US Senate Passes Bill Allowing Cellphone-Jamming In Prisons

SkyPager · #1 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 01:15 PM

Senate Passes Cell Phone Jamming bill

US Senate Passes Bill Allowing Cellphone-Jamming In Prisons - WSJ.com

rescuecomm · #2 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 11:15 PM

Assuming that the 800 mhz cell phone receive frequencies will be saturated by a wide band RF signal, does this mean that the prisons will have to use VHF and UHF channels for their communications?

Bob

gewecke · #3 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 12:02 AM

I'm guessing that the rf needed to effectively prevent on site cell signals from being received would be pretty low,compared to the rf used by corrections rptrs or their portables.
N9ZAS

milf · #4 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 02:24 AM

This works both ways.. Corrections officers and admin can now no longer use cells for comms... So save the agency money and turn in the cells LOL....

N_Jay · #5 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 08:42 AM

All depends how they do it.

Hopefully it will get the cell companies off their buts to deploy better solutions.

Pure "jamming" is almost as stupid as the US Senate.

raisindot · #6 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyPager

Senate Passes Cell Phone Jamming bill

US Senate Passes Bill Allowing Cellphone-Jamming In Prisons - WSJ.com

Good start. Now, if they could just pass a bill allowing cell phone jamming on public transportation, commuting would be that much closer to tolerable again.

Suzie

kenisned · #7 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 09:19 AM

Would there be a way for the CO's to instead just track down the signals from illegal phones?

Jamming seems like such an easy out and just covers up the real problem. How are those phones getting in to begin with.

I would imagine if you can get a phone in, then you can get all sorts of other things in.

.

N_Jay · #8 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenisned

Would there be a way for the CO's to instead just track down the signals from illegal phones?

Jamming seems like such an easy out and just covers up the real problem. How are those phones getting in to begin with.

I would imagine if you can get a phone in, then you can get all sorts of other things in.

.

Why do it right, when you can write a stupid and futile law?

Get with the program!

kb2vxa · #9 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 03:13 PM

"I would imagine if you can get a phone in, then you can get all sorts of other things in."
You have a very good imagination, they use them to place orders for drugs among other black market items and run gang activities all from the comfort of their cell (phone).

"Why do it right, when you can write a stupid and futile law?"
Good point, wouldn't it be more practical to get the FCC to put an exemption clause in the law against "deliberate and malicious interference"?

Actually a jammer need not emit a broad band signal to be effective, just block the control channel and the phone is rendered useless. You don't need a whole lot of power either, a few emitters in key locations will do it and there is a bonus, the guards' phones will operate normally except in those areas where prisoners are housed.

"Get with the program!"
Don't tell me, write your elected representatives. Er, maybe I'm being a bit presumptive in assuming they can read.... never mind.

Squad10 · #10 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 03:34 PM

My angle would be intercept the cell communication for investigative intelligence. LE has equipment that can monitor selected cell targets. The equipment disregards those not targeted by a simple subscriber power off then on.

MTS2000des · #11 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kb2vxa

"I would imagine if you can get a phone in, then you can get all sorts of other things in."
You have a very good imagination, they use them to place orders for drugs among other black market items and run gang activities all from the comfort of their cell (phone).

"Why do it right, when you can write a stupid and futile law?"
Good point, wouldn't it be more practical to get the FCC to put an exemption clause in the law against "deliberate and malicious interference"?

Actually a jammer need not emit a broad band signal to be effective, just block the control channel and the phone is rendered useless. You don't need a whole lot of power either, a few emitters in key locations will do it and there is a bonus, the guards' phones will operate normally except in those areas where prisoners are housed.

"Get with the program!"
Don't tell me, write your elected representatives. Er, maybe I'm being a bit presumptive in assuming they can read.... never mind.

