Can we jam prison cell phones?
The federal judge wasn't the only person amazed when prosecutors revealed last month that man awaiting trial in jail on a murder charge allegedly used a cell phone to put a hit on a witness. Others, including radio talk-show host and former Baltimore Police Commissioner Eddie Norris wondered as well.
That sparked a back and forth on this blog, with people asking why something so simple as a jamming device can't be installed in jails and prisons and state prison officials firing back that such an initiative would be costly and illegal, under a 1934 law (at left, corrections officials look at confiscated cell phones at the Baltimore City Correctional Center in a photo by The Sun's Karl Merton Ferron).
Baltimore Sun reporter Tricia Bishop reveals today that there are bills before Congress to allow jamming of signals to prevent prisoners from calling out but that a trade groups and lobbyists representing the cell phone industry oppose the bills, arguing that signals outside prison walls, and emergency lines, could also be effected.
The article reveals that the wireless industry gets about $4 billion in illegal calls made annually from prisons around the country. And the state says jamming phones from just the Baltimore City Correctional Center would cost $127,000.
It's an interesting debate but it's not merely words. The trial continues in U.S. District Court in Baltimore for the man accused of ordering the killing of Carl Lackl, who prosecutors say witnessed a murder in Baltimore and was killed before he got a chance to testify against the alleged shooter. Witness intimidation is a big problem in the city -- State's Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy recently teamed up with U.S. Elijah E. Cummings to get help from the U.S. Marshal's Office.
Ordering hits from prison is not new. In the late 1990s, Anthony Aneyi Jones, then one of the city's most murderous gang leaders, used a secret language decoded by a federal prosecutor that he made up to order hits on three witnesses using prison phones. Jones is serving four life sentences in federal prison in Colorado and has had his phone and mail privileges revoked.
And I'm sure the family of Carl Lackl doesn't care how much money companies are making off the illegal use of their products.
Comments
Unfortunately, the cell phone or any other contraband issue at the state facilities is a direct result of lax security at the jails. But more importantly, the lax security is a result of lax procecution and the threats of fines and/or jail time for the sinister element bringing in the contraband.
Posted by: T | April 13, 2009 11:07 AM
Why don't we jam the guards who are bringing this stuff into the prisons?
Posted by: Jansen Robinson | April 13, 2009 12:35 PM
Our company CellAntenna Corp is mentioned in the article. We supply equipment that can enhance communcation inside buildings and we also supply jamming equipment that stops cell phone communcation.
The CTIA and cellular carriers say that it is impossible to just jam the prison and not the public. We proved that we could in South Carolina's prison in November of last year. We block only cell phone communcation in teh prisons and not public safety, or the surrounding community. we are doing this everywhere else in the world except the United States.
The question of course is why the CTIA and the cellular carriers are still scaring the public?
We have seen cell towers places within a few hundered yards of a prison when no community is within range. How is it that many prisons in the United States that we taken signal readings have higher signal levels than anywhere in your home, office or even on a street of a major city? 5 bars behind bars is not something that the carrier should be allowed to do.
It is really time everyone got a good understanding of this issue. When the inmates from Guatanamo are sent to our local and state prisons and the terrorists behind bars get access to cell phones, what do you think will happen?
Of course there are some people that will say the reason we are fighting the cause is that we stand to profit by jamming cell phones. At least we would be doing something for the good of the pubic and not selling Prison Time Minutes to crimials behind bars.
Posted by: Howard M | April 13, 2009 2:35 PM
This is a perfect case where we see the good of corporations winning out over the public interest, I am sure that same telecomel lobby is behind the slowness of banning cellphones in cars as well.
I have heard that a new 'nano'tech' paint is being developed that once the proper current is applied the rooms painted by that paint effectively block cellphone transmission..oh ...but there's that old FCC ruling that needs to be changed...!
Posted by: Cal | April 13, 2009 3:14 PM
New technology will soon be available that can detect the presence of a cell phone, even if the phone is not powered on. There is a small company in Raleigh NC that has a prototype.
Posted by: Gary | April 15, 2009 1:53 PM
Jamming is an “all or nothing” approach that blocks all cellular calling within a geographic area, including legitimate calls such as those by authorized personnel, by private citizens who enter the vicinity, and to 911. The risks of jamming outweigh its benefits.
In contrast, a technology developed by Tecore called Intelligent Network Access Controller (INAC), which enables prison systems and other government agencies to selectively process calls through the establishment of policies for user groups, is much more effective for this purpose. When applied in a correctional institution, the system enables the ability to prohibit network access for unapproved or unauthorized devices while allowing access to commercial carrier services for those who are approved. The end result is that inmates are not able to use their smuggled cell phones while the warden can place a call standing right next to them. The solution also enables key regulatory features such as 911 access, location tracking, and call monitoring.
As demonstrated in existing deployments, INAC presents the first comprehensive approach to the growing problem of smuggled cell phones in prisons that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders. The correctional institution gains the needed ability to control usage; the commercial operators are able to serve valid subscribers; the regulatory requirements of wireless are met for the government agencies; and by controlling the coverage area in the prison grounds, private citizens are not impacted by the service.
Cellular technology is proliferating around the globe, and its growth can create unintended consequences. However, solutions should be considered carefully and with appropriate technical information in order to maintain the benefits that this technology provides.
Posted by: Amit Malhotra | April 20, 2009 4:59 PM