Prisons want jamming technology to stop criminal activity, but critics warn there would be dire consequences if jamming was allowed to propagate.

In June the Department of Justice released a report that declared a solution to prevent criminal activity from happening within prisons: it successfully tested a jammer that would block mobile signals from smuggled cell phones inside a Maryland prison.

Throughout the corrections world the news spread fast. For South Carolina Corrections director Brian Stirling, the news affirmed his beliefs: to stop the flood of mobile phones streaming into prisons, jamming technology was the best, cheapest, and most efficient way to go.

A jammer can be a small, inexpensive box that transmits a continuous tone to antennas, effectively stopping any cell phone from making or receiving calls. Jamming equipment is generally cheap—a Google search turned up dozens of options ranging in price from $119 to $650—and easily available to order online.

But critics warn there would be dire consequences if jamming was allowed to propagate. They argue that there are numerous nefarious reasons—money, control of new systems, and criminal motivations—behind the push to legalize jamming through the corrections system.

“Allowing jamming technology is a very slippery slope, and once that door is opened we can never turn back,” Ben Levitan, a North Carolina-based wireless communication expert who has advised correction facilities, told me by telephone. “I’ve been in this business for 30 years. If someone is advocating for new technology they probably know someone who sells equipment or has a piece themselves.”

Levitan and other technology experts interviewed for this article say there are other effective solutions to control the flood of cell phones in prisons, such as detection systems, which track, locate and identify radio signals, and managed-access systems, in which phone companies filter calls using a predetermined whitelist.

The bigger problem is the high cost of calls from prison, jamming opponents say, and the need for inmates to be in touch with their loved ones.

Read the rest of this article here

The post This Is a War appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

An interesting article in light of the recent letter submitted to the FCC by ten Republican governors  who want the Federal Communications Commission to give states more autonomy to apply technology that can stop prison inmates from using smuggled cellphones.

Gov. Nikki Haley and her counterparts encouraged FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler in a letter Monday to give them “flexibility and authority” to render such communication impossible.

While the letter doesn’t explicitly say so, what the governors want is permission to jam cellphone signals behind bars, primarily because the current efforts to deploy managed access systems, which selectively block calls from unapproved mobile phones, have proven ineffective and expensive.

A 1934 law says the FCC can grant permission to jam public airwaves only to federal agencies, not state or local ones. The cellphone industry has strongly opposed the use of localized jamming technology out of concern that it could set a precedent leading to much wider gaps in their networks.

The governors say the technology would be strictly limited to prisons, and that society outside would not suffer.

Back in 2013, the FCC first took up the issue of technology solutions to contraband cell phones in prisons in a “notice of proposed rule making” to “remove barriers to the deployment and viability of existing and future technologies used to combat contraband wireless devices.”  That rulemaking is still pending.

The FCC has been reluctant to approve jamming devices (and wireless companies have been opposed to them) because jamming devices could conceivably work beyond prison walls, jamming cell phones of civilians trying to call 911, for instance. There’s also a fear that once prisons get the ability to jam cell phone signals, there won’t be anything stopping other agencies from getting it, too.

£1.2m pilot project that tried to stop prisoners using mobile phones in jail is unlikely to be extended across Scotland after inmates worked out how to beat the system.

A heavily redacted report produced by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) and obtained by The Ferret has revealed that a trial in two Scottish prisons involving high-tech mobile phone blockers, known as IMSI-catchers, was beset by multiple problems.

The project made use of technology, described by privacy campaigners as “disturbing”, that exploits a security weakness in the design of UK mobile phones.

All mobiles will automatically connect to the nearest mobile phone mast or base-station, but the phone doesn’t check whether the base-station is genuine.

By mimicking a base-station an IMSI catcher or “grabber” can persuade every nearby mobile phone to connect to it, and then it can obtain details about each handset.

The IMSI catcher can be set to block calls, or it can log details of calls whilst forwarding the call onto a genuine mobile phone mast.

Civil liberties groups say The Scottish Prison Service is the first UK public agency to admit using an IMSI catcher to collect details of mobile phones.

One group is so concerned over the privacy implications that they have pledged to refer the SPS to the Data Commissioner for investigation.

The SPS was using the devices to try prevent prisoners using mobile phones in two jails: HMP Shotts in North Lanarkshire and HMP Glenochil near Alloa.

