Corrections Technology Association

Inmates & Personal ComputersEvolving Concerns

Missouri Department of Corrections

May 24, 2004

Dave Schulte

MoDOC at a Glance

• Facilities– 21 Institutions

– 2 Community Release Centers

– 65+ Probation & Parole Offices

• Offenders– Incarcerated: 30,000

– Field Supervised: 65,000+

• Visitors– 26,048 (April ’04)

• Institutional Staff– 8,000+

Business Drivers of Offender Access

• Institutional model relies on inmate labor– Clerical, Maintenance, …– 1,000 PCs

• Legal Research– Automation of Inmate Law Libraries– 200+ PCs

Business Drivers (cont’d)

• Academic Education– 200+ classrooms: GED training– Computer literacy programs– Automated testing– 1,100+ PCs

• Vocational Education– 25 programs

• Auto Mechanics, Body work, Culinary Arts, Building Trades, Computer Services & Repair, …

– 1,000+ PCs

Business Drivers (cont’d)

• Mo Vocational Enterprises (Industries)– 26 Factories

• Clothing, Metal Shop, Sign Shop, Furniture, Print Shop, Engraving, Graphic Arts, Restoration, …

• CAD, Catalogue Publishing, Inventory Control, Tool Control, Shipping/receiving, Work Order Processing, Clerical, …

– 100+ PCs

Growing Concerns

• Technical skills are essential to Training and Eventual Employment of Offenders

• Most supervising staff do not possess adequate computer skills

• Dependence on inmate labor facilitates development of inmate computer skills – usually to a level exceeding that of supervising staff

Growing Concerns (cont’d)

• Staff may support offender computing initiatives without full understanding of impact– Minimal administrative controls in place

– Enable access to questionable resources

– Facilitate acquisition of resources: New and Surplus

• Capabilities enabled by technology are increasingly high risk– Robust hardware and software configurations are becoming

impossible to avoid

Current SoftwareOn Inmate PCs

• Document & Image manipulation– Publishing

– Photo Editing

– Paint

– Draw

• Networking– Talk to other PCs

– Dial out (wire, cellular)

– Internet access

• Utilities– Advanced file deletion

– Password protection

Current HardwareOn Inmate PCs

• Networking Cards– Talking to other computers (and networks?)

• USB Ports– Easy connection of external devices– Rapid data movement

• Modems for communication– Standard phone lines, cellular

• CD Writers– Multiple copies of software, files, images, recordings…– Easily concealable

Emerging Technology,Becoming Increasingly Available

• Characteristics– Easily added to and removed from PC– Concealable: small, non-obvious…– Disguisable: pendants, pens, lighters…– Cheap and easily available

• Capabilities– High capacity storage: text, image, audio– Cameras and other recording devices– Wireless connectivity

• PCs to devices• PCs to Internet• PCs to other PCs (inside and outside)

Attributes that worry us

• Cheap, can get it anywhere (esp. catalogs)• Small, concealable (to get in, to keep in)• Innocent looking, easily overlooked (what

do we look for?)• Doesn’t need wires or power to work• Capabilities increasing rapidly (doubling

every few months)• Trend to integrate sophisticated capabilities

Our Concerns with Technology

• Creation and manipulation of documents / images– Records

– Releases

– ID cards

– Passes

• Monitoring of staff or other inmates– Who’s coming and going

– What is going on

– When events occur

– Staff Use of Codes, PINs, Passwords…

Our Concerns (cont’d)

• Unmonitored Offender Communications– With anyone (staff, inmates, outside allies, victims…)

– Not easily discovered, detected, traced, identifiable (who the user is)…

– In many formats (mail, voice, image, encrypted…)

– For many purposes (contraband, fraud, escape, revenge, harassment, E-Commerce…)

Our Concerns (cont’d)

• Other examples of possibilities that bother us– Pictures of staff or inmates ( to facilitate outside contacts, arrange

assaults…)

– Security details of institution (camera inside sending to outside, camera outside sending to inside)

– Intimidation or extortion of staff (record their activities, facilitate entrapment…)

– Alerts inmates of the presence of others (supervisors, custody, victims…)

– Monitor institutional activities for timing, procedures, efficiency (searches, checks, patrols…)

What are we doing about this

• We believe:– We will continue to remain behind the curve in the detection and

management of new technology

– We will continue to see technology-based situations that introduce risk to our secure operations

• We know it is:– Not feasible to deny offender access to PCs

– Essential that we not ignore it

– Staff intensive to deal with it

What are we doing (cont’d)• We are doing or considering doing:

– Placing limits on new workstations• No removable media• No networking capability

– Reassigning inmate clerks regularly– Random workstation audits– Creation of strict (major violation) inmate rules for use

of PCs– Aggressively disciplining staff who enable improper

situations

• ANY OTHER IDEAS are certainly appreciated