Letting prisons jam contraband phones is a bad idea, phone companies tell FCC

"Jamming will block all communications," including 911 calls, CTIA tells FCC.

See full article...

 

[bburdge]

How do you ensure everyone whose device connects to the monitored network is aware of the monitoring and has agreed? I would think you'd need 100% acknowledgement for something like this, especially at a private facility.

Maybe somewhere that would be a concern but not in the US. By being present on the private property (especially if there was any barrier to entry such as a basic fence) would be sufficient to negate any expectation to privacy. If you walked into someone's home and started yelling secrets, you would likewise not be granted any privacy protection. Your cellphone is essentially doing just that but in RF instead of audio waves.

Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, don't take this as legal advice.

Far as I am aware there is no law for a right to privacy of your cellular transmissions. The only reason it's not legal for any random Joe to walk down the street collecting cellphone data as they go is because the spectrum is licensed, so it's unlawful use of the spectrum.

If for instance you do the same thing in the unlicensed wifi spectrum, no problem. In many ways we already do this everyday when we leave our house with wifi enabled in our cellphone and it's updating ssids in the background everywhere we go. Many devices even have the option to auto connect to open networks. And phone oses will monitor ssids and use those to build up location maps to augment GPS positioning info.

If you are in the US and think you have a general right to privacy in your wireless transmissions beyond the bounds of your own private property you are mistaken, unfortunately.

 

[the_dane]

"911? Hi, there's a truck with a ladder on it parked at the back wall of the State Pen!"
Call failed.

 

[Madestjohn]

"911? Hi, there's a truck with a ladder on it parked at the back wall of the State Pen!"
Call failed.

SNITcH!

 

[Nogami]

How bad could it be?

Republican level bad. In other words, totally corrupt and incompetent rolled into one.

 

[bburdge]

Time to put on my spectrum nerd hat here.



One of the interesting things not noted is this article is that the best I can tell, its not Verizon or the other cell phone carriers that do the Managed Access Systems.

It appears to be other companies that lease the spectrum from the carrier companies. While I normally filter it out on my specturm maps, there are a number of companies that have very small leases around state and federal correctional facilities for what I presume are these Managed Access Systems that are interdicting cell phone calls, and determine whether devices are permitted to use be in use or not.

Now I have no idea whether Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile are being paid for these leases - it could be $1, or could be tens of thousands of dollars. I presume that these MAS companies are also selling mini cell tower to the prison to install so they are interdicting all the calls and none make it out to the regular cell phone network.

That's right, though less of a cell tower and more of a carefully laid out mesh network to ensure the private network signal is dominant within the sublease area and is minimal outside it. I posted a white paper up thread but it seems like the FCC made rules back in 2017 that require the spectrum holders to cooperate with prisons for this purpose, so I suspect the lease terms are fairly reasonable, if nothing else but to avoid giving ammunition to those trying to push for dumb RF jamming.

 

[SteveBigandTall]

Step 1 jam cell phones at prisons.
Step 2 redefine what a prison is and how far away you want to jam
Step 3 ....
Step 4 Coup!

 

[clewis]

I don't understand why they kept calling out "jamming blocks all communications, including lawful communications such as 911 calling". It's not like the responding paramedics or fire department can get in to do anything. In jail, "Hey guard, we got a fire!" is the closest you can get to calling 911.

 

[graylshaped]

This is an obviously shit idea, so of course it's going to sail through the current FCC regime and be implemented immediately by asshole prison wardens everywhere.

Or, Carr might hear the coded message that he can kiss his post-chairman sinecure with the ISP industry goodbye if he lets this through.