Despite spending more than £1.2m on the phone blocking equipment, the report complains of “resilience issues,” during the pilot and a “lack of intelligence provided by the system.”

The project did not lead to a reduction in the numbers of mobile phones being used in the pilot prisons because prisoners developed what officials described as “innovative countermeasures” to circumvent the phone block.

Precise details of how they outwitted the high-tech system have been redacted from the report released under freedom of information law to The Ferret.

During the trial the number of smart phones in the pilot project jails actually increased, as prisoners learned that they could use the more sophisticated phones to get around the blocking technology.

In turn, officials suggested that this lead to “debt and bullying amongst prisoner groups” as “the business of renting out these handsets to a number of prisoners appears to be increasing.”

The report also explains that the technology could not be used in prisons in urban areas with better mobile phone networks and more members of the public living nearby.

Officials originally intended to trial the phone blocker technology at HMP Edinburgh, but the risk that people passing close to the prison would also have their phone signals blocked by the system was deemed a “high risk” early on in the project.

The system was also only commissioned to block 2G and 3G mobile signals, but a 4G signal was already available in Edinburgh at the start of the trial.

To mitigate this risk, the pilot was conducted in two more rural prisons, HMP Glenochil and HMP Shotts, instead. But despite the move, the report notes that 4G services increasingly became available throughout Scotland during the trial, including at the two final pilot prisons.

This gave prisoners another means of circumventing the phone blocking technology and communicating illegally with the outside world.

Although annual checks from Ofcom and mobile phone operators were conducted to make sure the IMSI catchers were not intercepting the calls of innocent neighbours, and no complaints were received from members of the public living near the prisons, SPS officials conclude the report by recommending that no further roll out of the controversial technology is undertaken until all the problems have been resolved.

The Ferret understands that there is only one device now in operation, and this is at HMP Shotts.

The SPS has spent £32,827 on maintaining this device in the last 24 months alone.

As a consequence of the trial an SPS spokesperson confirmed to The Ferret that the SPS is now considering moving to using mobile IMSI catcher devices, rather than ones that remain in a fixed location. It was not clear how the SPS would be able to ensure that mobile IMSI catchers would not have an impact outside the prison walls.

The service has no data retention policy that relates specifically to the IMSI catchers, and said that data obtained by the devices is held for a month before it is discarded.

Calls for Data Commissioner to investigate

Dr Richard Tynan, Technologist with Privacy International, a group that campaigns for greater transparency on the use of these devices, confirmed to The Ferret that the Scottish Prison Service was the first UK public agency to admit to using an IMSI catcher.

Other public agencies in the UK have long been suspected of using IMSI catchers but routinely operate a policy of neither confirming, nor denying, their use.

Dr Tynan said of the SPS admission: “While it is a positive beginning to transparency around these mass surveillance devices in the UK, much more information is required from the authorities and regulators about when they can be deployed and what safeguards are in place.

“This precedent must now be followed by other UK agencies and they must come clean about their use of these devices and how many innocent people have had their privacy invaded without any suspicion or hint of wrongdoing.”

The SPS can legally deploy the devices within prisons using powers in the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill.

But Dr Tynan went on to suggest that the Scottish Prison Service had failed to fully consider the privacy implications of their IMSI catchers, for both prisoners and members of the public passing near the jails, and pledged that he would ask the Data Protection Commissioner to investigate.

Pointing out inconsistencies in the responses received by the Ferret he said: “Firstly, the SPS confirm the purchase and operation of an IMSI grabber device in “deny” mode only.”

“This would indicate that it was being used as a rudimentary jammer rather than a mass surveillance system.

“However, the subsequent admission that they collect both IMEI and IMSI numbers shows that the device is not just jamming but intentionally collecting and decoding information on any mobile phone subscriber within the area that connects to it. Most devices of this type entice as many phones as possible to connect to it and the user has no way to prevent this.

“Secondly, they claim to be able to limit the range of the devices impact to the specific perimeter of the prison but had to move the trial to a more rural area than the city of Edinburgh. This was due to the risk of leakage beyond the prison and therefore claims about their ability to not impact on innocent passers-by are dubious at best.

