[Pnews] Prisons Across the U.S. Are Quietly Building Databases of Incarcerated People’s Voice Prints
Prisoner News
ppnews at freedomarchives.org
Wed Jan 30 13:00:55 EST 2019
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/30/prison-voice-prints-databases-securus/
Prisons Across the U.S. Are Quietly Building Databases of Incarcerated
People’s Voice Prints
George Joseph <https://theintercept.com/staff/georgejoseph/>, Debbie
Nathan <https://theintercept.com/staff/debbie-nathan/>- January 30 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Roughly six months_ ago at New York’s Sing Sing prison, John Dukes says
he was brought out with cellmates to meet a corrections counselor. He
recalls her giving him a paper with some phrases and offering him a
strange choice: He could go up to the phone and utter the phrases that
an automated voice would ask him to read, or he could choose not to and
lose his phone access altogether.
Dukes did not know why he was being asked to make this decision, but he
felt troubled as he heard other men ahead of him speaking into the phone
and repeating certain phrases from the sheets the counselors had given them.
“I was contemplating, ‘Should I do it? I don’t want my voice to be on
this machine,’” he recalls. “But I still had to contact my family, even
though I only had a few months left.”
So when it was his turn, he walked up to the phone, picked up the
receiver, and followed a series of automated instructions. “It said,
‘Say this phrase, blah, blah, blah,’ and if you didn’t say it clearly,
they would say, ‘Say this phrase again,’ like ‘cat’ or ‘I’m a citizen of
the United States of America.’” Dukes said he repeated such phrases for
a minute or two. The voice then told him the process was complete.
“Here’s another part of myself that I had to give away again in this
prison system,” he remembers thinking as he walked back to the cell.
Dukes, who was released in October, says he was never told about what
that procedure was meant to do. But contracting documents for New York’s
new prison phone system, obtained by The Appeal in partnership with The
Intercept, and follow-up interviews with prison authorities, indicate
that Dukes was right to be suspicious: His audio sample was being
“enrolled” into a new voice surveillance system.
In New York and other states across the country, authorities are
acquiring technology to extract and digitize
<https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/4c/bc/ec/73b97340f07d0e/US9386146.pdf>
the voices of incarcerated people into unique biometric signatures,
known as voice prints
<https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/4c/bc/ec/73b97340f07d0e/US9386146.pdf>.
Prison authorities have quietly enrolled hundreds of thousands of
incarcerated people’s voice prints into large-scale biometric databases.
Computer algorithms then draw on these databases to identify the voices
taking part in a call and to search for other calls in which the voices
of interest are detected. Some programs, like New York’s, even analyze
the voices of call recipients outside prisons to track which outsiders
speak to multiple prisoners regularly.
Corrections officials representing the states of Texas, Florida, and
Arkansas, along with Arizona’s Yavapai and Pinal counties; Alachua
County, Florida; and Travis County, Texas, also confirmed that they are
actively using voice recognition technology today. And a review of
contracting documents identified other jurisdictions that have acquired
similar voice-print capture capabilities: Connecticut and Georgia state
corrections officials have signed contracts for the technology
(Connecticut did not respond to repeated interview requests; Georgia
declined to answer questions on the matter).
Authorities and prison technology companies say this mass biometric
surveillance supports prison security
<https://findbiometrics.com/biometric-investigators-inmate-voices-308263/>
and fraud prevention efforts. But civil liberties advocates argue that
the biometric buildup has been neither transparent nor consensual. Some
jurisdictions, for example, limit incarcerated people’s phone access if
they refuse to enroll in the voice recognition system, while others
enroll incarcerated people without their knowledge. Once the data
exists, they note, it could potentially be used by other agencies,
without any say from the public.
It’s particularly alarming, they add, that the technology’s use in
prisons can ensnare people beyond their walls. “Why am I giving up my
rights because I’m receiving a call from somebody who has been convicted
of a crime?” asks Jerome Greco, a digital forensics attorney at New
York’s Legal Aid Society. Greco argues that the mining of outside
parties’ voice prints should require a warrant. “If you have a family
member convicted of a crime, yet you haven’t been, why are you now
having your information being used for government investigations?”
The Spread of Voice Recognition Technology
Voice-print technology works by dissecting physical features
<https://theintercept.com/2018/01/19/voice-recognition-technology-nsa/>
that distinguish individuals’ voices, such as their pitch. With this
data, the program’s algorithm generates a computer model of their vocal
signatures, known as “voice prints,” which can be stored in a database
for comparisons with utterances recorded in the future.
In recent years, voice recognition technology has come to be associated
with consumer offerings, like Amazon’s Alexa
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3rCa0VL4AE> and Apple’s Siri
<https://9to5mac.com/2018/04/16/machine-learning-journal-hey-siri/>, but
the technology was originally
<https://theintercept.com/2018/01/19/voice-recognition-technology-nsa/>
developed for military and intelligence applications. Over a decade ago,
as The Intercept reported
<https://theintercept.com/2018/01/19/voice-recognition-technology-nsa/>,
U.S. intelligence agencies were using voice recognition programs to
identify the voices of top Al Qaeda officials in their online audio
postings.
