FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

An Expensive Way to Make Bad People Worse: An Essay On Prison Reform from an Insider's Perspective


Prison 

Policy Initiative




An Expensive Way to Make Bad People Worse: An Essay On Prison Reform from an Insider's Perspective

book cover 
By Jens Soering
Lantern Books, 2004
113 pages, $12
reviewed by Stephen Healy and Peter Wagner 
   

For more than a decade, the Prison Policy Initiative has been at the forefront of the movement to expose how mass incarceration undermines our national welfare. With a lot of hard work and generous support from a small network of individual donors, we've won major civil rights victories in local governments, state legislatures and even the Supreme Court.



When Virginia lifer Jens Soering released his second book, An Expensive Way to Make Bad People Worse: An Essay On Prison Reform from an Insider's Perspective he fired a warning shot across the bow of the prison industrial complex. An Expensive Way to Make Bad People Worse is the best short, readable, fact-drive summation of why prisons don't work, but what makes the book so powerful is that it is written by a conservative Christian addressed to other fiscal conservatives.

Fiscal conservatives define "good government" as "small government", so by using a simple cost-benefit analysis, Soering shows that locking up 2 million people fails to justify the $57 billion cost. While progressives may oppose the current criminal and penal systems for social and ethical reasons, Soering's arguments have the potential to split the Republican party's fiscally conservative base from its "get tough on crime" leadership.

Using fresh analysis and groundbreaking arguments to bring sometimes dry statistics to life, Soering's book is organized around six myth-busting chapters:
  • There is no problem,
  • They may be expensive, but at least prisons prevent crime,
  • Crime prevention does not work,
  • Rehabilitation behind bars does not work,
  • There are no alternatives to prison, and
  • Criminal justice issues are so important that no one would dare mislead the public about them.
Soering, a German citizen serving two life terms, brings a unique perspective that allows him to challenge common ideologically derived assumptions from both the right and the left. Soering place the US prison in an international context to show precisely how US prison policy fails us. While all modern societies have a "crime" problem, the United States stands virtually alone in relying solely on expanding its punitive incarceration system to address the problem. Soering explains that the prison population has grown not because of a growth in crime, but because of a complete systemic failure to prevent people already in the system from re-offending. The majority of prisoners who are released either fail to successfully complete parole or are shortly returned to prison after committing a new crime. Judged by any standard used in the marketplace, "corrections" is an abysmal failure.
One good conservative solution? Fiscal incentives.

Reducing poverty has proven results in reducing crime, because people with something to lose are less likely to commit a crime. But reducing poverty has been anathema to neo-conservatives like Bush. "The poor do not deserve it, and we can not afford it anyway," they say. But from a fiscal conservative perspective, it makes good economic sense to end poverty. After all, the poverty line in the U.S. for a family of three is $13.22 a day per person. That's supposed to pay for everything. By contrast, incarceration costs on average, $55.18 a day. Soering asks whether reducing poverty would be both cheaper and more effective at reducing crime. And of course, in some places incarceration costs far more than the average. In the Fairfax County, Virginia, jail, incarceration costs $130.00 a day. That's quite a decadent expenditure by society, particularly considering that a night's stay in a Walt Disney World no-frills resort can be had for only $119.33.

In an age where conventional "liberals" have adopted the neo-liberal "welfare reform" program, it is ironic that one of the clearest defenders of the social safety net is a writer with an ideological tie to the people who opposed Johnson's War on Poverty. But as Soering points out, spending on education and other social services for the poor -- not mass incarceration -- is more in line with fiscally conservative social principles because social services do lower criminality and its associated costs. This is simply that the stitch in time saves nine.

Beyond the title, drawn from that of a white paper issued in the 1980s by Margaret Thatcher's conservative English government, the book contains very little moralizing about "bad" people. That title will no doubt make some progressives wince, but it's also a reflection of the genius of the book. It's a fact of reality that conservatives believe some people are "good" and some are "bad". While progressives might not agree with the fiscal conservatives about why crime exists, we can certainly agree that that the $57billion a year spent on corrections isn't improving public safety.

This isn't a radical book that questions how we define crime or one that imagines a new world where prisons don't exist. Instead, the book is a highly effective indictment of the prison industrial complex as a massive failed experiment whose time has come and gone.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

How to Detect Virtual Spies and Spying




SpywareGuide powered by Actiance Security Labs


 

How to Detect Spies


Make no doubt about it, online spying is becoming more prevalent and more sophisticated. It is important to understand that there are different levels of spying. For example, Alexa, popular software owned by Amazon.com doesn't actually log your keystrokes or take system snapshots but it does record some surfing activity. However, programs like Spector are very skilled at stealthily gathering information including passwords, surfing history, and even chat logs and e-mails. If you have not done so already take a moment to read our Introduction to Spyware located here here.

