[HN Gopher] The FCC can finally hammer predatory prison phone ca...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The FCC can finally hammer predatory prison phone call companies
        
       Author : toomuchtodo
       Score  : 85 points
       Date   : 2022-12-26 14:40 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
        
       | bannedbybros wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | Overtonwindow wrote:
       | "The prison system we have is in dire need of reformation in
       | general..."
       | 
       | The last line I found to be the most important. I taught reading
       | and writing in both a state, and federal prison. The problem we
       | have in America is not a rehabilitation issue, but a retribution
       | issue.
       | 
       | In my opinion, the perception of prison for the fast majority of
       | Americans is a place for retribution, not rehabilitation.
       | 
       | Until we change the mindset of prison as a place where someone
       | goes to be rehabilitated, and not just punished, then maybe we
       | can start thinking of more proactive, long-term strategies to
       | reduce recidivism.
       | 
       | Until then, we are just warehousing inmates until their next
       | recycle through society, and back to prison.
        
         | 33955985 wrote:
         | I agree with you, and to my mind the only way to change that
         | thinking is to abolish the death penalty _and_ life
         | imprisonment, and to make the maximum prison sentence 25 years.
         | 
         | Then the incentives change really quickly. But until then...
         | most of the industry will see the ability to lock someone up
         | forever as more money guaranteed to the small towns gutted by
         | globalization
        
           | sokoloff wrote:
           | Are we optimizing for the law-abiding or the law-breaking?
           | 
           | If someone does <insert pre-medidated, heinous thing>,
           | do/should I support letting them automatically rejoin society
           | in a maximum of 25 years?
           | 
           | I'm not saying there aren't problems with our current system,
           | but I do believe that some tiny slice of humans have
           | unfortunately proven themselves, via their own actions, to be
           | completely incapable of living among free society and society
           | is right to forcibly exclude them from doing so until/unless
           | that situation changes. This might be only 1 in 100K, but
           | that's still thousands of people in the US alone and society
           | has to do something with them.
        
             | kelseyfrog wrote:
             | What GP is saying is that death penalty and life sentences
             | don't incentivize society for rehabilitation. The
             | implications here is that if society was faced with the
             | fact that they have 25 years to fix the person, that's a
             | much greater incentive for rehabilitation than death or
             | life.
        
             | gambiting wrote:
             | Again, other countries have already came up with solutions
             | to this - in Norway maximum sentence is 25 years, but if
             | you are given it, it's subject to automatic review at the
             | end - if you still aren't rehabilitated, it just gets
             | extended. For instance Anders Breivik was sentenced as such
             | - and the chances of him actually ever leaving prison are
             | close to zero, despite Norway having a maximum time limit
             | on sentencing.
             | 
             | (I can also see the argument as to why this is unusually
             | cruel punishment - you are never sure how long your
             | imprisonment will last, but I think it's the best
             | compromise if you don't want to have a life sentence as a
             | thing.)
             | 
             | Also if someone asks - how is that different than life
             | sentence with possible parole after 25 years - because in
             | this setup, the state has to argue why someone needs to be
             | imprisoned for longer, instead of the prisoner arguing why
             | they should be released. I believe this is much healthier
             | for the whole system.
        
               | xwdv wrote:
               | The caveat is that many criminals in those countries
               | don't have the capacity for violence that American
               | criminals have.
               | 
               | Also, it's useless the balk at long sentences because
               | often American prisoners do not end up serving the full
               | sentence for various reasons.
               | 
               | And as you mentioned, those "maximums" aren't true
               | maximums anyway, so what's the point? Better to be
               | upfront.
        
               | gambiting wrote:
               | >>The caveat is that many criminals in those countries
               | don't have the capacity for violence that American
               | criminals have.
               | 
               | I literally mentioned Breivik in my example though? He is
               | probably the worst of the worst and the system knows how
               | to deal with him in a way that makes sense, without
               | having to create special arrangements or exceptions for
               | him. Can you name _any_ American criminal for whom this
               | kind of setup wouldn 't be sufficient for?
        
               | sokoloff wrote:
               | You start with "again"; where was the previous?
        
               | gambiting wrote:
               | There wasn't, sorry - it's a weird habit I have when
               | arguing online.
        