Tynan added: “Finally, they admit that there is no data retention policy in place at all. They hold on to the personal data obtained using this device for an entire month without any apparent regard to the necessity and proportionality of such data retention.”

“It would now seem appropriate for the Data Protection Commissioner to review the deployment and operation of this device, the long retention practices and the security measures in place for such sensitive data and how many innocent people have had their private data collected, decoded and stored unlawfully.”

Jim Killock, Executive Director of another civil liberties campaign, the Open Rights Group, also called for full transparency from the SPS about their use of IMSI catchers, and called for the rules around their use to be toughened up.

“IMSI catchers may not only affect the mobile phones of prisoners, staff and visitors but other people living nearby. If their use is rolled out to other prisons in urban areas, many more people could be affected,” he said.

“While the Scottish Prison Service is purportedly using the catchers to block mobile signals, we know that they can be used for other purposes, including installing malware.”

“As such, we need full transparency about how this technology is being used.”

Liam McArthur, a Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP, said that there should be no further deployment of the devices until the problems identified in the report had been addressed.

He said: “Reports that the SPS has spent more than £1m on a system that has been so easily circumvented and could impact on mobile phone users outside of prisons is a real concern. Part of the reason for pilot projects is to help identify problems and it seems clear that this effort to cut mobile phone use in prisons has failed.”

He concluded: “There should be no question of these technologies being rolled out into other prisons on the strength of this report.”

A spokesperson for the Scottish Prison Service said: “In Scotland section 41ZA of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 provides that it is an offence to possess, or give to a prisoner in prison, or use, without authorisation or outside of the designated area of the prison, a personal communication device such as a mobile telephone or any other portable electronic device capable of transmitting or receiving a communication.

“The Scottish Prison Service gathers evidence to aid the detection of any crime that may have been committed. Going forward, we are taking forward regulations to allow the disconnection of mobile phones.”

Source

The post Prisoners Outwit Mobile Phone Blocking Technology appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

A cautionary tale for prisons contemplating shelling out millions of dollars for managed access systems to jam contraband cell phones. A prison in New Zealand has spent over $11M (US) in installation and upgrades on a cellular signal jamming system that has not prevented the ongoing use of wireless devices.

Taxpayers have forked out $17 million on cellphone jamming technology for prisons – but inmates continue to be caught with increasing numbers of contraband mobile phones.

Despite a network blocking system designed to stop Mt Eden prisoners using cellphones, footage of a “fight club” found its way out of the Auckland jail and on to social media.

Serco confirmed a cellphone was found during a full search of Mt Eden prison on Monday.

Corrections found 284 of the banned devices in the country’s prisons in the 2013-14 financial year.

The previous financial year the department found 274 cellphones unlawfully held by prisoners or brought in by visitors. It also confiscated 119 phone batteries, 128 chargers and 151 SIM cards.

Corrections’ cellphone jamming system cost a budget-blowing $10.9m to install between 2007 and 2009.  It budgeted $5.7m and nearly $6.7m has been spent since, including almost $2.3m in the first five months of last year on a systems upgrade. That followed a $1.3m spruce-up in 2011, according to records released under the Official Information Act.

Yet it does not seemed to have curbed prisoners’ efforts to smuggle them in – and they would not bother if the phones didn’t work, prison drug and alcohol counsellor Roger Brooking said.

A prison intelligence report this year showed Killer Beez founder Josh Masters was continuing to lead the street gang and arrange drug supply from his prison cell using a smuggled cellphone.

Last year convicted murderer Buddy Campbell used a cellphone to post selfies to his Facebook page while an inmate in Rimutaka prison.

Inmates had previously told Brooking they exploited loopholes, finding they could connect to 2 Degrees when it was first launched, he said.

Brooking said keeping cellphones out of prisoners’ hands to protect the public was a “valid concern”, but $17m could have been better spent on healthcare and counselling.

“I think it’s a complete and utter waste of money.”

The jammers were designed to block cellular access to the internet, Corrections said.

But it would not comment on whether mobile network bands 3G and 4G were covered, saying revealing the information would provide insight to prisoners and their associates.

Corrections national commissioner Jeremy Lightfoot said cellphones were banned to prevent prisoners organising crime, harassing victims and perverting the course of justice.

The department was constantly responding to telecommunications industry evolution in its efforts to keep the public safe.

