In July, 2018 the UK’s Prison and Probation Service issued a report that detailed the findings from research that looked at the demand and use of illicit phones in prisons. The report explores the use of smuggled mobile phones in prison in considerable detail, contrasting the views of prison staff and prisoners themselves on why and how prisoners increasingly use mobiles inside prisons.

The aim of the research was to understand what drives the demand for illicit phones by prisoners, what type of prisoners are more likely to want an illicit phone, and to help identify methods that are potentially effective to reduce the supply and demand for illicit phones.

Unique in this report is the effort to identify and address not only the supply side of the contraband prison cell phone equation, but also the demand side drivers.

The varieties and types of  cell phone use by prisoners is captured in the figure below, followed by a description of the different user types identified. The report states, “The typology has been constructed on the basis of a synthesis of the qualitative material and it should be noted that the sample of prisoners interviewed was biased to higher risk prisoners. The synthesis has sought to capture the relative importance of different types of drivers of mobile phones as reported to the researchers, primarily by the prisoner sample. Figure 2 illustrates the typology, providing an indication of the relative importance of the various drivers of use as reported by prisoners, represented by the size of the circles. The overlaps between the circles of different types of users are intended as an indicator of crossover between groups in patterns of motivation and use. The size of the circles is not intended to denote the size of particular groups of mobile phone users; this cannot be deduced from a piece of qualitative research.”

Mobile phone user typology:

Family man
Profile: Partnered/with children. Includes very young fathers, but has older bias.
Motivation: Close to family, contribute as parent from inside, be part of family life.
Usage style: Text and voice. Discreet – aim to retain phone on sustainable basis.
Risk: Low, little cross-over with other aspects of prison economy.
Impact: Sustained relationships. Positive for resettlement/desistance.

Girlfriends/sex talk
Profile: Young men with and without partners.
Motivation: Relationships and intimacy, female company, control, sex, entertainment –presence in outside world.
Usage style: Primary focus text, voice, some picture sharing. Can be discreet – somesharing within close associate clique.
Risk: Medium, some crossover with drugs, some access to restricted numbers.
Impact: Positive for personal relationships and some diffusion of tension/aggression.Some potential for continuation of damaging controlling relationships, relationships with criminal associates.

Economically driven/opportunists
Profile: Multiple sentences, experienced or longer term prisoners.
Motivation: Cost savings and convenience. Some to sort affairs on entry to prison.
Usage style: Text and voice. Mix of phone owners/renters, some occasional use.
Risk: Medium to low. May be some crossover with running external criminal business.
Impact: Medium, some potential for debt, exposure to intimidation and stress.

Display/Rebel
Profile: Young males, testosterone/display-driven, multiple prison terms, often gang-related.
Motivation: Status and build reputation inside/outside prison, display physique, boast to external audience, maintain presence outside world, kick against system.
Usage style: Text and voice, images key, social media.
Risk: Medium to high: some crossover with drug/mobile trafficking, harassment of witnesses/victims, continuation of gang agenda.
Impact: Negative impact on victims/witnesses, impact on reputation of prison service, glamorising negative behaviours/gang cultures – but short-lived.

Dealers
Profile: Dealers in drugs/mobiles or both, both inside prison and, in some cases also running external drug business. Some local gang connected, some OCG links.
Motivation: Financial gain, status, continuation of criminal lifestyle – also used for personal and family communications but primary driver criminal business.
Usage style: Text and voice. May have dominant position in landing hierarchy. Phone typically held by associates or third party, typically weaker, potentially vulnerable prisoners.
Risk: High. Risks to security and good order, central to the illicit prison economy, continuation of external criminal business activities.
Impact: High. Disorder and volatility, debt, intimidation, violence, extortion, both internally and externally to families, potential risks for victims and witnesses and external associates.

Vulnerable holders
Profile: Weak individuals with little status intimidated into holding phones for more powerful and connected prisoners.
Motivation: Fear of more powerful individuals and potential consequences of not agreeing to look after phone. In some cases ‘quid pro quo’ of being able to use phone to contact own family.
Usage style: Often not used personally, in some cases limited text and voice.
Risk: Low risk, primarily to individual if phone detected and confiscated by authorities.
Impact: Secondary effect, primary impact associated with phone owners. Some risk to holders (of debt, retaliation, sanctions) if phone detected and confiscated.

Serious Organised Criminals (SOC)
Profile: Experienced lifestyle criminals, present as ‘model prisoner’.
Motivation: Continuation of criminal business activity, minimise personal exposure to risk and length of time in prison, minimise personal discomfort/restrictions within prison regime.
Usage style: Full functionality device, minimal personal use, maximum deniability, device carried/stored by associates, highly conscious of targeting and intelligence powers.
Risk: Very high – drug dealing and trafficking at scale, risks to witnesses and perversion of course of justice.
Impact: Very high – continuing of scale criminal business has ongoing negative impact on public.

Conclusions:

Regarding the types of contraband prison cell phone users, the report goes on to conclude , “There appeared to be a significant body of mobile phone users for whom the drivers of demand were essentially social and human rather than criminal and for whom the impact of mobile phone use was largely positive, not only in enabling individuals to maintain meaningful relationships with family and loved ones but also in increasing motivation for compliance and desistance. The primary social driver in these cases appears to be prisoners’ deep desire to maintain relationships with loved ones, with the legitimate phone system often being a poor fit with their communication needs and the realities of family lives, partners’ working hours and children’s activities. From the prisoners’ accounts, this appeared to be the most important driver of demand for mobile phones.

