Here is the latest summary of recent news articles regarding contraband cell phones in prisons around the world. I call these periodic round up of news items, “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.

Convicted Killer Among Group of Prisoners Given Permission to Buy Mobile Phone: A convicted killer is among a group of prisoners at an open jail given permission to buy a mobile phone.

Ten inmates at Loughan House jail in Blacklion, Co Cavan, were allowed to buy a handset late last week. And among the first to get their hands on the phones was convicted killer Nigel Kenny. He and the nine other inmates were told by Governor William Reilly that they could buy the Samsung handsets with a charger and €5 credit for €25 on Friday.

The programme is expected to be rolled out to all prisoners at the open jail over the coming weeks. Mobile phones have already been given to inmates at Shelton Abbey open prison in Co Wicklow… (source)

Romania to Implement Mobile Signal Jammers in Prisons to Curb Phone Fraud by Inmates: Romania plans to implement a system that will jam mobile phone reception in prisons starting 2015, which should limit the number and use of mobile phones in prisons, but also corruption among prison employees.

The unauthorized use of mobile phones by inmates was central to many fraud cases where prisoners called gullible individuals and asked for money by giving them fake information. One of the most common schemed used was for inmates to call people and pretend they were lawyers, working with a family member who was taken by the Police and who needed money to be released, convincing families to send them over the money… (source)

Smuggled Cellphones Creating Havoc in Prisons: They’re hidden in babies’ diapers, ramen noodle soup packages, footballs, soda cans and even body cavities.

Not drugs or weapons, but cellphones. They’re becoming a growing problem in prisons across America as they are used to make threats, plan escapes and for inmates to continue to make money from illegal activity even while behind bars.

“You can pick states all across the country and you’ll see everything from hits being ordered on individuals to criminal enterprises being run from inside institutions with cellphones,” said Michael Crews, head of Florida’s Department of Corrections.

When two murderers serving life sentences escaped from Florida Panhandle prison last fall, a search of their cells turned up a cellphone used to help plan the getaway, drawing attention to the burgeoning problem. It was just one of 4,200 cellphones confiscated by prison officials last year, or 11 per day…(source)

Blocking Cell Phone Calls from Prisons: Good Idea, Dumb Policy: Honduras has embarked on a very stupid program of forcing its cell phone providers to block calls from within the 23 prisons in Honduras. It’s not that the idea is necessarily bad. But the implementation they chose is exceptionally stupid. The Honduran Congress under Porfirio Lobo passed a bill that requires cell phone providers to block any calls from prisons. This is not something that is done easily in a standard cell phone base station and requires special programming (and probably required the purchase of that capability from the base station provider).

The idiocy comes from the fact that the law specifies that for each prison location, no cell phone be able to complete a call, text message, or Internet connection within a one kilometer circle around the prison. The Honduran Congress definitely shouldn’t have specified a technical solution to what recognizably is a problem for their desired management of the prison population. But they did, and they chose the worst possible solution for the Honduran populace that lives near the prisons.

It probably bears emphasis that in Honduras, prisons are often located in densely populated areas surrounded by housing. The residents of these cities and towns living within one kilometer of the prisons targeted are suffering because their cell phones don’t work, either. That means no emergency service calls for medical help, no fire protection, no calling the police to report a crime in progress… (source)

‘Dead’ Mobiles Spark Stir: Residents in Kalapet, Chinna Kalapet and Kanagachettikulam resorted to road blockades in four places on the East Coast Road on Monday, to protest the disconnection of cell phone towers in the vicinity of Puducherry Central prison at Kalapet. The traffic on the route was crippled for more than two hours.

The district magistrate had disconnected the towers, to stave off the use of cell phones by prison inmates, to perpetrate crimes, posing a great deal of inconvenience to the residents. However, the intervention by Revenue and Police led to the withdrawal of the road blockade.