Current prisoner Arthur Taylor contacted Fairfax to say he was concerned about the cellphone jammers’ radiation, claiming he could see 10 of the devices stationed on his block.

Asked if he thought the jammers worked, Taylor replied: “Cellphone finds were well down before the jammers arrived – due to other security measures.”

Source

The post $11M Prison Managed Access Jamming Called “A Complete And Utter Waste Of Money” appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Innovation, especially technology innovation, requires a willingness to challenge accepted approaches to problems as well as entrenched industry “truths”. This nontraditional thinking is best captured by a quote from hockey great Wayne Gretzky, “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.”

Back in June of 2011, we issued a press release announcing the introduction of the meshDETECT Secure Prison Cell Phone Solution. In the press release we said, “The meshDETECT™ secure cell phone platform devalues the contraband value of the smuggled prison cell phone and immediately creates a safer, more secure, and controllable environment for both corrections officials and detainees.” Since then we have written extensively about why contraband cell phones are a problem of both supply and demand. And about how enhanced access to telecommunications services has the proven, significant, additional benefits of reducing recidivism, improving detainee behavior and increasing officer safety.

This was not the conventional view on solving the significant and growing problem of contraband cellphones in prison at the time. In fact, many in the industry thought we were crazy for proposing giving detainees a “cell phone”.

However, according to the August 2014 issue of eTechbeat, an online magazine published by the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC); the Indiana Department of Correction is now allowing inmates in two of their facilities to use cordless phones in their cells in an effort to stem recidivism and contraband cellphones and encourage better behavior while incarcerated.

In the article, INDOC Deputy Commissioner James Basinger is quoted saying, “Inmates are allowed to walk around with the phones and take them to their cells to have a phone conversation out of hearing from other inmates, which could lessen inmates’ desire for cellphones. Although inmates use contraband cellphones for criminal activity, not all inmates want them for that purpose. I think it’s a way to combat the contraband cellphone problem. In my opinion, part of the interest in cell phones is you can talk to family and friends in a private setting and are not standing up at the wall with other inmates. We want to encourage communication. Inmates with more contact with family and friends may behave better. It’s all about improving communication . It seems like a good way to improve their reintegration. If they keep connected to the family it might make them stay out of prison when they get out. We are trying to get them out and to be productive.”

Sound familiar?

Cordless phones are not a scalable or cost effective solution, but we believe this is yet another data point proving what we have been preaching. Innovation can be a lonely skate, but eventually you get to the puck.

The post Skate To Where The Puck Is Going To Be appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

A Texas Tribune investigation has found that few inmates or correctional officers face legal consequences for smuggling cellphones even as prison officials have intensified efforts to keep the devices out of prisons. Just 5 percent of cellphone smuggling cases investigated by the Criminal Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General from 2009 to 2013 resulted in a criminal sentence, according to documents obtained from the office through a public information request.

Some notable excerpts from the article:

In 2003, legislators made smuggling the devices into prisons a felony. Since 2009, the state has allocated $10 million every two years for “security enhancements for contraband interdiction,” said Robert Hurst, a Criminal Justice Department spokesman.

The enhancements include a special K-9 unit responsible for sniffing out cellphones, increased video surveillance of guards and the addition of “managed access systems” at two prisons that intercept all but a few specified outgoing cellular signals.

The costs of the offender telephone service are “so high, that’s one of the reasons why inmates turn to cellphones,” said Michele Deitch, a prisons expert at the University of Texas at Austin. “They really need the phone access, which promotes healthier families, but at those rates it becomes an incredible burden on the families.” A phone call with the service costs up to 26 cents per minute.

For guards, who risk their jobs and felony charges by dealing in contraband, the financial reward can be much larger than their salaries.

“The temptation is there, if there’s not a strong deterrent to misbehavior,” said Pelz, the former warden, adding that a smuggled cellphone can fetch up to $3,000. “Your weakest link is the employees bringing the contraband in.”

Lance Lowry, president of the Texas correctional employees local of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Emlpoyees union, said many who resort to smuggling were trying to supplement low wages. Entry-level correctional officers make about $29,000 a year. At that rate, one cellphone could amount to 10 percent of an officer’s annual salary.

