meshDETECT® is pleased to announce that it has recently received a notice of allowance for our third wireless blockchain patent from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for U.S. Patent Application Number 16/953,676 entitled “Systems and Methods For Blockchain Wireless Services In a Controlled Environment.”

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 claims in this latest patent are directed toward:

• Implementing and managing an inmate-specific smart contract containing granted permissions and rights. The smart contract describes the granted permissions and rights of the inmate and metadata associated with the inmate and the smart contract is used to monitor, track, and record permission usage by the inmate as well as inmate transactions via the blockchain network.
• A system for inmate metadata analysis and the creation of an inmate-specific contract in a blockchain network to monitor, manage and reward the behavior of an inmate. Based on inmate behavior, permissions and rights of the inmate are enhanced or removed via the inmate-specific smart contract.
• Use of the blockchain for inmate management including certification and electronic verification of forms, records, and data requiring action by an inmate. The inmate-specific smart contract is updated in response to completion and verification of the updated forms, records and data.
• A system for providing commissary and virtual asset access privileges to inmates via use of an access token as payment for or as proof of a right by the inmate to consume, view, and listen to physical assets and virtual assets. These virtual assets can be an eBook, an audio file, a software application, a video file, and voice and video call usage minutes.
• A means for inmates to use shared mobile devices to access the blockchain, including the access to individual wallets containing the inmate’s tokens and the inmate-specific smart contract.

Our first two blockchain patents tied together the previously discreet domains of prison commissary providers, correctional banking systems, and the inmate communications services providers.

This latest patent protects the intellectual property necessary to leverage distributed ledger technology to now integrate jail management systems (JMS) data and functionality across these three domains via a shared and common blockchain combined with inmate-specific smart contracts.

Update (10/5/21): The patent (US11,140,263) was issued today by the United States Patent Office. You can view the patent here: Eighth meshDETECT patent

The post meshDETECT® Announces Notice Of Allowance From The USPTO For Eighth Patent For Blockchain Wireless Services appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

This seventh patent expands our Secure Prison Cell Phone Solutions™ intellectual property portfolio and further expands our position as the prime innovator  in the prison mobile device space by leveraging the security, efficiency and decentralization offered by blockchain technology.

The claims in this latest patent are directed toward managing commissary transactions using blockchain and smart contracts, for token management supported by a blockchain and for the enforcement of regulations in a controlled environment. This patent adds to the intellectual property foundation of Aisto®, our new blockchain powered inmate mobile device solution.

In general, there are quite a few benefits for the financial services industry to be achieved by using distributed ledger technologies (blockchain). This is also true for the financial systems used by detainees in correctional facilities to purchase services such as voice and video calls as well as goods offered in the commissary. Blockchain can address many of the problems currently experienced by inmates, their families and prison administrators using the current prison “banking systems.”

Banking systems used in prisons and correctional facilities have very little accountability. The lack of transparency excludes prison officials from seeing how inmates use their money outside the commissary. This lack of visibility also keeps all parties from becoming aware of discrepancies that may occur when funds are transferred, taken, or stolen.

Blockchain provides increased transparency among parties and as such improved reporting and monitoring by prison administration. Another key feature of blockchain is that any data recorded is immutable. Any data that is recorded on a blockchain can be tracked in real-time, leaving a very detailed audit trail. As such, it eliminates error handling and reconciliation, while providing the means to enforce rules and identifying and acting on policy violations.

The most commonly heard complaints about existing correctional prison financial networks are their lack of efficiency and lengthy delays when transferring funds into inmates’ accounts. Even when credit and debit cards are used to complete transactions, it can take hours or even days before the inmate has access to the funds. The account funding steps involved in using Green Dot cards are time consuming. Green Dot cards, for example, involve purchasing an actual card at a store. Money is placed on the card and then transferred into the inmate’s commissary account. Not only does each transaction (bank deposits / transfers and withdrawals) require a fee, there is also a fee every time the card is “reloaded.”

