Regulator sticks to its guns on mobile jamming ban

 

A blow to plans to block signal in NSW prisons.

Australia's communications regulator has proposed a continuation of the ban on technology which jams mobile phone and wireless communications, which could scupper plans by prisons to crack down on the illegal communication of inmates.

In April, the Australian Media and Communications Authority commenced a review of existing mobile phone jamming laws, after the NSW Department of Corrective Services announced its intention to trial jamming technology at Lithgow prison.

Today the authority released a draft declaration, the Radiocommunications Prohibition of PMTS Jamming Devices) Declaration 2010, which proposed to continue banning the jamming devices that interfere with public mobile telecommunications services (PMTS).

The declaration contains an exemption for the operation of the jamming technology on aircraft.

ACMA received 14 submissions for the review including from the Attorney-General's Department, Department of Defence, Department of Justice (Victoria), and NSW Department of Corrective Services / Kordia Solutions.

The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, Telstra, Singtel Optus and Vodafone Hutchison also made submissions.

In 2003, the previous incarnation of ACMA, the Australian Communications Authority, evaluated whether jamming technology should be allowed in prisons but at the time concluded the "disadvantages of the deployment outweighed the advantages".

However, the issue has raised its head in the last couple of years following incidents of high-risk prisoners possessing mobile phones and also some gangs coordinating criminal activities from jail over mobile networks.

In its submission, the AMTA expressed concerns about the proposed mobile phone jamming trial at Lithgow.

"In relation to the proposed trial at Lithgow, industry is concerned about the process to date," the submission said. "The process and consultation commitments have been vague and it is concerning that the proposal for a trial has progressed so far without consultation with affected stakeholders."

Prison agency urges regulator to reconsider

But according to the NSW Minister for Corrective Services, there remained a very urgent requirement for the trial to go ahead.

Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW) is working to address concerns that Lithgow area services could be compromised by a trial of jamming technology, according to a spokesman for the NSW Minister for Corrective Services, Phil Costa.

However, the spokesman said there was no planned start date for 12-month trial, which was first proposed last June.

"CSNSW is in the process of finalising technical details and arrangements for the trial with ACMA and mobile phone carriers.

"CSNSW and its engineers have worked closely together to select equipment that will only jam signals within Lithgow Correctional Centre and is confident that mobile phones outside the prison will not be affected."

He said there is a real need for the technology because prisoners with mobile phones are a threat to the whole community.

"Inmates in possession of mobile phones can contact criminals on the outside or they may contact or threaten their victims.

"Last year an inmate organised a drug distribution network from his gaol cell using a smuggled mobile phone but effectively jamming these phones in correctional centres will wipe this practice out. "

ACMA will receive submissions on the draft declaration until December 20, 2010.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Regulator sticks to its guns on mobile jamming ban
"All very good points from everyone here, and it is quite clear that the majority support the use of mobile phone jamming in Australian gaols. Ezy2Confuze +1, in fact I totally agree with you. ..."
By singo79
 
 
 
Comments: 8
singo79
Nov 10, 2010 4:07 PM
Sound's like the ACMA might have a conflict of interest here. There is no good reason why the ACMA should be opposing this, for mobile phones in gaols are a serious problem for staff as well as people on the outside.

Criminals can order hits/attacks on staff or members of the public/witnesses if they manage to smuggle in a mobile phone.

I would hazard a guess that someone or a number of people in the ACMA have friends or family locked up in gaols around Australia, there is no other reasonable explanation why this should not be approved.
deonast
Nov 10, 2010 4:08 PM
Maybe they would be allowed with a more passive blocking solution. I'd heard about paint that can block mobile signals years ago. Can't remember the company at the time but currently http://www.emsectechnologies.com sells a solution to stop wireless signals leaving a building but it also works to block mobile communications.

Probably not the cheapest way, but might end up being the only way.
anonymous
Nov 10, 2010 5:46 PM

Interesting point, deonast, but my guess is that it might take more than paint to fettle the felons.

Apart from the active jamming systems under discussion, probably the only way to contain radio signals would be to surround the prison with a virtual Faraday cage. That would not be very practical or effective, particularly on open plan low-security facilities.

singo79 is right, there are good reasons why phones in jail should be jammed. Handsets are now so small that they are ridiculously easy to smuggle inside.
Pilotyoda
Nov 10, 2010 6:31 PM
Actually, a Faraday cage would be fairly easy to implement. So would mobile phone detectors.

I think the Regulators are concerned with "spill" from blocking radiation. Plus there are OHS&E issues with constantly bathing staff/prisoners with RF radiation which would be at a higher average level than the phones would emit. Anyway, if prisoners have access to computers/internet/email (not to mention Facebook), what is the point?

If wardens can find a prisoner's Joint or narcotics, why cant they find a phone. There would be several ways of detecting active mobile phones, and for that matter, activating them to listen to conversations without the phone user knowing.
Francis
Nov 10, 2010 10:49 PM
Sounds terribly like bureaucracy gone mad and justifying its own existence or impotence to me.
May be the question should be "Can we do away with ACMA, what real part do they play in the overall scheme of things"?
Corsair
Nov 11, 2010 9:18 AM
ACMA = Another Crappy Media Authority
Ezy2Confuze
Nov 11, 2010 4:31 PM
I know, after every visit, prisoners are walked into detention rooms straight away - so they cannot pass anything over to anyoone - and given a serious dose of laxatives. Keep them seperated for 24 hours, then a strip seach on the way out to make sure anything they tried to sneak in wasn't picked up and hidden somewhere else on their person.

For all those rose-coloured-glasses people whinging about prisoners rights, two things, 1. They commited a crime, they are in there for punishment. 2. If you really want, we can lock you up with them for 3 months to see what these people are really like.
singo79
Nov 13, 2010 5:22 PM
All very good points from everyone here, and it is quite clear that the majority support the use of mobile phone jamming in Australian gaols.

Ezy2Confuze +1, in fact I totally agree with you. There is more of a focus on "Inmate rights" today then the actual incarceration of the criminal and the completion of their sentence. You hit the nail on the head, they are criminals who committed a crime and were convicted of their crime.

Seriously, mobile phones in gaols is a bad thing and you would think that the regulators would be right behind it. The fact that they are not is very concerning and ultimately, stupid!
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  20%
 
No
  80%
TOTAL VOTES: 507

Vote