by Dan Fitch

[updated version of this article published in Tone Madison September 15]

Let’s delve into local coverage of the jail communication contract and mail scanning, Alec K style. If you need background, get lost in the sauce with a deep dive from last month. The summary: The sheriff’s office is arguing that we need to scan mail to save lives from overdoses caused by contraband coming via the mail. The evidence for this? Nonexistent.

First, let’s look at what got published in the media. Then, we have to dive into the sheriff’s two attempts to convince the citizens that mail scanning is about safety. [Spoiler: it’s mostly by saying “safety” a lot.]

A quick tl;dr summary of this whole analysis: there is very little proof that mail scanning reduces overdoses or improves safety, and quite a lot of proof that it does not. Mostly, mail scanning is a “Trojan horse” [as Smart Communications have said themselves] for getting tablets into prisoners’ hands and selling them music and movies and everything else at exorbitant prices. If the sheriff gets more surveillance power along the way, more the better. Plus, the current contract as written doesn’t even restrict usage of the data until after the contract’s term, despite the sheriff’s office claiming the county controls the data.

This contract is bad for all kinds of reasons; pick your poison. Mail scanning with zero proof of safety improvements? Check. Badly written contract that lets maximum extraction happen, up to the point that mail and messages could get used to train AI, or sent to other corporations or government entities without Dane County’s say so? Check. Corrupt corporation that has bribed carceral agencies in the past, and has filed for bankruptcy? Check.

Oh yeah, just pound that point in: this corporation applied for bankruptcy back in December 2024. Shouldn’t that be… something we want to avoid? The county procedures that picked this contract out of the two available are opaque, at best. And while I don’t understand corporate economics in our current hellscape, it doesn’t seem exactly great that we are signing up with a sketchy company trying and failing to file for Chapter 11, right?

(As far as exploitation, how much do you think it costs to stream an hour of music on the jail’s current GTL-run tablets? By my math, it’s $3.00. Would you pay for a streaming service where you had to pay $3 every time you wanted to listen to an hour of music? Although the initial planned price is only $1.80 for an hour in this new contract, there are no upper limits, and the county has zero oversight on pricing outside of calls and texts. If you’re thinking “people in jail don’t deserve to listen to music, who cares if it’s expensive”, you’re forgetting: half the people in there are innocent until proven guilty. They’re almost all poor. And your ass is showing.)

Local coverage

Cap Times reporter Sarah Eichstadt wrote an early piece in June, quite clear on the state of things. The community was upset, Smart Communications was [is] a shady company, the sheriff was pushing mail scanning with weak justifications, and the flimsy evidence around all this is directly addressed in the article. Overall, it captures the tone in the room, where both people from the public and on the committee were disturbed by some of the media coverage of Smart Communications’ very public flaws.

One thing Eichstadt’s piece doesn’t mention is how the Public Protection & Judiciary (PPJ) committee members had just received the proposed contract merely a few business days before the June 17 meeting. [Notice that the proposed contract is not OCR’d, so you can’t easily search for words in it. And why can’t our newspapers link into Legistar for folks to easily dig into meeting details?]

Three days after that first Cap Times article was published, PPJ talked about the contract a bit at a joint meeting with Health and Human Needs on June 30. Then Scott Gordon and I published one of our patented “ow, it’s too long” deep dives on July 14 in Tone Madison. A single point I want to call out from that: the Dane County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO) has been saying conflicting things about contraband in the mail for years. They claim to have a big problem with drugs getting into the jail in the mail, but they don’t have records they can release. From that article:

Asked point-blank whether this is an acknowledgement that DCSO’s records are incomplete or unreliable, Schaffer responds: “I wouldn’t put it that way. We’ve been clear that we have not historically tracked the specific data you are requesting (incidents of drugs entering the jail through the mail).”

Other local coverage has been weak, at best. WKOW’s initial piece talks only to the sheriff, and only mentions “potential concerns” without detailing any, and then they reprinted DCSO’s talking points from a recent press release, but even attempted to strengthen the argument, claiming: “In 2024, there were four incidents of drugs entering the jail through mail, contributing to three in-custody drug-related deaths, according to officials.” That little word “contributing” connects the incidents of drugs in the mail with the in-custody deaths in our minds, creating causation where it wasn’t. If you read DCSO’s press release, it very carefully does not say the incidents of drugs in the mail contributed in any way. It says there were four incidents of drugs in the mail, and then “While this may seem like a relatively small number, it’s important to note that there were three in-custody deaths that same year, all involving drugs.” See how there is no causation proven, just that it’s “important to note” the two facts?

