This news tracks with reports elsewhere that this technology to block cell phone usage in prisons is problematic. An effective contraband cell phone strategy should focus on reducing demand, in addition to restricting supply.

Corrections officials have shared with us the fact that at least 40% of the calls intercepted by these systems are to phone numbers on inmates’ approved calling lists. We suspect that an even higher percentage are to other family and loved ones not on the limited list of allowed contacts and are also non-criminal wireless usage.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) cannot say it was not warned that the high-tech system it was deploying to stop rampant, forbidden cellphone use by inmates in the state’s 34 prisons probably would not work.

The 2012 report by the California Council on Science and Technology said the system wouldn’t block 4G, Wi-Fi, MiFi, Skype, text messages or satellite transmissions. It can’t triangulate radio signals, limiting its effectiveness in identifying specific phones or users. And radio frequency leakage could interfere with regular cellphone usage, affecting the public’s access to 911 operators.

But the state forged ahead, installing the system at 18 prisons before deciding it wasn’t working.

The Associated Press reported on Wednesday that the department has halted expansion while options are pondered. “It’s been difficult to make sure the technology can handle those upgrades,” CDCR spokeswoman Dana Simas told AP. “Whether we’re going to scrap it or whether we can find solutions to these issues, that will be determined later.” “What remains to be determined is if the constant upgrades performed by the vendor will be sustainable in the future,” Simas said.

The report had called the state’s long-term investment in untested technology “unwise” and premature, especially in light of the fact that it really doesn’t even know how many illegal cellphones are floating around the prison system. The council recommended using airport-style screening systems for all personnel and having private carriers identify and disable illicitly obtained phones.

“In point of fact, there are no prisons anywhere in the United States using a functional managed access system to control cell phone use,” the report said.

Prison officials go to great lengths to prevent cellphones, often stolen, from being slipped into the prison by employees or visitors. It doesn’t work very well. Charles Manson, a high-profile 81-year-old killer, was recently caught twice with cellphones used to call around the country. A visitor was caught with a third phone meant for him, in a hallowed out boot heel.

Global Tel-Link’s blocking system made it into 18 of the state’s 34 prisons, and for now that seems as far as it’ll go, because cell phone companies of 2015 are using drastically different networks than the companies of 2011. Between 4G and Long Term Evolution services, phone companies are transmitting calls over a system that has more in common with a wifi network than old-school cell connections.

AP said the number of cellphones grabbed in California prisons declined markedly from 15,000 in 2011 to 8,000 in 2015. But the inmate who talked on his illicit phone to Vice reporter Seth Ferranti in February described a very active tech scene.

“All my homies that got phones, all of us are friends on Facebook. Niggas be making rap videos, they be filming riots and filming shit that’s going on and putting them on YouTube.”

The inmate, a lifer called “Big Smoke,” said, “The cellphones is rampant up and down the coast of California.” He claimed most of the phones were brought in by staff, but, “Some inmates is even smuggling them in now because it’s so profitable. They smuggling in memory cards, chargers, cords, anything that has to do with a cellphone. All that stuff goes for $50 a pop. Every part that has to do with a cellphone is profitable. The black market is big.”

(Source)

The post CDCR Halts Roll Out Of Managed Access Cell Phone Jamming 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.

The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice has determined that managed access jamming of contraband cell phones is too expensive and has commissioned “research to explore the use and demand for illicit mobile phones amongst the prison population” in order to facilitate the “development of a new mobile phone strategy to:

(i) manage prisoner communications,

(ii) reduce and control criminal activities and

(iii) reduce expenditure on equipment and the need for time-consuming searches.”

The aim of the study is:

1. To further the understanding of what drives the demand for illicit mobile phones by prisoners; and

2. To help identify potential effective ways of preventing their usage (excluding prohibitively expensive solutions such as mobile phone blockers).

To guide the analysis, the key research questions to be explored are:

• What drives the demand for mobile phones within prisons? How much is for maintaining family conduct and how much is for other more criminal purposes (including criminal networks, gangs, terrorism)?

• Are certain types of prisoners more likely to want a mobile phone and so drive demand in particular establishments?

