7 ms·

This is disturbing. I'm no lawyer or legal expert, but shouldn't this be contested on 4th Amendement (unreasonable search and seizure) grounds?

noer 8y ago
I don't think incarcerated people are afforded that right.
- gringoDan 8y ago
  Good point. But the people on the other end of the calls - whose data is also being collected - are afforded that right.
  - abtinf 8y ago
    You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when calling a prison.
    - EGreg 8y ago
      Why prisons specifically? Perhaps you should have no reasonable expectation of privacy when calling people in ANY building, then? Some prisons are private, others are public. What about a prison makes this determination easy?
      - briandear 8y ago
        Because it’s a prison. Voice monitoring is disclosed when calling from a prison. Public or private makes no difference.
      - abtinf 8y ago
        The purpose of a prison is to hold those who have lost their rights because they have violated the rights of others. To fulfill their purpose, they must maintain a high level of security, both to prevent escape and to prevent further harm to the public. Pervasive and invasive surveillance of the prison population and facilities is a necessary consequence of their legitimate purpose.
      - stereographic 8y ago
        Private vs public has no implications here. Both house people who broke laws. You aren't being voice printed in your home by the American prison system be it public or private because you aren't in the American Prison system. I'm not really following your logic here...
        FireBeyond 8y ago
        Many jails house people who have broken no law, or who will subsequently be acquitted. Or, in your eyes, "collateral damage"...
    - LinuxBender 8y ago
      No idea why you are being downvoted. Every prison have a disclaimer when you call in or out that all calls are recorded.
      - anigbrowl 8y ago
        We should consider changing/limiting that.
- morganvachon 8y ago
  Their rights are limited, yes, but what about the person on the other end of the call? I feel this is a gross violation of the 4th amendment rights of anyone who receives calls from an inmate subject to this program.
  - mr_plow 8y ago
    You aren't likely to see any 4th amendment cases brought here because even when they do investigate crimes with info from prison calls they can easily use parallel construction to build their case on something that doesn't fall under the 4th.
    - torstenvl 8y ago
      Also because any expectation of privacy you have after hearing "This call may be recorded" is per se unreasonable, so the Fourth Amendment has no applicability here.
      - mr_plow 8y ago
        Sure but once they start moving into the pen register side of things to connect the dots between the folks on the other side of a prison phone call and the second level of connections they create you start to get into some gray-er areas. It becomes easier to dig through a trash can to find cause for a warrant than to use the call + pen register data.
  - f-securus 8y ago
    The communication services are predatory. Anecdotally, using a cell phone or cordless phone subjects you to having your call terminated due to '3rd party calls are not allowed'. When contacting customer service they pointed me to FAQ where it said cordless/cell phones should not be used and re-queued me without listening to my complaint. The rate given when pre-purchasing funds was $3 plus applicable fees/taxes for a 15 minute call. Except the jail limits calls to 10 minutes. The system is set up to make the cost ambiguous. I've had the service disconnect me within moments of connection and they could care less. I've reverted to writing post cards (letters are banned too, seems convenient for their bottom line). Family members of those incarcerated are preyed on by these monopolies deemed ok because 'its jail'.
arkades 8y ago
Incarcerated people are generally treated as not having fourth amendment rights - everything in that context is considered not unreasonable.
- freeflight 8y ago
  As somebody from Germany, that sounds all kinds of horrible. Is this actually codified in law or just something that's practiced without anybody stopping it? I always thought these amendment rights are one of the most important pillars of what makes the US such an "amazing free democracy"? How can US Americans simply be deprived of those rights, doesn't that create a kind of "two-class" situation where some people are "more equal" than others? It's in especially stark contrast to how Germany applies its version of a constitution, the Grundgesetz. Afaik most of them apply to everybody in Germany, even non-Germans who are just residing in Germany. Not saying Germany always applies this perfectly but denying somebody their Grundrechte is, for obvious historical reasons, usually a very big deal in Germany resulting in a lot of press attention and public outrage.
  - empath75 8y ago
    You get deprived of those rights by being convicted of a crime by a jury of your peers. That's the whole 'due process' clause in the constitution.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      Sure, it just doesn't work, and for political reasons, nobody wants to put their neck out to actually fix it. I'm no fan of the Donald, and credit where due, he's passed the first meaningful criminal justice reform in years. The joke of course being that's where he sees himself after his term so he should make it as cushy as possible ;)
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    American criminal justice system is in desperate need of reform. It's built around punishment and not rehabilitation making it wildly ineffective. It's totally inhumane. You take a bunch of people who don't know how to live in a society, then torture them instead of teaching them how, in a room full of other such people. Then they get out and shockingly over 76.6% of them do it again within 5 years as compared to the Norwegian system where people are treated like human beings and only 20% re-offend within 5 years [1] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is...
gowld 8y ago
Activist judges have gutted the 4th Amendment over the decades.

