By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a piece for the Prison Journalism Project, Jorge Luis Alvarado details the challenges of navigating the legal system while incarcerated at New Jersey State Prison, particularly the reliance on obsolete technology. Prisoners are forced to use floppy disks for legal correspondence, as flash drives are not permitted. This outdated system causes significant delays in receiving and accessing crucial legal documents, since attorneys send information via flash drive. This creates problems for inmates who must then transfer the information to floppy disks, as the antiquated technology limits storage capacity and is prone to corruption.
Read the original article here
Let’s delve into this head-scratching situation: the reliance on antiquated floppy disks for prisoners’ appeals documents in the New Jersey penal system, and the broader implications of such a restrictive policy.
The first thing that strikes you is the sheer anachronism of it all. Floppy disks! For appeals documents! It’s a relic from a bygone era, a technological dinosaur in a world dominated by terabyte hard drives and cloud storage. The fact that prisoners are limited to a mere 1.44 MB per disk is simply astounding in this day and age. Imagine trying to compile any substantial legal document, including supporting evidence, within those constraints. It’s like being asked to write a novel using only a few scraps of paper.
The most significant point here is the potential infringement on due process. Prisoners have a constitutional right to represent themselves effectively in legal matters. If they are forced to rely on technology that limits their ability to create and present their case, it’s hard to argue they have fair access to the legal system. This raises a fundamental question: is this system intentionally hindering their ability to appeal? Is it a case of bureaucratic inertia, a lack of funding for updated technology, or something more insidious?
The argument that USB flash drives are banned for security reasons is somewhat understandable, given the potential for smuggling contraband. However, the solution, as implemented, feels disproportionate. Are there no alternatives? Why not provide carefully vetted USB drives that can be tracked or monitored? It’s been mentioned that there is a market for prison specific tech, such as clear MP3 players or clear gaming systems. Surely a prison approved USB drive could be developed.
The IT perspective here is equally relevant, and I can only imagine the headache it must cause. Sourcing working floppy drives and disks must be a logistical nightmare, and the lack of reliability of the disks is a significant problem. Floppy disks are notoriously unreliable; the thought of a prisoner’s appeal documents being corrupted or lost due to a faulty disk is quite concerning. It’s also worth pointing out that the court itself would need to maintain compatible systems to accept these disks, which seems like an unnecessary expense, and one that could be replaced by a more modern, secure, and efficient system.
This is not just a technological issue; it’s a question of fairness. The limitations imposed by the floppy disk system effectively create an uneven playing field for prisoners seeking to appeal their cases. It’s a system that could be seen as intentionally disadvantaging those who are already at a disadvantage.
And what about the IT department, which must source floppy drives and disks? It sounds like the prison is asking the IT department to source technology that is no longer manufactured. The prison system is setting the IT department up for failure from a cost and logistical perspective.
The fact that CDs are also used, a technology that has been around for nearly 30 years, indicates a somewhat odd stance in providing modern, yet still outdated, technology. Why not provide the prisoners with modern laptops with their case materials on them, allowing access to their constitutional rights? This would solve both the technology and due process issues, though there would be an IT overhead cost.
The situation really underlines the need for more modern, accessible technology for inmates. It is hard to ignore the potential discrimination in how this law is administered, given that the prison system appears designed to keep inmates there, or keep them coming back over minor mistakes.