So how do you know if you are being spied upon? We list the key points below on how to monitor your system and check for the signs of spy software.


1) Work Environment: Assume you are being monitored. Most workplaces have the right to do this so by default so get used to the fact that someone is monitoring you. There are several ways employers can monitor employees. Some use activity logging software to see what programs are being accessed and for how long. Naturally, many will use spy software programs also known as "snoop ware" or a key-logger to take snapshots and log all keystrokes. An employer may actually monitor internet traffic as it moves across an intranet. Responsible employers will have policies on monitoring posted on monitoring practices, P2P file sharing, IM or chat usage and e-mail and web surfing.

2) Anti-Spy Programs: A popular way to find out if someone is spying on you. Anti-Spy programs look for signatures or traces that are specific to certain spy software. Some simply do text string scanning to find them, and others actually extract and attempt to remove the spyware. Be careful of the ones that use only text string scanning. Text string scanning can give false positives and in some cases it actually it can accidentally target anti-spy software! Beware! There are a number of rogue anti-spyware applications that will inject spyware into your system instead of removing it.

Of course, Anti-Spy software can be a double-edged sword! Many spies will actually buy anti-spy software to scan and check to make sure their spyware is not being detected. There is a hidden arms race that rages between spyware vendors and anti-spy companies.

3) System Resources: Poorly written spy software will usually put an enormous drag on system resources. Watch out for poor system resources, running out of memory, lots of hard disk activity or a screen that "flickers". This is caused by some spy software programs as they take snapshots of the computer screen that requires system resources.

4) Machine Access: Watch for people trying to gain physical access to your machine. Many software programs are designed for spying but require physical access to the target machine.

5) Installation Monitors: Currently on the market are software programs that will log every installation that occurs on your machine. It is best to leave these hidden on the system. It is possible to catch the installation of many spies in this way.

6) Anti-Virus: Many anti-virus programs can catch prolific spy software because they are often classified as "Trojan Horses". Keep spy software up to date and make sure it is running in the background. This might not protect you against from some spy software but it may let you know if any repurposed Trojan horses have been installed. Keep in mind that Trojans (see below) like NetBus or DeepBO are also classified as spy software because they open up a system to outside connections. Don not be lulled into a false sense of security because you have one installed. They are helpful but there is no such thing as 100% foolproof protection.

7) Personal Firewall: In today's treacherous Internet it is very helpful to also run a personal firewall. Firewalls will alert you to both inbound and outbound activity. You can control programs allowed in and out of your system. Watch for suspicious programs you do not recognize trying to send data out of your system.

8) Downloading Smarts: Simply put use common sense when downloading and avoid sources you cannot trust. If you are someone who frequents "warez" or crack sites you will more than likely encounter a Trojan or virus. The same applies for Peer-two-Peer applications as well.

9) Common Sense: Be careful about what you install on your system. Don't run e-mail attachments and read the EULA (end user license agreement). Keep an Up-To-Date Anti-Spy Package on your machine.

10) Spy Software: Ironically, you can monitor for spy software by installing spy software on your system first! Since spy software can record all keystrokes it can monitor and record the installation of another spy software. Again, this turns into a virtual arms race, but keep in mind that many spy programs are vulnerable to anti-spy attacks.

Intro to Greynets and Spyware



SpywareGuide powered by Actiance Security Labs

 

Intro to Greynets and Spyware


There are a lot of differing opinions on what the definitions of Parasiteware Spyware, Adware and Malware should be.

In order to help you we have provided brief definitions in this miniature spy primer.

Greynets


Actiance considers IM, P2P and spyware part of a larger, fast-growing set of unsanctioned applications called "Greynets." Greynet applications are downloaded and installed on end user systems, without expressed permission from, or awareness by IT (and often without even the end user's awareness - as with spyware) and then use evasive encryption and port agility techniques to traverse the network. Greynet applications include instant messaging, P2P file sharing, web conferencing, SKYPE, web mail and adware/spyware and anonymizers.

Greynets Landscape

 

 

Greynets Market Study

Actiance Communications and NewDiligence, a market research company, conducted a Greynets Research Study compiling data from 622 IT managers and 564 end users across small, medium and large businesses to learn about the corporate use of Greynets and the impact of spyware and virus incidents within organizations. (Data collected May through July of 2005.) Key findings can be found below.

Request the complete results of the Greynets Research Study.