• Which non-technical factors could be most effective (and cost effective) in reducing both the supply and demand for mobile phones in prison (including ways of counteracting the prison economy that surrounds the use of mobile phones)?

Maryland as an example

Let’s look at Maryland as an example of the managed access cost concerns prisons around the world must wrestle with when considering jamming technology. Last year, the Maryland State legislature formed a Special Joint Commission on Public Safety and Security in State and Local Correctional Facilities. Formed in response to the scandal at the Baltimore City Detention Center, where a joint federal-state investigation revealed a virtual takeover of the facility by violent inmate gang members and corrupt correctional officers, the commission recently released its recommendations.

Included in this report is the recommendation is to expand the funding for managed access jammers at six additional prison facilities beyond the two sites (MTC and BCDC) where it has already been installed. Per the report, the jamming costs for these two existing sites are $2 million annually at MTC and $3.9 million annually at BCDC.

According to the report, “The system appears to be very effective, as evidenced by the sight of inmates continuously lined up at payphones.” That’s some fact-based decision making right there!

If the cell phones in the prison were predominately used to plan crimes by avoiding the monitoring/recording of calls at the prison payphones (the reasons given to justify the multi-million dollar annual expenditures), why would prison payphone demand increase once the contraband mobile phones were being jammed? Perhaps because the predominant use of the now blocked mobile phones is not to run gangs, but rather to speak to loved ones?

We have long advocated the strategy of looking at the problem of contraband cell phones as a problem of supply AND demand. We believe however that the problem of demand for smuggled mobile phones in jail goes beyond long-term offenders looking to continue their drug or crime operations, witness intimidation and the avoidance of high call prices.

Contraband cell phone demand is also driven by a desire for more frequent family communication and more privacy (not secrecy) and as such, any comprehensive solution should address both sides of the equation – supply and demand.

Providing prisoners with a controlled and secure prison cell phone, such as the meshDETECT solution, will siphon off the predominant use of the contraband phones – communication with loved ones. Combined with a measured and cost effective supply-side strategy, this demand-side approach will lower the value of the contraband wireless phones and therefore the money that can be made smuggling them into prison, eliminate wireless airtime as prison currency and reduce recidivism by enhancing family connections.

The challenges prison budgets face in today’s economic environment necessitate such a comprehensive approach. We are pleased to see that, in Britain at least, this strategy is being seriously considered.

The post Managed Access Jamming Too Expensive Says MoJ, Investigates Demand For Contraband Cell Phones appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

As we have written before, managed access cell phone jamming systems being tested in prisons around the world have been deployed with mixed results. In addition to requiring ongoing management and investment post deployment, they have a spotty record and not all vendor’s equipment works as advertised.

Recently, the Cayman Islands issued a report on their managed access trial. According to the report, which is discussed in the article below, “The prisons service installed a cell phone jamming device at Northward in December 2009, but the equipment has never worked properly. A large communications tower next to the prison complex, which operates most of the radio station signals in the Cayman Islands, causes signal “bleed over” that interferes with the cell phone jamming device.”

In addition, the U.K. prisons inspectorate, which recently reviewed the Cayman Islands prisons system, advised caution for entities seeking to purchase phone jamming equipment.

“Many companies make claims concerning the effectiveness of various technologies or items of equipment, but the long-term independent verification is often difficult to obtain,” said Stephen Fradley of the UK’s prisons inspectorate.

Officials with Cayman’s prisons service said they have tried their best to implement cell phone jamming technology at Her Majesty’s Prison, Northward, but funding concerns have blocked their efforts.

That is the response to a report tabled in the Legislative Assembly Monday regarding what Complaints Commissioner Nicola Williams said was a failure of the prisons system to follow her recommendations concerning prison safety and management issued in a 2011 report.

Two of the three recommendations from that report, which detailed a strip search conducted on three teenage girls at Her Majesty’s Prison, Fairbanks, were followed by government officials. The special report made public by Cayman lawmakers Monday dealt only with the third and final recommendation made by Ms Williams’s office.

Ms Williams recommended that the prison system should install phone jamming equipment at both Northward and Fairbanks “since, realistically, it is virtually impossible to stop cell phone and BlackBerry use in prisons….”

