The CGLPL recommends that special attention should be paid to the preservation of prisoners’ personal data contained in the hard disks of their computers. The CGLPL also recommends that the deletion of illicit data should compulsorily be subject to prior written agreement from the owners thereof, after they have been given an exhaustive list of the data concerned and informed of the reasons for which it has to be deleted, in accordance with article 24 of the act of 12th April 2000. The inquirers were informed that at the end of the general IT search of January last, disciplinary proceedings were considered against certain prisoners on whose computers signs of USB keys had been found, of which the use was contrary to the DAP circular of 13th October 2009 concerning access to IT facilities for persons in custody. Moreover, one of the computer owners had to appear before the disciplinary committee on 24th February last. Two computers were not restored to their owners: one for which legal proceedings have been instituted by the public prosecutor at a court of first instance due to the presence of photographs and videos of child pornography, and the other because of the prisoner’s refusal to authorise deletion of the data on the internal hard disk of their computer. At the time of the inquirers’ arrival, no proceedings had been instituted against the latter computer owner: there had not been any disciplinary measures or any implementation of article 24 of the act of 12th April 2000 with regard to the confiscation of this hardware. The inquirers examined the prisoner’s personal IT dossier; the confiscation of this computer is not established in any document. The DAP circular of 13th October 2009 concerning access to IT facilities for persons in custody specifies that “if prisoners refuse to sign because […] they do not authorise the deletion of prohibited files, they state this in the report. In this case, confiscation of the equipment for conservatory reasons makes it possible to have a more detailed inspection carried out by competent third party personnel.” The CGLPL would like to obtain clear information on the reasons for the confiscation of this computer and its legal basis in view of current texts.” 99