WMTV’s coverage doesn’t make that incorrect connection, and at least adds a throwaway “Opponents of the plan cite privacy concerns”… but quickly follows that with “but Sheriff Barrett says safety is his top priority.” Of course he says that. He says it a lot. But opponents are citing more than privacy concerns, we are citing that this will not stop contraband, it will slow mail access, and it will further isolate people in our jail.

The first missive

The Sheriff’s first letter hit just before the July 22 PPJ meeting, where the committee voted 4-3 to recommend for denial. (Hooray?) So this timing may have been an attempt to convince supervisors that mail scanning was a no-brainer… except for the fact that some of them were unaware of it at the July 22 meeting. Could have been just a PR fail, where it didn’t reach its intended targets. Or, possibly, the letter was intended to target the wider Dane County community, because the sheriff had guessed PPJ was not going to rubber-stamp it.

So, what’s the meat of this letter?

He opens with the fentanyl overdose crisis, which is, to be clear, a real thing and a huge public health concern.

Then he pivots: “Within the jail community…” Now, if I threw people in my basement and locked them up, it would be pretty weird if I called them my “basement community”. He goes on to say contraband comes in through “seemingly innocent letters”. “Seemingly innocent” is a fun phrase, you can put it in front of anything and make it sound spooky. Our “seemingly innocent” sheriff sure is penning a lot of letters to newspapers!

Notice throughout that we have plenty of appeals to emotion, which is fine; and plenty of appeals to reason, but still no numbers, no frequency, no evidence. But in the last line of his opener he lays out the key idea: “Implementing advanced mail scanning in the Dane County Jail is a critical step to saving lives.”

This is going to be his main argument, but the problem is, there’s just no proof. We’ll dive deeper into that below.

Inexplicably, he writes that “scanning technologies, like X-ray and chemical detection systems” can identify threats. But uh, that’s not what’s on the menu. This contract is not for X-ray or chemical detection systems. We don’t know how it compares to what DSCO is currently doing to check mail. This contract is for paying a corrupt Florida company to hire schlubs who open envelopes and scan mail on normal document scanners or cameras or whatever, to be shredded later. This whole section is very confusing, and I don’t understand what it’s doing here. Maybe it snuck in from some other argument for surveillance technology. But it’s not an accident, because [spoiler alert] it pops back up in the second op-ed.

Next, Barrett claims “…scanning mail supports rehabilitation by reducing access to substances that derail recovery.” And we are once again grinding in the teeth of the question: is there any evidence that scanned mail provably reduces access to contraband substances? I have been able to find no research which supports this claim, not even biased research paid for by carceral technology companies. There’s just people like our sheriff saying it loudly, hoping that it’s true.

I did find one paper, Utilizing Electronic Mail to Prevent Drug Trafficking in Prisons (Warshaw 2020) which argues for mail scanning on flimsy grounds. On p. 77 you can find Warshaw laying out Pennsylvania’s plan [in 2018] to prevent contraband: moving to scanned mail through a company called Smart Communications. Hmm, sounds familiar. She writes that “Since the implementation of the new system, Pennsylvania has had positive results,” and quotes a punishment bureaucrat saying it has cut down on the quantity of synthetic cannibinoids in their system.

The only problem with this narrative is that, unfortunately, “After a slight decline in the immediate aftermath of the policy change, the number of positive drug tests rebounded quickly and is now higher than it was before.” [Emphasis mine.]

Mail scanning is not a magical panacea that stops contraband, because mail is not the primary way that contraband gets into carceral institutions. Ask yourself: why is the primary way it gets in not mentioned by the sheriff, ever? Why is it only hinted at in Eichstadt’s article? Might it be because we all know that contraband enters our jail via the workers there, who have dangerous incentives to sell access to contraband?

There’s no evidence that mail scanning stops contraband. There is, however, evidence that increased contact via mail, phone calls, and visits with friends and family has many positives, including reducing recidivism, in-prison misconduct, and depression.