“[It] would avoid regular and repeated use of strip-searching as a means of retrieval, which could not only put both the prison and the Cayman Islands government in violation of human rights protections, but also leave both entities open to lawsuits.”

The prisons service installed a cell phone jamming device at Northward in December 2009, but the equipment has never worked properly. A large communications tower next to the prison complex, which operates most of the radio station signals in the Cayman Islands, causes signal “bleed over” that interferes with the cell phone jamming device.

That information was revealed following Ms Williams’s 2011 report on the prison service.

In a communication sent to the complaints commissioner last month, Ministry of Home Affairs chief officer Eric Bush noted the government wished to accomplish cell phone jamming at the prisons, but noted that it was unclear how government might get to that stage.

“We have not had the funding provided to purchase additional cellular jamming equipment that would satisfy your recommendation,” Mr. Bush wrote. “There are a number of security-related matters that would take priority over additional cellular jamming equipment, should an abundance of funding be allocated to the prison service.”

In addition, the U.K. prisons inspectorate, which recently reviewed the Cayman Islands prisons system, advised caution for entities seeking to purchase phone jamming equipment.

“Many companies make claims concerning the effectiveness of various technologies or items of equipment, but the long-term independent verification is often difficult to obtain,” said Stephen Fradley of the UK’s prisons inspectorate.

Mr. Fradley said the U.K. National Offender Management Service is currently evaluating an “approved contractor list” for the cell phone jamming technology.

A report from the agency on that issue was due by the end of the year, Mr. Fradley said.

The responses by the local ministry to her recommendations were simply not good enough, Ms Williams concluded

“The [Office of the Complaints Commissioner] accepts both the financial constraints of the ministry and that some efforts toward compliance have been made by the ministry with regard to the outstanding recommendation,” she said. “This falls far short of compliance.”

Source

The post Caution Advised On Managed Access Jamming For Prisons appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

According to a recent article, managed access systems (MAS) are not plug and play. They require ongoing systems management and staff time. This means ongoing cost, in addition to the high cost and operational challenges of installation.

The Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman was the first prison in the country to use the Intelligent Network Access Controller (iNAC), which blocks service for contraband cell phones inside the prison walls. Being on the cutting edge involved some learning, said Sean Smith, who heads the state’s Corrections Investigation Division.

“Our biggest misconception was the idea that it was plug-and-play,” Smith said. “It is not. It’s called managed access for a reason.”

The reason is that the system can require daily management to keep it tuned to the precise footprint needed.

It can take several weeks to get a system configured to operate within the required parameter. But the RF environment is not static, and additional adjustments can be needed on a daily basis. Signal strength, direction and penetration can vary depending on physical changes in the environment, weather and outside signals from carriers’ cell sites.

Source

The post “Managed Access” For Prison Contraband Cell Phones Is High Maintenance appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Update: We have submitted our thoughts on this complex issue to the FCC. You can read them here and download the actual filing here.

The FCC today issued FCC 13-58, Contraband Wireless Device Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), to “remove barriers to the deployment and viability of existing and future technologies used to combat contraband wireless devices.” The NPRM discusses current technologies such as managed access, detection, jamming and wireless carrier service termination of identified contraband cell phones.

Below are excerpts from the rulemaking document:

Inmate use of contraband wireless devices has grown within the federal and state prison systems parallel to the growth of wireless device use by the general public. In federal institutions and prison camps, GAO reports that the number of cell phones confiscated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) grew from 1,774 in 2008 to 3,684 in 2010. While not all states track or report data on the use of contraband wireless devices, the data that has been reported demonstrates significant growth. For example, California correctional officers seized approximately 261 cell phones in 2006; by 2011, correctional officers discovered more than 15,000 contraband wireless devices. Further, a test of an interdiction technology in two California State prisons detected more than 25,000 unauthorized communication attempts over an 11 day period in 2011. A similar interdiction system permanently installed in a Mississippi correctional facility reportedly blocked 325,000 communications attempts in the first month of operation, and as of February 2012, had blocked more than 2 million communications attempts.

