Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Prison cell phone jamming bill clears US Senate

Texas' US Senator and current gubernatorial candidate Kay Bailey Hutchison was the bill sponsor. See the full story here.

State Sen. John Whitmire will be pleased at this news. Though some public interest groups have expressed concern, I don't have any particular problem with the idea. However, I continue to wonder whether cell phone locators might be a better solution than jammers - one that could be implemented immediately and wouldn't require changing decades-old federal communications laws.


Anonymous said...

This is just the first step.

If they can do it in jails and it works,
They'll expand it to county jails, football games where the president is in attendance,
Treas of town with high gang and drug activity,
the border, political events, and natural disasters.

A low-tech version of this happened during Katrina, where the Feds cut the few working phone lines so all effores at communicating had to go through them.

davidt5 said...

The new aluminum oxide based paint will be easy enough to use to black out cell phones in prisons and jails.

We just need to know how expensive it will be.

Anonymous said...

1) Ham Radio goes around much of the BS they pulled during Katrina.

2) Jamming Cell-phones is bogus.

3) AlO2 paint will block much more than cell-phones- which would impair the guards comm gear as much as the phones and it only works in the confines of the buildings and not in the open areas.

If they're worrying about this sort of thing, shouldn't they be dealing with the contraband devices getting IN the place in the first place- and detecting the things instead of simply blocking their use. If they're incapable of managing that, I question their ability to run a correctional facility in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Coming soon to city hall, schools K-12, courthouses and any venue deemed 'a comm denial zone' by the powers that be.

The prison guards are corrupt, otherwise the phones wouldn't get in, but instead of ferreting out the bad actors we set a precedent that will absolutely have unintended consequences.

doran said...

Grits, I think your commentors are on the right track. If the problem could be dealt with much more expediently by locating and confiscating cell phones, then indeed why tinker with the federal communications law?

Answer, dealing with the problem of cell phones in prisons is not the primary agenda. There is another agenda, and another goal.

I suspect Anons 10:58 and 12:20 have it just about right. Law enforcement/social controllers/police state mavens, want the ability to control communications between citizens. A pre-requisite to doing that is to get the federal communications law changed in a way that facilitates the attainment of their agenda, their goal. What better way to control communications in this electronic age than by controlling the means.

Sen. Hutchinson is either ignorant of the implications of what she is doing, or she doesn't care what the consequences might be, or she is firmly behind the alternate agenda.

Anonymous said...

Among the many reasons ...they give you the phones so that they can spy on your conversations.

Charlie O said...

How far will the jamming extend? Will I be able to use my phone from the parking lot on visiting day? This is a common occurrence for me. I agree with Grits, it seems to be locators would make more sense than jamming every single phone signal. But then, it is Texas, since when did making sense ever come in to play?

On a side note, parole gave my wife an affirmative answer. She should be out by February 2010. Her birthday is Feb. Would make a good present.