The problem is it's not just cellular (part 80) you have to disable, but the PCS blocks, and then there is Nextel/iDEN on both 800MHz ESMR and 900MHz in some areas for interconnect, they are part 90. Such an "intelligent" inhibit device is outside the price range of anyone but military and defense customers. The types of devices these drooling invalids in the senate approve for use are the sub $1000 wideband noise makers which pose a real threat to the entire spectrum noted above, including the public safety users in that spectrum themselves.

This is a dumb idea proposed by people who don't know anything about RF and the grave danger this can put the very people it supposed to protect in harms way by inhibiting their communications. Any prison where 800MHz systems are use are at risk of potentially harmful interference to their communications systems. Stupid stupid stupid.

You want to blame the real culprit? The used car salesman at the FCC that are too busy selling off radio spectrum to bother to do any engineering work and let crap like this slide through, but then none of the commissioners have any real engineering or technical background, just a bunch of pork barrel lawyers for sale to the highest bidder.

Tim-in-TX · #12 (**permalink**) 10-09-2009, 07:22 PM

Now if only they would ban weights, TVs, radios, and actually lock them up for a majority of each day then prison might actually a punishment instead of a University for criminals.
...but I digress.

davidbond21 · #13 (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim-in-TX

Now if only they would ban weights, TVs, radios, and actually lock them up for a majority of each day then prison might actually a punishment instead of a University for criminals.
...but I digress.

I think there are those in the corrections industry who would disagree with you. Where you see criminals being coddled, the actual stewards of these inmates may see a system of privileges/reward that requires very little effort on the part of corrections officials to help elicit/compel the desired behavior from people that are ostensibly violent and dangerous and are not inclined to otherwise obey authority.

N_Jay · #14 (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squad10

My angle would be intercept the cell communication for investigative intelligence. LE has equipment that can monitor selected cell targets. The equipment disregards those not targeted by a simple subscriber power off then on.

hu????

How are they suposed to know which phones are "Targets"?

milf · #15 (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 07:52 PM

Exactly N_Jay... With a jammer in operation, forget using 800 MHz TRS in the facilities for Comms,.. This forces them to go to Conventional Only for interior work, and also kills any ability for giving a "21" unless the CO's can go find an landline in the facility. But oh well we stopped the criminal from making a call. Now if they ca design a blanket device that can detect shanks, toilette vodka......

ElroyJetson · #16 (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 08:21 PM

So why would any jail even allow prisoners to have cell phones in the first place?

And if they don't, but some get in anyway, what are they doing to stop the trafficking in cell phones
to prisoners?

Elroy

milf · #17 (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 08:43 PM

Elroy, they do not allow this... Criminals are notorious for devising ingenious ways of smuggling things in that are contraband. The only way to be absolutely sure that nothing gets in is to Ban cells by employees, and do full searches of EVERY person with access to prisoners. This unfortunately would mean BCS's.... Thats a whole other legal battle, but actually is needed.

Squad10 · #18 (**permalink**) 10-12-2009, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N_Jay

hu????

How are they suposed to know which phones are "Targets"?

Register known (non target) phones on the surveillance equipment, then the equipment monitors the (local unregistered) uplink and network frequencies. Normally a Court Order is required to monitor specific cell phone(s). The legal implications would be interesting for using this technique within a prison.

N_Jay · #19 (**permalink**) 10-13-2009, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squad10

Register known (non target) phones on the surveillance equipment, then the equipment monitors the (local unregistered) uplink and network frequencies. Normally a Court Order is required to monitor specific cell phone(s). The legal implications would be interesting for using this technique within a prison.

It seems that you think this is a lot easier then it really is.

Squad10 · #20 (**permalink**) 10-13-2009, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N_Jay

It seems that you think this is a lot easier then it really is.

Technically, outside of a prison, I know it's easy. Inside a prison, it may or may not be easy, both from a technical and/or legal standpoint. I'm not aware if the equipment has been used sucessfully or unsucessfully in a prison setting, maybe you are???