The post Few Consequences For Texas Prison Cell Phone Smuggling appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Following a trend in the UK, another prison will install in-cell phones. According to the article, the reasons for this deployment are positive impact on prisoners’ rehabilitation, encouraging the maintenance of family ties, and reducing the prevalence of illegal mobile phones.

Prisoners will have phones installed in their cells under new plans for a Midland prison. The move at HMP Birmingham, which takes inmates from across the Black Country, comes despite a law being introduced last year which made it a crime for inmates to have mobile phones behind bars.

Security firm G4S, which runs the Winson Green prison, is introducing the phones because staff say it can have a ‘positive impact on prisoners’ rehabilitation’.

Prisoners will only be allowed to dial numbers approved by the prison, and each inmate will have to pay their own call charges. Their conversations can also be recorded or listened to for security purposes.

The prison, which has a capacity of 1,450 male adults, already allows inmates to have televisions in their cells at the cost of £1 a week per cell.

It has also emerged that HMP Oakwood in Wolverhampton, had cell phones fitted when it was built in 2012. G4S spokesman Michael Baker said: “Our experience is that in-cell phones can have a positive impact on prisoners’ rehabilitation, not only encouraging the maintenance of family ties, but reducing the prevalence of illegal mobile phones.”

He added: “New prisons are built with in-cell phones and although HMP Birmingham dates back to 1849, we are introducing them into the establishment. Access to telephones, like any other privilege, is dependent on prisoners’ continued good behaviour.”

In March last year the Crime and Security Act was passed which stated that prisoners risked extra time being tagged onto their sentences if they were caught with a mobile phones. It aimed to cut down on prisoners keeping in touch with their criminal contacts while inside.

But in the first eight months of the new laws there were 109 prisoners found with phones at HMP Birmingham, 38 convicts had phones at HMP Featherstone and two at HMP Oakwood.

There are no plans to introduce the phone system in HMP Featherstone which neighbours Oakwood.

Last year it emerged that a permanent police team has been based at Winson Green prison to crack down on drugs being thrown over its walls to inmates.

Two detectives and two intelligence specialists are based behind bars, to stop banned substances being smuggled into the prison and thrown over walls.

The force says it is cheaper to base staff there permanently, despite G4S being on a multi-million pound contract to run the jail, as it stops officers being repeatedly called in to tackle crime.

It comes after 236 occasions of contraband goods, including drugs and mobile phones, some stuffed in tennis balls or footballs, being thrown over HMP Birmingham’s walls in 2011.

G4S, has also fitted netting over exercise yards to stop throw-over attempts hitting the ground.

Source

The post Prisoners At HMP Birmingham To Be Given In-Cell Phones appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

meshDETECT® is pleased to announce that it has recently received a notice of allowance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office for a patent application entitled, “System and method for controlling, monitoring and recording of wireless telecommunications services in penal institutions” covering its Secure Prison Cell Phone Solutions™. A notice of allowance from the United States Patent and Trademark Office is a written notification that a patent application has cleared internal review and is pending issuance.

The application broadly covers systems and methods of providing incoming and outgoing telecommunications services to persons incarcerated in penal facilities. A plurality of controls is provided that may reduce contraband devices and encourage good behavior by detainees, penal employees, and others. Portable electronic devices, primarily mobile telephones, are provided to detainees that have exhibited acceptable behavior and are not determined to be security risks.

Contraband mobile telephones have become an increasing problem in prison facilities, further reducing prison facility inmate communications services earnings, compromising safety and presenting opportunities for prison employee corruption. While prison officials have taken steps to reduce contraband cell phones, the expanded capabilities of small portable devices have made such devices more valuable to detainees. This has increased economic incentives for penal employees to facilitate the smuggling and trafficking of these devices in prisons. With a contraband mobile device that has Internet access, a detainee may view telephone directories, maps and photographs for criminal purposes. Gang violence and drug trafficking are increasingly being managed online, allowing persons in penal facilities to continue engaging in criminal activity while incarcerated. Traditional solutions such as blocking or jamming cell phone signals have proven impractical.

meshDETECT® is a technology platform that can be offered in any prison interested in the smart deployment and management of secure prison cell phones – which promotes improved detainee behavior and increases officer safety. Best of all, there is no deployment cost. In fact, meshDETECT is a new source of revenue for prisons.