In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we take steps to facilitate the development of multiple technological solutions to combat the use of contraband wireless devices in correctional facilities nationwide. Prisoners’ use of contraband wireless devices to engage in criminal activity is a serious threat to the safety of prison employees, other prisoners, and the general public. Through this Notice, we seek to remove barriers to the deployment and viability of existing and future technologies used to combat contraband wireless devices. In this Notice, “contraband wireless device” refers to any wireless device, including the physical hardware or part of a device – such as a subscriber identification module (SIM) – that is used within a correctional facility without authorization by the correctional authority. We use the phrase “correctional facility” to refer to any facility operated or overseen by federal, state, or local authorities that houses or holds prisoners for any period of time.

We propose a series of modifications to the Commission’s rules to facilitate spectrum lease agreements between wireless providers and providers or operators of managed access systems used to combat contraband wireless devices. Those proposed modifications are:

• Revising the Commission’s rules to immediately process de facto lease agreements or spectrum manager lease agreements for spectrum used exclusively in managed access systems in correctional facilities, and streamlining other aspects of the lease application or notification review process for those managed access systems in correctional facilities.

• Forbearing, to the extent necessary, from the individualized application review and public notice requirements of Sections 308, 309, and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), for qualifying managed access leases.

• Establishing a presumption that managed access operators provide a private mobile radio service (PMRS), streamlining the process for seeking Special Temporary Authority (STA) to operate a managed access system, and seeking comment on whether to establish a requirement that managed access providers provide notice to nearby households and businesses prior to activation of a managed access system.

We also propose to require wireless providers to terminate service, if technically feasible, to a contraband wireless device if an authorized correctional facility official notifies the wireless provider of the presence of the contraband wireless device within the correctional facility. We seek comment on the elements of the proposed notification and termination process, including who should be authorized to transmit a termination notification to the wireless provider, the form of such termination notice, and any safeguards necessary to ensure that service to legitimate wireless devices is not inadvertently terminated. We seek comment on the implication of our proposals on detection and managed access system operators’ compliance with or liability under Section 705 of the Act and federal law governing the use of pen registers or trap and trace devices. Finally, while we are limiting our proposals to managed access and detection solutions, we nevertheless invite comment on other technological approaches for addressing the problem of contraband wireless device usage in correctional facilities.

Further on in the document, it discusses managed access systems and some of the current deployments in state prison systems:

Managed access systems are micro-cellular, private networks that analyze transmissions to and from wireless devices to determine whether the device is authorized or unauthorized for purposes of accessing public carrier networks. Managed access systems utilize base stations that are optimized to capture all voice, text, and data communications within the system coverage area, which would be a correctional facility in the instant case. When a wireless device attempts to connect to the network from within the coverage area of the managed access system, the system cross-checks the identifying information of the device against a database that lists wireless devices authorized to operate in the coverage area. Authorized devices are allowed to communicate normally (i.e., transmit and receive voice, text, and data) with the commercial wireless network, while transmissions to or from unauthorized devices are terminated. The managed access system may also provide an alert to the user notifying the user that the device is unauthorized. The systems provide operational flexibility to the correctional facility administrators by allowing them to disable devices without having to physically remove them.

A correctional facility or third party at a correctional facility may operate a managed access system if authorized by the Commission. This authorization has to date involved agreements with the wireless providers serving the geographic area including the correctional facility and lease applications approved by the Commission. A number of deployments and trials have been conducted or are ongoing, as listed below.

• California The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has conducted trials of managed access systems at two state prisons. Based on the results of the trials, the California Technology Agency issued an Invitation for Bids for a prime contractor to provide a pay telephone system for inmates and wards and a managed access systems in correctional facilities across the state. The CDCR awarded the contract in April 2012 to Global Tel*Link (GTL), and its managed access operator has received experimental authorization to test a managed access system in nine facilities.

• Maryland The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) conducted an in-depth analysis of contraband cell phone interdiction technologies in 2009. Maryland DPSCS conducted trials of various non-jamming technologies at a decommissioned correctional facility in Jessup, Maryland, and a real-world study of non-jamming technologies in three commissioned correctional facilities. Maryland DPSCS subsequently issued a Request for Proposals for the installation of managed access and detection systems in all of its prisons, and granted a contract to Tecore Networks (Tecore) to install a managed access system in the Metropolitan Transition Center in Baltimore City, Maryland.

