UK Serious Crime Agency proposes ban on small cellphones that don't look like cellphones

Jamming a signal won’t stop conveniently at the prison walls, so the first 999 call that can’t get through would make heads roll. No-one’s gonna make that decision.

I want a valve-powered mobile phone. On a steam gurney.

2 Likes

Perhaps if they were to ban all technological development, these kinds of embarrassing situations can be avoided in the future.

This is a British Isle for British people, we’ll have no telephones here!

1 Like

You know what, let’s forget all that and go straight to whitelisting. People are allowed to possess clothes, food, prescribed medication, and an iPhone registered with an NSA-compliant provider. Oh, and a car. Let’s make that mandatory.

1 Like

Because of course all prisoners need car keys.

Guess the best way to stop prisoners using cell phones is for each prison to have it’s own cell tower.

As it would provide the strongest signal, all calls from the prison would be routed through it.

This tower would have a white list of staff member’s mobile phone numbers/IMEI which would be the only number to be connected.

Prisoners could smuggle their illegal phones in as much as they like, all they will be able to do is play snake.

I can only conclude that the UK Serious Crime Agency dislikes competition from independent UK Petty Crime operators…

Yeah, I wonder if it vibrates.

I hope you’re right, but I fear you’re wrong. In 2011, the BART in San Francisco unilaterally turned off phone service in their stations to impede a peaceful protest. Two years later, Washington is “debating” whether that was legal, but it’s likely to become the norm while the rest of us debate.

To an engineer there’s a difference between jamming a signal and turning off a tower, but not to the demonstrators.

That sounds like the system the Maryland state prisons are going to use. They call it “managed access”.

First off, we’re talking about the UK, so FCC rules don’t apply.

And secondly, you don’t actually need to jam the radios. There are at least a couple of different options for handling this. Since the buildings themselves tend to be solid concrete or stone structures, there’s probably a lot of passively acquired radio interference already. You might only need to add structural pieces to hamper connectivity in some of the open spaces. Could that be achieved with a Faraday-cage roof over open spaces that lets in sunlight and fresh air but not radio signals? I suspect it could.

Another thing is to do follow the BART police example: just turn off the cell tower(s) that serve that space, or rather in the case of a prison, don’t have one in the first place. That would not interfere with walkie talkie radios at all. The issue of that being possibly illegal is specific to the public space of a transit station. Even in the US, legality would certainly be different when considering an incarceration facility. In the UK, I get the sense that the authorities aren’t nearly so squeamish.

I believe that cell phone jamming equipment is used in some places for safety purposes, though. Hospitals, for instance, where cell phones can interfere with some equipment.

I merely proposed the FCC as an example ‘even in the US’ of RF-regulatory-entities-that-hate-jamming. Ofcom, in the UK, and the ITU’s Radio Regulations are similarly humorless.

As for passive RF-blocking architecture, that’s perfectly legal; but not trivial to retrofit, or to extend to an entire prison facility. Even fancy corporate architecture tends to result in poor reception amusingly often; but ‘poor’ and ‘none’ are pretty different things.

And killing cell towers is certainly an option; but (unlike a train station, which has dedicated repeaters and very good RF isolation) most prisons are near at least some actual telco customers, and their towers, and those customers will be Not Happy if their towers are disabled.

The main difference is that a subway station has excellent RF isolation, so he who controls the local repeater/microcell (probably the manager of the facility) can always just cut the power.

Unless a prison is way in the sticks, though, it’ll be covered by one or more towers that the telco put up to serve customers they actually care about(or at least want to retain for further abuse), and the facility operators won’t have anything to turn off. Doesn’t make BART any less sinister; but it’s architecturally a rather different situation.

I imagine that the way it was supposed to work is that visitors would be searched for phones, but not for car keys. Of course, the way around that is just to not let them bring car keys in.

1 Like

Or some triangulation equipment, to locate them? Works in other government buildings.

1 Like

From the BBC article:

“In this case Soca assisted the prison service and the National
Trading Standards e-Crime Centre by issuing an alert to car
manufacturers and online retailers earlier this year to make them
aware of the issue so they can consider taking copyright infringement
action against those selling these phones.”

SOCA don’t currently have a legal way to get rid of the phones, so they try to invoke the copyright angle?

The guy with a sight based problem that keeps him from driving strongly disagrees with that last notion on account of being personally useless without an included driver. See that’s the problem with voting, being the minority in an issue and not having your needs addressed.

enter link description here

Because copyright law is supreme over all else. I would turn this idea into a sci-fi story, except that no matter how outrageous, reality would render it obsolete before it could be published.