arxiv: 2604.01370 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-01 · 💻 cs.CR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

"The System Will Choose Security Over Humanity Every Time": Understanding Security and Privacy for U.S. Incarcerated Users

Emi Yoshikawa, Franziska Roesner, Kentrell Owens, Liza Nadtochiy, Nino Migineishvili, Yael Eiger

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 22:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR

keywords prison technologyincarcerated usersprivacysurveillancecensorshipdigital devicessecurity policiespower dynamics

0 comments

The pith

Digital devices in U.S. prisons subject users to pervasive surveillance, censorship, and arbitrary policies that harm privacy and relationships.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Researchers conducted focus groups and interviews with 17 system-impacted people to explore privacy and security vulnerabilities with digital devices in prisons. Participants described pervasive surveillance, censorship, and usability problems, along with shifting and arbitrary usage policies. These policies strain relationships both inside and outside prisons and contribute to negative downstream effects for incarcerated users. The paper recommends promoting accountability for technology decisions, public oversight of policies, and designing tools with end-users in mind.

Core claim

Through interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals and their relatives, the paper establishes that digital devices deployed in U.S. prisons enable pervasive surveillance and censorship, with usage policies that are shifting and seemingly arbitrary, leading the system to choose security over humanity every time and resulting in strained relationships and limited access to education and communication.

What carries the argument

Focus groups and interviews with system-impacted people (n=17) that reveal experiences of surveillance, censorship, usability problems, and power dynamics affecting device use.

Load-bearing premise

That the self-reported experiences from a small sample of 17 system-impacted individuals generalize to the broader population of incarcerated users and capture the full scope of device-related issues.

What would settle it

A large-scale study or analysis of actual device logs and policy records across multiple facilities that finds no evidence of pervasive surveillance or arbitrary policy shifts would falsify the central findings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.01370 by Emi Yoshikawa, Franziska Roesner, Kentrell Owens, Liza Nadtochiy, Nino Migineishvili, Yael Eiger.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: A summary of our findings, using Alice and Bob. In (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Digital devices like tablets, media players, and kiosks are increasingly deployed in U.S. prisons. These technologies can enable incarcerated people to access education, communicate with loved ones, and develop vital reentry skills. However, they can also introduce new privacy and security risks for incarcerated people who have little agency over their usage and contracts, and are currently carved out of many consumer protection safeguards. To investigate these issues, we conducted focus groups and interviews with system-impacted people (n=17), i.e., those formerly incarcerated, and their relatives, to investigate experiences with device-related security and privacy vulnerabilities and the power dynamics that affect their use. In our findings, participants describe pervasive surveillance, censorship, and usability problems with the technology available to them, including shifting and seemingly arbitrary usage policies. These policies strain relationships both inside and outside prisons and contribute to negative downstream effects for incarcerated users. We recommend ways to better balance prison security concerns with privacy-related needs of system-impacted individuals by promoting accountability for technology-related decisions, providing public oversight of digital purchasing and use policies, and designing digital tools with them -- the actual end-users -- in mind.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper shares firsthand accounts of privacy issues with prison devices but the small n limits how far the findings can be pushed.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work pulls together interview and focus group data from 17 system-impacted people on how tablets, kiosks, and similar devices in U.S. prisons create surveillance, censorship, and arbitrary policy problems that hit family ties and reentry plans. It is one of the few pieces that centers the actual users who have almost no say over the contracts or settings. The accounts of shifting rules straining relationships inside and outside the facility are concrete and line up with the power imbalance the authors flag. The recommendations for accountability, public oversight, and designing with end-users in mind follow directly from those stories and feel practical rather than abstract. The paper does a decent job staying grounded in the reported experiences instead of overclaiming technical novelty. The soft spot is the sample. Seventeen self-selected participants make the jump to “pervasive” hard to defend without more on recruitment, state or facility spread, demographics, or how the themes were derived. The abstract gives no methods detail, and the stress-test note about needing triangulation with actual policies or broader checks is on target. If the full text adds member-checking or policy cross-checks, that would help; otherwise the claims stay tied to a narrow set of voices. This is for researchers in usable security or HCI who work with constrained or marginalized populations, and for anyone tracking correctional tech contracts. A reader looking for grounded examples of how security features play out in real settings will get something from it. I would send it to peer review. The topic fills a clear gap, the qualitative approach matches the questions, and the fixable parts around sample and methods are the kind of thing referees can sort out.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports on focus groups and interviews with 17 system-impacted individuals (formerly incarcerated people and relatives) to examine security and privacy experiences with tablets, kiosks, and other digital devices deployed in U.S. prisons. It claims these technologies enable surveillance, censorship, and arbitrary usage policies that create usability barriers, strain family relationships, and produce negative downstream effects, while recommending greater accountability, public oversight of contracts, and user-centered design to balance security and privacy needs.