 

[ridgeguy]

Is technology available that would consist of a cellular base station programmed with 'whitelist' IMEI numbers that would only accept calls to/from cell phones with those numbers? A station could be installed to cover the prison premises.
It's my understanding that cell phones interface with the strongest base station. If the station were capable of engaging any cell phone but only completing calls with whitelisted IMEIs, this would 'capture' non-whitelisted #s without jamming. Boundary cases would be resolved by users who are free to move away from the prison base station, which prisoners can't do.
Prison staff (guards, etc.) who need communications can use encrypted walkie-talkies, not cell phones. If they need off-site connectivity, they can retrieve their phones from a depository and go far enough away from the prison to be in routine coverage.
Doubtless this isn't a perfect idea, but it would cut down on illegal use without jamming.

edit - autocorrect fail

 

[dzid]

All this spending of money and none of it for prison and prisoner reform. We are a fucked up country.

Much of the prison reform that exists in America are sort of "grassroots efforts." Some years ago, imagine my surprise upon receiving a mobile phone call from a person known to have an earliest release date four years in the future.

"Just sayin' hi. Need to keep it short - someone comes by to collect the phones for safekeeping til next time."

There are all manner of ways that people, including, yes, people locked up in prison - will find in order to retain a few shreds of dignity in the face of efforts to loot every last bit of change out of every population, every person in every part of our lives.

 

[Griking]

IMO cell service jamming should be allowed in more places where people can't control themselves. High schools for example, also movie theaters and concert venues off the top of my head. Also, jamming is something that can be turned on and off as needed.

 

[goblinski]

That's... how nano-cells work. More range than WiFi-calling, but you have to share with other phone company subscribers. Easier than setting up a farm-wide WiFi system, though.
Should be able to plug into your router's ethernet ports, so you don't use wifi bandwidth.

The 8-device limit was the nail in the coffin. This meant on any day I had zero guarantee I'd be able to connect to it at all. Neighbors working from home will take precedence. Everybody will. And with the coverage being very weak in the area - their phones will be naturally attracted to it first.

 

[+Griz]

When people think of prisons, they tend to think of the sort of movie version of a supermax prison with big empty areas around the facility. The reality is that even many very high security facilities like US Penitentiary Leavenworth have residential and commercial properties within a quarter mile of the units, and some prisons like this one in Huntsville, TX (image courtesy of Google Maps), have homes and business literally across the street.

my county jail is right next to the airport, which I'm sure would have a lot of things to say if a jammer went up.

 

[TinnyTim]

Maybe somewhere that would be a concern but not in the US. By being present on the private property (especially if there was any barrier to entry such as a basic fence) would be sufficient to negate any expectation to privacy. If you walked into someone's home and started yelling secrets, you would likewise not be granted any privacy protection. Your cellphone is essentially doing just that but in RF instead of audio waves.

Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, don't take this as legal advice.

Far as I am aware there is no law for a right to privacy of your cellular transmissions. The only reason it's not legal for any random Joe to walk down the street collecting cellphone data as they go is because the spectrum is licensed, so it's unlawful use of the spectrum.

If for instance you do the same thing in the unlicensed wifi spectrum, no problem. In many ways we already do this everyday when we leave our house with wifi enabled in our cellphone and it's updating ssids in the background everywhere we go. Many devices even have the option to auto connect to open networks. And phone oses will monitor ssids and use those to build up location maps to augment GPS positioning info.

If you are in the US and think you have a general right to privacy in your wireless transmissions beyond the bounds of your own private property you are mistaken, unfortunately.

Do you have a case citation for this? I'm aware of rulings saying you have no expectation of privacy on someone else's computer, but I believe currently prevailing case law is that you DO have an expectation of privacy on your personal internet connection (which of course your ISP jams a number of terms into your contract to get around, but that is neither here nor there).

There's an old case whose name I cannot recall, around the expectation of privacy in public in the US, specifically regarding photographs. Some of the reasoning in that case was that since cameras could be purchased relatively cheaply from the Sears and/or Montgomery Wards catalog, it was unreasonable to expect privacy and to not be photographed in public anymore. (Basically the technology had become ubiquitous enough that it was unreasonable to expect it to not be used. I dont think the same could be argued for cellular interception, since the government, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't let L3Harris sell Stingrays to just anyone)

I realize the current FCC chair is quite ok with what would previously have been considered unacceptable, but I'm VERY surprised that a non-government institution could intercept and DENY access to cell service, given that you could have your phone, NOT agree to interception, and then be blocked from calling 911, which generally the government frowns upon.

