
Americans Don't Care About Prison Phone Exploitation, Says FCC Official - dsr12
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fcc-official-most-americans-dont-care-about-prison-phone-exploitation
======
millzlane
What they don't mention in the article is that inmates aren't able to call
cell phones. Earlier this year I had to bail out a friend arrested from a
traffic stop.

He wasn't able to successfully complete a call to my cell. After he said his
name and it told me to press 1 to accept the call, it would just disconnect.
Frantically trying to figure something out because I know they don't give you
many calls. I ended up having to "add money" to my account just so he could
call my cell phone and tell me where he was so I can contact a bailsman.

I had to pay money just so he could make his free phone call to retain a
lawyer or a bail bondsman.

EDIT: This is the company I had to pay
[https://web.connectnetwork.com/](https://web.connectnetwork.com/)

~~~
bdcravens
Not always the case. Connect Network services county jails and I know for a
fact they allow calling of cell phones (requires person on other end to set up
an account so it takes a couple of minutes to connect) I assume it depends on
the area and the contract.

~~~
jessaustin
Requiring the called party to set up an account might be easy if she just
happens to be sitting at her desk when the call is made, but it could be much
more onerous in other situations. Regardless, this breaks the standard
expectations that humans have for using a phone.

------
trhway
in the recent story on NPR about a young Mexican guy dying (ruled suicide) in
the privately run ICE detention center it was mentioned that the attempts of
the relatives to reach him on the phone were unsuccessful as the center's
employees were not able, for some unknown reason, to call the guy to the
phone, and instead the center's employees suggested to the relatives that the
relatives have to put money in the detainee's account first and after that the
detainee would be able to call them himself. The motivation here is pretty
obvious to anyone who knows about the outgoing rates from the detention center
and who profits from it. Practically the definition of extortion.

~~~
pop8row9
It is unfortunate that large amounts of money are not made available to reform
the prison system. It seems that society is on autopilot, with people being
led into a meat-grinder. Moral activation seems necessary.

------
peter303
The Bible has many admonishments about being kind to prisoners.
[https://www.openbible.info/topics/prisoners](https://www.openbible.info/topics/prisoners)

~~~
tinalumfoil
I dont see why the Bible needs to be taken into consideration here. I
understand wanting historical perspectives for policy, but religion shouldn't
be needlessly shoved down people's throats.

~~~
steve19
Is a link really pushing religion down your throat?

If it was a Muslim majority country we would were discussing a link to the
Quran that gives context would be useful.

~~~
nitrogen
Invoking religion in what should be secular discussions regarding public
policy can definitely be perceived as pushing religion down people's throats.
Imagine the opposite -- if every time a group of people were seen chatting
about religion, someone walked up and quoted some famous atheistic reference?

However, I don't see an iterated discussion of this as a useful tangent for
the thread to take, so let's discuss instead how religious philosophies of all
kinds could or should have informed the believers of those religions in the
issue of prisoner treatment. What leads to the dichotomy between religious
messages of peace, and the warlike behavior of some adherents to those
religions?

------
Zigurd
The FCC did cap rates. They revised the caps upward after being sued by the
two main prison phone service (such as it is) providers. The caps look pretty
high but I guess that means rates were really high before they were capped.

But it remains one more of the ghoulish practices that crop up when there is
an opportunity to profit from misery.

------
tacostakohashi
Textbook case of rent seeking and regulatory capture. Two companies are
competing against each other, not on price or service to the consumer, but on
which can manipulate the regulator the most effectively.

------
BEEdwards
That's an interesting take, in reality the people who care are poor and don't
have the resources to make their voices heard.

~~~
MichaelGG
Americans overall seem to have a hard "punishment" stance towards "criminals".
Just look at all the rape jokes regarding prisons. While some might just be
for laughs, a lot of it, I think, underlies the idea that prison should be
super hard and punishing. People are fine saying "hey you broke the law, I
don't care if it's not hard to make phone calls!"

------
alanfalcon
There's a local (to me) Vegas startup trying to help people communicate with
prisoners - [https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/24/pigeon-
ly/](https://techcrunch.com/2015/03/24/pigeon-ly/) \- they bring up a good
point that these people will be asked to reintegrate with society and to best
do that we need to help them remain a part of it with regular communication
with friends and family. The prison phone system runs entirely counter to this
ideal.

------
mekaj
The non-profit Prison Policy Initiative does a lot of research on these issues
and petitions the FCC for changes. This page summarizes a lot of their efforts
([http://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/#price](http://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/#price)).
Their other publications are available at
[http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports.html](http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports.html)

------
TenOhms
The only thing that you have to determine is which political campaigns are
these two companies donating the most to. Then you'll know why this isn't
being changed.