Clearly there is a degree of crossover between the criminal and social drivers. Nonetheless, for many prisoners using mobile phones primarily or solely for communications, the social use of mobile phones appeared to have a series of positives associated with it, in contrast to the undoubted risks and harm arising from criminally driven use of mobile phones in prisons. Access to mobile phones appeared to go some way to defusing the frustrations and tensions that are associated with the inadequacy of the legitimate PIN phone system, and thus may also be mitigating the potential for violent confrontations and intimidation which centres on access to these phones.

Against the background of capacity and resource pressure, it could also be argued that access to mobile phones may have also been working to dilute the impact of prisoners being locked up for extended periods and thus mitigating prisoner resentment of increasingly lengthy lock-ins, which might otherwise present a powerful driver for confrontation with prison authorities.

For those with access to them, mobile phones were clearly underpinning prisoners’ ability to maintain meaningful ongoing relationships with family and loved ones and to participate more fully in family life and relationships, with apparent benefits for children and partners as well as prisoners themselves. It could also be argued therefore that mobile phones – and the quality communication with family and loved ones that they facilitated – were acting to support pro-social behaviour and moderate the culture of violence and the inward-looking prison culture.”

The post The Demand For and Use of Illicit Phones in Prison appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

On March 1, 2012 the FCC issued a public notice seeking comments “on concerns and issues related to intentional interruptions of Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS or “wireless service”) by government authorities for the purpose of ensuring public safety.” (GN Docket No. 12-52)

As the notice states, “While the important function that wireless service plays in protecting public safety is undisputed, some commentators, including some law enforcement personnel, have raised concerns that wireless networks can be used in ways that put the public’s safety at risk. Concerns, for example, that wireless service could be used to trigger the detonation of an explosive device or to organize the activities of a violent flash mob have led public authorities in the United States and abroad to consider interrupting wireless service. Last summer, a public agency temporarily interrupted wireless service on parts of a mass transit system based on stated concerns about public safety.”

“Any intentional interruption of wireless service, no matter how brief or localized, raises significant concerns and implicates substantial legal and policy questions. The service interruption last summer drew sharp criticism, and state and local governments have recently grappled with how to address possible future events. We are concerned that there has been insufficient discussion, analysis, and consideration of the questions raised by intentional interruptions of wireless service by government authorities. In this Public Notice, we seek comment on the legal constraints and policy considerations that bear on an intentional interruption of wireless service by government actors for the purpose of ensuring public safety.”

Not surprisingly this request for comments received many responses from public and private organizations both for and against such action and policy. Included amongst the comments submitted were those provided by Global Tel*Link (GTL) and Tecore on the use of managed access technology in prisons to jam contraband cell phone signals.

As we have written previously, GTL and Tecore have partnered to install managed access in the CDCR’s prison facilities across the state of California as part of GTL’s recent contract to provide prison inmate telephone service.

What is interesting about GTL’s comments to the FCC is its recommendation that the FCC require that entities seeking to deploy a wireless interruption system must provide their services through an authorized provider of telecommunications services selected by the correctional facility. That is, that prison payphone companies be the sole provider of such systems to prisons.

GTL’s logic is as follows,”Through judicious application of existing or enhanced standards promulgated by the Office of Engineering and Technology, the Commission can ensure that any system will be installed and operated in the public interest. Permitting entities with no known qualifications to interact with telecommunications service providers or law enforcement agencies, to install and operate sensitive telecommunications infrastructure, borders on the reckless and irresponsible. To this end, the FCC can require that entities seeking to deploy a wireless interruption system must provide their services through an authorized provider of telecommunications services selected by the correctional facility. Such authorizations carry with them financial and technical evaluations, and provide wireless consumers with points of contact for regulatory redress. Coordination with law enforcement and correctional officers – of the sort pursued in the Maryland, Mississippi, and South Carolina tests – should also be required, culminating in written approval from the institution administrator and a contract with the correctional facility.”

Not surprisingly, Tecore has concerns with GTL’s attempt to corner the market on managed access systems deployment within the prison prison industry. In their subsequent comments to FCC they respond to this initiative: “Tecore most strongly disagrees with the portion of GTL’s comments wherein it urges the Commission to use its regulatory authority to “require that entities seeking to deploy a wireless interruption system . . . provide their services through an authorized provider of telecommunications services selected by the correctional facility.”

“Tecore agrees that, given the technological complexities of managed access, “[p]ermitting entities with no known qualifications . . . to install and operate sensitive telecommunications infrastructure” would border on the “reckless and irresponsible.” However, this does not warrant the requirement that corrections officials be precluded from deploying managed access directly, or through any competent contractor, so long as the system can be effectively deployed and managed. Indeed, the upcoming Maryland deployment of the Tecore Managed Access solution would be precluded under GTL’s proposal because the deployment is not being implemented through an inmate telephone service provider. As Tecore has advocated to the Commission in pioneering managed access, the attraction of including an inmate telephone services provider in the equation is that it presents a vehicle for funding the deployment, which is useful for cash-strapped corrections departments. Inmate telephone contractors, nor indeed any other corrections contractor, should not be a required part of any deployment. This is an administrative decision best left to each corrections department.”

With partners like these, who needs enemies?

(Separately in this same submission to the FCC, Tecore also responds in detail to the findings of the recent highly critical CCST report on the CDCR plan to deploy managed access systems.)

The post Global Tel*Link Tries to Corner The Market On Prison Managed Access Systems appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.