3 ms·
It’s to stop them from being able to continue to commit crimes from the inside.
by albertgoeswoof 9y ago
It’s to stop them from being able to continue to commit crimes from the inside.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- edgarvaldes 9y agoThis is an ongoing problem in mexican prisons, see: http://www.newsweek.com/el-chapo-puente-grande-mexico-582319 http://www.newsweek.com/el-chapo-puente-grande-mexico-582319
- jopsen 9y agoLarge scale phone fraud seems like something that should be easy to stop... Even without monitoring all calls. Assuming the officials aren't corrupt.
- PeterisP 9y agoOkay, what do you do if you detect large scale phone fraud? Put them in prison and take away their access to landline? Well, that's what we do now, and it's not working, they'll just use a tiny cell phone as they do now.
- cabaalis 9y agoExcept that they can't without using proxies on the outside. Instead, we decide that they no longer have a right to communicate or express themselves to anyone outside the prison. 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.
- jopsen 9y agoExactly how many prisoners have a criminal empire to run from prison. Most of them have nothing. And communication would be of no concern, or am I missing something.
- AstralStorm 9y agoThe problem is how to determine that someone is a "low risk" mule for coded communication. (For favours inside prison or later outside.) So the solution is a wide ban indeed. Like with many such "solutions" its efficacy is not evaluated.
- ams6110 9y agoBefore cell phones, they would use code words and phrases so they could orchestrate activities via monitored phone calls.