~~~
rch
> By voting against the caps, [Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly] voted against
> 2.7 million children who are just trying to stay in touch with their
> incarcerated parents.

Both Republicans on the panel.

I included the 'think of the children' bit to illustrate how easy it is to
turn a persuasive argument into a blatantly manipulative one.

~~~
cmdrfred
Hillary has taken $133,246[0] from prison lobbyists. Her husband admitted
guilt for the state of the current prison system[1] and famously Hillary
publicly supported[2] those very same policies with rather fear mongering
speeches. I'd argue the corruption is rather bipartisan.

[0][http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-
wil...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-ban-
private-prisons_b_9297568.html)

[1][http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/politics/bill-clinton-crime-
pr...](http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/politics/bill-clinton-crime-prisons-
hillary-clinton/)

[2][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg)

~~~
krastanov
Donation does not immediately imply corruption (on either side of the
political spectrum). Especially one as small as this one.

It does bring moral questions, and it is worthwhile to think about limiting
the power of "donations" in politics, but people can hold an opinion that we
dislike even before receiving a donation. The question is whether they will
change their opinion when confronted with data.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
What does corporate donation to political parties imply?

No, fuck that. Corporations should be banned from giving money to political
parties. Our politicians are supposed to represent _our_ interests as
_citizens_ , not our interests as corporations and their employees.

I'm open to changing my mind on this matter if anyone can provide many strong
examples of where corporate donation to political parties has lead to
demonstrably better outcomes for people at citizens.

~~~
rayiner
> Corporations should be banned from giving money to political parties.

Corporations _are_ banned from donating to either candidates or national party
committees (DNC/RNC).

What they're not banned from doing is spending money independently to promote
political causes. And I can give you a good example of why that's not a bad
thing: had _Citizens United_ gone the other way, the government could have
banned the tech company protests against SOPA/PIPA.

~~~
alasdair_
Serious question: let's say they DID ban corporations from protesting against
particular proposed laws. Would the outcome necessarily be worse for the
people of the US overall?

~~~
rayiner
Yes. Corporations are a bulwark against oppressive government. The rise of the
commercial class led to the downfall of feudalism and the rise of democracy.

------
percept
Prison rape and other violence, either.

------
losteverything
While at ma bell the prison collect program was always "over there" like
programs that managed recording and rating gov't ld lines

In the pre cellular days we always thought prison collect was high but so was
charging .37 per minute to any light user.

Overcapacity and cell phone Ubiquity never made it to private networks like
prisons.

------
colsandurz
How do I show the FCC that I care about this???

~~~
pop8row9
I also wish to know this

------
ddp
America, doing it wrong since 1776.

------
rhino369
I wouldn't mind if the state was collecting the money. Prison is a punishment
and you shouldn't be able to just chit chat all day. However, letting two
private companies cash in is corruption.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Prison is a punishment_

Beside the points others made here that it isn't, and it _shouldn 't_ be, I'd
like to invite you to think about the ethical and _practical_ implications of
punishing someone over, and over, and over again for years or even decades,
for an action that usually took only a very, very small fraction of time
compared to the length of "punishment". The very idea flies in the face of...
well any kind of experience with people and how they learn.

~~~
smallnamespace
Retributive justice isn't for the the criminals, it's to deter other crime.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice#Principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice#Principles)

Personally, I think we've gone too far down the 'retributive' route without
corresponding investments in rehabilitation, but a lot of Americans prefer to
lock the door and throw away the key.

~~~
nitrogen
Does it actually work for that, though?

~~~
smallnamespace
Well, comparing criminal justice models is by definition difficult since it's
deeply embedded in the society.

You can look at other societies where they spend more time rehabilitating
offenders (e.g. Norway), and Norway does have lower crime rates, but which way
does causation run? You can argue that rehabilitation lowers crime rates, or
you can argue that low crime rates makes the society tolerant of relatively
lenient punishment.

And if it turns out that retributive punishment _does_ work effectively, are
you willing to pay for increased crime rates just to find out that our current
system is alright?

~~~
nitrogen
_And if it turns out that retributive punishment does work effectively, are
you willing to pay for increased crime rates just to find out that our current
system is alright?_

This type of what-if paralysis isn't rationally supportable. Some similar
examples to show where the logic fails:

And if particle accelerators do produce black holes, are you willing to
destroy the planet just to prove it?

And if it turns out Cthulhu does live on the moon, are you willing to unleash
its wrath by visiting?

Instead of paranoid fear of worst-case hypotheticals, we should be using
empirical evidence to guide decisions. We can look at other countries. We can
look at differences between states and counties. We can conduct experiments in
smaller areas and roll them out over time if they work. Or we can just have
some basic human empathy.