Finally, the sheriff claims that “Investing in mail scanning is a proactive, humane solution” and that “Lives depend on it.” If we’re talking about proactive, humane solutions that save lives, there is one major reform the sheriff should be fighting for: abolishing cash bail and keeping more people out of jail pre-trial, as Illinois has. Guess what? No crime waves happened there. None of the predicted “Purge”-style chaos. There were overall savings for the taxpayers, and less lives got wrecked by carceral punishment. [We also need to address Wisconsin’s backwards approach to crimeless revocation, compared to our neighbors, but that’s a whole other ball of wax.]

“Ensuring safer facilities and stronger communities,” if Barret is actually interested in this, should involve actively reducing our jail population, and rethinking our reliance on punishment as a path to try to cruelty our way to stronger communities. We’ve tried cruelty. We’ve tried cruelty with a neoliberal smile on top. Why would we try cruelty with maximum capitalism smeared on that smile? Let’s try some smarter options.

The second missive

After the PPJ 4-3 denial, Personnel and Finance voted 5-2 to recommend denial on August 11. After that second failure is when we get the second shot from the sheriff, this time in a longer op-ed.

Barret fires off out of the gate with “The evidence is clear: Jail mail scanning saves lives by addressing the growing threat of smuggled drugs, weapons and other illicit materials that fuel violence, overdoses and instability within our jails.” But he adds none of this “clear” evidence to the conversation, still. And wait, what is “weapons” doing in that sentence? Is this another slip, or are mail-in weapons a problem we can’t figure out how to solve?

After that, he points to the opioid crisis, with good reason. He names the sad fact that 3 people died from overdoses in his supervision in 2024. But notice that he does not provide any evidence to link those overdoses to the mail. Plus, he fails to address the fact that people died in Wisconsin prisons in 2024 from overdoses… but we’ve been scanning that mail since late 2021, when the Department of Corrections claimed it was a necessary step to stop K2 overdoses.

Okay. Now. I’m gonna need you to take a deep breath, because there are two extremely strange sentences to delve into coming up.

Chemical detection

“Mail scanning technology, which uses advanced imaging and chemical detection, can identify these threats [substances] before they reach jail residents, preventing overdoses and saving lives.”

Remember above? What is this chemical detection stuff? We are talking about mail scanning with scanners like your grandma uses to scrapbook. Smart Communications is not doing any chemical detection, they’re just… scanning. Digitizing. And then sending the results over the internet. Then shredding the original mail, eventually. Nowhere in this plan do we need any “advanced imaging and chemical detection” for substances. You can look at the steps in the contract yourself under “XIII. MAIL SCANNING – OFF PREMISE MAIL SCANNING” on page 34 of the contract [page 38 of the PDF.]

… followed by a bunch of boring surveillance and review things that happen with the [again, digital] images. I simply do not understand what the “chemical detection” argument is doing in these letters from the sheriff.

Weapons, escape plans, or gang communications

I’m just going to put the entire next two paragraphs here:

Beyond drugs, mail can conceal weapons, escape plans or gang communications that jeopardize the safety of everyone in the facility. Traditional hand-inspection methods are labor-intensive and prone to human error, allowing dangerous items to slip through.

Modern scanning systems, however, provide a non-invasive, efficient and highly accurate means of detecting contraband. They can identify hidden compartments, chemical residues or suspicious materials without compromising the privacy of legitimate correspondence. By ensuring that all mail is thoroughly screened, we reduce the risk of violence, gang activity and escapes, creating a safer environment for jail residents and staff alike.

After the first paragraph, I’m thinking, sure, scanning is a way to guarantee no weapons, but at no point so far has the claim been that weapons in the mail have been a problem. But by “identify hidden compartments, chemical residues or suspicious materials” I’m once again completely baffled. Does Barret mean “stop” instead of “identify” here?

Let me lay a scenario out.

In the dark near-future of this contract with Smart Communications, Alice gets arrested. She can’t make bail, and sits in jail. Her husband Bob wants to send her a birthday card, but somehow sneak in a hidden compartment with a key in it, like in the old movies.

It doesn’t matter what Bob tries to do, because he mails it care of Smart Communications. Whatever clever mechanism he employed goes to Florida, gets scanned in, and a random office drone gets to have a bit of a laugh at someone trying to mail a key through their foolproof system.

The original mail never goes to Dane County Jail.

A picture of it goes over the internet, and Alice can look at a crappy version of it on her tablet. Maybe she can pay money to have a crappy printout of it, too. But a small team of office workers with a scanner and a shredder is what I think this contract is for, not for some fancy centralized CSI lab with shiny equipment that can “identify… chemical residues”.