             | hammock wrote:
             | >Are we optimizing for the law-abiding or the law-breaking?
             | 
             | The entire paradigm shift for retribution -> rehabilitation
             | is that the law-abider and the law-breaker are (or can be)
             | the SAME people. The distinction you are making falls away.
             | 
             | We are all born of the same nature, capable of doing evil.
             | Does that make us all evil people? Separate the sin from
             | the sinner, and create space for repentance
        
               | sokoloff wrote:
               | I'm not interested in retribution, but I am highly
               | interested in reducing future crimes against members of
               | society.
               | 
               | If rehabilitation fosters that more effectively than
               | exclusion after an episode of law-breaking, I'm
               | interested.
               | 
               | Data that I've seen so far does not suggest that, but
               | showing "released prisoners have a lower or equal rate of
               | subsequent law-breaking than the average member of
               | society" would be extremely compelling.
        
               | hammock wrote:
               | Crime happens inside of prison just as is happens outside
               | of prison. If you affirm the innate and equal dignity of
               | every human life (assuming here), why optimize for law-
               | abiding outside a prison to the detriment of law-abiding
               | inside prison?
        
               | sokoloff wrote:
               | I support enforcing laws both inside and outside prison,
               | but would not be at all surprised to find the base rate
               | of law-breaking inside a prison was higher, giving that
               | the reason prison exists is to segregate proven past
               | committers-of-crime away from free society under a
               | premise that they are likely to do so again.
               | 
               | We should work to reduce that in-prison crime, but not at
               | the crime-risk expense of the never-convicted. Perhaps
               | stricter law enforcement inside prisons is needed if
               | you're saying that the reforming-to-ongoing-law-abiding
               | within are being victimized by on-going criminal
               | activity.
        
             | nkrisc wrote:
             | > If someone does <insert pre-medidated, heinous thing>,
             | do/should I support letting them automatically rejoin
             | society in a maximum of 25 years?
             | 
             | My understanding of places that don't do life sentences is
             | that at the end of the term the prisoner is re-evaluated to
             | determine if it's still in the best of interest of the
             | society to keep them incarcerated or not.
             | 
             | For example, in Norway I believe that the maximum sentence
             | is 21 years with the possibility for extensions if they are
             | still deemed a threat.
             | 
             | While there are certainly people who likely do need to be
             | separated from society forever, I don't think _everyone_
             | currently serving a life sentence necessarily falls into
             | that category.
             | 
             | My spouse has a relative serving a life sentence for a
             | double murder when he was young, nearly 30 years ago. By
             | all accounts he's a very different person now and has been
             | rehabilitated. But he'll never get out, despite that and
             | despite having a support network were he ever released.
             | Does he, in particular, deserve freedom? I don't actually
             | know him well enough nor the details of his crime to say
             | for myself, but it certainly seems like the US is keeping a
             | lot of people locked up even when it might be better for
             | society as a whole to reintegrate them as productive
             | members.
        
           | shockeychap wrote:
           | I won't argue that the existing system isn't broken. But
           | elimination of life imprisonment and capped sentences of 25
           | years for _all_ crimes is just absurd.
           | 
           | What about Dennis Rader? He murdered numerous people
           | throughout the 70s and 80s. The details of the Otero family
           | are the kind of thing they don't even write about in fiction.
           | Should he be allowed freedom before he dies? Should he be
           | free today because of how old his crimes were?
           | 
           | What about Jeffrey Dahmer? (I realize he's dead, but that was
           | at the hand of another inmate, and he'd still be alive and
           | well if not for that.) He would be walking free today as a 62
           | year old if there was a 25 year maximum.
           | 
           | Furthermore, who's going to assume responsibility when people
           | like this are released and then kill again to satisfy the
           | urge within them?
           | 
           | Like I said, I won't argue that what he have needs
           | correction, and I agree with the focus on rehabilitation, but
           | there ARE other things that matter - such as appropriate
           | punishment and protection of society - that still need to be
           | factored in.
        
             | LightHugger wrote:
             | It works really well in norway, at the end of the sentence
             | if they are an extreme public risk, such as in those cases,
             | it's extended. But it's very important to have the
             | automatic "we need to extend this" rather than the
             | expectation it's a life sentence built in from the start of
             | serving it.
        
         | Sevii wrote:
         | Fundamentally, prison is about preventing prisoners from
         | committing additional crimes against the populace. We can talk
         | about retribution and rehabilitation but those are
         | justifications for why we used x method instead of y method.
         | Prior to the 20th century we couldn't afford to keep people in
         | prison for a long time so criminals were simply executed. Now
         | that we can afford to keep them alive in prison we lean towards
         | life sentences for heinous crimes.
         | 
         | Choosing long prison sentences instead of executions has
         | externalities. One of which is that now street gangs owe fealty
         | to prison gangs.
         | 
         | People don't go to prison to be rehabilitated and never will.
         | Prison is solely to keep convicted criminals far away from
         | normal people. If rehabilitation is going to happen it not
         | going to be at prisons.
        