With Blockchain, settlements become user-optimised, which will save a significant amount of time and money, for both parties involved. Blockchain will remove the impact of processing friction and cost, as transactions settle instantly. The power of eliminating intermediaries is the ability to lower transaction costs and take back control from powerful financial intermediaries. Inmates and their families will benefit enormously as a result.

Combined with smart contracts, a self-executing contract containing the terms and conditions between the parties to the transactions, to regulate and execute inmate transactions extends the blockchain’s utility from simply record keeping to automatically implementing terms of multi-party agreements. An example would be the terms, rules, cost and scheduling of a video call between an inmate and his family.

With a shared database running a blockchain, the smart contracts are executed based on matching of terms and are validated by other parties instantaneously and without the need of an intermediary. This technology can enforce rules, regulations and ensure compliance while facilitating friction-less transactions.

Brian Byrne, Managing Partner of meshIP, LLC commented, “With this seventh patent, we continue to leverage the blockchain to create an integrated, end-to-end, blockchain powered services and financial system within correctional facilities. Combined with our first blockchain patent, this latest patent protects the intellectual property necessary to tie together the previously discreet domains of prison commissary providers, correctional banking systems, and the inmate communications services providers.”

Update (12/1/20): The patent (US10,855,838) was issued today by the United States Patent Office. You can view the patent here: Seventh meshDETECT patent

The post meshDETECT® Announces Notice Of Allowance From The USPTO For Seventh Patent For Blockchain Wireless Services appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

T-Mobile recently submitted to the FCC a study comparing Managed Access Systems (“MAS”) and precision jamming systems (micro-jamming) as potential solutions to prevent contraband phone use in correctional facilities. This study was submitted to Docket 13-111, Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional Facilities.

The study provides an overview of MAS and micro-jamming solutions examining both technical and cost considerations. The paper finds that the cost to deploy and operate the two solutions is roughly equivalent, with the cost for a MAS being less than a jammer solution in larger prisons and the jammer solution being slightly less than an MAS solution for smaller prisons.

However, the study also details a number of detrimental impacts of a jammer solution compared to an MAS solution, such as blocking legitimate use of wireless devices, including use for E911 and FirstNet, jamming other important uses, including GPS, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, and creating a significant potential for interference with use of wireless devices by the general public in surrounding areas.

Based on the findings of the study, any cost/benefit analysis would necessarily have to conclude that a jamming solution is not an appropriate approach to combating contraband devices in prisons given the availability of comparably priced, effective solutions that do not include the negative societal impacts associated with jammers.

It also highlights that, although both solutions prevent the use of contraband devices within correctional facilities, MAS allows officials to permit the operation of authorized devices within correctional facilities, whereas jamming solutions prevent the operation of all devices for all purposes, regardless of legitimacy. Furthermore, the report identifies additional operational benefits available for MAS, e.g, data collection, that are not available with a jamming deployment.

Regarding cost, the study finds that in a large facility, precision jamming is expected to be costlier than  a  MAS  due  to  higher  system  management  and  monitoring  costs,  as  well  as  higher  R.F. jamming head-end costs.  In a medium facility, the precision jamming system’s higher management and head-end costs are expected to be partially offset by the MAS core network costs.  In a small facility, the additional cost of the MAS core network may make it slightly more costly. The following from the report summarizes these findings:

Of particular public interest is the potential impact of micro-jamming on the ongoing deployment of FirstNet nationwide. First Responder communications may be carried on commercial cellular bands. Since a jammer does not discriminate between cellular users, first responders attempting to communicate on the affected cellular frequency bands will be blocked. This would be a problem for first responder communications within the correctional facility, as well as outside of the facility if the jammer degrades local commercial wireless networks that also carry First Responder communications.