Prisons longer need to incur the expense and deployment challenges of wireless jamming technology, now that prison cell phone calls can now be monitored and recorded. Legitimate prison cell phone inventories can now replace contraband cell phones.

Update (7/2/13): The meshDETECT patent (US8,478,234) was issued today by the United States Patent Office. You can view the patent here: meshDETECT Patent

Update: meshDETECT was awarded its second patent on 2/23/16.

The post meshDETECT® Awarded Notice Of Allowance From The United States Patent And Trademark Office appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Here is the latest summary of recent news articles regarding contraband cell phones in prisons around the world. I am calling this round up of articles, “Wireless Prison Payphone™ Briefs” because this is essentially what smuggled mobile phones in jails have become – a substitute for the current wall mounted prison payphones.

Alabama Inmates With Illegal Cell Phone Active On Facebook: “Cell phones are against the law, that’s a new bill that just passed last year, making the possession, or the introduction of a cell phone into a prison setting a class C felony,” Corbett explains, though he still is not surprised by the discovery.

“Last year we confiscated more than 5,000 cell phones statewide.” The Department also has a policy against inmates using social networks. It’s clearly posted on the DOC’s website that such sites “are a security violation and will be shut down.” (Source)

Cat Caught Smuggling Saw, Cell Phone, Into Prison: The cat’s out of the bag, and that means prisoners at a prison in northeast Brazil will no longer have easy access to cell phones and saws.

Upon inspection, officials noticed that the feline was wrapped with tape. Underneath that tape was a battery of items including a saw, cell phone, drills, an earphone, memory card, batteries, and a phone charger. (Source)

Fourth Circuit to Hear Dispute Over Cell Phone Contraband Conviction: Here’s the issue: Did Beason have “fair and sufficient notice” that his possession of a mobile phone opened him up to criminal liability? Beason’s attorneys, Brian Kornbrath and Kristen Leddy, who work for federal public defender offices in West Virginia, contend the old law is unconstitutional for its vagueness. A cell phone, the attorneys said, “has a legal purpose and productive uses, which can carry over to the prison environment.”

“The vast majority of cell phone possession cases in federal prisons have been resolved through administrative sanctions within prisons, not in federal courts,” Beason’s lawyers said in a brief in the Fourth Circuit. “Beason was not given sufficient notice that his possession of a cell phone would subject him to federal criminal penalties.” (Source)

How Cell Phones Make Prison Drug Dealing Easy: Despite a lack of resources and an isolated consumer base, US correctional facilities host a thriving drugs market. But the limitations and monitoring imposed on the use of prison phones are an obstacle. “You can’t set up nothing on the regular prison phones because they are monitored,” one prisoner tells The Fix. “They record everything and when you are trying to make a move, you don’t want no one eavesdropping on your conversations so that they can make a bust or put the brakes on.” The solution isn’t hard to imagine: “With cell phones it is easy. No one is listening and you can talk freely. Once you got a cell phone, anything is possible.”

Of course, cell phones retail at a premium behind bars: Prisoners will pay up to $1,500 for one. But they’re not that difficult to find. “If you have money you can get a phone easy; you can get an iPhone with Internet access or whatever,” the prisoner says. (Source)

The post Wireless Prison Payphone™ Briefs appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

A good article below about the forensic value of a confiscated contraband prison cell phone. One clarification, however: A SIM card is not the same as a microSD card – referred to in the article as a data card. The microSD card used in most smart phones is similar to a USB storage device for your PC in that it is used to store user determined data such as documents, pictures, media, etc.

SIM cards are only present in the GSM phones of carriers such as AT&T and T-Mobile. Verizon and Sprint use CDMA technology that does not require a SIM card.

Here’s a scenario that involves a triumph in contraband control. Suppose that through vigilance, shared observations and patience, you have uncovered the most insidious of contraband. You have found a smart phone inside the walls.

This is very good news, as it takes out of circulation a dangerous recorder and communicator. Firm in the knowledge that “information is knowledge,” you and your colleagues have disarmed a potential danger and enhanced safety in the facility.