The District Magistrate had initiated the action after the Governor himself visited the jail and raised safety issues. Taking advantage of the proximity of mobile towers, the jammers inside the central jail were rendered ineffective and the inmates of the jail made calls at ease… (source)

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

The FCC has released its order (FCC 13-113) detailing the rules associated with the regulating of prison payphone interstate calling rates. This is the culmination of FCC Proposed Rule Making 12-375 (The Wright Petition – follow the link for to see the new proposed rates) in which the Federal Communications Commission proposed to lower rates charged to prison inmates for long distance telephone calls by considering changes to its regulations governing rates for interstate inter-exchange inmate calling services (ICS), after studying the issue for nine years.

The ruling effectively guts the per minute LD rates and one-time per call fees companies such as Global Tel*Link and Securus Technologies can charge imates and their families as well as the commissions paid to Federal, State and County prisons.

The FCC claims that commissions are “not recoverable through interstate ICS rates because the record makes clear that they are not a direct cost of providing interstate ICS.”

It also sets the ground work for a similar action on intrastate rates. Relevant excerpts from the ruling relating to one time fees and to the payment of commissions to jails and prisons by the prison payphone providers are below. Securus has previously stated that it will go to court to stop the implementation of these rules.

As the prison payphone companies and prisons grapple with the challenge of recovering the revenues associated with this order, we suggest they consider meshDETECT Secure Prison Cell Phone Solutions™ as a potential new service offering that also reduces the demand for contraband cell phones while reducing recidivism.

Commissions

The Commission has previously held that site commissions are-for purposes of considering ICS rates under section 276—an apportionment of profit, not a cost of providing ICS.In the 2012 ICS NPRM, the Commission sought comment on its prior conclusion that site commission payments, or “location rents are not a cost of payphones, but should be treated as profit.” Site commission payments are not costs that are reasonably and directly related to the provision of ICS because they are payments made to correctional facilities or departments of corrections for a wide range of purposes, most or all of which have no reasonable and direct relation to the provision of ICS. After carefully considering the record, we reaffirm the Commission’s previous holding and conclude that site commission payments are not part of the cost of providing ICS and therefore not compensable in interstate ICS rates.

In this Order we find that site commissions are not recoverable through interstate ICS rates because the record makes clear that they are not a direct cost of providing interstate ICS. If commissions or other payments from ICS providers to correctional facilities reflect costs of providing ICS, providers have several avenues available to them.

Although it is clear that site commissions are a revenue stream to the correctional facility, we cannot foreclose the possibility that some portion of payments from ICS providers to some correctional facilities may, in certain circumstances, reimburse correctional facilities for their costs of providing ICS. As a result, we provide several avenues for exploring this issue further. First, we set the interim safe harbors and interim rate caps at conservative levels above costs in our record. Second, any ICS provider seeking a waiver of the rate cap or seeking to justify costs between the safe harbor and the interim rate cap may provide specific details about payments to correctional facilities that it contends are compensable for costs meeting our cost standards through interstate ICS rates as articulated in this Order. Third, as part of the mandatory data collection we initiate below, we will seek further information on payments to correctional facilities and whether they cover any costs of service. Finally, in our accompanying Further Notice, we seek comment on whether we should categorically find that payments to correctional facilities are not compensable costs, or whether there are certain compensable costs that those payments can legitimately address. In his Dissent, Commissioner Pai notes that this Order recognizes that excluding sitecommissions from cost data used to develop our safe harbor benchmark and rate cap may be an “underinclusive approach given that correctional institutions themselves often incur costs to provide ICS and those costs may need to be included in any costs-of-service estimates.” While it is correct that the rates and cost studies that the Commission used as a basis for the safe harbor benchmarks and the interim rate caps do not includesite commission payments, the Commission did not exclude them. Rather, the rates used to establish the safe-harbor benchmarks are rates for service in states that have prohibited site commission payments. Also, the ICS provider cost studies that we use as a basis for the interim rate caps adopted in the Order were prepared by the ICS providers to show costs of service excluding site commission payments. Furthermore, we do not remove costs or adjust inputs from the data used to establish the interim rate caps. For example, both cost studies used to establish the interim rate caps use an 11.25% rate of return to determine the cost of capital. We do not opine on whether this input is appropriate in this context. Instead, we accepted the figures in the cost study, as asserted, without considering whether they represent accurate levels of costs that are reasonably and directly related to provision of interstate ICS and, therefore, are appropriately recoverable thought interstate ICS rates. Consequently, it is likely that these cost figures are overstated, but we accept that possibility as part of our decision to set conservative interim rate cap levels.