The post Prison Micro-Jamming Study Highlights Risks appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Recently meshIP, LLC submitted  comments to the FCC’s Docket No. 13-111, Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional Facilities. We are re-posting  those comments here:

Introduction

meshIP, LLC (“meshIP” or “Company”) respectfully submits these comments in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC” or “Commission”) Report & Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) in the above- captioned proceeding.

meshIP is the provider of meshDETECT©  Secure Prison Cell Phone Solutions™. meshDETECT© is a unique solution to the problem of contraband cell phones in prison that also provides enhanced cellular wireless telephone access to detainees and their families. We offer a patented technology platform that can be offered in any prison interested in the smart deployment and management of secure prison cell phones – which reduces contraband wireless phone demand, promotes improved detainee behavior, reduces recidivism and increases officer safety.

We urge the FCC to consider the potential negative impact of blanket cellular jamming on the deployment and provision of alternate solutions to the demand for contraband cell phones as well as on those technologies that would introduce true choice and competition into the prison payphone industry, a stated goal of the FCC.

Demand and Supply are Two Sides of the Same Coin

We have long advocated for a balanced strategy that addresses both supply AND demand for contraband cell phones within prisons and jails. An effective contraband cell phone elimination 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 currently implemented managed access systems are to phone numbers already 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, i.e. conversations not related to criminal activity.

We believe that the problem of demand for smuggled mobile phones in jail goes beyond the very real problems of long-term offenders looking to continue their drug or crime operations, witness intimidation and the avoidance of high calling rates.

The demand is also driven by an inmate desire for more communication and more privacy (not secrecy). As such, any comprehensive solution should address both sides of the equation – supply and demand. However, like the problem of drug smuggling, without addressing the demand for contraband, the problem will never be solved.

A recent CDCR inmate, now released, shared with us the following insight, “California’s gangs have evolved over the past 5 decades to operate efficiently within the system of scarce resources. They can get gang orders out of a locked down county jail and into a locked down prison 70 miles away between midnight and 2 AM without reliance on any contraband inside either facility, telephones, nor help from staff using only technology from the 1970’s plus a large number of people inside and out working towards a common goal (FGA in custody terms – in furtherance of a gang activity). Sanctioned gang action does not travel over any phone for a reason. The reality is contraband phones are used for calls to friends and family, mostly female, because the current prison payphone system is inadequate to serve the number of people housed within CA’s system of incarceration. Managed Access has become an asset for the gang that controls and sells and profits from the technology to defeat it, since it now drives demand for the product they offer to sell inside while reducing supply of competing alternatives.”

An article[1] written by a current CDCR inmate also provides some interesting insights into this demand and how it is met, “The black market within the fences of the California prison in which I am incarcerated is as bad as any corrections department in this country. In my case, this prison is five hours from home, and the distance makes visitation a financial burden. Some prisoners have it even worse. The vast majority of the prison population lives on the support of loved ones alone. While the cost of a contraband cellphone is high, the corporation-run prepaid call system is downright robbery. Desperate to stay in touch with loved ones and faced with only unaffordable options, incarcerated people turn to the black market, where they are charged as much as $1,000 for a contraband smartphone. Incarcerated persons prefer to take the risk and spend the money on contraband phones than rely on the prison phone system because of the freedom they provide and their functionality beyond making simple calls. There are no time limits and fees to place calls…”

“The drug market is self-sustaining because drugs are consumed almost immediately. There will always be a demand for them, and the supply can flow as freely as they can be smuggled into the housing units. But a phone can possibly last years once you have one. So, there is a need for constant manipulation of the supply in order to ensure a steady stream of demand. The models of phone that I’ve come across are difficult to conceal and this could be deliberate. In the outside world, there are keychain-sized smartphones with 3G capabilities, but rarely have I seen one in here. I bought a basic talk and text-only phone the size of two fingers, and costed me the same amount as a 4G touchscreen model the size of my hand.”

