Q&A
Explanation of human error in recording privileged calls
1:33:27
ยท
4 min
James Conroy provides a detailed explanation of the human error that led to the inadvertent recording of privileged attorney-client calls. He describes the technical issue and the steps taken to rectify it.
- The error occurred when entering phone numbers into the 'do not record' list, which was initially site-specific.
- When individuals in custody moved to different buildings, their calls became recordable due to the site-specific nature of the system.
- Securus has since implemented a system-wide 'do not record' marker that applies across all facilities.
- New supervisory and review processes have been put in place to prevent similar errors in the future.
Sandy Nurse
1:33:27
Okay.
1:33:27
Because you But
James Conroy
1:33:28
we could have the phone calls.
1:33:30
Right.
1:33:30
Right.
1:33:30
This is I mean, we're talking about 2 different things.
1:33:32
There's there's data that's secured and they're not allowed to disseminate it.
1:33:36
We own and retain all of the data that is recorded in the securus contract.
1:33:42
What happens and and the practical and and I don't have technical terms, but the practical aspect of what happens is we have a universe of phone calls that are privileged and not recorded.
Julie Won
1:33:52
Mhmm.
James Conroy
1:33:53
And then we have a universe of calls that are recorded.
1:33:56
In this instance, what happened in 2021 was that by, again, by human error, which has since been rectified, some phone calls, 200 something phone calls, were inadvertently recorded that should have been privileged.
1:34:13
Therefore, they then appeared accessible to our personnel, DOC personnel.
1:34:18
And when received a subpoena when we received a subpoena from the district attorney's offices, they were turned over as part of what is necessary discovery in those cases.
1:34:30
And then what happened from there is those recordings were turned over to the defense counsel who pointed out that said, hey, these were conversations that we were having with our clients.
1:34:38
They're not supposed to do it.
1:34:40
So we're talking about not privacy breaches or otherwise.
1:34:44
This is different.
1:34:44
Privacy breach in that context of a contract is different than attorney client privilege.
1:34:50
Right?
1:34:50
So what we did is we took these inadvertently recorded attorney private attorney client privilege calls, turned them over.
1:34:57
There was not a breach on the part of Securus.
1:34:59
This was a human error as to what should be recorded, what should not be recorded, but they did not directly disclose information to the district
Julie Won
1:35:07
court.
1:35:08
Required of Securus?
1:35:08
Are they supposed to record all conversations or no?
1:35:13
Yes.
1:35:13
Something conversations
James Conroy
1:35:14
I'm sorry.
1:35:15
I think I answered this already.
1:35:16
I said yes, except for those that are designated as privileged calls.
Julie Won
1:35:22
So for 200 something conversations, you're saying that they should not have been recording it, but they did anyway?
James Conroy
1:35:28
That's right.
Julie Won
1:35:29
And you're saying that even though they shared those conversations that weren't supposed to be recorded to you, that it still is not a breach of privacy.
James Conroy
1:35:36
It is not because we own the data pursuant to the contract.
1:35:39
All of that data is ours.
1:35:41
It is not Securus' system.
Julie Won
1:35:42
So I guess we need to have a bill to make sure that those conversations can't be recorded, that it should be illegal even for them to obtain it.
Sandy Nurse
1:35:51
I think it'd be helpful if you could describe on the record what the human error was.
1:35:54
Sure.
1:35:55
That might clear it up.
James Conroy
1:35:56
So as as DOI reported, what happened was the Securus company was given these numbers to put on a do not record list.
1:36:07
When they entered the numbers into the system, and this is this is my understanding of what happened is what's reported, they put the numbers in as, for some reasons, do not record, but it was site specific.
1:36:19
Meaning, if you were in a particular building within our facilities, those conversations were not to be recorded.
1:36:26
What had happened then is some of the persons in our custody moved to a different building.
1:36:30
And then for that reason, because of whatever this marker they put on it had was, it became something that was now not privileged.
1:36:39
Meaning, it was it was being recorded and the, you know, theoretically, your management was read.
1:36:45
What we discovered in the auditing system, what Securus did, and they took immediate ownership of this was that there needed to be, a a all facilities marker or tag put into it.
1:36:58
What has happened since is that now Securus has a a, again, a twofold, supervisory and and review line.
1:37:06
So the number comes in the technician or personnel puts it into the system.
1:37:11
It is reviewed by a supervisor and signed off by a supervisor and then it goes in.
1:37:15
But nonetheless, the tags now all read all facilities.
1:37:19
So no matter where anyone moves in our facilities, that do not record, marker moves with that associated number.