We also disagree with ICS providers’ assertion that the Commission must defer to states on any decisions about site commission payments, their amount, and how such revenues are spent. We do not conclude that ICS providers and correctional facilities cannot have arrangements that include site commissions. We conclude only that, under the Act, such commission payments are not costs that can be recovered through interstate ICS rates. Our statutory obligations relate to the rates charged to end users— the inmates and the parties whom they call. We say nothing in this Order about how correctional facilities spend their funds or from where they derive. We state only that site commission payments as a category are not a compensable component of interstate ICS rates. We note that we would similarly treat “in-kind” payment requirements that replace site commission payments in ICS contracts.

Per Call Fees

We are concerned about the evidence regarding current per-call rates and associated practices. In particular, we are concerned that a rate structure with a per-call charge can impact the cost of calls of short duration, potentially rendering such charges unjust, unreasonable and unfair. We have particular concerns when calls are dropped without regard to whether there is a potential security or technical issue, and a per-call charge is imposed on the initial call and each successive call. As a result, we conclude that unreasonably high per-call charges and/or unnecessarily dropped calls that incur multiple per-call charges are not just and reasonable

Our interim rate structure will help address concerns raised about unreasonable per-call charges while we consider further reforms in the Further Notice. As described above, we adopt interim safe harbor rate levels and interim rate caps to ensure the overall cost of a 15-minute call is just, reasonable, and fair. ICS providers have the flexibility to satisfy the safe harbor either through a certification that the per-minute rate is at or below the safe harbor, or by demonstrating that the cost of a 15-minute call (including any per-connection charges) is at or below the safe harbor per-minute rate times 15.Thus, where an ICS provider elects to take advantage of the interim safe harbor rate levels described above, we allow the provider flexibility to determine whether its rate structure should include per-call charges. Specifically, we allow ICS providers to calculate whether their rates are at or below the interim safe harbor levels or the interim rate caps by calculating their compliance on the basis of a 15-minute call. Because our interim safe harbors constrain the cost of a 15-minute conversation to a level we find to be just, reasonable, and fair, we find it is appropriate to afford ICS providers such flexibility

Although we are unable to find ancillary charges per se unreasonable based on the record,
we have sufficient information and authority to reach several conclusions regarding ancillary charges. First, as stated earlier, interstate ICS rates must be cost-based, and to be compensable costs must be reasonably and directly related to provision of ICS. Ancillary service charges are no exception; they also fall within this standard and the Commission has the jurisdiction and authority to regulate them. Section 201(b) of the Act requires that “all charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with” communications services be just and reasonable. Section 276 of the Act defines “payphone service” to encompass “the provision of inmate telephone service in correctional institutions, and any ancillary services,” and requires that providers be “fairly compensated.” The services associated with these ancillary charges are “in connection with” the inmate payphone services for purposes of section 201(b) and “ancillary” for purposes of section 276. As such, they fall within the standards we articulate above for determining which costs are compensable through interstate ICS rates. Therefore, even if a provider’s interstate ICS rates are otherwise in compliance with the requirements of this Order, the provider may still be found in violation of the Act and our rules if its ancillary service charges are not cost-based.

The post FCC Releases Order (FCC 13-113) Regulating Prison Payphone Costs and Commissions appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Here is a 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.