Significance. If the reported experiences are representative, the work documents an important and under-examined domain where commercial technology intersects with carceral control, extending HCI and security research on vulnerable populations. The emphasis on lived power dynamics and policy opacity offers concrete avenues for accountability mechanisms that could inform both prison technology procurement and consumer-protection extensions.

major comments (2)

[Methods] Methods section: participant recruitment, purposive sampling criteria, demographic and jurisdictional diversity, and the thematic analysis protocol (including inter-coder reliability or member-checking steps) are not described. Because the central claims of pervasiveness and downstream relational harms rest entirely on these 17 self-reports, the absence of this information prevents assessment of selection bias and limits the evidential basis for generalizing to broader incarcerated populations.
[Findings] Findings and Discussion: assertions that policies are 'seemingly arbitrary' and produce 'negative downstream effects' are supported only by participant quotations without triangulation against publicly available contracts, facility handbooks, or vendor documentation. This leaves open the possibility that reported inconsistencies reflect incomplete information available to participants rather than documented policy variation, weakening the load-bearing link to the recommended oversight mechanisms.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: the sentence on focus groups and interviews should briefly note the sample size and the qualitative nature of the data to set reader expectations for generalizability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below, indicating where we agree and will revise the paper accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods] Methods section: participant recruitment, purposive sampling criteria, demographic and jurisdictional diversity, and the thematic analysis protocol (including inter-coder reliability or member-checking steps) are not described. Because the central claims of pervasiveness and downstream relational harms rest entirely on these 17 self-reports, the absence of this information prevents assessment of selection bias and limits the evidential basis for generalizing to broader incarcerated populations.

Authors: We agree that the current Methods section requires substantial expansion to improve transparency and allow evaluation of selection bias. In the revised manuscript we will add: (1) a detailed description of purposive sampling criteria, including efforts to recruit participants with varied incarceration histories, facility types, and family relationships via reentry organizations and snowball sampling; (2) available demographic and jurisdictional information (age ranges, gender, race/ethnicity, and states represented) while preserving anonymity; and (3) the thematic analysis protocol, including iterative codebook development by the research team, consensus-based resolution of coding disagreements, and attempts at member-checking with participants where feasible. These additions will strengthen the evidential basis without altering the qualitative nature of the study. revision: yes
Referee: [Findings] Findings and Discussion: assertions that policies are 'seemingly arbitrary' and produce 'negative downstream effects' are supported only by participant quotations without triangulation against publicly available contracts, facility handbooks, or vendor documentation. This leaves open the possibility that reported inconsistencies reflect incomplete information available to participants rather than documented policy variation, weakening the load-bearing link to the recommended oversight mechanisms.

Authors: We acknowledge that the claims rest primarily on participant self-reports and that direct triangulation with contracts or handbooks would strengthen them. In revision we will: (1) add a limitations paragraph explicitly noting that participants may have had incomplete information about policies and that reported inconsistencies reflect their lived experiences of enforcement; (2) cross-reference publicly available sources (e.g., state DOC reports, vendor marketing materials, and known RFPs) where they corroborate or contrast with participant accounts; and (3) reframe the discussion of 'seemingly arbitrary' policies to emphasize participants' perceptions of opacity and inconsistent application rather than asserting undocumented variation. The recommendations for oversight remain grounded in the documented lack of transparency and the relational harms reported by participants. Full proprietary contract access is outside the scope of this study, but we will note this limitation clearly. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical qualitative study with no derivations or self-referential predictions

full rationale

This paper presents a qualitative empirical study based on focus groups and interviews with n=17 system-impacted participants. There are no equations, fitted parameters, predictions, ansatzes, uniqueness theorems, or self-citation chains that reduce the central claims to the inputs by construction. Findings on surveillance, censorship, usability, and policy effects are reported directly from thematic analysis of participant accounts, without any self-definitional loops or renaming of known results as new derivations. The study is self-contained against external benchmarks in the sense that its claims are grounded in the collected data rather than circular logic.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is a standard qualitative empirical study relying on established social science methods rather than new parameters or entities.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Self-reported experiences from interviews and focus groups reliably capture privacy and security vulnerabilities in controlled environments.
Standard assumption in HCI and criminology qualitative research invoked to support the findings section.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5531 in / 1165 out tokens · 47589 ms · 2026-05-13T22:26:26.635272+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
participants describe pervasive surveillance, censorship, and usability problems with the technology available to them, including shifting and seemingly arbitrary usage policies
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
the system will choose security over humanity every time