Similarly, the algorithms and structure behind the prison
telecommunications firm Securus Technologies’ particular voice software,
known as Investigator Pro, were developed in part through a $50 million
grant from the Department of Defense. The software was licensed to JLG
Technologies, a company that Securus acquired in 2014
<https://findbiometrics.com/biometric-investigators-inmate-voices-308263/>.
According to Securus’s 2017 proposal for New York, the technology was
developed because “DOD needed to identify terrorist calls out of the
millions of calls made to and from the United States every day.”
But it wasn’t long before major prison technology firms, such as Securus
and Global Tel Link
<https://findbiometrics.com/biometric-investigators-inmate-voices-308263/>,
began marketing the technology to U.S. jurisdictions that were seeking
to extract and store voice prints associated with incarcerated people in
their systems. “IPRO [Investigator Pro] has a 10-year track record of
providing pinpoint voice accuracy capability country-wide in 243 states,
county, and local correctional agencies,” notes Securus in the Pinal
County contract.
The enrollment of incarcerated people’s voice prints allows corrections
authorities to biometrically identify all prisoners’ voices on prison
calls, and find past prison calls in which the same voice prints are
detected. Such systems can also automatically flag “suspicious” calls,
enabling investigators to review discrepancies
<https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10712066601324/Contraband%20Exhibits%20-%20Part%202.pdf>
between the incarcerated person’s ID for the call and the voice print
detected. Securus did not respond to a request for comment on how it
defined “suspicious.” The company’s Investigator Pro also provides a
voice probability score, rating the likelihood
<http://www.pinalcountyaz.gov/Purchasing/Lists/ContractVendors/Attachments/446/Securus%20Technologies,%20Inc.%20Contract.pdf>
that an incarcerated person’s voice was heard on a call.
Michael Lynch, an intelligence coordinator for the Alachua County Jail
in northern Florida, confirmed that his county recently agreed to
purchase Securus’s voice recognition program. Lynch said that the voice
prints produced by the program will be permanently archived at Securus’s
facility in Texas. He said the jail hopes the technology will address
the problem of incarcerated people using each others’ personal
identification numbers, or PINs. “The problem is inmates that are
committing other criminal acts or contacting victims or witnesses and
using other inmates’ PIN to do that,” he said in a phone call. “Voice
[biometrics] will tell us who’s making the calls.”
Securus’s voice recognition program can also identify the voices of
people outside prisons, both former prisoners and those who have never
been incarcerated but communicate with people inside.
New York and Texas state corrections officials confirmed that their
agencies retain the voice prints of formerly incarcerated people, like
Dukes, allowing them to identify them by name if currently incarcerated
people call them in the future.
And New York and Pinal County, Arizona, confirmed that their voice
recognition programs can identify the voices of outside callers.
New York’s contract proposal with Securus states that outsiders’ voice
samples can be used to “search for all other calls” in their recorded
call database to find where those voices occur. In an email, New York
prison officials confirmed that this program will give investigators the
ability to extract a voice print from an outside caller and use it to
“identify that a call recipient has participated in multiple phone
calls.” They added that the program will not have names associated with
outsiders’ voice prints.
In a statement, Pinal County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Navideh
Forghani also confirmed this outsider voice-tracking capability, noting
that while their software does not identify non-incarcerated people by
name, it can track “suspicious activities,” such as “multiple inmates
speaking to one person on the outside on a reoccurring basis.”
With this technology, a press release
<https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/now-available-securus-investigator-pro-with-searchable-voice-capability-300376567.html>
for Investigator Pro notes, an investigator can now answer questions
like, “What other inmates are talking to this particular called party?”
and “Are any of my current inmates talking to this released inmate?”
Prisoners’ rights advocates worry that outsider voice surveillance
technology could also be used to coordinate crackdowns against prison
organizing campaigns.
“Using this technology to trace the voices of outside callers and flag
those who speak with more than one person in a system, staff can use
calls with outside organizers to quickly identify the incarcerated
activist they support,” said Bianca Tylek, director of the Corrections
Accountability Project, which works to curb the influence of commercial
interests in the criminal justice system. Tylek noted that during the
2018 national prison strike, corrections staff routinely retaliated
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/31/us-inmates-prison-strike-retaliation>
against incarcerated activists by using tactics like solitary
confinement, job termination, and facility reassignment.