noer 8y ago

I don't think incarcerated people are afforded that right.

gringoDan 8y ago
Good point. But the people on the other end of the calls - whose data is also being collected - are afforded that right.
- abtinf 8y ago
  You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when calling a prison.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    Why prisons specifically? Perhaps you should have no reasonable expectation of privacy when calling people in ANY building, then? Some prisons are private, others are public. What about a prison makes this determination easy?
    - briandear 8y ago
      Because it’s a prison. Voice monitoring is disclosed when calling from a prison. Public or private makes no difference.
    - abtinf 8y ago
      The purpose of a prison is to hold those who have lost their rights because they have violated the rights of others. To fulfill their purpose, they must maintain a high level of security, both to prevent escape and to prevent further harm to the public. Pervasive and invasive surveillance of the prison population and facilities is a necessary consequence of their legitimate purpose.
    - stereographic 8y ago
      Private vs public has no implications here. Both house people who broke laws. You aren't being voice printed in your home by the American prison system be it public or private because you aren't in the American Prison system. I'm not really following your logic here...
      - FireBeyond 8y ago
        Many jails house people who have broken no law, or who will subsequently be acquitted. Or, in your eyes, "collateral damage"...
  - LinuxBender 8y ago
    No idea why you are being downvoted. Every prison have a disclaimer when you call in or out that all calls are recorded.
    - anigbrowl 8y ago
      We should consider changing/limiting that.
morganvachon 8y ago
Their rights are limited, yes, but what about the person on the other end of the call? I feel this is a gross violation of the 4th amendment rights of anyone who receives calls from an inmate subject to this program.
- mr_plow 8y ago
  You aren't likely to see any 4th amendment cases brought here because even when they do investigate crimes with info from prison calls they can easily use parallel construction to build their case on something that doesn't fall under the 4th.
  - torstenvl 8y ago
    Also because any expectation of privacy you have after hearing "This call may be recorded" is per se unreasonable, so the Fourth Amendment has no applicability here.
    - mr_plow 8y ago
      Sure but once they start moving into the pen register side of things to connect the dots between the folks on the other side of a prison phone call and the second level of connections they create you start to get into some gray-er areas. It becomes easier to dig through a trash can to find cause for a warrant than to use the call + pen register data.
- f-securus 8y ago
  The communication services are predatory. Anecdotally, using a cell phone or cordless phone subjects you to having your call terminated due to '3rd party calls are not allowed'. When contacting customer service they pointed me to FAQ where it said cordless/cell phones should not be used and re-queued me without listening to my complaint. The rate given when pre-purchasing funds was $3 plus applicable fees/taxes for a 15 minute call. Except the jail limits calls to 10 minutes. The system is set up to make the cost ambiguous. I've had the service disconnect me within moments of connection and they could care less. I've reverted to writing post cards (letters are banned too, seems convenient for their bottom line). Family members of those incarcerated are preyed on by these monopolies deemed ok because 'its jail'.

arkades 8y ago

Incarcerated people are generally treated as not having fourth amendment rights - everything in that context is considered not unreasonable.

freeflight 8y ago
As somebody from Germany, that sounds all kinds of horrible. Is this actually codified in law or just something that's practiced without anybody stopping it? I always thought these amendment rights are one of the most important pillars of what makes the US such an "amazing free democracy"? How can US Americans simply be deprived of those rights, doesn't that create a kind of "two-class" situation where some people are "more equal" than others? It's in especially stark contrast to how Germany applies its version of a constitution, the Grundgesetz. Afaik most of them apply to everybody in Germany, even non-Germans who are just residing in Germany. Not saying Germany always applies this perfectly but denying somebody their Grundrechte is, for obvious historical reasons, usually a very big deal in Germany resulting in a lot of press attention and public outrage.
- empath75 8y ago
  You get deprived of those rights by being convicted of a crime by a jury of your peers. That's the whole 'due process' clause in the constitution.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    Sure, it just doesn't work, and for political reasons, nobody wants to put their neck out to actually fix it. I'm no fan of the Donald, and credit where due, he's passed the first meaningful criminal justice reform in years. The joke of course being that's where he sees himself after his term so he should make it as cushy as possible ;)
- arcticbull 8y ago
  American criminal justice system is in desperate need of reform. It's built around punishment and not rehabilitation making it wildly ineffective. It's totally inhumane. You take a bunch of people who don't know how to live in a society, then torture them instead of teaching them how, in a room full of other such people. Then they get out and shockingly over 76.6% of them do it again within 5 years as compared to the Norwegian system where people are treated like human beings and only 20% re-offend within 5 years [1] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is...

gowld 8y ago

Activist judges have gutted the 4th Amendment over the decades.