It first of all recommends opening up the possibilities of acquiring computer hardware so as to authorise the greatest number of people to do this, both by easing the economic constraints (particularly by agreeing to the possibility of loans and donations) and by offering the purchaser equivalent guarantees to those that prevail on the outside. It also recommends easing the constraints associated with the acquisition procedure by not requiring authorisation in this regard to be subject to a rehabilitation or training plan. Along the same lines, the CGLPL recommends changing from an authorisation-based system to one centred on the prohibition of equipment on a case-by-case basis. The point here is to reverse the principle whereby only a limited list of equipment is authorised, by replacing it with a principle according to which all equipment is authorised except that which has been expressly prohibited. In this regard, the CGLPL advocates that, as already practised in some institutions, game consoles equipped with smart devices – which, going by the trends, are becoming the only ones available on the market – be permitted in shared facilities. Secondly, the CGLPL recommends securing the possession of hardware and its contents by the prisoner. For that, it seems necessary to assert a right to continue using the equipment – particularly by guaranteeing swift transfers and reducing the length of inspections. It also asks that the fresh consideration be given to the balance between the right to property and the security of institutions, i.e. that the rights of people over their IT data be guaranteed by not deleting such data without the participation of the person being detained and by considering that it is for the prison administration to determine any instances of piracy rather than the prisoner to justify his or her right to ownership over a software program; lastly, it does not believe that control over the correspondence contained in a computer should derogate from the rules generally applicable to written correspondence and surveillance of telephone conversations. Further, the CGLPL recommends that no measure to confiscate – even on a temporary basis – IT equipment be taken without legal basis or the possibility for the person concerned to present his or her defence. In response to these recommendations, the Prison Administration Director 13 told the CGLPL that she was incorporating in her real estate programme and "television and multimedia for prisoners" master plan the implementation of dedicated infrastructure for accessing new multimedia services in cells: these services have been set up in all institutions opened after January 2013. She also said that work was under way to make digital services accessible to prisoners and their families, and discussions were being held on the possibility of implementing a national market for the sale or hire or products that are compatible with its own security standards. In all, the CGLPL does not believe the measures taken are sufficient to meet the rehabilitation requirements concerning prisoners, or to guarantee that their freedom of communication is only limited by security, public order and victims' rights considerations. This is why it is repeating the recommendations expressed during talks with the Prison Administration Department in 2016. Measures must be taken to overcome the economic and technical barriers to the acquisition of computer hardware and to guarantee that prisoners' right to own their equipment and data is respected, the sole limits to which are imposed by the security of goods and persons, respect of public order and victims' rights. 2.3 Opinion of 14 October 2011 concerning the use of video conferencing visà-vis persons deprived of liberty Through this opinion, the CGLPL draws attention to the fact that, although the use of video conferencing can sometimes constitute an inevitable stopgap measure, one that will most likely 13 Letter dated 7 July 2016. 58