Considering that it is very problematic to use jammers and hardly possible to ban sales, too (if it becomes impossible to sell them directly, people will start to sell them from Shenzhen, which does not change the problem), this is probably the best option.
How about just banning prison visits. That would solve a lot of other contraband problems too.
This is sarcasm right? Because if you just want to disregard human life, you might as well just kill everybody instead of incarcerating. No more prisons then! Problem solved?
Isn't it common for prison visits that the visitor is separated from the prisoner by some barrier (e.g. some acrylic glass barrier) so that it is nearly impossible to hand over contrabands, where the visitor is in an area that no prisoner can enter (so that the visitor cannot leave some contraband behind).
And even if there is something to hand over to the prisoner (either from a visitor and mail) I think it will have to go through security clearance. This shows that any way that a visitor uses to hand over some item can also be used via mail - so banning prison visits avails to nothing.
edit: Banning visits seems unusually cruel.
[0] https://theintercept.com/2017/06/16/fcc-prison-phone-call-ra...
[1] https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2017/11/20/indiana...
Most criminals don't have an empire to run from prison. I suspect there's very few prisoners where censoring makes any sense.
Consider the cost and benefit, and the value of maintaining contact with friends and family.
What exactly is the reasonable censorship role? I'm honestly curious..
It seems like a more effective and humane method is to allow them free telephone usage, with the complete disclosure and knowledge that their conversations are being listened to/recorded. If crimes being driven by their command are executed on the outside, it can be found out how they communicated that command, and the people responsible for committing that outside crime also punished.
http://www.newsweek.com/el-chapo-puente-grande-mexico-582319
- Just kidding...
Lead is toxic to human, any other metal can do.
> "Beat the BOSS" phones can be bought for £25, but are reportedly changing hands for up to £500 inside jails.
This is ostensibly an article about phones being on sale on online marketplaces and being advertised explicitly for smuggling.
So, let's search Amazon UK: "beat the BOSS phone", there's one phone that looks like it's small. Granted, it does say that it's 99.9% plastic. Nowhere in the description is it marketed as being to beat the body scanner. BOSS isn't mentioned.
The second result is a Nokia 105, which I'm fairly sure is not what the article is talking about. Ebay's not-yet-taken-down listings are a little more explicit with one of the two listings referring to a "cell" and "Boss." Arguably, "Boss" could refer to, say, the boss at work. Maybe choosing that as an acronym for the scanners wasn't such a great idea after all.
Questions a journalist might have been expected to have found answers for:
A minister has claimed this, so is it plausible? Could there be another agenda? Is it a distraction?
The claimed battery life is 5 days. How are these being charged?
Is there a legitimate use for such a small phone?
Will extending a ban to outside likely be effective given that, say, drugs are also banned outside prison? The article does not mention drugs other than as contraband.
Why are they £500 if these things are routinely changing hands and can be obtained for so little and are so easy to smuggle?
Who do the inmates pay the £500 to? How?
How are they smuggled? Visitors seems unlikely, because the risk of getting caught is high.
Why is there no analysis of the widespread claims spanning decades that prison guards have been involved in many smuggling operations?
The media has been running stories for months about drones (i.e. quadcopters) being used to smuggle stuff into prisons. Why is there no mention of drones or any synonyms in this article?