Key Findings:

  • Enterprises are spending on average $130,000 per month in IT time fighting spyware problems.

  • In general, end users believe they have the right to install Greynet applications at the workplace. They also believe IT has any security issues associated with Greynets under control. 87% of the same end users reported a spyware or virus problem resulting in slow internet response times, pop up ads and corrupted files.
  • Among IT managers who have rolled out perimeter security, consisting of gateway AV, URL filtering and IDS/IDP, 77% have had either a virus or spyware incident in the past 6 months.
  • According to the research findings within the next 6 months virtually all end users will have deployed some type of Greynet application and 8 in 10 end users (78%) now use one or more Greynet applications; based on stated intentions this number will rise to 93% in the next 6 months.

  • 3 in 10 IT managers who experienced a virus incident, report that IM has been associated with such occurrences. A similar proportion report that IM has been associated with spyware.

Expected Growth and Adoption of Greynet Applications By Endusers



Expected Growth and Adoption of Greynet Applications By Endusers


Number of Greynet Apps In Use At Work Locations



Number of Greynet Apps In Use At Work Locations
Source: Actiance Greynets Research Study, Aug 2005

ParasiteWare

 

ParasiteWare is the term for any Adware that by default overwrites certain affiliate tracking links. These tracking links are used by webmasters to sell products and to help fund websites. The controversy is centered on companies like WhenU, eBates, and Top Moxie, a popular maker of Adware applications. These companies have release their software to assist users in getting credit for rebates, cash back shopping, or contributions to funds. To the end user ParasiteWare represents little in the way of a security threat.

Adware


Adware, also known as an Adbot, can do a number of things from profile your online surfing and spending habits to popping up annoying ad windows as you surf. In some cases Adware has been bundled (i.e. peer-to-peer file swapping products) with other software without the user's knowledge or slipped in the fine print of a EULA (End User License Agreement). Not all Adware is bad, but often users are annoyed by adware's intrusive behavior. Keep in mind that by removing Adware sometimes the program it came bundled with for free may stop functioning. Some Adware, dubbed a "BackDoor Santa" may not perform any activity other then profile a user's surfing activity for study.

AdWare can be obnoxious in that it performs "drive-by downloads". Drive-by downloads are accomplished by providing a misleading dialogue box or other methods of stealth installation. Many times users have no idea they have installed the application. Often Adware makers make their application difficult to uninstall.

A "EULA" or End User License Agreement is the agreement you accept when you click "OK" or "Continue" when you are installing software. Many users never bother to read the EULA. 

It is imperative to actually read this agreement before you install any software. No matter how tedious the EULA, you should be able to find out the intent BEFORE you install the software. If you have questions about the EULA- e-mail the company and ask them for clarification.

Spyware


Spyware is potentially more dangerous beast than Adware because it can record your keystrokes, history, passwords, and other confidential and private information. Spyware is often sold as a spouse monitor, child monitor, a surveillance tool or simply as a tool to spy on users to gain unauthorized access. Spyware is also known as: snoopware, PC surveillance, key logger, system recorders, Parental control software, PC recorder, Detective software and Internet monitoring software.

Spyware covertly gathers user information and activity without the user's knowledge. Spy software can record your keystrokes as you type them, passwords, credit card numbers, sensitive information, where you surf, chat logs, and can even take random screenshots of your activity. Basically whatever you do on the computer is completely viewable by the spy. You do not have to be connected to the Internet to be spied upon.

The latest permutations of Spyware include the use of routines to mail out user activity via e-mail or posting information to the web where the spy can view it at their leisure. Also many spyware vendors use "stealth routines" and "polymorphic" (meaning to change" techniques to avoid detection and removal by popular anti-spy software. In some cases Spyware vendors have went as far as to counter-attack anti-spy packages by attempting to break their use. In addition they may use routines to re-install the spyware application after it has been detected.

Malware


Malware is slang for malicious software. Malware is software designed specifically to disrupt a computer system. A trojan horse , worm or a virus could be classified as Malware. Some advertising software can be malicious in that it can try to re-install itself after you remove it.

For the purpose of simplicity Malware is software specifically engineered to damage your machine or interrupt the normal computing environment.
Examples of Malware include:

Page Hijackers


Hijackers are applications that attempt to usurp control of the user's home page and reset it with one of the hijackers choosing. They are a low security threat, but obnoxious. Most Hijackers use stealth techniques or trick dialogue boxes to perform installation.

Dialers


A dialer is a type of software used by pornographic vendors. Once dialer software is downloaded the user is disconnected from their modem's usual Internet service provider and another phone number and the user is billed. While dialers do not spy on users they are malevolent in nature because they can cause huge financial harm to the victim.