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 105 canonical work pages

[1]

Ameelio.https://www.ameelio.org/

Ameelio. Ameelio.https://www.ameelio.org/

work page
[2]

Why cryptosystems fail

Ross Anderson. Why cryptosystems fail. InProceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Computer and Commu- nications Security, CCS ’93, page 215–227, New York, NY , USA, 1993. Association for Computing Machinery

work page 1993
[3]

Dwayne Antojado and Nicole Ryan. The future of prison visits? an autoethnographic perspective on the develop- ments of the digitisation of prison visits during covid- 19.Journal of Criminology, page 26338076241252181, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Characterizing the technology needs of vulnerable populations for participation in research and design by adopting maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Oghenemaro Anuyah, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, and Ronald Metoyer. Characterizing the technology needs of vulnerable populations for participation in research and design by adopting maslow’s hierarchy of needs. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–20, 2023

work page 2023
[5]

Bars behind bars: Digital technology in the prison system, 2021

Paolo Arguelles and Isabelle Ortiz-Luis. Bars behind bars: Digital technology in the prison system, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Ai surveil- lance takes u.s

Avi Asher-Schapiro and David Sherfinski. Ai surveil- lance takes u.s. prisons by storm, Nov 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Racial/ethnic dif- ferentials in sentencing to incarceration.Justice Quar- terly, 29(5):742–773, 2012

William D Bales and Alex R Piquero. Racial/ethnic dif- ferentials in sentencing to incarceration.Justice Quar- terly, 29(5):742–773, 2012

work page 2012
[8]

Studying up: reorienting the study of algorithmic fairness around issues of power

Chelsea Barabas, Colin Doyle, JB Rubinovitz, and Karthik Dinakar. Studying up: reorienting the study of algorithmic fairness around issues of power. InProceed- ings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* ’20, page 167–176, New York, NY , USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery

work page 2020
[9]

Sok: Safer digital-safety research involving at-risk users

Rosanna Bellini, Emily Tseng, Noel Warford, Alaa Daf- falla, Tara Matthews, Sunny Consolvo, Jill Woelfer, Patrick Kelley, Michelle Mazurek, Dana Cuomo, Nicola Dell, and Thomas Ristenpart. Sok: Safer digital-safety research involving at-risk users. InIEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy, 2024

work page 2024
[10]

FCC votes to slash prison and jail calling rates and ban corporate kickbacks — prisonpol- icy.org

Wagner Bertram. FCC votes to slash prison and jail calling rates and ban corporate kickbacks — prisonpol- icy.org. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/20 24/07/18/fcc-vote/, 2024. [Accessed 02-09-2024]

work page 2024
[11]

The law is supposed to protect con- sumers from exploitation, but it’s not protecting people in prisons and jails, November 2019

Wanda Bertram. The law is supposed to protect con- sumers from exploitation, but it’s not protecting people in prisons and jails, November 2019

work page 2019
[12]

State of phone justice 2022: The problem, the progress, and what’s next, 2022

Wanda Bertram and Peter Wagner. State of phone justice 2022: The problem, the progress, and what’s next, 2022

work page 2022
[13]

Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling.So- ciological methods & research, 10(2):141–163, 1981

Patrick Biernacki and Dan Waldorf. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling.So- ciological methods & research, 10(2):141–163, 1981

work page 1981
[14]

Using thematic anal- ysis in psychology.Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2):77–101, 2006

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. Using thematic anal- ysis in psychology.Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2):77–101, 2006

work page 2006
[15]