An additional driver of contraband cell phones is the risk/reward ratio associated with the significant financial rewards for those smuggling these devices into prisons. Recent research[2] has linked contraband smuggling to low pay and high turnover for guards — and salaries for corrections officers in the states with the highest smuggling rates are indeed among the lowest in the nation.

However, by siphoning off and co-opting this non-criminal wireless usage, we can significantly reduce the overall demand for contraband cell phones and therefore the profitability for those smuggling these devices. Less financial reward for cell phone smugglers changes the risk/reward equation and makes it much less appealing given the high personal and professional risk for those caught smuggling.

In addition to reducing the demand for, and therefore the supply of, contraband cell phones, enhanced access to telecommunications services have the proven, significant, additional benefits of reducing recidivism, improving detainee behavior and increasing officer safety.

However blanket cellular jamming in prisons and jails will significantly reduce the technology options available to address the demand for contraband cell phones.

Introducing Choice and Competition into the Prison Payphone Industry

Not only will jamming significantly reduce the technology options available to address the demand for contraband cell phones, it will hamstring a viable, cost effective solution to introducing choice and competition into the prison payphone industry.  In fact, the FCC has frequently advocated for competition in the provision and availability of inmate communications services (ICS) in prisons and jails.

In its Second Report And Order And Third Further Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking[3] (NPRM) adopted on 10/22/15, the Commission wrote, “While we adopt regulations in this Order to correct failures in the ICS market, the Commission generally prefers to rely on competition over regulation. We seek additional comment on whether there are ways to promote competition within the ICS market to enable the Commission to sunset or eliminate our regulations adopted herein in the future. In the 2012 NPRM, the Commission noted that the First Wright Petition asked the Commission to “mandate the opening of the ICS market to competition.”

“In the First Wright Petition, the Petitioners further requested that the Commission address high ICS rates by prohibiting exclusive ICS contracts and collect-call-only restrictions at privately administered prisons, and requiring such facilities to permit multiple long-distance carriers to interconnect with prison telephone systems…The Commission sought comment on whether security issues were still a legitimate reason for limiting competition within correctional facilities, and whether any technological advances had changed the justification for such exclusive use.”

The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) commented, “The ICS commission issue also illustrates the fundamental problem with the existing status quo; specifically, the lack of competition in the ICS industry, in which, in exchange for commission payments, local jails and 42 state prison systems provide ICS providers with monopoly phone service contracts.[4]”

The American Bar Association commented, “The ABA recommends that the FCC use its statutory authority under section 253(d) of the Act to preempt states from entering into exclusive provider agreements, and open up the ICS market to fair and widespread competition.[5]”

And the Wright Petitioners wrote, “The FCC correctly notes that the Petitioners have been calling for the introduction of competition in the ICS market for more than 15 years, and in fact, this goal served as the basis for Martha Wright and the Petitioners to file the original lawsuit.[6]”

Some of the solutions put forth to achieve this goal include an equal access[7] approach similar to that which was put in place to open up local and long distance services to competition wherein consumers picked their local and long distance providers. Others have suggested a “wholesale/retail” bifurcation of the industry providers.

We believe, like the FCC, ABA, HRDC and the Wright Petitioners, that competition is an essential ingredient in breaking the ICS providers’ monopolies in prisons and jails in order to drive market-based pricing.

However, like the consumer market, unfettered and robust choice is what drives real competition. Completely bypassing the monopolists is the best way to ensure this choice. The consumer telecommunications market, while initially cracked open by regulatory schemes such as equal access, was fully emancipated by the introduction and widespread adoption of cellular phones.

An individual “wireless prison payphone” in the form of a secure cellular service offered to any detainee who wants it, without requiring interconnection to the monopolist’s infrastructure or the forced bifurcation of the industry into wholesale/retail providers, will offer true choice and therefore real competition in an industry that has for so long thrown up barriers to any meaningful competition.