• Mississippi In 2010, the Mississippi Department of Corrections deployed a managed access system at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, a maximum security prison in Parchman, Mississippi. In its first month of operation, the system blocked a total of 325,000 call and message attempts, and has prevented more than 2 million calls and text messages through February 2012.

• South Carolina South Carolina has conducted trials of a managed access system at its Lieber Correctional Institution in Ridgeville, South Carolina. The Commission has approved several spectrum leases sought by ShawnTech Communications (ShawnTech) for a permanent installation at the Lieber Correctional Institution, and the system is operational.

• Texas The Texas Department of Criminal Justice announced in late 2012 that it would install managed access systems in two state correctional facilities. The Commission has approved a number of spectrum leases for ShawnTech for the managed access installations.

The post FCC Takes Up Technology Solutions To Contraband Cell Phones appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

This news video discusses the use of a cell phone-sniffing dog, appropriately named, “Sprint”, to find smuggled contraband cell phones in Oregon prisons. The video includes a demonstration of Sprint’s skills at the Santiam Correctional Institution in Salem.

Within seconds of the start of the demonstration, Sprint honed in on the scent of a cell phone hidden under an inmate’s pillow. According to the report, “High-end electronics such as cell phones have a unique odor. He’s not listening for sound, it’s not anything else. It’s all odor based.”

Interestingly, given the popularity and prevalence of contraband wireless phones, Sprint has yet to locate an inmate-smuggled phone. The meshDETECT secure cell phone solution uses uniquely identifiable cell phones so that they can be differentiated from contraband cell phones.

The post Detection Dog “Sniffs Out” Cell Phones Behind Bars appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

According to this article, the GAO has just released a study on the use of contraband cell phones in federal prisons. However the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) has not put in place or developed evaluation plans to measure the effectiveness of new technologies to address the smuggled cell phone problem.

Update (4/14): The DOJ just announced that it will require Federal Bureau of Prison halfway houses to boost services for inmates prior to release. The new rules also instruct federal work release facilities to provide cell phone access in order to help inmates seek employment opportunities.

Over the last three years, the number of contraband cell phones seized in federal prisons and minimum-security facilities has quadrupled, according to a report issued by the General Accountability Office.

Corrections officials have been alarmed by the trend because prisoners can make unmonitored calls and can continue criminal activities while behind bars. The Bureau of Prisons needs to do a better job of evaluating technologies to detect the phones, the report says.

In 2008, 1,774 cell phones were seized. By the end of 2010 that number had skyrocketed to 8,656. The report looked at the issue in federal prisons as well as institutions in eight states. The numbers were not complete for all the states, but in California 900 phones were discovered in 2007 and a whopping 10,700 were found in 2010.

Authorities told the GAO that “a combination of easier access to cheaper cell phones, better awareness by staff conducting contraband searches and better collection of intelligence have all contributed to these increases, but it is difficult to determine how much each factor has resulted in increased cell phone confiscations.”

Prison officials have been trying out new technologies to detect inmates using cellular devices. But the report says the Bureau of Prisons “has not developed evaluation plans to measure the effectiveness of these tests.” The GAO also said the Bureau should share more information with state prison officials about promising technologies.

The report was completed in July but an edited version was not made available to the public until Tuesday. Details about how inmates manage to get the phones and the technologies used to detect them were taken out. But the document does say the Bureau of Prisons has tried out a radio frequency sensor system in two institutions. The sensors show when a cell phone is being used and shows the approximate location of the phone on a computer screen.

CTIA-the Wireless Association issued a statement saying the GAO did not recommend jamming cell phone signals, an action the group opposes. GAO official David Maurer said GAO was not asked to assess any particular technology for countering cell phone use by prisoners.

In federal prisons, more than three-quarters of the phones were seized in minimum-security prison camps rather than facilities housing more dangerous inmates.

But when dangerous inmates had access to phones, the consequences often were grave. The report says in 2007 an inmate at a Maryland detention center ordered the murder of a witness to his crimes using a contraband phone. In another instance from 2008, a death row inmate in a Texas state prison used a cell phone to threaten a state senator and his family.