Company  | Site and Spyware FAQ
© Copyright 2003-2011, Actiance, Inc. All rights reserved.   Privacy Policy

Friday, October 25, 2013

Obama's Top Economic Adviser Tells Democrats They'll Have to Swallow Entitlement Cuts

 

 BloombergBusinessweek

 Politics & Policy


The Budget

Obama's Top Economic Adviser Tells Democrats They'll Have to Swallow Entitlement Cuts



 
Sperling
Photograph by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Sperling
 
 
This morning, Gene Sperling, director of the White House’s National Economic Council, appeared before a Democratic business group for what was billed as a speech about the economy after the shutdown, followed by a Q&A session. The White House didn’t push this as a newsmaking event, so it didn’t get much billing. But I went anyway, and I was struck by what Sperling had to say, especially about the upcoming budget negotiations that are a product of the deal to reopen the government.
 
In his usual elliptical and prolix way, Sperling seemed to be laying out the contours of a bargain with Republicans that’s quite a bit different that what most Democrats seem prepared to accept. What stood out to me was how he kept winding back around to the importance of entitlement cuts as part of a deal, as if he were laying the groundwork to blunt liberal anger. Right now, the official Democratic position is that they’ll accept entitlement cuts only in exchange for new revenue—something most Republicans reject. If Sperling mentioned revenue at all, I missed it.
 
But he dwelt at length—and with some passion—on the need for more stimulus, though he avoided using that dreaded word. He seemed to hint at a budget deal that would trade near-term “investment” (the preferred euphemism for “stimulus’) for long-term entitlement reform. That would be an important shift and one that would certainly upset many Democrats.
 
Here’s some of what Sperling had to say. He led off with the importance of entitlement cuts. (All emphasis is mine):
 
“Sometimes here [in Washington] we start to think that the end goal of our public policy is to hit a particular budget or spending or revenue metric—as if those are the goals in and of itself. But it’s important to remember that each of these metrics … are means to larger goals. … Right now, I think there is among a lot of people a consensus as to what the ingredients of a pro-growth fiscal policy are. It would be a fiscal policy that—yes—did give more confidence in the long run that we have a path on entitlement spending and revenues that gives confidence in our long-term fiscal position and that we’re not pushing off unbearable burdens to the next generation. That is very important.”
 
That’s a vague, guarded, jargon-y Washington way of saying, “We’re going to have to accept entitlement cuts—get used to it.” Then came the justification, which was the weakness of the economic recovery:

 

“You have to think about this as part of an overall pro-growth, pro-jobs strategy. Also, there’s no question that right now we still need to give this recovery more momentum. We cannot possibly be satisfied with the levels of projected growth when we are still coming back from the worst recession since the Great Depression.
 
Sperling repeatedly drew a distinction between a deal that “hits a particular metric” and one that is “pro-growth,” leaving no doubt that the White House favors the latter. I took “hits a particular metric” to mean “secures X amount of dollars in new tax revenue.” Sperling’s clear implication was that that’s not something the White House is concerned about.
Here’s how he summed up the prospects for a budget deal before year’s end:
 
“We could have an economic growth strategy where we had a more pro-jobs, pro-recover fiscal policy right now that included—that did not have this harmful sequester. We could have more savings that were on both the revenue and entitlement side that were long-term and would help in the future. And we could make sure that we’re making room for the things that almost everybody thinks we need to do more of”—that is, investments in infrastructure and research and development.
None of what Sperling said was entirely new. Rather, it was what he chose to emphasize (and not emphasize) that struck me. Afterward, Sperling took a grand total of one question from the audience. I hustled after him to ask if was really proposing an entitlement-cuts-for-stimulus budget deal.
Sperling smiled a little awkwardly and said something about how he’d love to negotiate with me. (Not sure what that was about.) But he didn’t rule a deal that cut entitlements without additional tax revenue, even when I asked him a second time.
 
Green_190
Green is senior national correspondent for Bloomberg Businessweek in Washington. Follow him on Twitter @JoshuaGreen.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Dangers of Everyday Technology




15. Dangers of Everyday Technology


Recent research raises compelling concerns about two commonplace technologies, cellular phones and microwave ovens. Heavy, long-term exposure to cell phone radiation increases risks for certain types of cancer, including leukemia, and in males impairs sperm production. Prenatal exposure to cell phone radiation has been shown to produce blood-brain barrier leakage, and brain, liver, and eye damage. The microwave radiation that heats food also creates free radicals that can become carcinogenic, while the consumption of microwaved foods is associated with short-term decreases in white blood cells. The Food and Drug Administration has yet to recognize studies that indicate microwave ovens alter foods’ nutritional structure, and, as with the dangers of cell phone use, most studies indicating minimal or no health risks are, in fact, industry-sponsored. 

