South Carolina has taken action against the illegal use of cellphones in prisons, implementing a pilot programme at Lee Correctional Institution. This initiative allows authorities to identify and shut down contraband devices, successfully disabling over 800 phones since last July within a population of roughly 1,100 inmates. “We refer to it as a pilot, but it has essentially become the established system,” said Stirling. The state had initially hoped to jam phone signals, a method proven effective in disrupting crimes like sex trafficking, murder-for-hire, and drug dealing. However, federal law has prohibited this practice for decades, showing no signs of change despite pleas from law enforcement, including a letter from top state prosecutors to Congressional leaders last year. With no foreseeable progress on the legal front, South Carolina’s pilot programme at Lee Correctional stands as a notable step forward in addressing the issue.
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who spearheaded the letter to Congress last year, emphasized the threat posed by contraband phones within prisons. According to Wilson, these phones enable inmates to continue their criminal activities by communicating with the outside world, posing a significant risk to public safety. To combat this issue, the state has implemented a program utilizing technology from Tecore Networks. Under this initiative, officials identify contraband phones through a unique identification number and submit them to carriers for disabling. Now, the state is seeking additional funding to expand this scheme to other prisons. The program has already proven effective in the Lee area and will continue to be utilized until sufficient funds are secured for statewide implementation.
Telecommunications expert Sascha Meinrath warns that even limited signal jamming measures, such as the South Carolina pilot, can infringe on prisoners’ rights by sharing legally protected information with private phone companies. He cautions, “In the pursuit of preventing harm, such as attacks on prison staff, we often forgive all manner of sin, but this does not align with the rule of law.” Digital privacy advocates echo this concern, emphasizing that any infringement on privacy rights, even if seemingly minor, can have significant consequences for individuals’ freedoms and privacy.

‘Chilling options’ context

The push for cellphone jamming systems in prisons has long been a subject of concern for digital rights groups, who view it as an excessive measure. State and local facilities are prohibited from using jamming technology under federal law, facing opposition from the telecommunications industry due to worries about potential signal disruptions in areas adjacent to prisons. In recent years, however, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has cautiously opened the door for states like South Carolina to implement “contraband interdiction systems,” a move that signals a shift in their stance on signal jamming. Despite this progress, Stirling believes that while signal jamming remains a viable option, it is unlikely to be authorized in state prisons, unlike in federal institutions, where it is already permitted. “I would love to get jamming,” he said, “but I don’t see it happening, unfortunately.
Stopping illicit phones in prisons could significantly impact the fentanyl trade, according to Stirling. He emphasizes the need to bolster the fight against drug trafficking by weeding out these devices. However, Albert Fox Cahn, the founder of S.T.O.P., expresses concern over jamming and interdiction systems. He describes them as “chilling options” that might lead to unintended consequences, especially when prison officials can disconnect phones without any process or oversight. When asked about potential changes, an FCC spokesperson points to the federal law banning jamming devices, highlighting the legal constraints in this area. Despite this, the debate continues on how to effectively address the issue of illicit phones in prisons and their role in the fentanyl trade.
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has allocated at least $23 million in his proposed budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year, aiming to implement an advanced interdiction system similar to the one used at Lee, across all 21 state prisons. This move aligns with a growing trend to enhance prison security. Attorney General Wilson likened the current phone shut-off method to a game of ‘whack-a-mole’, emphasizing the need for a more permanent solution. He suggested that introducing jamming technology would be akin to ‘putting an iron dome over the prison’, providing a precise and controlled coverage area. This innovative approach underscores the shift towards technological solutions to traditional security challenges, promising a new era in prison management where phone calls can remain free.

Make phone calls without any charges

Advocacy groups such as Worth Rises argue that signal jamming, which blocks inmates’ connections to the outside world, is an intrusive measure. Bianca Tylek, the executive director, suggests that offering free or reduced-cost phone calls would be a less intrusive alternative to targeted phone shut-off schemes. She challenges the narrative that inmates with contraband cellphones only use them for criminal activities. However, Stirling counters this argument by highlighting the affordability and accessibility of monitored tablets for inmates to connect with their families. He points out that a 15-minute call costs just 83 cents, compared to the exorbitant costs of acquiring and maintaining a contraband phone. This debate highlights the need for a balanced approach to inmate communication that preserves connections while ensuring security.
The implementation of the pilot scheme has demonstrated its effectiveness, as evident in the approximately 68% increase in “legitimate phone calls”. This surge indicates that the program is achieving its intended purpose. Furthermore, our search team’s observation provides another compelling testament to its success. Upon conducting a search in one of the dorms shortly after the scheme’s initiation, inmates began sliding their cellphones under the doors in an attempt to avoid contraband charges and subsequent disciplinary actions. This behavioral change underscores the program’s impact. However, the introduction of new technology in prisons has been a subject of controversy among digital rights activists for an extended period.
Following a Context investigation that exposed the potential for rights violations, numerous advocacy groups called for action against an AI system used to monitor prisoners’ phone calls in 2022. According to Meinrath from Penn State, even basic frameworks, similar to the one implemented in South Carolina, could initiate a perilous trend that compromises rights both within prisons and beyond. He emphasized, “The factor of being incarcerated alters your rights landscape.” He further warned, “A common tactic among oppressive authoritarian regimes is to sever communication lines.