Some inmates run illegal businesses to make money. The GAO report says in January 2011 an inmate at a federal prison was sentenced to an additional 14 years in prison for operating an identity theft ring with the crucial help of a cell phone.

The GAO report also provides details on the costs prisoners typically pay to make sanctioned phone calls to family and friends. The GAO says “some prison advocates believe that inmates are increasingly using contraband phones because of the rates correctional institutions charge for telephone service.”

However, the GAO says being able to make calls that aren’t monitored by prison officials allows inmates to engage in crime.

Source

The post Prisoners’ Cell Phone Use On The Rise At FBOP appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

The following editorial is a response to one written earlier regarding contraband prison cell phone signal jamming. In it the author, an official of the Maryland DOC states, “Corrections systems must invest, innovate, develop partnerships and educate themselves in order to gain the necessary capabilities to fight this problem.” This is very true, but all the approaches he mentions are related to smuggled cell phone interdiction and detection. None of the solutions contemplate proactively reducing the contraband value of smuggled cell phones by offering prisoners a secure cell phone solution in order to siphon off legitimate usage (prisoners who simply want to stay in touch with friends and family) and thereby reduce the contraband value of smuggled wireless phones. It is time for DOC officials to consider addressing the root cause of the problem (demand) in a addition to spending money on detection and interdiction.

Terry Bittner’s assertion that cell phones in Maryland’s prisons are an issue is correct. This is an issue in every state. His assertion that Maryland is focusing on a single solution — cell phone blocking — is inaccurate. And his insinuation that we are not doing enough is wrong (“Cell phone blocking isn’t the only answer for Md. Prisons,” June 15).

There is no one single solution to meeting the challenge of illegal cell phones in prisons. In the absence of jamming, which is generally illegal in the United States, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services has conducted more than 20 months of research on all available technologies to better understand which cellular detection, managed access or jamming applications would work best in our prisons. This includes a multi-vendor pilot demonstration in the summer of 2009 and several subsequent long term single-vendor pilots.

But not waiting on a technological solution, we have attacked and significantly slowed the flow of cell phones on several fronts including: developing better intelligence, investing in better entrance and scanning technology, innovating approaches like using cell phone sniffingdogs, and data mining interdicted cell phones to help local prosecutors build better cases on inmates found with phones.

Better intelligence has made gang communication within our prisons increasingly more difficult and has become integral to gaining convictions for many Black Guerilla Family gang members in the past two years (alluded to by Mr. Bittner). Our $1.1 million entrance scanning technology has increased the percentage of cell phones captured before they make it inside our prisons by more than 10 percent through April of fiscal year 2011 compared to fiscal year 2010; our dogs have found almost 500 phones since 2008; and with our new forensics intelligence gathering abilities we are seeing close to a 90 percent conviction rate in the cell phone cases states’ attorneys are now taking to court.

None of this is guaranteed to stop all cell phones from getting into our prisons, but it has decreased the flow — by 32 percent in 2010 compared to 2009. But more importantly, these targeted efforts have helped make our prisons safer for staff and offenders. Serious assaults on staff have fallen by 50 percent from 2007 to 2010. On offenders they have fallen 35 percent.

Corrections systems must invest, innovate, develop partnerships and educate themselves in order to gain the necessary capabilities to fight this problem. Maryland has become a national leader in cell phone interdiction, and our efforts have been reported on by media here in Maryland and nationally.

Mr. Bittner’s comments misrepresent and cloud the exhaustive efforts we have made, not only to slow the flow of cell phones inside our prisons, but also to identify truly effective anti-cellular technologies and the best practices of their use.

Gary D. Maynard

The writer is secretary of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.

Source

The post No Single Solution To Illegal Cell Phones In Prison appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

This article discusses how as prisons try to block unauthorized cell phone use, companies are developing systems that cost over $1 million to address the problem. This is cost that will be passed on to the taxpayer if prisons adopt this technology. By adopting the meshDETECT secure prison cell phone solution, prisons and taxpayers will avoid this cost and reduce prison cell phone smuggling and the value of contraband prison cell phones.

