LeRoy Nellis

Contact

How NCIC Is Allegedly Spying on People and Harvesting Their Data An Investigative Look at Forced Surveillance, Data Extraction, and Consent Collapse

By LeRoy Nellis II
Austin, Texas
January 2026

Executive Summary

This article documents serious concerns and allegations that 0,
a private correctional communications vendor, operates systems that function not merely as communication tools
but as surveillance and data-harvesting platforms. These concerns arise from the structure of NCIC’s
services, the absence of meaningful consent, and the compulsory nature of their use by incarcerated individuals
and their families.

If substantiated, the practices described would raise profound legal and ethical issues involving privacy,
consumer protection, biometric data, and civil rights.

The Core Problem: Forced Use Eliminates Real Consent

NCIC systems are frequently deployed under exclusive contracts in correctional facilities.
Inmates and their families cannot choose an alternative provider. Communication with loved ones is conditioned
on accepting NCIC’s platform, terms, and surveillance architecture.

When participation is mandatory, consent is not voluntary. This is not a technicality—it is the
foundation of modern privacy law. Consent obtained through monopoly and coercion collapses as a matter of law.

What Data Is Allegedly Being Collected

Based on product functionality, patents, and user-facing requirements, NCIC systems allegedly collect and process:

  • Voice recordings and voiceprints
  • Call metadata (who called whom, when, duration, frequency)
  • Video visitation recordings
  • Biometric identifiers used for authentication
  • Behavioral and conversational pattern data
  • Family-member personal information collected via mobile apps

Much of this data is captured by default, not through meaningful opt-in mechanisms.

Surveillance Disguised as “Communication”

NCIC markets itself as a communications provider. In practice, the systems allegedly operate as
continuous monitoring environments, where every interaction is recorded, stored,
analyzed, and potentially repurposed.

Users are not given clear disclosures explaining:

  • How long data is retained
  • Who can access it
  • Whether it is shared with third parties
  • Whether it is used for analytics beyond communication delivery

This gap between marketing and function is a classic red flag in consumer-protection law.

Family Members Are Swept Into the Dragnet

NCIC’s reach extends far beyond inmates. Family members—including children—must install apps,
submit personal information, and agree to surveillance terms simply to maintain contact.

These individuals are not accused of crimes. Yet their voices, faces, and personal data are allegedly
captured and stored without meaningful choice.

Biometric and Privacy Law Concerns

Where biometric identifiers such as voiceprints or facial data are collected, the law typically requires:

  • Clear written consent
  • Disclosure of purpose and retention period
  • Limits on secondary use
  • Secure deletion after the stated purpose is fulfilled

Forced enrollment into biometric systems—under threat of losing all communication—raises serious questions
about legality and compliance.

Why This Matters Beyond One Company

NCIC’s model illustrates a broader problem: the privatization of incarceration infrastructure combined with
data monetization. When communication becomes a data-extraction pipeline, fundamental rights erode quietly.

This is not about technology innovation. It is about unchecked surveillance power exercised over people
who cannot refuse it.

Call for Investigation and Transparency

These concerns warrant independent review by state and federal authorities, including:

  • Audit of NCIC data-collection and retention practices
  • Review of consent mechanisms and disclosures
  • Assessment of biometric compliance
  • Evaluation of whether surveillance exceeds lawful scope

Sunlight is the remedy. If the practices are lawful, they should withstand scrutiny.
If they are not, they must stop.

Closing Statement

Communication should not require surrendering one’s privacy, voice, or identity.
When people are forced to choose between silence and surveillance, something has gone deeply wrong.

This article is published in the interest of transparency, accountability, and public awareness.

LeRoy Nellis II
Austin, Texas

Comments

Leave a comment