As is the case in certain American prisons, prisoners should be able to send and receive emails using computers placed at their disposal, in the same way as telephones, and with a system of control comparable to that for postal letters. Furthermore, the circular of 13th October 2009 concerning prisoners’ access to IT facilities provides that prisoners may have access to IT equipment connected to external networks in dedicated rooms, after validation by security staff and the IT systems security officer (RSSI/responsable de la sécurité des systèmes d'information). This possibility of Internet access should be put into effect, as recommended by the CGLPL since its opinion of 20th June 2011 concerning IT access for prisoners 75. The manner in which the system of access to telephones has been put in place constitutes an obstacle to personal autonomy. Telephones are only accessible at certain times, which do not necessarily correspond to the availability of the person to be contacted and, moreover, do not enable prisoners to receive calls, making it impossible for a couple imprisoned into different institutions to telephone each other, except through the intermediary of the administration. In the absence of authorisation of possession of mobile phones or installation of telephones in cells, the CGLPL has made recommendations on several occasions 76 with regard to extension of the timeslots for telephone access, in order to enable people to contact their close relations outside of working hours and school time. Moreover, it is impossible to make the choices demanded by answering machines (to press on specific keys) from phone points, in particular when calling administrative bodies and banking institutions. The CGLPL recommends that the prison telephone system should include the technical possibility of access to interactive voice response. The CGLPL is also concerned to ensure the acknowledgement of prisoners’ emotional and family life. It therefore regrets that the exercise of parental authority, for fathers in particular, is adversely affected by imprisonment. According to article 371-1 of the Civil Code, parental authority “is a set of rights and duties whose finality is the welfare of the child”. For parents it involves protecting the child’s safety, health and morals and taking care of their education and development. It is therefore a question of providing daily support for the child until they reach adulthood. However, when one of the children is imprisoned, the exercise of this authority actually falls to the parent with whom the child normally resides. Except in case of a court decision restricting parental authority, the other parent in principle retains, at the very least, the right to be informed and have their opinion taken into account with regard to the making of important choices affecting the child’s life and to contribute to the costs of the latter’s maintenance and education. The first difficulty is attributable to a lack of knowledge on the part of imprisoned parents of the continuance of their rights and duties with regard to the child, in the absence of withdrawal of parental authority by a competent court. Imprisonment is very often experienced as being a denial of all legitimate entitlement to exercise one’s rights; and parental authority in no way forms an exception to the rule. Moreover, when cases of separation of couples or disputes 75 Opinion published in the Journal Officiel of 12th July 2011. Opinion of 10th January 2011 concerning the use of the telephones by persons deprived of liberty and reports concerning on-site verifications with regard to mothers imprisoned with their children within Rennes women’s prison, and on the subject of persons of foreign nationality imprisoned within the remand prison of Villepinte. 76 99