By using commercial cellular networks to bypass the monopolists, no potentially insecure and costly infrastructure, such as WiFi[8], is required in a prison facility and therefore no capital costs to the prison facility as well as no risk of interconnection hurdles and artificial costs imposed by the incumbent ICS provider.

The current prison payphones already installed will remain in place, thereby giving inmates and their families a choice. If desired, the inmate can stand in line, waiting for his 15 minute call in a public area on the traditional prison payphone. Or he can make a controlled and sanctioned cellular call of unlimited length in the relative privacy of his cell.

In this way, real market forces will be introduced into the ICS arena thereby fulfilling the stated goals of the FCC, the ABA, the HDRC and the Wright Petitioners as well as providing choice and cost savings to the families of prisoners throughout the United States.

Conclusion

Accordingly, meshIP requests that the FCC considers the potential negative impact of cellular jamming on the competitive landscape and to alternative technology solutions available to address the problem of contraband cell phones in prisons. The approval of blanket cellular signal jamming runs the risk of hamstringing viable alternative solutions not only to this problem but also to the FCC’s long standing commitment to introducing choice and competition into the prison payphone industry.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

[1] https://shadowproof.com/2017/01/05/corrections-officers-control-supply-demand-contraband-phones-prisons/

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/corrections/southern-prisons-have-smuggled-cellphone-problem-n790251

[3]https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-136A1_Rcd.pdf

[4] https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001013059.pdf

[5] https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001016566.pdf

[6] https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001408397.pdf

[7] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/local-local-toll-and-long-distance-calling

[8] https://prisoncellphones.com/blog/2013/06/06/the-risks-of-wifi-and-internet-deployment-in-prisons/

The post Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional Facilities 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.

Its not just contraband cell phones that are smuggled into prisons. This article describes the many contraband items found in jail and the methods used to smuggle them in.

Suboxone strips hidden under stamps or in the seal of an envelope. Necklaces made out of garbage bags. Toothbrushes and plastic spoons sharpened into weapons. Tobacco or drugs smuggled in bodily cavities, thrown over the prison fence, or left at a public location where prisoners can pick it up while at the doctor’s office or on work detail.

Contraband finds its way into regional jails in a variety of ways, and officers at the Sullivan County Jail must search for it daily.

“Every day it’s always something,” Sgt. Gordon Light said. “There are 700-some inmates, they’re always making something.”

He said anything that can’t be bought in the commissary or that isn’t given to them when they get into jail is contraband.

“It’s a safety issue,” he said. “We want to keep everybody in here – the staff and the inmates – safe.”

Prisoners are searched when first brought into the jail, Light said, and all mail is searched before it is distributed to the jail’s residents.

When Sherry Martin, the officer who searches the mail, finds something illegal in a letter, she tries to track down its sender. But, she said, often those people use fake names or addresses so they don’t get caught.

“Suboxone strips are the most common,” she said of incoming contraband. “We find a lot of tobacco.”

Once in a bubble envelope she found a needle, she said, and now takes all mail out of those envelopes before handing it over.

She also takes off all stamps and checks between the glued-together pieces of birthday cards. Singing birthday cards are gutted and the musical mechanism taken out.

“They can’t have Polaroid pictures because they can slit them” open and hide drugs behind the photos, she said.

And, if the paper in a letter looks like it has been wet, she said, sometimes that indicates it has been dipped in acid. The recipient of the letter will then chew up the letter to get a high, she said. Or, pills have been broken open, made into a paste, and rubbed into greeting cards.

Martin said she sometimes reads the letters, if they look suspicious to her.

“I scan them – we find out information about what’s going on in the cell, they usually will tell in their letters,” she said.

The drugs are a safety hazard in the cells, said the jail’s health administrator, Penny Tester.

“You can overdose on them,” she said. “I haven’t had anybody overdose on Suboxone that I know of yet. If they come in and say they’ve been on it, I send them to be checked.”

She said another health risk as the result of contraband is tattoos prisoners put on each other, using makeshift tattoo guns made of plastic spoons and staples, or ink pens and paperclips.

