6 ms·
I don't think incarcerated people are afforded that right.
by noer 8y ago
I don't think incarcerated people are afforded that right.
- gringoDan 8y agoGood point. But the people on the other end of the calls - whose data is also being collected - are afforded that right.
- abtinf 8y agoYou have no reasonable expectation of privacy when calling a prison.
- EGreg 8y agoWhy 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 agoBecause it’s a prison. Voice monitoring is disclosed when calling from a prison. Public or private makes no difference.
- abtinf 8y agoThe 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 agoPrivate 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 agoMany jails house people who have broken no law, or who will subsequently be acquitted. Or, in your eyes, "collateral damage"...
- LinuxBender 8y agoNo idea why you are being downvoted. Every prison have a disclaimer when you call in or out that all calls are recorded.
- anigbrowl 8y agoWe should consider changing/limiting that.
- morganvachon 8y agoTheir 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 agoYou 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 agoAlso 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 agoSure 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 agoThe 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'.