent it on the hundreth time. CellAntenna has apparently followed this later strategy — and may be making some headway.

CellAntenna initially tried to get courts to declare Section 333 unconstitutional. So far as I can tell, that's going nowhere. Next, and far more successfully, CellAntenna has recruited prisons to push the idea that only cellphone jammers can resolve the problem that prison security sucks rocks. This has prompted a bill to create a “prison waiver” exception to Section 333 (House version here) and a raft of credulous stories like this one that prefer to ask “isn't it awful that we can't jam cell phones” rather than ask “what the $#@! do you mean we can't secure our 'maximum security' prisons?”

I explore the issues, and why I think creating an exception to Sec. 333 would be a big mistake, below . . . .

If the experience with wireless microphones proliferating all over the place teaches us anything, it's that once a technology gets sold at Radio Shack (or equivalent) it will get used by everyone. Which, I uncharitably suspect, is part of CellAntenna's business plan. Prisons, after all, are a fairly small market. But if they can get cell phone jammers approved for a legal use, odds are good they will either keep pushing to expand the eligible pool or quietly allow a “gray market” to proliferate.

Even assuming good faith on the part of CellAntenna to limit availability of the devices, this interview in Ars Technica of CTIA's Chris Guttman-McCabe highlights the problem of trying to limit this to prisons. I'm suspicious of permitting jamming as a general rule. When we add to this the likelihood of spillover effects, I get really nervous about creating an exception to the no jamming rule — even for prison security.

(I will add that the high price of landline phone calls in prisons (as noted in the interview) is an injustice that impacts the families of prisoners and cuts against everything we know about the importance of maintaining family relationships to reduce recidivism. But that is a topic for another post.)

Guttman-McCabe also makes another strong point by observing that cell phone smuggling involves inside help. Even worse than no security measures are bad/ineffective security measures. Although he doesn't press this hard enough, I think the point is critical. If gangs in prisons can bribe/intimidate guards to help them smuggle cell phones and other contraband, it can't be that hard to turn jammers off or bring prisoners to areas left clear of the jammer coverage (for example, areas left clear for use by guards).

Finally, from a policy perspective, setting the precedent that we should have waivers of Section 333 to allow blocking for “good reasons” is a very bad idea because I can always think of a reason why I deserve a waiver. Lots of people have security concerns about cell phone hacking. Should they be allowed to have jammers? Should schools have jammers to prevent cheating and maintain order in class rooms? What about theaters?

While a fair number of folk will probably think “good idea, and add my favorite restaurant to the list,” we should consider the negative impacts of such a scheme. First, for better or worse, lots of people are absolutely dependent on being in contact 24/7. If cell phone jammers proliferate, we are going to see an accumulation of stories about heart surgeons or parents leaving their children with sitters not getting critical messages in time because they did not know they were in a jamming zone. There is also the impact on public safety and data services. A device blocking cell phone reception in the 700 MHz, 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands available to AT&T and VZ is likely to have impact on all the other services in this extremely crowded band. After all, jamming devices are not smart devices designed to protect adjacent services — they are screaming loud emitters designed to block communication.

Bottom line: we have a real problem with prisoners getting access to cell phones illegally. Legalizing cell phone jammers, even for limited purposes, has very real costs for our communication system. We have had an absolute ban on deliberately interfering with someone else's wireless transmission for more than 75 years that has shaped our communications infrastructure. To overturn that ban — however limited the exemption and however noble the cause — represents a fundamental shift in policy that takes us in a direction we really don't want to go. That might be worth it if it solved the actual problem — but it doesn't. Instead, we will open up the door to a new world in which we have legally available and therefore — if the history of wireless microphones and other such services teaches us anything — widely available. Worse, this will not only interfere with cell phone communication on which we have grown so dependent, but is also likely to interfere with traffic in the adjacent bands.

Finally, I find it particularly informative that the origin of this extraordinarily bad idea, and the energy giving it its current momentum, comes from a private company cynically manipulating the prison situation and the press for the benefit of its bottom line. I would find that obnoxious (but hardly unusual) if it didn't impose costs on the rest of us. But I really have a problem with screwing up 75 years of spectrum policy solely to benefit CellAntenna's bottom line.

Stay tuned . . . .

MSD 07-22-2009 08:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003 (Post 2669967)
It's kind of like the people who took apart a microwave to use the 2.4Ghz (1000W) to make a 5mW wifi network stop working. Now, while that isn't the safest thing, it does make it stop working.
But ... why?

Cynthetiq 08-06-2009 04:41 AM
following up it's moving closer to passing...

Quote:
Epicenter The Business of Tech
Prison Cell Jamming Bill Close to Senate Passage


http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/ep..._f-115x300.jpg
The nation’s prisons are one big step closer Wednesday to being allowed to jam mobile phone signals to keep prisoners from using the phones to commit further crimes, despite strong opposition from digital rights groups that say there are better ways to fight the problem.

The bill — passed by a bi-partisan vote in the Senate Commerce committee — would create the first ever exception to the FCC’s ban on jamming devices.

The measure could be voted on by the full Senate as soon as early as this, before it takes its August break, according to Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the bill’s primary sponsor who is also running for Texas governor.

If the bill makes it to the floor, it is likely to pass. Inmates use smuggled cell phones to stay in touch with their families, run gangs outside the prison and to intimidate lawmakers. Proponents of the bill say that jamming signals is the best answer, while opponents argue the technology is easily thwarted and sets a dangerous precedent.

Instead, prisons should reduce demand for the phones by making calls to families less expensive and finding better technology to locate rogue phones within the prison, the groups argue.

California’s Solano state prison found more than 2000 phones in 2008, according to San Quentin public relations officer Lt. Sam Robinson. Robinson’s prison found fewer than 10 rogue devices last year, however, since there’s almost no reception at the prison’s remote location.

The bill, known as the Safe Prisons Communication Act, now moves for a full vote in the Senate.

If passed, the FCC would have to conduct a rulemaking and get input from technical bodies about the feasibility of current blocking technologies, before setting standards for tech that might get a waiver from the current blanket prohibition on jamming devices.

For a detailed and nuanced look at the problem, see Vince Beiser’s Wired magazine story: Prisoners Run Gangs, Plan Escapes and Even Order Hits With Smuggled Cellphones

opentocomments 08-06-2009 08:12 AM
What about this one, wire the outside of prisons with some kind of copper or electro-conductive metal inside the concrete so that the only place to use a cell phone is in the prison yard, and you'll need some big balls to do that.

Leto 08-06-2009 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxys (Post 2669359)
Are you fucking kidding me?? Prisoners have cell phones? I say kill them all. Forget spending money on expensive technology to jam frequencies. Yeah, you know that guy who stole a shitload of money and we should sing "kumbaya" for him because he is "doing his time" ... kill him too.

What the fuck is wrong with the people against this? Staying in touch with their families? What?! Yeah, career criminals also enjoy long walks on the beach, candle light dinners and reading romantic novels.

How is a prison safe if the inmate has a cell phone?
the funny thing is, my thoughts went 100% down this road too. Huh.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360