“Skin infection is a problem,” she said. “They don’t have an antiseptic; they don’t have the proper salve to put on it. They get bar soap – that’s not an antibacterial soap; you’re not supposed to wash tattoos with it.”

Crayons, markers and colored pencils are considered contraband items at the jail because the pigment is used for tattoo ink, Light said.

Jewelry found is often made of trash bags, he said, fashioned into necklaces, bracelets and chains. Some of the jewelry features religious symbols, while others have names of loved ones etched in.

“They’re pretty creative,” he said. “They’ve got all the time to sit there.”

Light said the incentive for making contraband items such as jewelry or homemade shanks out of toothbrushes varies.

Sometimes, he said, people who are good at making jewelry can trade their wares for items from the commissary – a honeybun or a T-shirt – if they don’t get money for the commissary.

Tester said the introduction of drugs and tobacco into the prison system brings an array of other problems into the jail.

“They have fights over the tobacco, and sell for commissary,” she said.

Light said officers at the jail perform random checks of prisoners and of their cells to locate contraband items.

“They’re always looking for a hiding spot,” he said. “It’s a game between them and us – hide and seek.”

Source

The post Contraband Finds Its Way Into Regional Jails appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

One of the main problems with contraband cell phones smuggled into prisons is the use of the internet via these wireless devices. Detainees then use the smuggled phones to access Twitter and Facebook. The meshDETECT secure cell phone solution offers an alternative to contraband cell phones and do not have internet access or other common features such as cameras. They are uniquely provisioned for a prison environment.

Call it the anti-social network! Facebook is stepping in to stop prisoners surfing the Web, updating their Facebook accounts and carrying on their criminal activities using contraband mobile phones .

Prison bosses in California have started reporting inmate pages to Facebook and the social network is to take down pages that have been updated since the owners went to jail. A typical jailbird page is shown in the gallery on the left.

A spokesman for the Corrections Department said, “Access to social media allows inmates to circumvent our monitoring process and continue to engage in criminal activity.”

It’s not just inmates posting on their own social media pages that are the problem , said the Los Angeles Times . Some prisoners have been harassing their victims from behind bars.

One child molester inside for least seven years sent up-to-date drawings of a victim to her house – sketched from photos of the now 17-year-old on her MySpace and Facebook pages.

In 2006, prisons officers found just 261 contraband cellphones in jails. In the first six months of this year, they found 7200.

Prison employees, unlike visitors, are not searched on the way into the jails and are bringing in the phones, for which prisoners will pay as much as as much as $1,000 each. It is against the rules to smuggle a phone to a prisoner, but it is not illegal. The employee is sacked but not prosecuted.

A new Bill will make smuggling a phone to an inmate a crime punishable by a $5,000 fine and up to six months in jail.

Source

The post Facebook Foils Jailbirds Carrying On With Crime On Their Cell Phones appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Kershaw County traffic officers made a prison contraband seizure while patrolling on I-20 Saturday.

Deputies say they conducted a traffic stop on Reco Maurice Bell of Columbia.

A routine driver’s license check indicated that Bell was driving under suspension and operating an uninsured vehicle, said Kershaw County Sheriff Jim Matthews.

While interviewing Bell, deputies noticed two duffel bags on the rear seat of his vehicle and asked for permission to search.

The officers said in these two bags were 23 individually wrapped one-pound bags of tobacco and 12 individually packaged cell phones with charging cords.

The officers said they recognized this discovery as being consistent with contraband that is often thrown over the fence at prisons.

On the street, these items are of little value, but in prison, tobacco is valued at $800 per pound and a working cell phone is worth about $500, said deputies.

Authorities said when asked about the phones and tobacco, Bell admitted that he was being paid to throw these items over the wall at a corrections facility, but he would not state which facility.

Kershaw officers said Bell was charged with driving under suspension (2nd offense) and operating an uninsured motor vehicle.

