Around 70 million Inmate phone records have been compromised setting a precedent in modern day U.S. history. The phone records were secured by The Intercept and the meta data is from Securus based in Dallas, a provider of telephone services in prisons and jails throughout America. The phone records were provided by an anonymous hacker no doubt with concerns over inmate’s constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment. Securus confirm that that they service 2,600 agencies along with a million inmates throughout North America. The phone records provide links to recordings that can be downloaded. The phone records in question are within the period December 2011 through to Spring 2014. Figures point to around 14,000 conversations between attorneys and inmates. The case is set to bring about serious legal implications.
The phone records database is said to include first and last names of prisoners along with numbers called. The duration of the phone call and time and date. Also the relevant account number provided by Securus to the inmate. ACLU state that while an inmate’s rights become limited through conviction the attorney-client privilege isn’t. The blanket recordings of inmate phone records is a recent phenomenon initially being put forward as protection for individuals on the outside as well as the inside.
While complaints over Securus regarding client-attorney calls previously they comment that all the relevant calls were recorded with express permission. Attorneys may register their number in order for it to be exempt. The suit has also claimed disclosure by prosecutors and other prosecutors have used the phone records “to their tactical advantage”.
However Securus prefer to put a more positive spin on the whole issue and states no evidence suggests systems were compromised or breached. They are in contact with law enforcement and police department’s. They put forward that an evidence is suggesting person/s with authorized access to limited records may well be responsible. They have also found no evidence that attorney-client calls had been recorded without the parties consent.