And then, after all that, he adds “without compromising the privacy of legitimate correspondence.” Huh? Jail mail has been read and checked and not-at-all-private since the beginning of when people first sent mail to gaols. Now there’s an extra layer of office workers in the loop, as well as the AI that initially scans it, plus the usual sheriff’s deputies who manually check, and whoever else from the county, state, or other jurisdiction has access to the scans. [Legal correspondence in this plan will go through a scanner that’s actually at Dane County Jail, for delivery to tablet… or to be reprinted.]

Why do I smell toast?

Back to the plot

Copaganda sometimes directly intends to confuse us, I think.

Let’s get back to the sheriff’s hard evidence for why mail scanning will save lives. I’m sure it’s in here. Oh, here we go, he’s gonna drop some knowledge bombs:

In facilities where mail scanning has been implemented, such as those in Ohio and Pennsylvania, overdoses have dropped significantly, and staff report feeling safer. These outcomes demonstrate that scanning is not just a theoretical solution but a proven strategy.

Hmm. Don’t think we should be looking to Ohio, recently sued over their mail scanning program, as an example.

And the other problem with this narrative is, uhh, remember Pennsylvania? “After a slight decline in the immediate aftermath of the policy change, the number of positive drug tests rebounded quickly and is now higher than it was before.“

Déjà vu, anyone? Prisons and jails all over the country have moved to scanned mail in recent years, and they have not gotten safer. If the evidence for safety held up, these companies trying to push the mail scanning programs would be trumpeting it from the rooftops, instead of making vague claims and bribing departments.

One last bit of phrasing to stare at here: the “staff report feeling safer.” Feeling safer. I feel like most of our problem in the punishment sphere comes down to doing counterproductive and cruel things because people “feel safer.” We arrest non-white people at racist, biased rates because it makes people “feel safer”. We fund prisons and police instead of trying to deal with root causes, because that makes people “feel safer”.

So what?

So the problem with the sheriff’s claims about safety is that these mail scanning systems are already in place in jurisdictions [including the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections] where they have not shown a proven reduction in drug use and overdoses. It’s obvious why these mail scanning systems are spreading: they give punishment bureaucrats more surveillance powers, allowing them to claim they care about safety, while enriching some jackasses who think making money off of helpless poor people is the American Way.

It shouldn’t surprise us that the sheriff would desire more surveillance power, and attempt to ignore the most common way contraband gets into jails and prisons: through workers.

After those two evidence-free bowls of word salad from the Sheriff, If the sheriff writes a letter and an op-ed pushing for increased surveillance based on platitudes and outdated, incorrect evidence, does our local media not think that’s… interesting?

What next

Now the county board will discuss this as a full body on September 4, after two committees have voted to deny this contract.

Grandstanding politicians are going to say a lot of stuff about our county values, but they’re still likely to push this contract through with the mail scanning even though Jan Tetzlaff, the DSCO representative, said at that first June 17 meeting: “[Mail scanning] is provided free by the vendor, and if we don’t want to start it, we don’t have to start it.”

All that doesn’t even touch on a possible solution: the county self-hosting communication services, or paying all costs for an extant service entirely, so that communication in the jail is free. Some places have done this with jails, and there’s a trend around the nation in prisons.

The community doesn’t want to start mail scanning, for good reason. The sheriff really, really does want it. And we need to start being less naive about what our punishment bureaucrats argue for. Body cameras, mail scanning, automated license plate readers, and more technologies and tools only give our broken, biased carceral institutions more power to coerce poor people into unfair plea bargains… and possibly worse.

We don’t need all that. Mass incarceration is a failed experiment that continues to prove it is super harmful to our community.

We need to stop billionaires and wage theft. We need to build so much more housing and real non-coercive addiction care. We need to do all this while the climate is hurtling off a cliff, and our “trusted” institutions are failing us.

We’ve got a lot of work to do as a society, and it would be great if we could all spend less time fighting punishment bullshit like this, and more time building actual solutions. We have to build better systems in the dying husks of the old hierarchies. They have proven to be failures. How much more evidence are you going to wait for?

If we don’t do that work, we’re just going to end up in full on white nationalist fascism with a lot of people still thinking “If we only invest in more technology, surely the authoritarians will stop feeding us all into the Torment Nexus!”

If you want to help stop this particular bullshit, check out this community reference doc.