Censored News Cluster: Environment and Health

Devra Davis, “Cell Phone Radiation: Is It Dangerous?” Huffington Post, March 1, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/devra-davis-phd/cell-phone-radiation-_b_828330.html.
Tamir S. Aldad et al., “Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800–1900 Mhz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice,” Nature, March 15, 2012, http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120315/srep00312/full/srep00312.html.
Carole Bass, “Cell Phones Might Cause ADHD,” Yale Alumni Magazine (blog), March 15, 2012, http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/blog/?p=13736.
Markham Heid, “Cell Phones Could Hurt Your Sperm,” Men’s Health, August 16, 2011, http://news.menshealth.com/breaking-cell-phones-could-hurt-your-sperm/2011/08/16.
Markham Heid, “The Worst Place to Keep Your Cell Phone,” Men’s Health, August 4, 2011, http://news.menshealth.com/cell-phone-safeguards/2011/08/04.
Devra Davis, “Beyond Brain Cancer: Other Possible Dangers Of Cell Phones,” Huffington Post, June 15, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/devra-davis-phd/cell-phones-cancer_b_874361.html.
Richard Stossel, “Microwaved Water Kills Plant in Home Grown Experiment,” NaturalNews, April 2, 2011, http://www.naturalnews.com/031929_microwaved_water_plants.html.
Christopher Gussa, “Microwaves Ovens: The Curse of Convenience,” NaturalNews, April 14, 2008,
 http://www.naturalnews.com/023011_microwave_food_oven.html.
Anthony Lane and Lawrence Newell, “The Hazards of Microwave Ovens,” 

Health & Science, no date, http://www.health-science.com/microwave_hazards.html.
http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2012/04/09/research-clarifies-cell-phone-danger/
http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2012/01/25/growing-research-points-to-health-risks-of-microwave-ovens/

Student Researchers: Aaron Peacock (San Francisco State University); Todd Roller (Florida Atlantic University)

Faculty Evaluators: Kenn Burrows (San Francisco State University); James F. Tracy (Florida Atlantic University)

Federal Shutdown and Impending Collapse: A Review of the Serious Press Reports


 

OpEdNews Op Eds

Federal Shutdown and Impending Collapse: A Review of the Serious Press Reports

 

By (about the author)     Permalink    




On 8 October 2013, National Journal headlined,  "Poll: Most Americans Don't Understand the Debt Ceiling,"  and reported that their poll of 1,000 adults showed that, "More than twice as many Americans believe lifting the limit means authorizing more borrowing "for future expenditures' than believe it means paying off the debts [the federal government] has already accumulated' -- 62 percent to 28 percent, respectively." Among Republicans, that 62% figure was instead 73%. Furthermore, this basic ignorance about the debt-limit was higher as a person's education-level was lower. Consequently, the aristocracy's suckers (moderate-to-low-income conservatives) believed falsehoods at a much higher rate than did other people. Whites trusted the Republicans more than they trusted Democrats on this issue, but everyone else trusted Democrats more. Overall, by 45% to 37%, Obama's position was trusted more than the Republican House's position. The next day, the AP bannered  "AP-GfK Poll: 

Republicans Get Most Blame for Shutdown,"  and reported that, "People seem conflicted or confused about the showdown." However, on October 8th, Kristin Roberts at National Journal, clarified what President Obama wouldn't clarify, and she headlined:  "Republicans Are Awfully Close to Violating the Constitution:  Who cares if President Obama has 14th Amendment obligations?

The critical sentence in that block of text should be read as instruction for lawmakers first, and last." She opened: "Have Republicans forgotten that they too must abide by the Constitution? The document is explicit in its instruction to America's federally elected officials -- make good on the country's debts.


"The validity of the public debt of the United States,' the 14th Amendment states, "shall not be questioned.' That is not some arcane biblical reference that needs to be translated from scraps of parchment." She allowed, however, that if President Obama were to fail his fundamental obligation to enforce that provision, then he too would be violating the Constitution, and that impeachment of him for that failure would make sense, even if performed by House Republicans who were such traitors themselves -- which would not make sense.