The Bloods street gang is a known distributor. Charles Manson has had at least two. In April, one was used to start a riot in an Alabama prison. Much to the chagrin of corrections officials nationwide, inmates have discovered the advantages of using mobile phones to coordinate escapes, intimidate witnesses, and order retaliation against other prisoners.

Although there are no nationwide statistics, in California alone more than 10,000 contraband phones were confiscated from inmates in 2010, up from 1,400 in 2007. In Mississippi, authorities grabbed more than 4,000 handsets from prisoners last year, up 43 percent from 2009. “Illegal cell phones are probably the largest public-safety risk prisons are facing nationally,” says Terri McDonald, chief deputy secretary of California’s Corrections and Rehabilitation Dept.

Those worries have spurred nearly a dozen companies to develop electronic devices that jam signals, find phones, or block calls from unapproved numbers. “The only way to eliminate the threat is to physically capture the cell phone from the inmate,” says Terry Bittner, director of security products for ITT Defense & Information Solutions. The McLean (Va.) company makes a device called the Cell Hound that detects phone signals and pinpoints their location within a radius of 21 feet.

Cell phone jammers are already used by prisons in Mexico, France, Australia, and elsewhere. In the U.S., though, phone jamming is illegal (except when done by a federal agency) under a 1934 law that prohibits deliberately interfering with radio signals. A bill that would have allowed prisons to jam cell phone signals was passed by the U.S. Senate in 2009 but died in a House committee. Representative Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) plans to reintroduce a similar measure this spring. “We have the technology to block illegal cell phone calls,” Brady says. “We just need to remove government roadblocks to be able to use it.”

Carriers and wireless industry trade groups oppose prison jamming. They say it would interfere with cell phone communications outside the walls. “In seeking solutions to one problem, we must be careful not to create additional problems that could adversely impact the reliability or dependability of … service,” says Joseph Marx, an AT&T (T) assistant vice-president who works on regulatory issues.

As an alternative, AT&T and others suggest “managed access” technology. Such systems establish a radio-frequency umbrella around a prison that intercepts signals from wireless devices. The system checks each cell phone number to see whether it’s on an approved list. If it’s not, the call is blocked. Since the technology doesn’t interfere with legitimate cell phone calls, it’s not barred by the 1934 law.

Last August the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, 130 miles north of Jackson, installed the first such system in the U.S. So far the technology, by Tecore Networks of Columbia, Md., has blocked more than a million attempted calls and texts by inmates while allowing guards and other approved users to make calls, corrections officials say. The state plans to deploy the system at two more prisons this spring. “I’ve searched high and low and I haven’t seen anything better than managed access to deal with illegal cell phones,” says Christopher Epps, commissioner of the Mississippi Corrections Dept. “This is the future for prisons.”

Following the March escape of an inmate who used a smuggled handset to arrange his getaway, the Texas Criminal Justice Dept. is evaluating both managed-access technology and simpler systems that locate cell phones for its 112 prisons. California corrections officials are testing similar systems at two prisons, and they eventually hope to deploy equipment to combat cell phone use by inmates across the state soon. “We’re seeing interest in our technology from prisons all over the country,” says Howard Melamed, chief executive officer of CellAntenna, a Coral Springs (Fla.) company that makes jammers and managed access systems. The company’s gear is being used in Australia, but CellAntenna has yet to make any sales to U.S. prisons.

A big problem, says Melamed, is paying for such systems. Jammers cost more than $30,000 per building, while managed access runs from $400,000 to more than $1 million for a typical prison. ITT Defense’s Cell Hound detection system ranges from about $20,000 for a small facility to $600,000 for a larger prison.

Some jailers prefer lower-tech solutions. Prisons in more than a half-dozen states search for hidden handsets with dogs that can sniff out the chemicals in phone batteries; in Maryland, as word of the dogs has spread among inmates, cell phone seizures have dropped from 1,600 in 2009 to 1,100 last year. And officials at Pelican Bay State Prison in Northern California have confiscated just a dozen or so handsets from inmates since 2006, fewer than any other major prison in the state. Pelican Bay’s remote location, it seems, means the facility suffers from something many outside the walls surely rue: lousy cell phone coverage.

Source

The post Keeping Cell Phones Out of Jail Cells appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.