Yes of course they are mobile devices and of course you can walk up to the outside of a prison and try to use your phone. If it doesn't work your phone is STILL a mobile device and you can walk a little way away.
I cannot see any pressing need for a phone to work while leaning on the walls of a prison.
Now if you want to argue that the legislation should include terms to ensure minimum possible interference with phone signals outside the prison I'll agree you may be onto something (although in UK legislation such things are usually not put in the primary bill they certainly can be).
I would assume that these devices would be deployed to cover main prison buildings, by and large governors are not worried about prisoners using cell phones near the prison wall because the prisoner could be seen there. There is likely o be some leakage but probably very small. There is also certain to be somewhere inside the prison where vanilla signals can be received, such is the nature of the beast. As I said I do not necessarily agree with this bill but I do not see it as a broad assault on the privacy of citizens. There are many places in the UK where mobile phones don't work, either because there is something that interferes with them or because there is a coverage shadow this doesn't seem to be any more onerous a problem than these.
You may perhaps be unaware that not all prisons are situated in the middle of suburban rows of houses, nor that in the uk with its high population density cell towers are generally of low power and thus limited range. No-one has said all prisons must adopt this strategy, nor did I say I agreed with it. Merely that it wasn't, per se, a direct assault on the freedoms of the general populace.
In most UK prisons (that is excluding the lowest category ones where prisoners are allowed out during the day) no-one is allowed a mobile phone. Not prisoners, prison officers, governors, visitors even lawyers. Any use of a mobile phone in a prison is unlawful so it isn't possible to spy n any innocent communications within the prison. That is not to say that a "fake" tower is a good idea or not, merely that if it is deployed as the law provides it cannot do as alleged in the article. The article reports that the law says the justice secretary can order the use to prevent detect or investigate phone use inside a prison, therefore anyone outside a prison caught up may well have a case against anyone interfering with their signal.
The silliness surely is not the granting of a trademark to Iceland, for a shop selling frozen foods, it is this crazy notion that a trademark for one thing should be a bar on the use of any vaguely similar terms for anything at all.
The rule should be:
A word that does not exist (eg Kodak) can be a generic trademark
A name can't stop anyone who has that name using their name, but combined with other features, fine (eg George Harrod should be able to open a shop called Harrod's but not to copy the font and make everything green and gold)
A common word you better have a bloody good case and apply it extremely narrowly.
If the courts had applied this sort of common sense then no case Iceland brought against any Icelandic company would have succeeded, merely against anyone setting up a Supermarket and labelling everything in red on a white background.
None of the three consenting adults has ever publicly said anything about such things being wrong.
None of the three adults makes their money out of being upright boring moral guardians.
So WHY the F*** should anyone care who they are?
Personally I wouldn't care either way if someone said such things about me, but I do believe everyone is entitled to a degree of privacy and these three seem to want that. Good luck to them. Move on and deal with something genuinely interesting. Courts not being American isn't a bad thing, the English courts haven't tried to impose the injuction in any other jurisdiction, they have weighed English law and acted on it. That's what they are for!
Personally I'm all in favour of free speech, BUT, it isn't always that simple. I haven't read the judgement in detail (my German's not that good) but have seen a few summaries. What the court appears to have said is that makind fun of Erdogan being an egomaniac suppressor of criticism and the free press, but it isn't OK to make totally unsubstantiated allegations of extreme sexual deviancy. This is not a judgement I would make but I can see it as not totally unreasonable. As Americans you idolise free speech. That is your right but many others around the World think of Americans as totally weird and stupidly childish for parts of your law and constitution. The glory of this World is that we are all different and there is no right answer, merely millions of differently wrong ones.
Why doesn't GCHQ start? How about they provide a special secure way for the House of Commons committee to access all of their systems and inspect everything they have done. All without any need to contact GCHQ at all, just, say, a signature from a Police Chief Inspector or above. Clearly from his reasoning he will be 100% in favour of this plan and as soon as his staff have designed the 100% secure way for us to check on them we will be happy to suggest others us it too ...
He didn't say all Christians were racist, he said there are millions of people who claim to be Christian but then display characteristics incompatible with that belief. He didn't say there are no Christians who get it right, just that many who get it wrong.