Mobile phone jamming technology set for Scotland’s prisons: Mobile phone blockers, costing up to £1 million per prison, are being planned to stop inmates continuing to run criminal operations from behind bars.

Detective Chief Superintendent Stephen Whitelock, head of intelligence group at Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement, said: “We have established a national prison intelligence unit which involves close collaboration with the SPS and the eight police forces, and one of the key strands of work is to tackle the use of mobile phones in prison.”

However, the Mobile Broadband Group, which represents providers, has raised concerns. “The interference equipment that will be allowed within prisons as a result of this legislation has the potential to cause harmful interference to the customers of the mobile operators legitimately using their mobile devices in the vicinity,” it said.

Scottish Conservative chief whip John Lamont added: “Everyone agrees that prisoners should not be able to access mobile phones or the internet outwith times monitored and agreed by the Scottish Prison Service. But the way to do this is to clamp down on smuggling. (Source)

Low-tech vs. high tech to stop cell phones in prison: California prison officials are trying a new tack to stop cell phone use by inmates. They are trying to block cell phone signals, but the technology has failed when used in other states. Every year, thousands of cell phones are confiscated in California prisons.

Inmates use them for various and nefarious reasons – ordering hits and managing gang activity from the inside out. How the phones get in is just as varied and shadowy. Evidence and testimony from officials with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) show that staff members smuggle in phones for a lucrative profit.

Yet, corrections officers are not searched when they show up for work. Some reports say it would violate their contract, others say the state doesn’t want to pay for the shift time resulting from searches. What is the best way to stop cell phones in prisons? Why aren’t corrections officers searched? (Source)

Welcome to Costa del Jail! Facebook boasts of thugs and burglars serving time: Stripped to the waist and grinning from ear to ear, they look like a group of young friends posing for a holiday snap.

Actually these eight men are prison inmates parading for the camera – and they flouted a ban on mobile phones to upload the results to Facebook.

As well as dressing in their shorts, they poured scorn on the justice system by likening their prison sentences to a holiday in Spain. (Source)

Prison video visits threaten to put profit before public safety: Virtual visiting has become the latest craze in prisons, with at least 20 states now having some kind of video conferencing system in place. As most prisoners tend to get housed in facilities at least 100 – and often up to 500 – miles from home, frequent visits are impossible for families; so video calls at least offer the opportunity for some virtual face time.

Unfortunately, however, what could be a positive additional means for prisoners and their families to stay in touch is in danger of becoming any thing but a blessing. Some jurisdictions have already begun to eliminate contact visits entirely in favor of their virtual counterpart – and private corporations are already lining up to exploit this latest opportunity to fleece prisoners’ families. (Source)

Prisoner’s Facebook page ‘mocks jail system,’ union head says: A Facebook profile of a jailed, notorious street gang member highlights the smuggling problem in Quebec’s detention centres, according to the president of the province’s union of correctional officers.

Jonathan Jano Klor, sentenced to 14 years in prison in September for attempted murder, is listed on a public Facebook profile as a “young entrepreneur.”

The profile was created in July while Klor was in Montreal’s Riviere-des-Prairies Detention Centre awaiting sentencing. (Source)

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

An article on the problems of contraband smuggling in Indiana jails discusses the unique problems posed by contraband smartphones and the access to the internet they provide prisoners. That internet access is used to update social media sites such as Facebook. The custom meshDETECT secure prison cell phones do not allow internet or social media application access.

While tobacco and drugs are still popular forms of contraband among inmates, cellphones – especially smartphones – are becoming a bane to prison officials across the nation.

The number of phones confiscated in federal prison doubled from 2008 through 2010, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Law enforcement’s biggest fear might be a case like Wesley Hammond’s – someone able to operate a drug ring or coordinate other illegal activities while behind bars.

But a new recurring problem in Indiana and other states involves prisoners having access to social media like Facebook.