Redmiles, Franziska Roes- ner, Mattea Sim, Patrick Traynor, and Hanna Barakat

Kevin Butler, Kurt Hugenberg, Apu Kapadia Eakta Jain, Tadayoshi Kohno, Elissa M. Redmiles, Franziska Roes- ner, Mattea Sim, Patrick Traynor, and Hanna Barakat. Extending the Heilmeier Catechism to Evaluate Security & Privacy Systems: Who is Left Out?IEEE Security & Privacy Magazine, 2025

work page 2025
[16]

Galloway

William C. Galloway. Use of technology in the correc- tions field

work page
[17]

They bought tablets in prison-and found a broken promise, May 2024

Gabrielle Caplan. They bought tablets in prison-and found a broken promise, May 2024

work page 2024
[18]

Social media in com- munity supervision: Promising practices for policy and implementation, Nov 2020

National Reentry Resource Center, the American Pro- bation, and Parole Association. Social media in com- munity supervision: Promising practices for policy and implementation, Nov 2020

work page 2020
[19]

Text - s.1541 - 117th congress (2021- 2022): Martha wright-reed just and reasonable commu- nications act of 2022

Congress.gov. Text - s.1541 - 117th congress (2021- 2022): Martha wright-reed just and reasonable commu- nications act of 2022. https://www.congress.gov /bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1541/text , 2022

work page 2021
[20]

I Want to Do More than Sit in that Cell and Wait to Die

Hannah G Cortina." I Want to Do More than Sit in that Cell and Wait to Die" the Modernized Pains of Tablets in Prison. University of Delaware, 2022

work page 2022
[21]

Digital rehabilitation in pris- ons, 2024

United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Re- search Institute (UNICRI. Digital rehabilitation in pris- ons, 2024

work page 2024
[22]

Trump’s FCC scraps ban on prison phone price gouging, a gift to some of his big donors — motherjones.com

Rebecca Crosby and Noel Sims. Trump’s FCC scraps ban on prison phone price gouging, a gift to some of his big donors — motherjones.com. https://www. motherjones.com/politics/2025/07/trumps-f cc-scraps-ban-on-prison-phone-price-gougi ng-a-gift-to-some-of-his-top-donors/ , 2025. [Accessed 17-02-2026]

work page 2025
[23]

Analyzing reentry ser- vices for formerly incarcerated californians in higher education, 2022

Steven Czifra, Abel Galindo, Joshua Mason, Christina Ricks, Azadeh Zohrabi, et al. Analyzing reentry ser- vices for formerly incarcerated californians in higher education, 2022. 13

work page 2022
[24]

Since you asked: What data exists about native american people in the criminal justice system?, 2020

Roxanne Daniel. Since you asked: What data exists about native american people in the criminal justice system?, 2020

work page 2020
[25]

Imple- mentation and evaluation of the breaking free online and pillars of recovery treatment programs for substance- involved offenders.Advancing Corrections, (3):95–113, 2017

Glyn Davies, Jonathan Ward, Sarah Elison, Samantha Weston, Stephanie Dugdale, and John Weekes. Imple- mentation and evaluation of the breaking free online and pillars of recovery treatment programs for substance- involved offenders.Advancing Corrections, (3):95–113, 2017

work page 2017
[26]

Who pays? the true cost of incarceration on families.Oakland, Calif.: Ella Baker Center, Forward Together, Research Action Design

Saneta deVuono Powell, Chris Schweidler, Alicia Wal- ters, and Azadeh Zohrabi. Who pays? the true cost of incarceration on families.Oakland, Calif.: Ella Baker Center, Forward Together, Research Action Design. Ac- cessed July, 23(2021):221–43, 2015

work page 2021
[27]

The social mile-how (psychosocial) ict can help to promote reso- cialization and to overcome prison.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(GROUP):1– 31, 2019

Tanja Ertl, Sebastian Taugerbeck, Margarita Esau, Kon- stantin Aal, Peter Tolmie, and V olker Wulf. The social mile-how (psychosocial) ict can help to promote reso- cialization and to overcome prison.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(GROUP):1– 31, 2019

work page 2019
[28]

Family & Friends Services, Jun 2024

work page 2024
[29]

The slow death of a prison profiteer: How activism brought securus to the brink, Apr 2024

Dana Floberg and Meaghan McDermott. The slow death of a prison profiteer: How activism brought securus to the brink, Apr 2024

work page 2024
[30]