The Tercore paper you shared mentioned a deployment at a prison in Puerto Rico, and I have no idea how PR may handle their cell spectrum. I'd be less surprised to see it in a prison, than a private place of business. You'd have to do stuff like put in the contract for the cleaning people that come in the building at night, that they have to accept the interception, or you'd deny them the ability to dial 911 etc.

Also, I would think if this were easy and ubiquitous, places like the Pentagon or the NSA would have this deployed from their perimeter fences inwards and I dont believe that's the case.

 

[Steve austin]

Is technology available that would consist of a cellular base station programmed with 'whitelist' IMEI numbers that would only accept calls to/from cell phones with those numbers? A station could be installed to cover the prison premises.
It's my understanding that cell phones interface with the strongest base station. If the station were capable of engaging any cell phone but only completing calls with whitelisted IMEIs, this would 'capture' non-whitelisted #s without jamming. Boundary cases would be resolved by users who are free to move away from the prison base station, which prisoners can't do.
Prison staff (guards, etc.) who need communications can use encrypted walkie-talkies, not cell phones. If they need off-site connectivity, they can retrieve their phones from a depository and go far enough away from the prison to be in routine coverage.
Doubtless this isn't a perfect idea, but it would cut down on illegal use without jamming.

edit - autocorrect fail

I assume that’s roughly how the MAS systems mentioned in the article work, except those are from third parties, not the carriers, and they apparently allow logging of (and perhaps tracking) of non-white-listed devices. It would seem simpler and cheaper to just do as you suggest, but that cuts out the private third parties, and in modern American prisons, allowing lots of private companies to get their beaks wet seems very important.

 

[bburdge]

Do you have a case citation for this? I'm aware of rulings saying you have no expectation of privacy on someone else's computer, but I believe currently prevailing case law is that you DO have an expectation of privacy on your personal internet connection (which of course your ISP jams a number of terms into your contract to get around, but that is neither here nor there).

There's an old case whose name I cannot recall, around the expectation of privacy in public in the US, specifically regarding photographs. Some of the reasoning in that case was that since cameras could be purchased relatively cheaply from the Sears and/or Montgomery Wards catalog, it was unreasonable to expect privacy and to not be photographed in public anymore. (Basically the technology had become ubiquitous enough that it was unreasonable to expect it to not be used. I dont think the same could be argued for cellular interception, since the government, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't let L3Harris sell Stingrays to just anyone)

I realize the current FCC chair is quite ok with what would previously have been considered unacceptable, but I'm VERY surprised that a non-government institution could intercept and DENY access to cell service, given that you could have your phone, NOT agree to interception, and then be blocked from calling 911, which generally the government frowns upon.

The Tercore paper you shared mentioned a deployment at a prison in Puerto Rico, and I have no idea how PR may handle their cell spectrum. I'd be less surprised to see it in a prison, than a private place of business. You'd have to do stuff like put in the contract for the cleaning people that come in the building at night, that they have to accept the interception, or you'd deny them the ability to dial 911 etc.

Also, I would think if this were easy and ubiquitous, places like the Pentagon or the NSA would have this deployed from their perimeter fences inwards and I dont believe that's the case.

So, I have no background in cases, and since this is rather new territory I suspect the cases haven't happened yet. Got interested in the technical side after a local school district deployed a private LTE network to allow students to do homework anywhere in the city. That deployment went the route of using CBRS spectrum so it's not interfering with the commercial networks.

However, private entities subcontracting with the major carriers to control the spectrum on their property is also happening, these are designed with 911 passthrough so that emergency calls still get made to align with those requirements. After that, since the private company contracts for control of the licensed spectrum within the specific geographical bounds of their property - they are not interfering with your service, they are selectively permitting/denying access to their service.