   Also on October 8th, Michael Hirsh, at National Journal, headlined  "How the Shutdown Crisis Will Be Resolved,"  and he argued that Obama should accept the Tea Party's demand to make the debt-limit increase conditional upon slashing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and regulatory-agency funding. He advised the President: "You are still not going to win against the tea party movement and its perfect sock puppet, John Boehner, whose will is no longer his own. The tea partiers are simply not going away. Amply funded by the Kochs and grass-roots supporters, and even by Big Tobacco and some Wall Streeters, they will continue to pile on GOP primary challenges that will keep Republican incumbents in a state of electoral terror leading up to 2014. And as wild and unrestrained as their rhetoric sometimes is, especially in demonizing Obamacare, the tea partiers are not making their deeper grievances up. They are sincerely motivated by seemingly unstoppable tendency of the federal government to grow larger, and the failure of both parties to limit it over many decades." Hirsh falsified there, because the "sincere motivation" for an astroturf "movement," such as the Tea Party, is not to be found in its mass of suckers, but instead in its initiators and leaders, the people who funded and organized it. As I pointed out in two articles at Huffington Post, those leaders were motivated instead by their desire to take over the country and impose upon this country a dictatorship. The first of these two articles, dated 3 October 2013, was titled  "How the Kochs and Their Friends Engineered the Federal Shutdown,"  and the second, dated October 7th, was  "More on How the Kochs and Their Friends Engineered the Shutdown."  As was documented there, these leaders' motivation was not patriotism, but the opposite of that: destroying the Constitution, and ending American democracy. The unacknowledged assumptions that journalists have are often false. Hirsh's assumption there is a good example of that. 

------------------
---------- 


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even (more...)

Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

2.3 Million Americans Rot in Prison -- Meet the Corporations Exploiting Them for Profit



  Civil Liberties  

                      

The prison industry is more lucrative than you think.

 
 
 
 
 
 
The following article first appeared in the Nation. Click here to subscribe. 
“Global Tel* Link. You have a collect call from: ‘Tim.’ An inmate in Shelby County Correctional Facility…. If you wish to accept and pay for this call, dial zero now.”

I don’t know how many times I heard the same robotic voice speak these words since last fall. I was researching the story of Timothy McKinney, a Memphis man facing his third death-penalty trial for the killing of an off-duty police officer in 1997. Tim would call from Shelby County Jail, to answer my questions and to do what anyone facing trial would want to do: air concerns about his case, vent. Sometimes he would call multiple times a week. Because the phone calls were limited to fifteen minutes at a time, a couple of times he hung up and called right back, so we could keep talking.
The calls were expensive, more than a dollar per minute, depending on the time of day. In order to accept one, I had to set up a prepaid account with Global Tel* Link, or GTL, “The Next Generation of Correctional Technology.” If Tim called and my account was out of money, the automated voice would prompt me to replenish it via credit card, while he waited on the other line. “By accepting an inmate call, you acknowledge and agree that your conversation may be monitored and recorded,” the company advises.

I dealt with Global Tel* Link for only a few months. But for Tim’s relatives, this had been their reality for years. GTL makes more than $500 million a year exploiting families like his, who face the choice between paying exorbitant phone rates to keep in touch with incarcerated loved ones—up to $1.13 per minute—or simply giving up on regular phone calls. Like many other telecommunications companies that enjoy profitable monopolies on prison and jail contracts across the country, GTL wins its contracts by offering a kickback—or “commission”—to the prison or jail systems it serves. As an exhaustive 2011 study in Prison Legal News explained, the kickback is “based on a percentage of the gross revenue generated by prisoners’ phone calls…. [The] commissions dwarf all other considerations and are a controlling factor when awarding prison phone contracts.”

The higher a kickback, in other words, the more likely a company is to win the contract. These high kickbacks translate into higher phone rates for family members—usually the very people who can least afford it. Like the vast majority of those who pass through the massive jail and court complex known as 201 Poplar in downtown Memphis, Tim’s family was not wealthy. When it came time for his trial last spring, his mother would be in court every day, only to leave straight for her night job, cleaning office buildings.

Global Tel* Link is one of five companies profiled in a new video series called “Prison Profiteers,” a collaboration between Beyond Bars—a Brave New Films project—the ACLU, and The Nation. (Visit thenation.com/prison-profiteers to view all the videos in this series) With 2.3 million people incarcerated in the United States, prisons are big business; the goal of the series is to expose the myriad ways people enrich themselves off crime and punishment. Defenders of for-profit prison services pitch them as superior, efficient, money-saving options for cash-strapped states and localities that can ill-afford the costs of mass incarceration. (And indeed, historically, state-run services have often proven abysmal in themselves.) But not only do such privatized services often end up more expensive in reality, they can incur huge unseen costs to inmates and their families.