Vintage Books, 1979

Michel Foucault.Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books, 1979

work page 1979
[31]

a stalker’s paradise

Diana Freed, Jackeline Palmer, Diana Minchala, Karen Levy, Thomas Ristenpart, and Nicola Dell. “a stalker’s paradise”: How intimate partner abusers exploit tech- nology. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18, page 1–13, New York, NY , USA, 2018. Association for Com- puting Machinery

work page 2018
[32]

Hannah Fry. O.c. supervisors extend contract with ven- dor at center of scandal over jailhouse recordings, Nov 2018

work page 2018
[33]

Apps are now putting the parole agent in your pocket, Nov 2020

Sidney Fussell. Apps are now putting the parole agent in your pocket, Nov 2020

work page 2020
[34]

Enhancing reentry support programs through digital lit- eracy integration

Aakash Gautam, Khushboo Gandhi, and Jessica Sendejo. Enhancing reentry support programs through digital lit- eracy integration. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pages 2882– 2896, 2024

work page 2024
[35]

One in five: Ending racial inequity in incarceration, Feb 2024

Nazgol Ghandnoosh. One in five: Ending racial inequity in incarceration, Feb 2024

work page 2024
[36]

Design considerations for a digital ser- vice to support prison leavers

Monika Grierson, Delvin Varghese, Mitzi Bolton, and Patrick Olivier. Design considerations for a digital ser- vice to support prison leavers. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pages 504–516, 2022

work page 2022
[37]

Washington experiments with giv- ing women in prison limited access to the internet — knkx.org

Ashley Gross. Washington experiments with giv- ing women in prison limited access to the internet — knkx.org. https://www.knkx.org/youth-educa tion/2019-12-16/washington-experiments-wit h-giving-women-in-prison-limited-access-t o-the-internet, 2019. [Accessed 15-04-2025]

work page 2019
[38]

Mhaidli, Kentaro Toyama, and Florian Schaub

Tamy Guberek, Allison McDonald, Sylvia Simioni, Abraham H. Mhaidli, Kentaro Toyama, and Florian Schaub. Keeping a low profile? technology, risk and privacy among undocumented immigrants. InProceed- ings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18, page 1–15, New York, NY , USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery

work page 2018
[39]

The carceral web we weave: Carceral citizens’ experiences of digital punishment and solidar- ity.Punishment & Society, 21(4):435–453, 2019

Susila Gurusami. The carceral web we weave: Carceral citizens’ experiences of digital punishment and solidar- ity.Punishment & Society, 21(4):435–453, 2019

work page 2019
[40]

security by obscurity

Peter Hall, Olivia Mundahl, and Sunoo Park. The pit- falls of" security by obscurity" and what they mean for transparent ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18669, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[41]

short step

Celia Jameson. The "short step" from love to hypnosis: A reconsideration of the stockholm syndrome.Journal for cultural research, 14(4):337–355, 2010

work page 2010
[42]

A brave new world: The problems and opportunities presented by new media technologies in prisons.Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16(5):534–551, 2016

Yvonne Jewkes and Bianca C Reisdorf. A brave new world: The problems and opportunities presented by new media technologies in prisons.Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16(5):534–551, 2016

work page 2016
[43]

JustFutureProject, May 2025

work page 2025
[44]

Chapman and hall/CRC, 2007

Jonathan Katz and Yehuda Lindell.Introduction to mod- ern cryptography: principles and protocols. Chapman and hall/CRC, 2007

work page 2007
[45]

Auguste Kerckhoffs, 1883

work page
[46]

Digitalis- ing corrections.Journal of Criminology, 57(3):263–274, 2024

Victoria Knight, Stuart Ross, and Mark Wood. Digitalis- ing corrections.Journal of Criminology, 57(3):263–274, 2024

work page 2024
[47]

A clear plastic tablet for prisoners: The motherboard review, Jul 2024

Jason Koebler. A clear plastic tablet for prisoners: The motherboard review, Jul 2024

work page 2024
[48]

Hack of 70 million pris- oner phone calls indicates violations of attorney-client privilege, Nov 2015

Micah Lee and Jordan Smith. Hack of 70 million pris- oner phone calls indicates violations of attorney-client privilege, Nov 2015

work page 2015
[49]

The state of the job: An embedded work role perspective on prison officer attitudes.Punishment & Society, 14(5):503–529, 2012

Amy E Lerman and Joshua Page. The state of the job: An embedded work role perspective on prison officer attitudes.Punishment & Society, 14(5):503–529, 2012

work page 2012
[50]