Fair few companies are doing this for commercial purposes, from big players to small; though it's not easy to get details without being an enterprise customer, here's some open info:
https://www.rcrwireless.com/20251022/5g/t-mobile-5g-advanced
https://www.verizon.com/business/products/networks/connectivity/hybrid-network-solutions/
https://www.valltechnologies.com/large-enterprise-private-networks
https://jmawireless.com/jma-solutions/private-wireless-solutions-2/

As for why government sites may not be doing this - political will to budget for it.

 

[bthest]

IMO cell service jamming should be allowed in more places where people can't control themselves. High schools for example, also movie theaters and concert venues off the top of my head. Also, jamming is something that can be turned on and off as needed.

A mass murderer's wet dream.

 

[imchillyb]

The Feds already use Stingrays in these locations, and you're telling me that's not enough?

Something tells me this is more about filming and sharing the horrific abuses that occur within our prison 'system.' The ones doing the abusing rarely want the abusees to record said abuse.

Occam's Razor. Which of these is the simplest explanation, that stingrays and constant video and audio surveillance within the prison facilities is not sufficient and even more overreach is necessary such as blocking? OR The assholes in charge don't want their asshattery going public?

Ruh-huh.

 

[markgo]

Following up on this after some additional thought.

1) This white paper is by a company doing MAS solutions for prisons. It provides additional detail for those interested. Including the fact that it can get the device to provide location information that can be used to locate contraband devices for intervention.

2) The better idea would be to have new rules that require these prison telecoms engaged in massive price gouging to pay for installation and maintenance of the MAS at the facility in order to get the concession monopoly. Seems completely reasonable as this would safeguard their own interest in being the monopoly communications provider. This way even small, publicly funded facilities would be able to get a MAS deployed and squeeze contraband cellphones to a trickle.

So the cost of prison calls would go up even further?

 

[RZetopan]

All this spending of money and none of it for prison and prisoner reform. We are a fucked up country.

For bullies, "legal" unrestrained cruelty is why they want to work in prisons. I have some distant (fortunately) family members who worked in prisons, and they were all bullies. What a surprise.

 

[Frobbotzim]

The Tercore paper you shared mentioned a deployment at a prison in Puerto Rico, and I have no idea how PR may handle their cell spectrum.

They're subject to the same federal spectrum laws and regulations as the rest of the United states, territory or no.

 

[graylshaped]

IMO cell service jamming should be allowed in more places where people can't control themselves.

How stunning someone with your post history is in favor of normalizing government control over who can communicate at all, let alone what they can say.

 

[alpha 60]

They already have devices called Stingrays that spoof cell phones to see it as a local cell. But stingrays are very expensive. Small local jails may not be able to afford it. Also, stingrays would also intercept calls from neighbors and travelers on the nearby highway.

According to this site, they are amazingly expensive.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/heres-how-much-a-stingray-cell-phone-surveillance-tool-costs/
These devices are likely made in America.
Probably cheaper from China.

 

[Korios]

Prison phone companies like jamming

Aka "Human suffering shameless exploiters like jamming".
We don't have prison phone companies in Europe, nor private prison companies.
Are both US-only novelties?

 

[RZetopan]

I wonder if a jamming device could be made that has an effective radius of only 1 or 2 meters and wearable. Would it then be possible to attach said device to each inmate, same as they do with house arrest ankle devices? Effectively each inmate would then be a walking sphere of eletromagnetic deadzone. The communication equivalent of a ball and chain.

Unless you attach the jammer directly to the cell phone, it would need to put out a stronger signal than the cell phone does to cause any terminal interference. Hence, your "short range" interference idea badly violates what is even theoretically physically possible.

 

[OrvGull]

If that is allowed them we need to allow movie theaters to jam cell phone. Yeah I know everyone here will be screaming bloody murder but it's now the primary reason why I don't see movies anymore. I've given up unless I go to a chain (Alamo Drafthouse) who actively will kick people out who use their phone or talk. Which means $20 a ticket vs the $13.