Watch the first video in the Prison Profiteers series from Beyond Bars, on telecommunications company Global Tel* Link, and check back here each Tuesday for new videos.


Worse still are the implications on a larger scale: when corporations seek to profit from prisons, it creates a powerful financial incentive, not just to push for policies that fuel mass incarceration but to cut corners in the services they’ve been hired to provide. Society shows little concern for prisoners who might receive substandard food, phone service or healthcare behind bars, after all. In the prison equation, the real consumer is the state, whose own financial priorities often run counter to the needs of prisoners and their families.

The cost for families is not just financial. The Global Tel* Link video features 9-year-old Kenny Davis at his home in Nashville, Tennessee. Kenny’s father is housed in a private prison four hours from where they live. “Phone calls are a problem,” Kenny’s mother says, “because they cost too much.” So Kenny rarely talks to his father. Ideally, he says, he would talk to him once a week.

Some 2.7 million children have parents who are incarcerated. Preventing them from having regular contact with their moms and dads isn’t just bad for these kids. All the evidence shows that prisoners who maintain close family ties fare better upon release. Making it harder for prisoners to stay connected with their families is not only needlessly punitive and cruel, it is unwise from a public safety standpoint.

But, for all their rhetoric to the contrary, prison profiteers are not as concerned with public safety as they are with the bottom line.

“They Have No Protocol for Treating Anybody With Hepatitis C”

The human cost of prison profiteering is especially pronounced and disturbing in the video about Corizon, the largest prison healthcare company in the country. In it, we meet a Tucson woman named Eleanor Grant, who receives a phone call from her partner, Thomas, incarcerated since 1994. Thomas suffers from an enlarged prostate, among other problems, and the prison medical staff will not give him the medication he needs to cope. “I’m in constant pain,” he tells Eleanor, sounding like a frail old man. Pain registers in her eyes, too, as she listens. “I can’t even sit now,” he says. “They just ignore it.”

Medical neglect runs rampant in prisons across the country, a largely invisible problem that has few in positions of power scrambling for a meaningful solution. The problem is not unique to states that have outsourced their prison healthcare: In California, the crisis of overcrowding in state facilities, merged with catastrophically inadequate state-provided care, was the basis for a 2011 Supreme Court decision ordering the state to release tens of thousands of prisoners. In September, the state paid $585,000 to a man who lost an eye while locked up on a parole violation in 2008. He had repeatedly requested medication for his glaucoma, but was ignored. Eventually, his cornea burst.
But in those states that have turned to private companies to provide medical care to prisoners, stories of neglect and abuse also abound. In 2005, The New York Times published a shocking investigation into Prison Health Services, a company responsible for two prisoner deaths in separate jails in upstate New York within two months of one another. In both cases, the inmates had been repeatedly denied medication and accused of faking their distress. The Times also told the story of 46-year-old Diane Nelson, who died of a heart attack in a Florida jail. “Stop the theatrics,” a Prison Health nurse snapped at her as she collapsed. “That same nurse, in a deposition, also admitted that she had joked to the jail staff, ‘We save money because we skip the ambulance and bring them right to the morgue.’”

In a 2003 piece for Harper’s, Wil S. Hylton profiled Correctional Medical Services, the company that in 2011 merged with Prison Health Services to create Corizon. Hylton’s piece exposed staggering levels of malpractice at CMS, which he described as “not merely the nation’s largest provider of prison medicine,” but “also the nation’s cheapest provider, a perfect convergence of big business and low budgets.”

At the center of Hylton’s report was the company’s alarming protocol when it came to Hepatitis C, a virus that destroys the liver, and which is particuarly prevalent among prisoners. “As a matter of formal company policy, CMS discourages treatment for hepatitis,” he wrote, citing an internal memo from a medical director explicitly ordering doctors to deny treatment as a general rule. Hylton spoke to nurses who expressed shame at their own complicity in the system. “It was absolutely appalling, to the point that I can’t even tell you,” one woman told him. “You knew that as long as you worked there, you did not challenge any of it. But your disgust builds as the horrible cases build…. As far as I’m concerned, if you’re sick and you get into one of these places, you might as well be signing your death certificate.”

Ten years after Hylton’s expose, CMS is now Corizon, and the same policy exists. The Prison Profiteers video on Corizon features Frankie Barton, another Tucson woman, whose son is sick with Hepatitis C. “My son’s being told they have no protocol for treating anybody with Hepatitis C,” she says.