Liang, Sean A

Calvin A. Liang, Sean A. Munson, and Julie A. Kientz. Embracing four tensions in human-computer interac- tion research with marginalized people.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 28(2), apr 2021

work page 2021
[51]

People over profits: A truly free, no cost tablet program for incarcerated people in san francisco, Jun 2023

SF Public Library. People over profits: A truly free, no cost tablet program for incarcerated people in san francisco, Jun 2023

work page 2023
[52]

Free-world law behind bars, Jun 2022

Aaron Littman. Free-world law behind bars, Jun 2022

work page 2022
[53]

Racial Dis- parities in Law Enforcement Stops — ppic.org

Magnus Lofstrom, Joseph Hayes, Brandon Martin, and Deepak Premkumar andAlexandria Gumbs. Racial Dis- parities in Law Enforcement Stops — ppic.org. https: //www.ppic.org/publication/racial-dispariti 14 es-in-law-enforcement-stops/ , 2021. [Accessed 24-02-2026]

work page 2021
[54]

Richard Martinez and Kurt Squire. Engaging recently in- carcerated and gang affiliated black and latino/a young adults in designing social collocated applications for mixed reality smart glasses through community-based participatory design workshops. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems, pages 1–17, 2024

work page 2024
[55]

Mercuri and Peter G

Rebecca T. Mercuri and Peter G. Neumann. Security by obscurity.Commun. ACM, 46(11):160, November 2003

work page 2003
[56]

Prison official perceptions of technology in prison.Pun- ishment & Society, 24(3):410–432, 2022

Andrea Mufarreh, Jason Waitkus, and Teresa A Booker. Prison official perceptions of technology in prison.Pun- ishment & Society, 24(3):410–432, 2022

work page 2022
[57]

and Nazgol Ghandnoosh

Ph.D. and Nazgol Ghandnoosh. One in Five: Disparities in Crime and Policing – The Sentencing Project — sen- tencingproject.org. https://www.sentencingprojec t.org/reports/one-in-five-disparities-in-c rime-and-policing/, 2023. [Accessed 24-02-2026]

work page 2023
[58]

From prisons to programming: Fostering self-efficacy via virtual web design curricula in prisons and jails

Martin Nisser, Marisa Gaetz, Andrew Fishberg, Raechel N Soicher, Faraz Faruqi, and Joshua Long. From prisons to programming: Fostering self-efficacy via virtual web design curricula in prisons and jails. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–13, 2024

work page 2024
[59]

So- cial media and electronic device monitoring for supervi- sion, Jan 2022

Washington State Department of Corrections (.gov). So- cial media and electronic device monitoring for supervi- sion, Jan 2022

work page 2022
[60]

Privacy Impact Assessments — hhs.gov

US Department of Health and Human Services. Privacy Impact Assessments — hhs.gov. https://www.hhs. gov/pia/index.html, 2024. [Accessed 02-09-2024]

work page 2024
[61]

New initiatives in correc- tional technology, final report, 1996

National Institute of Justice. New initiatives in correc- tional technology, final report, 1996

work page 1996
[62]

Sup- porting the digital aspects of reentry for formerly incar- cerated individuals

Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu and Aarti Israni. Sup- porting the digital aspects of reentry for formerly incar- cerated individuals. InExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’24, New York, NY , USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery

work page 2024
[63]

Returning citizens’ job search and technology use: Preliminary findings

Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Kentaro Toyama, and Tawanna Dillahunt. Returning citizens’ job search and technology use: Preliminary findings. InCompan- ion of the 2018 ACM Conference on Computer Sup- ported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pages 365–368, New York, NY , USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery

work page 2018
[64]

Dillahunt

Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Kentaro Toyama, and Tawanna R. Dillahunt. Towards an effective digi- tal literacy intervention to assist returning citizens with job search. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’19, page 1–12, New York, NY , USA, 2019. Association for Computing Machinery

work page 2019
[65]

Electronic monitoring smartphone apps: An analysis of risks from technical, Human-Centered, and legal perspectives

Kentrell Owens, Anita Alem, Franziska Roesner, and Ta- dayoshi Kohno. Electronic monitoring smartphone apps: An analysis of risks from technical, Human-Centered, and legal perspectives. In31st USENIX Security Sympo- sium (USENIX Security 22), Boston, MA, August 2022. USENIX Association

work page 2022
[66]

you gotta watch what you say

Kentrell Owens, Camille Cobb, and Lorrie Cranor. “you gotta watch what you say”: Surveillance of communi- cation with incarcerated people. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’21, New York, NY , USA, 2021. Associa- tion for Computing Machinery

work page 2021
[67]