If the theaters really cared about this they could make their buildings RF-opaque during construction. I've been in theaters that, thanks to being inside steel-reinforced buildings partly below grade level, had no cell signal inside at all.

 

[dzid]

According to this site, they are amazingly expensive.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/heres-how-much-a-stingray-cell-phone-surveillance-tool-costs/
These devices are likely made in America.
Probably cheaper from China.

In this case, that's not too problematic - or it wouldn't be if these things were only found in the specialized units that handle cases where standard, boring but effective police work can't get the job done. Cooperative sharing agreements among regional departments would likely fill in any gaps.

One more case of irrational reliance on technology instead of beat cops knowing the streets and the people where they work. In spite of all the things I'd like to change in American law enforcement if I could, stuffing more expensive technology and military gear into a role they don't fit along with dubious claims of crime reduction my view hasn't changed.

Better trained cops that work with the people they serve is the better choice in every case where an unbiased evaluation was done before signing off on the next contract for toys.

 

[Troper1138]

Maybe somewhere that would be a concern but not in the US. By being present on the private property (especially if there was any barrier to entry such as a basic fence) would be sufficient to negate any expectation to privacy. If you walked into someone's home and started yelling secrets, you would likewise not be granted any privacy protection. Your cellphone is essentially doing just that but in RF instead of audio waves.

Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, don't take this as legal advice.

Far as I am aware there is no law for a right to privacy of your cellular transmissions. The only reason it's not legal for any random Joe to walk down the street collecting cellphone data as they go is because the spectrum is licensed, so it's unlawful use of the spectrum.

If for instance you do the same thing in the unlicensed wifi spectrum, no problem. In many ways we already do this everyday when we leave our house with wifi enabled in our cellphone and it's updating ssids in the background everywhere we go. Many devices even have the option to auto connect to open networks. And phone oses will monitor ssids and use those to build up location maps to augment GPS positioning info.

If you are in the US and think you have a general right to privacy in your wireless transmissions beyond the bounds of your own private property you are mistaken, unfortunately.

I am not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure this is completely untrue.

18 U.S. Code § 2511 (Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited) is the U.S. federal law that prohibits interception of electronic communications.

There are a whole bunch of exceptions. The authorities can get warrants. Telcos and ISPs can do various things necessary to the operation of their networks. It's not a federal crime to listen to a radio station. Some of those exceptions may be over-broad, and are probably being abused. But, the existence of "search warrants", or "exigent circumstances" (say, your house is on fire), and even things like the rampant over-use of "no-knock warrants" or FISA, does not mean that you have no right to control access to your own home, and that anyone can just waltz into your home with total impunity. In the United States it is, generally speaking, a federal crime to intercept other people's cell-phone calls.

 

[Alpha Lupi]

The 8-device limit was the nail in the coffin. This meant on any day I had zero guarantee I'd be able to connect to it at all. Neighbors working from home will take precedence. Everybody will. And with the coverage being very weak in the area - their phones will be naturally attracted to it first.

I've used this device for about 9 years now and have actually had no problems. Its range is roughly my house plus about 20 feet outdoors. I doubt it would even register within my next-door-neighbor's walls, and certainly not enough neighbors to exclude my use.

As a free fix for geographic quirks that create random small dead zones in an otherwise covered city, it is painless.

 

[bburdge]

I am not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure this is completely untrue.

18 U.S. Code § 2511 (Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited) is the U.S. federal law that prohibits interception of electronic communications.

There are a whole bunch of exceptions. The authorities can get warrants. Telcos and ISPs can do various things necessary to the operation of their networks. It's not a federal crime to listen to a radio station. Some of those exceptions may be over-broad, and are probably being abused. But, the existence of "search warrants", or "exigent circumstances" (say, your house is on fire), and even things like the rampant over-use of "no-knock warrants" or FISA, does not mean that you have no right to control access to your own home, and that anyone can just waltz into your home with total impunity. In the United States it is, generally speaking, a federal crime to intercept other people's cell-phone calls.