Celebration seems warranted. However, there is more to do. With the evidence secured and key staff informed, the investigation begins. Some of the follow-up questions are:

• Which prisoner last had the phone?
• Did anyone else have it?
• How does the prisoner maintain a charge on the smart phone?
• Did the offender who had the smart phone work in concert with anyone else? In other words, is this a solo effort or part of a concerted effort through a security threat group?
• How did this smart phone come inside?
• Are there patterns with this incident that may aid in future searches?

With so much information to be gathered, it is easy to overlook one crucial question. Is there a data card with the smart phone?

All that one needs do is open up the phone and remove the mini card, SIM card, SD or whatever one would call it. The name is less important than its utility. The point is that it is a very small and potentially dangerous. And this part of the phone can be removed easily.

Why is this so important? Think of the data card as a removable brain in a mini computer. And this brain can be implanted in many other surprisingly easy to acquire smart phones. How can one describe the amazing storage capacity in something so small? Having all the information in the world on something the size of small coin might not be quite accurate. Still, micro storage technology is such that hundreds of pictures, contacts, texts and other data can be stored on a mini card that is smaller than a penny.

Through the eyes of corrections, let us view the nefarious utilities of data cards. The tiny titan of information storage can hold:

• Incriminating photographs of staff
• A store of all text messages sent and received
• Images that propagate gang activity
• Comprehensive directories of partners in crime
• Images of weak points in our defenses
• Maps
• Lists for store and gambling
• Potential for internet access (granted, this is only under certain circumstances)
• A working social media function

It may be that the information on an easy to hide storage chip is more valuable than the phone itself. This is not to diminish the value of an illegal smart phone in the hands of a prisoner. It just points back to the notion that information is power.

Of course, this does not mean that every micro card that one comes across will contain sensitive information. In fact, the laws of numbers dictate that somewhere and at some time a data card will be found in a jail or prison that contains virtually no useful information in terms of investigation or incrimination.

However, as with any contraband search proposition, it behooves us to continue to search for the danger that is possible. Otherwise, we may overlook a valuable clue.

Author: Joe Bouchard
Source

The post SIM And microSD Cards In Contraband Cell Phones appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

This article discusses the TDCJ’s decision to investigate the viability of managed access contraband cell phone jamming. California, Mississippi and Maryland are also testing the technology. The impact of smuggled contraband cell phones in prisons has been significant. As the article states, “A couple of years ago, there were long lines at the pay phones—hours long. By this year, no one was using them, there were so many smuggled cell phones.”

“These two prisons have had the most significant ongoing problems with (smuggled) cellphones, and that’s why they were selected,” Livingston said. “There are no plans at this time to go beyond these two units.”

California and Texas may be considered opposites on the political spectrum, but the two states do have the same philosophy when it comes to cell phones in state prisons.

California got the ball rolling when Global Tel Link agreed to pay millions to install technology in state prisons to block web searches, text messages and phone calls by inmates using smuggled phones.

Texas also saw a problem with its inmates smuggling phones into prison and has recently confirmed working with CenturyLink, a private company that operates pay phones inside Texas’ 111 state prisons, to evaluate installing a similar system in Texas.

“The system would be a managed-access system and does not jam cell phones,” said Jason Clark, spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

“Managed access intercepts the outgoing calls and only allows calls from approved numbers. This is legal,” Clark said, noting that the Federal Communications Commission prohibits jamming.

Inmates’ access to cell phones in prison can have extreme consequences. Some inmates have used cell phones to run criminal enterprises from behind bars and organize assaults on guards and intimidate witnesses, California prison officials said.

“This groundbreaking and momentous technology will enable [the prison system] to crack down on the potentially dangerous communications by inmates,” said Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Matt Cate.

In 2011, California prison guards confiscated more than 15,000 contraband phones. In the same year, Texas prison officials seized 904 cell phones.

The first prison in California is expected to receive Global Tel*Link’s technology by October 2012, according to Dana Simas, information officer for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

When the system is installed, each prison will get its own cell tower that will allow prison officials to control all incoming and outgoing calls. All other calls will not go through within the confines of the prison.

“After this system goes in, smuggled cell phones will be nothing more than glorified paperweights,” said Simas. “A couple of years ago, there were long lines at the pay phones —hours long. By this year, no one was using them, there were so many smuggled cell phones.”

Source

The post Texas To Invest in Cell Phone Blocking Technology appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.