           | feet wrote:
           | Maybe you should read about the penal system in Nordic
           | countries
        
           | _trampeltier wrote:
           | In every counrty, exept the US, criminals mostly come out of
           | a prison as a better person. In no other country a prison is
           | just to lock people away. In the US a prisoner is just a kind
           | of perpetum mobile, a unlimited money machine.
        
           | gambiting wrote:
           | >>People don't go to prison to be rehabilitated and never
           | will
           | 
           | Yeah that's complete nonsense and we have lots of data that
           | proves otherwise. US is really a massive outlier there
           | amongst developed countries.
        
       | toomuchtodo wrote:
       | Shortened title from "The FCC can finally hammer predatory prison
       | phone call companies, thanks to just-passed bill.", which was too
       | long.
       | 
       | Mentioned bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-
       | congress/senate-bill/154...
       | 
       | Ameelio.org show HN thread (as they're a non profit in this
       | space): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23042558
        
       | runnerup wrote:
       | Not until they fill the FCC position that's been open since Trump
       | left office. FCC is pretty deadlocked as long as congress won't
       | vote for the nominated replacement.
        
       | Cupertino95014 wrote:
       | There was some "how to survive your time in prison" advice for
       | Elizabeth Holmes that I read somewhere, that pertained to this:
       | 
       | Your time on the phone is strictly limited, and it's illegal to
       | buy someone else's. So another convict will "helpfully" offer to
       | trade his for something you have, and then rat you out. Don't do
       | it!
       | 
       | After they report you, the prison guards offer you the choice of
       | time in solitary, or transfer to a higher-security prison.
        
         | ROTMetro wrote:
         | Yeah no. If dude ratted you out he's the one that's going to
         | have to check himself into the SHU. And if you get caught you
         | just lose your phone privileges for like a month. Now if you
         | get caught with a cellphone that is considered an escape
         | attempt, and yeah, your points go up, you get a new charge, and
         | you get shipped to a higher security yard so probably don't do
         | that even if you really want to facetime with your gf.
        
           | justinclift wrote:
           | > if you get caught with a cellphone that is considered an
           | escape attempt
           | 
           | That sounds really bizarre. :(
        
             | bryanrasmussen wrote:
             | I doubt this is the case universally in American prisons
             | given that on the state level there will be rules per state
             | and at least different rules per security level. It may be
             | the case for Federal rules - don't know.
             | 
             | Finally depending on system there may be a great deal of
             | leeway for the warden to set rules on their individual
             | prison.
        
           | rootw0rm wrote:
           | so much this. i've shared phone time plenty of times,
           | standing right there at the phone so the guy can read my
           | inmate id off my bracelet. i've honestly never even heard of
           | someone ratting someone out for this. if anything the guards
           | wouldn't give a shit because they don't want to be bothered
           | with the paperwork. (unless they have a particular grudge
           | against someone)
           | 
           | but yah, being a rat means extreme violence every yard you
           | get bounced to until you end up in SHU. there's a perverse
           | sense of satisfaction from telling the guards that your race
           | can't protect someone anymore.
        
         | hippich wrote:
         | What another convict gets out of ratting you out?
        
           | mschuster91 wrote:
           | Usually ratting out fellow inmates gets you bonus points for
           | "good behavior", meaning better chances of getting out on
           | parole or a reduced sentence. Basically, you're being an arse
           | for your own gain - which is the reason why cooperating with
           | the wardens usually makes you the lowest of the lowest on the
           | rungs, even below pedophiles and child/wife beaters.
        
             | ROTMetro wrote:
             | Huh? You only get bonus points if you do something big like
             | help build a case against someone and I think that's like
             | an actual program that you have to join in advance not just
             | be like 'hey I found this out'. They can't be bothered to
             | care enough about this petty stuff, in fact it's my opinion
             | they encourage a lot of petty scams and hustles as an
             | outlet for people's energy. Source: ran the food service
             | warehouse and cellie ran a ticket.
        
               | mschuster91 wrote:
               | At least here in Germany, your behavior while in prison
               | definitely matters for early release, parole or commuted
               | sentencing.
               | 
               | (Source: good friend of mine served five years for
               | dealing industrial quantities of pot)
        
             | josephcsible wrote:
             | > cooperating with the wardens usually makes you the lowest
             | of the lowest on the rungs, even below pedophiles and
             | child/wife beaters.
             | 
             | If they really believe that cooperating with wardens is
             | worse than sexually abusing children, then I have zero
             | sympathy for them and zero desire to see their living
             | conditions improve.
        