The Pressure to Participate
Advocates assert that corrections agencies have been building up
large-scale voice-print databases with limited input from the public or
from incarcerated people and their families. While some state
corrections agencies have put out public <http://www.doccs.ny.gov/>
notices
<https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOC/Pdf/SecurusPhonepdf.pdf?la=en> to
families about payment options for new phone systems, they seldom
mention the voice-print databases, which are rarely discussed outside of
industry conferences
<http://www.doccs.ny.gov/pdf/Transcript_for_the_Bidders_Conference_RFP_2016-02.pdf>
and internal talks
<https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/GA%20%2C%20Inmate%20Telephone%20Service%20RFP%20-%20Securus%20%26%20GTL%2C%20Signing%20Bonuses%202015.pdf>
with contractors.
“Every time there’s a new contract, there’s new surveillance, but they
don’t say anything,” said Tylek. “I’ve never seen authorities post a
public notice about new surveillance updates or tell families.”
Keeping their plans opaque has allowed authorities to quietly pressure
incarcerated people into giving up their biometric data — or to enroll
them without their knowledge. According to Securus’s 2019 Investigator
Pro contract with Alachua County, Florida (which includes Gainesville),
“Inmates will participate in a covert voice print enrollment process.”
In Texas, state prisoners must enroll in the voice recognition program
if they want to make calls. According to Jeremy Desel, a spokesperson
for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Investigator Pro’s voice
enrollment process is “the lock and key” to the Texas state prison phone
system. Likewise, in Pinal County, Arizona, phone access is severely
limited for prisoners who decline to enroll in the voice recognition
program. “If inmates choose not to participate, they can still utilize
the phone system but only to make phone calls to their attorneys,” said
Forghani, the county sheriff’s office spokesperson.
In some cases, prisoners participate without even knowing, said Martin
Garcia, a 33-year-old who is incarcerated at Sing Sing in New York.
“A lot of guys don’t know technology,” he said. “They’ve been in there
so long, they’ve never heard of Google.” The voice enrollment procedure,
he continued, is seen as “just another thing they follow to talk to
their family.”
Garcia was upset to hear that Securus’s voice-tracking capabilities, as
described in its approved contract with the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision, could mine prison call databases
to identify which other prisoners outside callers had contacted. “Are
they criminals just because they’re talking to someone incarcerated?” he
said. “To me, you’re criminalizing relationships. Some people may be
hesitant to interact with me if they could be put in a database.”
After being briefed by The Appeal and The Intercept about the program,
New York State Assembly Member David Weprin publicly called on the state
Department of Corrections to give incarcerated people more choice
regarding the voice recognition program. At a Tuesday hearing, Weprin,
chair of the Assembly’s Committee on Correction, asked the Department of
Corrections’ acting commissioner, Anthony J. Annucci, to add a provision
that allows incarcerated people with legitimate concerns about voice
surveillance to “not be denied phone privileges.” Annucci did not
immediately agree to the request, instead pointing out that people have
the option to make unmonitored calls to their attorneys.
In a statement to The Appeal and The Intercept, Weprin said he is
“concerned with the deployment and use of voice recognition software” in
New York state prisons and will be working with his colleagues to
further investigate the technology.
Building the Databases
The rapid, secretive growth of voice-print databases is “probably not a
legal issue, not because it shouldn’t be, but because it’s something
laws haven’t entertained yet,” noted Clare Garvie, a senior associate at
Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology. “It’s not surprising
that we’re seeing this around prisons, just because it can be collected
easily,” she continued, referring to biometric voice data. “We’re
building these databases from the ground up.”
The scale of prisons’ emerging voice biometric databases has not been
comprehensively documented nationwide, but, at minimum, they already
hold more than 200,000 incarcerated people’s voice prints.
New York’s Department of Corrections, which incarcerates just under
<http://www.doccs.ny.gov/> 50,000 people, confirmed that approximately
92 percent of its population had been enrolled in the voice recognition
system. State corrections authorities for Florida, Texas, and Arkansas,
which hold about 260,000 prisoners combined, also confirmed that they
are using Investigator Pro’s voice recognition technology. Connecticut
and Georgia’s state corrections systems, which incarcerate roughly
13,000
<https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOC/Pdf/MonthlyStat/Stat201901.pdf?la=en>
and roughly 52,000
<http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/Divisions/Facilities/StatePrisons> people,
respectively, have also purchased Securus’s voice-print technology.
The databases of recorded calls from which prison authorities could
search for outsiders’ voice samples could also potentially include
millions of recorded calls for state and countywide systems. According
to the design requirements New York’s Department of Corrections gave to
Securus, for example, the company must be able to record every call,
archive all call recordings for a year, and maintain any calls flagged
for investigative purposes “indefinitely” through the life of the
contract, which ends in 2021. (In the documents, Securus estimated that
7 percent of prison calls made per year would total 1.5 million calls,
suggesting that the call database could retain over 20 million calls.)
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 https://freedomarchives.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20190130/b63f5550/attachment.htm>
More information about the PPnews
mailing list