Perhaps because I expect folks here to understand how wireless systems work I am not explaining this sufficiently well, let me try to clarify:

For wireless systems to work (both unlicensed wifi, and licensed cellular) there must be something broadcasting an open signal that informs other listeners on the spectrum that there is a wireless communication endpoint available - for our purposes let's call this the network station. This signal contains some basic parameters about what sort of communication is being done. On the other side - let's call this the mobile device - there is a receiver that is actively looking for broadcast signals on the spectrum and network protocol the device uses. When it finds a network station broadcasting such a signal, it can then examine the parameters the network is advertising, compare this to it's configured appropriate parameters, and if those align, the mobile device transmits a message that informs the network of it's existence and indicates that it wants to connect.

For any of the wireless comm standards in use today WiFi, LTE, 5G NR, CDMA2k, whatever - this process has to occur, and if it was illegal for those messages to be listened to for either end of the link, then we would not be able to have wireless systems. It is not illegal to walk by someone's house, receive their WiFi signalling, and see the SSID of their network; if that was illegal, then basically all the nice wireless systems we rely on won't be able to legally function.

Next step - now that the network and mobile have a very basic ability to connect, a bunch of additional information needs to be exchanged to determine if this connection can continue to a full communication link. It's during this setup process that the network and device exchange things like security information. It is here that a private cell network will now block access to devices that are not permitted on the private network. During this process then, the network must get information about the device, such as the IMEI, that allows the network to make the determination of validity. Symmetrically, if the device determines the network is not actually one that it is programmed to work on, then it will cease the connection process - but again, along the way, the device necessarily collects the information about the network that is needed to make that determination.

Looking at the legal code linked

It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

Since the wireless system cannot operate the service (which they are doing legally on their property) without these signals being exchanged, this seems to indicate that receiving these signals, and logging them as a normal part of network security would be legal. Since these are explicitly not networks operating service for the public, the last line doesn't apply. This is why you running a home wifi router that will log attempts made by people trying to access it is legal. If you go on the property of a private company running such a private network and they log the information about your device trying to connect to their network, that also is necessarily legal.

Again IANAL, but I expect if someone attempted to operate such a private network in a way that provided open access to the public and then recorded that activity, that might be on the edge here legally, and would depend on intent and behavior. For instance, I suspect if you just connect to someone's unsecured wifi standing outside their house, and they log your activity, they probably have a pretty good defence that it's not "intercepting" since you chose to communicate on that network. Setting up a cell that advertises as if it were a commercial provider and gets devices to connect and then monitors their traffic (the stingray case) is likely to run afoul, a big part being the illegal use of the licensed spectrum.

 

[chaos215bar2]

How stunning someone with your post history is in favor of normalizing government control over who can communicate at all, let alone what they can say.

While the idea of placing cell jammers in public locations is certainly problematic, I don't think the intent of jamming entertainment venues is government control. No need to be condescending.

 

[koolraap]

Step 1 jam cell phones at prisons.
Step 2 redefine what a prison is and how far away you want to jam
Step 3 ....
Step 4 Coup!

Dude, the White House is so many orders of magnitude beyond your plan it's just silly.

 

[ngoncalves]

A much better idea is prison abolition. Treating prisoners like they're humans, and like the sentence they're serving is that they're stuck in a place. Not so much the constant barbaric dehumanization.

We are social animals and punishment for social transgressions is genetically bundled in.
Sure, treat people decently. Including those that commit crimes.
But without prison, how are you going to punish serious crimes (e.g. murder) ? Death penalty ? Ostracism to a remote desert island ? A kiss on the cheek ?

 

[graylshaped]

While the idea of placing cell jammers in public locations is certainly problematic, I don't think the intent of jamming entertainment venues is government control. No need to be condescending.

Why is suggesting public schools are entertainment venues not now also worthy of a sideways look?

