Jamming Cellphones in prison - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 07-14-2009, 01:31 PM

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

Letting 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

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

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

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

Yeah....I'm calling bullshit on that.

No, really!

YouTube - Cell Phone-Sniffing Dogs Head to Fla. Prisons

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

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

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

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

^^ 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

07-14-2009, 01:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	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?! __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

07-14-2009, 02:12 PM	#4 (permalink)
Psycho Dad Mulletproof Location: Some nucking fut house.	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? __________________ Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

07-14-2009, 02:38 PM	#9 (permalink)
Walt I'm calmer than you are, dude Location: North Carolina	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. __________________ Calmer than you are...

07-14-2009, 02:44 PM	#11 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	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. __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator*

07-14-2009, 02:51 PM	#13 (permalink)
Walt I'm calmer than you are, dude Location: North Carolina	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 __________________ Calmer than you are...

07-14-2009, 02:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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?

07-14-2009, 02:41 PM	#10 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	If they can smell cancer, they can smell pretty much anything.

07-14-2009, 02:49 PM	#12 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	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?

07-14-2009, 02:51 PM	#14 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	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. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

07-14-2009, 03:24 PM	#17 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	^^ No not really.

07-14-2009, 04:06 PM	#18 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	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. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

07-14-2009, 05:29 PM	#20 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	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. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

07-14-2009, 05:35 PM	#22 (permalink)
flat5 Very Insignificant Pawn Location: Amsterdam, NL	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.

07-14-2009, 09:19 PM	#24 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	^^ 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.

07-14-2009, 09:40 PM	#25 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	Two words: collateral damage.

07-15-2009, 08:24 AM	#28 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	says a whole lot about prison security when a death row inmate can get hold of a cell phone. i feel safer already. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

07-15-2009, 08:39 AM	#29 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	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? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 07-15-2009 at 08:43 AM..

07-15-2009, 10:36 AM	#33 (permalink)
biznatch Junkie Location: France	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. __________________ Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

07-15-2009, 10:57 AM	#34 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	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.

07-15-2009, 11:49 AM	#35 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	^^ 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.

07-15-2009, 11:57 AM	#36 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	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?

07-15-2009, 12:45 PM	#38 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	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. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

07-15-2009, 12:52 PM	#40 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	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. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.