Indiana prison inmates are not allowed access to the Internet, but this year one inmate serving time for murder was found to be updating his Facebook page – and discovered by his victim’s family, no less.

Officials learned that someone on the outside was updating that particular inmate’s Facebook page and he was not doing it himself.

Still, that’s a violation of Facebook policy, and the inmate’s page was removed, Garrison said.

But others are using smartphones to access the Internet.

“The smartphones are a big problem for us,” Douglas Garrison, spokesman for the Indiana Department of Correction said. “We’re seeing photographs from offenders dumb enough to put their photos on their Facebook page.”

According to Garrison, prison officials find about one or two Facebook pages created by inmates – or one of their family members for them – each month.

Prison officials are working with Facebook to scrub away any page belonging to an inmate.

And the fact that inmate profiles appear on Facebook or other websites shows that items are still getting in – whether it’s a cellphone hidden in a book or a package or a bundle of tobacco dumped over the prison fence late at night.

“What that tells you, that despite our best efforts, we’re still having things trafficked into our joint,” Garrison said.

Source

The post Becoming iPrison appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

The creative smuggling of contraband cell phones into prison is not just limited to the Untied States as this article on a remote-controlled helicopter smuggling cell phones in Thailand shows.

We guess that it’s a generally accepted rule that cellphones aren’t allowed in prison, and we’re guessing it’s for a huge variety of reasons. After all the point of prison is to serve your time and rehabilitate yourself, and not to spend all day yakking on the phone, right? So how is it that in movies and television shows, prison inmates end up with cellphones? While the movies and television shows have been scripted, it seems that in Thailand, a rather innovative and unique method of smuggling cellphones has been uncovered.

It has been reported that a remote-controlled helicopter had crashed near a prison in Ratchaburi according to the local police yesterday. The helicopter was said to have been carrying cellphones along with cellphone parts/components and millions of Thai Baht, which we’re guessing was meant to be delivered to the prison inmates. Discovered inside the shockproof box that was attached beneath the helicopter, police found seven cellphones, four satellite phones, a number of SIM cards, eight cellphone batteries and three cellphone screens.

It seems that the cellphones, SIM cards and phone parts were meant to be sold on the prison’s black market. It was reported that parts and phones were worth anywhere between 2 million to 3 million Thai Baht, but it seems on the black market, it could have easily gone for 10 million Thai Baht ($321,387).

Source

The post Remote Control Helicopter Smuggled Cellphone Into Prison appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

The state of California is trying to keep prison inmates from getting cell phones. Charles Manson has been caught with them twice. Now one state senator wants to try something new to cut off prison cell service.

The post Trying Again to Clamp Down on Prison Cell Phones appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

An update on the contraband prison cell phone legislation currently being considered in California. According to the article, S.B. 26 is Senator Padilla’s fourth attempt to criminalize smuggling and possession of cellphones in prison. A quote from the article, “This cell phone issue is a huge problem in our prison system, and (S.B. 26) is a good start to begin to address it” is no doubt accurate, but the law should be augmented by a secure prison cell phone service that reduces the contraband value of the smuggled phones.

A bill aimed at curbing widespread cellphone proliferation in state prisons is on its way to the state Assembly after clearing the Senate.

Senate Bill 26 attempts to crack down on the smuggling of cellphones and other wireless communication devices into California prisons – such as California Institution for Men and California Institution for Women, both in Chino.

The bill – which was introduced by State Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Van Nuys – was approved 39 to 0 by the Senate last week.

The Assembly’s Public Safety Committee is expected to next hear the bill.

Under the proposed legislation, smuggling a cellphone into prison would bring a misdemeanor charge, which would be punishable by six months in jail, as well as a fine of up to $5,000 per phone.

Inmates who are found to be in possession of the devices would face a loss of time credits that could not be restored.

Local Republican lawmakers said the legislation should have carried a felony punishment for violators.