               | Dylan16807 wrote:
               | I bet it's more that it's something you're doing _right
               | now_.
               | 
               | Also it's more personal.
        
             | hippich wrote:
             | And what warden gains from catching such person? Is there
             | just warden's personal satisfaction in it, or such
             | diligence encouraged by the prison system?
        
           | Cupertino95014 wrote:
           | (Disclosure: never been in, although I know someone who was)
           | 
           | I imagine it's not so much as _actually_ ratting you out as,
           | "now I have something on you, so do this for me. Or you'll be
           | sorry."
        
       | nimbius wrote:
       | Like most agencies the FCC's emphasis is "Federal." I used to
       | have a ton of respect and even admiration for the FCC when I was
       | first getting an amateur radio license, but ever since the net
       | neutrality fiasco and Ajit Pai's complete and total lack of any
       | sense of structure or objective during his tenure for the
       | organization aside from cronyism and smug apathy, its just
       | another appendage to me.
       | 
       | Things like phone spam should have been curtailed 35 years ago,
       | and spam texts are still a huge problem nobody seems to be able
       | to fix either. Prison phone call companies will likely see a few
       | token wrist-slaps and a moderate reform effort die on the vine as
       | evidence the system "works" but ive no faith, none at all, that a
       | system to which private capital and bureaucrats alike reap so
       | much profit from is going to see a big change.
        
         | [deleted]
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | from wrote:
         | I highly recommend reading https://commsrisk.com (no
         | affiliation) if this stuff interests you. Robocalls are up
         | month over month even with STIR/SHAKEN
         | (https://robocallindex.com/history/time). Essentially, caller
         | ID spoofing is just a symptom of the issue, the truth is that
         | anyone anywhere in the world can get a US number in any area
         | code and start making calls and as long as that doesn't change
         | robocalls will increase. Even if there is a VOIP crackdown a
         | bunch of rogue "carriers" will pop up like they do in Africa
         | where they put a bunch of prepaid sim cards in a box and use
         | them to terminate calls.
         | 
         | Lots of articles like https://commsrisk.com/calls-with-stir-
         | shaken-c-attestation-a..., https://commsrisk.com/us-says-no-
         | need-for-telcos-to-pay-3-3m..., https://commsrisk.com/what-is-
         | the-us-regulator-really-doing-.... I don't think things will
         | get notably better anytime soon.
        
           | MiddleEndian wrote:
           | Ideally they would give us every single hop, and we could
           | just block anything we don't like. I don't want to receive
           | any calls, texts, voicemails from any VOIP number or any
           | number that has a hop outside of the US (or maybe Canada). I
           | have family outside the US, but we communicate using other
           | technology.
           | 
           | If there is any provider at any point that drops any of the
           | info, they should be blocked as well. Just as I am able to
           | subscribe to uBlock Origin lists to automatically online ads,
           | I should be able to subscribe to lists of malicious providers
           | to automatically stop spammers
           | 
           | But even using the current tech, why is anything less than
           | A-grade attestation reaching my phone? As a user of a phone,
           | I do not care if some sketchy phone company can't get their
           | shit together; in fact I consider that to be a good indicator
           | that such a company is a source of spam. Why let them contact
           | me at all?
        
             | from wrote:
             | See https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt. There is a
             | debate to be had over every spam mitigation technique. For
             | instance banning VOIP numbers would prevent most 2fa codes
             | from being delivered and has a high false positive rate in
             | general. What you are talking about with the hops is called
             | "traceback" but is generally rather complicated due to the
             | ways call routing works in practice and is often done
             | manually.
        
               | MiddleEndian wrote:
               | I think email and phone spam differ, in part because
               | there is a semi-centralized authority setup for phone
               | calls, as the FCC and other govt organizations sort of
               | control it along with a small handful of real consumer
               | phone companies (in the US that's just Verizon, ATT,
               | T-mobile). And I think email spam is basically a non-
               | issue for most users nowadays, it's super easy to filter
               | and ignore emails in aggregate.
               | 
               | Your 2FA thing is a good point, but perhaps they could be
               | allowed to do SMS and nothing else. Or I could
               | temporarily deactivate it. The point is, users have no
               | control now.
               | 
               | Tracebacks are definitely something phone companies are
               | attempting (or claim to be able to do so). If some
               | companies don't cooperate, ideally those calls would
               | never complete. If they make phone calls more expensive,
               | I consider that to be a good thing at this point.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-12-26 23:02 UTC)