|
 Print
On July 10, 2007, Carl Lackl, a 38-year-old father of two, was murdered at his house in Baltimore County, Md. He was due to testify eight days later against Patrick Byers Jr., who was on trial for murder. Although he was “safely” behind bars in a Baltimore jail, Byers was able to order the hit from prison simply by using a cell phone.
Two years later, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology held a hearing on the Safe Prisons Communications Act, which would allow the use of cell phone-jamming technology. This act would enable state prison officials to petition the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to install devices that interfere with and prevent cell phone signals within the boundaries of a prison facility. It would also require the FCC to adopt standards for the manufacturing, sale and transportation of this technology.
State corrections officials from across the country have spoken out in support of the bill. They argue that cell phone usage in prisons is a threat to public safety. Aside from the example of Patrick Byers, others incidents carried out using cell phones have included:
- Extortion schemes
- Tax evasion plots
- Drug deals
- Credit card fraud
- Prison riots
- Escapes
The problem is widespread and growing. In 2008, 2,809 cell phones were confiscated in California—twice as many as in 2007—and 1,623 were confiscated in federal prisons. Prisoners gain access to phones through visitors, packages or corrupt guards.
Keeping cell phones out of prisons is difficult, and phone jamming may be the only way to combat the problem of illegal usage. CellAntenna CEO Howard Melamed has said, “There is no 100 percent foolproof way of turning off a cell phone unless you use jamming.”
Not everyone agrees with Mr. Melamed’s claim, which has sparked a national debate.
A petition was sent by 28 state departments of correction (DOCs) to the FCC calling for them to allow jamming in prisons. In response, several consumer groups opposed to this action sent a letter to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who is sponsoring a bill calling for cell phone jamming. The protest letter was signed by nine consumer groups, including the New America Foundation and the Center for Media Justice.
Valid and important arguments exist on both sides. According to Steve Largent, who opposes jamming, “the right solution is one that effectively prohibits access by those who should have it while ensuring that law-abiding citizens and public safety users enjoy the most reliable service possible.”
Although this is a goal that both sides agree on and are aiming for, the following four issues continue to drive the debate.
Collateral Damage
Telecommunications companies fear that allowing jamming would open the flood gates to inappropriate jamming in the future by the general public. The bill under consideration, however, defines the purposes and appropriate restrictions on the use of jamming devices and does not allow for public sale of these devices. The proposed jamming rules are limited to prisons only.
Public Safety
The argument that jamming is not an exact science and could interfere with emergency and other communications, including industrial radio and broadcast TV bands, does not take into account new technology that can effectively jam a facility without affecting nearby buildings. CellAntenna Corp., a Florida-based company that develops this technology for use overseas, says that they can, in fact, block signals in specific areas. Furthermore, the bill will safeguard prison security by requiring that jamming devices be tested at each facility before they are put into use.
Beating the Technology
Prisoners have found ways around other types of technology, and Harold Feld of Public Knowledge claims they could do the same with jamming devices using only a few pieces of aluminum foil. Or, all it would take is one corrupt guard to shut the system down. However, if prisoners can really get around jamming, they will also be able to get around cell phone detectors, white listing and the like.
Alternatives
There are alternatives which some claim are more effective than jamming. For example; with call detection, officials can find cell phones being used without the use of an interfering signal. Eavesdropping on inmates may produce better long-term benefits in efforts to understand the larger picture of whom they are conspiring with on the outside. The alternative methods suggested are expensive and flawed.
“We have used pat-downs, dogs, metal detectors. . . . We need this [jamming] technology,” said State Sen. John Whitmire of Texas. For those who worry about the expense of jamming technology versus the alternatives, this decision is best left to state DOCs and individual facilities. In their efforts to stay within budget, we should trust that they will use jamming equipment only when necessary if given the freedom to choose.
In June 2009, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who is co-sponsoring the proposed federal bill, and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley sent a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) asking that they be allowed to perform a half-hour demonstration of cell-signal jamming. A response is pending.
The NTIA and the FCC need to show that they are giving this idea serious consideration. The dispute over how effective jamming devices really are—the most contentious issue within this debate—could end if Maryland is allowed to test them.
Most cell phone use inside prisons is for keeping in touch with friends and family—a form of supportive communication that experts agree is needed if prisoners are to make a successful transition upon release. According to the Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (C.U.R.E.), current telephone policies, such as charging exorbitant rates, are responsible for much of the cell phone contraband. Instituting fair phone rates in prison would help curb the problem. (See Justice Fellowship’s Key Issues, Inmates Telephones page.)
As the Byers case shows, ensuring reasonable rates will not solve the problem—records indicate that he paid $2,100 for his phone—but it would make the problem more manageable. Moreover, it would encourage constructive communication with friends and family, while discouraging dangerous phone calls that lead to attacks on those outside of prison. This is a serious public safety issue that must be addressed. Alternatives would only decrease the problem, while jamming would effectively eliminate it.
Justice Fellowship supports this bill. We are encouraged that it requires that each facility apply separately for the right to jam cell phone signals. We also believe that preventative measures should be employed simultaneously so that jamming will be used only when necessary and when a facility is capable of doing it safely.
|