According to Sheriff Matthews, a national criminal records check revealed that Bell was connected with the “bloods” street gang.

Source

The post Traffic Stop Leads to Seizure of Prison Contraband appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

Officials tasked with controlling the waves of contraband cell phones in prisons are at a disadvantage. Their options include costly new investment in complex jamming technologies, increasing staff, more physical searches, or new processes; all added to an already over burdened work force. In each case, cell phone control will be expensive, and results will be elusive.

meshDETECT is a cell phone access and control platform that was developed to satisfy the access control and forensic expectations of the prison officials ultimately responsible for communications access, as well as to address the legitimate desire of detainees who now go to great lengths smuggling cell phones in order to have two way communications with family and loved ones.

Trends demonstrate that the majority of prisoners are interested in using cell phones for legitimate communication, not criminal activities, and that agencies are losing a significant revenue opportunity by not offering secure cell phone access and controlled use.

For the first time, it is now possible to satisfy the expectations of everyone affected by the contraband cell phone issue without heavy technology investment, unnecessary staff expense, or any compromise in controls, security, or safety.

Curb Contraband Cell Phones By Reducing Their Value

Unnecessary risk and exposure will continue to impact prisons as long as contraband cell phones remain a black market item at an extremely high perceived value – and with no real controls curbing availability.

Delivered as a service, meshDETECT is a complete calling platform utilizing commercially available cell phones that are modified to meet the demanding operational and functional needs of a prison-authorized communications service offering. As authorized cell phones are brought into service, the demand for and value of smuggled cell phones drops dramatically.

Regardless of who currently organizes the smuggling of contraband cell phones into your prison, once the risk to reward equation reverses fewer and fewer will take that risk. More importantly, those detainees who you determine deserve a more flexible communications opportunity will be able to do so safely, affordably, and within your full control.

The post Reduce Contraband Cell Phones & Increase Call Revenue appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.

This article demonstrates that illegal prison cell phones are a problem around the world, with most prison authorities turning to cell phone jammers to block the signals of contraband prison cell phones smuggled into penal institutions.

The authorities at Peshawar, Pakistan central jail will soon install jammers to sever cellphone link of hardened criminals and militants with their accomplices outside the facility.

“Criminals stay in touch with their accomplices from inside the prisons and issue them directives for illegal activities,” official sources told Dawn and said that more security arrangements were needed at Peshawar prison, where many hardened criminals and militants had been kept.

They said that jammers would also be installed phase-wise at other jails to trace and check the flow of drugs and other forbidden items into the prisons.

Located close to government offices and courts, Peshawar central jail has the capacity to accommodate about 800 inmates, but these days over 2,000 under trial and convicted prisoners have been kept there.

This jail is considered to be one of the most sensitive prisons of the province, as it also holds suspected militants belonging to Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat Mohammadi (TNSM). Maulana Sufi Mohammad, head of the TNSM, is also being tried inside this jail.

“Many of the under-trial militants in the jail are a serious security threat,” the sources said.

Talking to this reporter, Noor Alam Khan, chairperson of Voice of Prisoners, said that he had seen prisoners misusing cell phones for crimes such as kidnapping for ransom and narcotics smuggling.

“Criminal networks stay in touch with each other and coordinate crimes by using cell phones,” he said.

He said that the authorities should take effective security measures and also keep a strict check on supply or sale of SIMs to the prisoners, which could not be possible without the role of some jail staff.

Mr Khan suggested that jail authorities should provide legal means of communication for the prisoners by installing public call office (PCO). He said that in the absence of any PCO many prisoners relied on cell phones to communicate with their families or `friends`.

The officials said that the government had allocated Rs10 million for acquiring security equipment like cell phone jammers, anti-riot instruments, walki-talkies and screens or metal detectors for the Peshawar jail.

Source

The post Peshawar Jail to Jam Cellphones appeared first on meshDETECT® Blog.