Understanding experi- ences with compulsory immigration surveillance in the u.s

Kentrell Owens, Yael Eiger, Basia Radka, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Franziska Roesner. Understanding experi- ences with compulsory immigration surveillance in the u.s. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’25, page 887âC“899, New York, NY , USA, 2025. Associa- tion for Computing Machinery

work page 2025
[68]

Understanding experi- ences with compulsory immigration surveillance in the u.s

Kentrell Owens, Yael Eiger, Basia Radka, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Franziska Roesner. Understanding experi- ences with compulsory immigration surveillance in the u.s. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’25, page 887–899, New York, NY , USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery

work page 2025
[69]

Focus-group methodology in re- search with incarcerated women: Race, power, and col- lective experience.Affilia, 18(4):461–472, 2003

Shoshana Pollack. Focus-group methodology in re- search with incarcerated women: Race, power, and col- lective experience.Affilia, 18(4):461–472, 2003

work page 2003
[70]

Rehabilitation program evaluation: use of focus groups to empower clients.Evaluation review, 18(6):730–740, 1994

Kathryn EH Race, Deborah F Hotch, and Todd Packer. Rehabilitation program evaluation: use of focus groups to empower clients.Evaluation review, 18(6):730–740, 1994

work page 1994
[71]

Digital reentry: uses of and barriers to icts in the prisoner reentry process

Bianca C Reisdorf, Julia DeCook, Megan Foster, Jen- nifer Cobbina, and Ashleigh LaCourse. Digital reentry: uses of and barriers to icts in the prisoner reentry process. Information, Communication & Society, 25(14):2028– 2045, 2022

work page 2028
[72]

Digital rehabilita- tion: A model of reentry into the digital age.American Behavioral Scientist, 62(9):1273–1290, 2018

Bianca C Reisdorf and RV Rikard. Digital rehabilita- tion: A model of reentry into the digital age.American Behavioral Scientist, 62(9):1273–1290, 2018

work page 2018
[73]

Redden; J

J. Redden; J. Camello; M. Mecray; M. Osbourne; M. Planty; J. Russo. Monitoring technologies for commu- nity supervision

work page
[74]

Joe Russo, Michael J. D. Vermeer, Dulani Woods, and Brian A. Jackson. Community supervision in a digital world challenges and opportunities, Jul 2021

work page 2021
[75]

Research article: Re- cruitment of hard-to-reach population subgroups via 15 adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy.Nursing & Health Sciences, 12(3):369–374, 2010

Georgia Robins Sadler, Hau-Chen Lee, Rod Seung- Hwan Lim, and Judith Fullerton. Research article: Re- cruitment of hard-to-reach population subgroups via 15 adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy.Nursing & Health Sciences, 12(3):369–374, 2010

work page 2010
[76]

About Us - Securus Technologies — secu- rustech.net

Securus. About Us - Securus Technologies — secu- rustech.net. https://securustech.net/about-us/ index.html. [Accessed 15-04-2025]

work page 2025
[77]

Securus Technologies, July 2015

Inc. Securus Technologies, July 2015

work page 2015
[78]

Returning to the digital world: Digital technology use and privacy management of women transitioning from incarceration.new media & society, 24(3):641–666, 2022

Hyunjin Seo, Hannah Britton, Megha Ramaswamy, Darcey Altschwager, Mathew Blomberg, Shola Aromona, Bernard Schuster, Ellie Booton, Marilyn Ault, and Joi Wickliffe. Returning to the digital world: Digital technology use and privacy management of women transitioning from incarceration.new media & society, 24(3):641–666, 2022

work page 2022
[79]

Evidence-based digital literacy class for older, low-income african-american adults, 2019

Hyunjin Seo, Joseph Erba, Darcey Altschwager, and Mugur Geana. Evidence-based digital literacy class for older, low-income african-american adults, 2019

work page 2019
[80]

Securus settles lawsuit alleging improper recording of privileged inmate calls, Mar 2016

Jordan Smith. Securus settles lawsuit alleging improper recording of privileged inmate calls, Mar 2016

work page 2016

Showing first 80 references.