 

[leonremi]

there are plenty rational solutions (which therefore won't be implemented).
For example micro jamming cellular networks and providing inmates with wifi only phones AT A REASONABLE PRICE, say 20 or 30 dollars a month?

 

[KeyboardWeeb]

The "Radiant Barrier" insulation installed in my house does a pretty fair job of absorbing cell signals, to the point I have been using a booster of some kind (originally, a literal repeater, with a window unit set up to receive and re-broadcast the signal to a separate booster unit, now just an internet-based femtocell) ever since I moved in here.

They can just plaster the prisons with that stuff so they don't bother people outside the building. And hey, deniability! We're not blocking signal, we're just insulating to save heating/cooling money!

 

[JAFO#101]

Aka "Human suffering shameless exploiters like jamming".
We don't have prison phone companies in Europe, nor private prison companies.
Are both US-only novelties?

The US prison system is big business.

 

[dzid]

We are social animals and punishment for social transgressions is genetically bundled in.

Genetically bundled in? 'Reprisal' would better fit that level of evolutionary hard-wiring.

Sure, treat people decently. Including those that commit crimes.

Agreed.

But without prison, how are you going to punish serious crimes (e.g. murder) ? Death penalty ? Ostracism to a remote desert island ? A kiss on the cheek ?

Detecting a bit of sarcasm here. I think the OP meant something along the lines of an ankle bracelet, and if so I agree that would be a far better solution than incarceration inside America's prison system, especially if you'd prefer that ex-cons really do have a healthier outlook toward society and their own future upon release.

Violent criminals e.g. rapists, murderers, spouse abusers, pedophiles? These are a small subset of today's prison population, and I think we'd be making a big step in the right direction if they were to make up 100% of America's prison population. Oh yes, there's no need for capital punishment. It's morally offensive for all kinds of reasons, but the one I find impossible to argue is that there are always people falsely imprisoned. Locking them up is reprehensible, but murdering them? Evil and unacceptable and impossible to guarantee won't continue to occur. Finally, capital punishment is so expensive that it alone has a significant impact on the Prisons budget.

Desert islands and kisses on the cheek not relevant to the issue. Skirting the prohibition against slavery in order for the state DMV to save big money on labor by paying pennies on the minimum wage dollar, because otherwise they'd have to pay some non-jailed working stiff to make all those license plates. That's disgusting, and needs to be banned.

Just to make sure that another systemic issue isn't overlooked by the pedestrian manner in which it's usually described. "Racist state prison guards" are bad enough that most anyone who gets locked up in Cook Country Jail (Chicago) and who stands to serve > 1 year would normally be moved downstate to the state pen (one of them), which are typically near small towns and in way too many cases are the sole major employer left in those areas. The town won't part with their economic lifeline (and an opportunity to abuse Black people) even though the state does not need the space and it's a drain on everyone else's taxes.

Anyway, the inmates in County are far more willing to serve their entire sentence in cramped, crowed conditions including broken facilities, cold drafts and cockroaches than they ever will be to get moved to a place where the guards look at them like target practice.

Best ways to punish serious crimes without losing our own humanity?

 

[Rhywden]

I wonder why they don't simply do passive blocking of EM.

A school near me did that on accident - during building the facility the vendor told them that he had superfluous high-efficiency windows (the ones with metal-vapour deposits) and would install them for a low upgrade fee.

Result: No (or almost no) cell reception anywhere in the building.

 

[kimjc01]

I think we all know what the root problem is. The mere existence of the contraband phones, and the facetious attempt to jam them, papers over the fact that contraband items of all sorts, are "pouring in" (yeah I'm quoting the random prison official) to the prison system. Who is letting this happen? Yup. A failure of a system in such a complete manner that you can only observe how corrupt this whole thing is. A total overhaul of the correctional facilities system, one patterned on behavioral reform rather than punitive degradation, is what is needed. The physical structures must themselves be replaced with more humane living structures - still restrictive, of course, but livable. The inmates are made to recognize that they are there in order to improve themselves and become contributing members of society. We need reform so badly.