An earlier incarnation of the bill, S.B. 434, would have made the act of smuggling a felony, but the proposal was killed in committee over concerns that it would aggravate prison overcrowding, officials said.

“It’s very difficult to get liberal legislators to pass anything with a felony out of committee anymore,” said Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills, who sits on the Public Safety Committee. “With a misdemeanor, all it’s going to do is let people with six-month sentences out after a day or two because of overcrowding. I wish this was stronger.”

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia, said that while he supports S.B. 26, the legislation should have carried a felony charge for violators.

“You have shot callers ordering hits from inside, and there are a lot of guys continuing their criminal career,” Donnelly said. “I think it’s time to put a stop to it in the name of public safety and common sense.”

Assemblywoman Norma Torres, D-Chino, said inmate overcrowding is preventing the bill from carrying a felony charge.

“We would all love to be more punitive, but with the issue of overcrowding, I think this is a good compromise, and I am supportive,” Torres said. “I represent the Chino prison. I’ve been there more times then I care to spend. This cell phone issue is a huge problem in our prison system, and (S.B. 26) is a good start to begin to address it.”

Prison inmates have used smuggled cellphones to plan attacks, coordinate drug movement and sales, direct street gangs, communicate with other inmates and the public, videotape guard tactics as well as arrange escapes, officials said.

Cellphone usage in state prisons has recently exploded. Nearly 11,000 cell phones were found in state prisons in 2010, compared to 261 in 2006.

The phones can fetch up to $1,000 each in prison.

Under current law, smuggling cellphones into state prison does not carry criminal or financial sanctions, Padilla said.

S.B. 26 is Padilla’s fourth attempt to criminalize smuggling and possession of cellphones in prison.

Cult leader Charles Manson, who is doing time at Corcoran State Prison in Kings County, was twice caught possessing a cellphone in the past two years.

“Criminals like Charles Manson, who had two cellphones, don’t deserve a friends and family plan,” Hagman said.

Source

The post GOP Asks For Stronger Cellphone Bill appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

According to this news article, possession of contraband prison cell phones will be a felony in Alabama prisons and prison cell phone detection technology will be allowed if an Alabama bill passes. Rather than spend state funds on prison cell phone jammers, Alabama should consider a secure prison cell phone solution such as meshDETECT.

A Senate committee today approved a bill that would give the state Department of Corrections new powers to keep cell phones out of the hands of prison inmates.

The bill was approved by the Judiciary Committee in the wake of an inmate uprising at the Holman Correctional Facility on April 5 that was sparked by a dispute over a cell phone, which is considered contraband.

Jeffery Williams, deputy commissioner of governmental relations for the prison system, said the bill would give the agency the authority to contract with a communications company to detect cell phone communications from prisons.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Gerald Allen R-Cottondale, would have elevated possession of a cell phone from a misdemeanor to a Class C felony.

After Chairman Cam Ward, R-Alabaster, expressed concerns over a heightened penalty, Allen agreed to amend the bill to make possession of a cell phone a Class A misdemeanor with a penalty of up to a year in prison and a $6,000 fine.

Williams said the incident at Holman occurred when a correctional officer attempted to take a cell phone away from an inmate.

The incident escalated into a disturbance during which inmates seized control of one wing of the maximum security prison for about four hours. It took a prison system tactical team using tear gas to quell the disturbance.

Williams said that, after the disturbance, the department was informed by Escambia County officials that the county’s 9-1-1 system had been receiving “a huge volume” of calls that were traced back to cell phones in four prisons in the area.

“This is an important piece of legislation that will give us an opportunity to address this issue that’s a huge problem for the Department of Corrections,” he said. “Cell phones are smuggled in our facilities and we believe there is technology out there that will detect these cell phones within the system and disrupt these cell phones.”

Williams said the department already has confiscated 5,000 cell phones.

Source

The post Alabama Senate Approves Bill to Keep Cell Phones From Prison Inmates appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.