The result could be deadly. Last year alone, no fewer than seven sick prisoners died at Metro Corrections, a jail in Louisville, Kentucky, while on Corizon’s watch. The company made headlines when six employees quit their jobs, according to local press, “amid an investigation by the jail that found that the workers ‘may’ have contributed” to two of the deaths. This summer, it was announced that the contract between Corizon and the city would not be renewed.

In 2009, CMS CEO Rich Hallworth boasted a salary of nearly a million dollars, according to Forbes. Today, his company, Corizon, makes nearly $1.5 billion a year ostensibly treating inmates in some twenty-nine states.

Privatizing Incarceration

No phenomenon is more emblematic of prison profiteering than the rise of private prisons. By now it is perhaps the most familiar and troubling trend for many progressives, and with good reason: the financial incentives involved are obvious and egregious. “It’s like the hotel industry,” says Alex Friedmann, an editor at Prison Legal News, who himself was once incarcerated at a private prison. “The hotel industry wants to keep their beds full as much as possible, because it means more revenue. Same thing for the private prison companies.” Two separate videos look at the two major private prison companies, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the country’s largest operator of private prisons, and GEO Group. Both companies made headlines in September upon the release of a report by In the Public Interest that scrutinized the “occupancy requirements” commonly found in private prison contracts. Last year, CCA sent letters to forty-eight governors, offering to take their prison systems off state hands in exchange for a guarantee that their states would keep their facilities up to ninety percent full—regardless of crime rates.

In addition to its lobbying for harsh sentencing—in particular when it comes to immigration enforcement, which funnels a growing number of people into its facilities—CCA and Geo Group have become notorious for providing substandard and sometimes harrowing living conditions to their prisoners.

“It was disgusting,” says former ACLU attorney Will Harrell, about one GEO Group facility he inspected in Coke County, Texas. “There was an infestation of insects everywhere you looked, including the kitchen. Insects in the food. It was horrible.” Another interview subject, Donald Weeks, who spent ten months locked up at GEO-run East Mississippi Correctional Facility, described intolerable sewage problems. “The stench was so bad in there, I couldn’t eat anymore.”

At the heart of the problem is an utter lack of transparency. Facilities run by private prison corporations are not subjected to the same oversight as state and federal prisons. As Alex Friedmann has pointed out, “the private prison industry operates in secrecy while being funded almost entirely with public taxpayer money.” In September Bloomberg reported that “the federal government provided almost 43 percent of [CCA’s] $1.76 billion of revenue in 2012, according to its annual report.”

Private prisons have inspired activism across the country. In May, activists descended upon Nashville to protest CCA’s shareholder’s meeting and thirtieth anniversary celebration. To coincide with the demonstration, Friedman released a list he compiled of deaths in CCA custody, “the most vivid testament to the fact that thirty years of imprisoning people for money is nothing to celebrate.” In addition to a long list of prisoners, it included prison staff—as well as three babies who were born to mothers in CCA custody.
The protests came months after a coalition of thirty-five organizations called on Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee to reintroduce the Private Prison Information Act, legislation first introduced in 2005, which would require CCA and Geo Group—indeed, anyone with a federal prison contract—to “make the same information available to the public that Federal prisons and correctional facilities are required to make available.”

Fight the Prison Profiteers

Years of activism against prison profiteering has paid off. In August the FCC took a major step in the right direction by announcing a rate cap on long-distance calls made by inmates. It was a hard-fought victory, albeit a limited one. For Kenny Davis who lives in the same state where his father is incarcerated, high phone rates remain a barrier to keeping in touch.

Want to learn more about the wide range of exploitative practices that come from mass incarceration? Start by visiting the Prison Profiteers action page. From the companies mentioned above to relatively recent innovations such as privatized bail bonds, to such age-old practices as civil asset forfeiture, the videos covering some of the worst ways people and politicians have found to prey upon the misery of others. As Brave New Foundation’s Jesse Lava explains, “The Prison Profiteers series illustrates how greed has become a major driver of mass incarceration—and how the system is more vast than most citizens imagine.”

More valuable still, it is a public education campaign that invites us to do something about it. “For-profit companies are making billions by exploiting our mass incarceration crisis,” said Vanita Gupta, director of the ACLU’s Center for Justice. “Over the next six weeks, we’ll be attacking their bottom lines. These companies need to know we’re watching.”

Check back here each Tuesday morning for the rest of the videos in the Prison Profiteers series.

Take Action Against Predatory Prison Phone Companies

- See more at: http://www.thenation.com/prison-profiteers#sthash.P9AlhGax.dpuf

Visit thenation.com/prison-profiteers to view all the videos in this series
 
Liliana Segura is an independent journalist and editor with a focus on social justice, prisons & harsh sentencing.