Abstract
This article examines the impact of the implementation of the digital platform PrisonCloud on daily life in prison. By enabling 24/7 two-way communication between incarcerated individuals, internal services, and external contacts, PrisonCloud has reshaped prison interactions and influenced relational dynamics. Drawing on ethnographic research in a Belgian prison, including observations and interviews, and applying Crewe’s framework of depth, weight, and tightness, this study demonstrates the impact of digitalization on the prison experience of incarcerated individuals. It is shown that factors such as equal access policies, individual social needs, the type of detention regime (open or closed), and structural inequalities (e.g. language barriers, financial dependence, limited access to prison work) shape individuals’ experiences of “weight” and “tightness” in a digitalized detention environment. We highlight the paradoxical effects of prison digitalization, simultaneously deepening and flattening the prison experience on informational, social, and recreational levels. While the platform has increased the imprisoned people's autonomy, it also introduced new forms of exclusion and control for staff. Moreover, the newfound autonomy that the platform granted to incarcerated individuals is challenging the traditional authority of prison staff, reshaping power dynamics behind bars. We argue that the impact of digital platforms on life in prison is not straightforward but layered and contingent. Digitalization in prison has the potential to both mitigate and intensify aspects of confinement, depending on the complex interactions between technology, people, and the institutional context.
Keywords
Introduction
As digitalization progresses, constant connectivity and digital communication are becoming increasingly normalized. Also in prisons steps are being taken to digitalize both internal and external communication. In Belgium, for example, the use of digital tools in prisons is prominently on the political agenda (Team Justitie, 2024).
When technology was first introduced in prisons, researchers mainly focused on the use of “cold” technology to monitor incarcerated individuals (Allard et al., 2006; van Hoven and Sibley, 2008). Later, the use of telephones, television, and video consoles by incarcerated individuals was also studied (Jewkes, 2008; Knight, 2012; Ribbens and Malliet, 2015; Vandebosch, 2000). However, these studies pertain to one-way technologies (e.g. television, as seen in Knight, 2015). Internationally, there has been little empirical research on the impact of using digital tools and communication in prisons, though interest in this topic is growing. Various studies have described how technology in “smart” prisons can benefit prison management (Kaun and Stiernstedt, 2020; McKay, 2022; Simon, 2013) and incarcerated individuals (Jewkes and Reisdorf, 2016; Knight and Van De Steene, 2017; McKay, 2018; Puolakka, 2021). Other authors have examined the impact of e-learning on reintegration and the risk of recidivism (Mahlangu and Zivanai, 2023; Marynissen et al., 2022). These studies highlight that e-learning not only fosters the development of digital skills and enhances self-efficacy in the short term but also contributes to a positive re-entry, long-term behavioral improvements, increased employment opportunities, and a reduction in reoffending behavior.
Research has also addressed the risk of digital vulnerability and the importance of digital inclusion among incarcerated individuals, highlighting challenges they face in accessing and effectively using digital tools, such as a lack of digital competences and motivation (Järveläinen and Rantanen, 2021). Building on this, Hofinger and Pflegerl (2024) explore the opportunities and risks associated with providing digital technology within the Austrian prison system. Their findings reveal a nuanced picture: while some incarcerated individuals view being deprived of their digital devices as a way to reduce smartphone addiction, others perceive it as a loss of control and access to critical information. Nevertheless, digital devices can facilitate (self-)management, education, entertainment, and communication with the outside world and prepare incarcerated people for release into a technology-driven digital-first society. However, these benefits come with substantial challenges, including high costs, (digital) illiteracy, insufficient cognitive skills, and language barriers (Hofinger and Pflegerl, 2024). Similar advantages and challenges were observed in this study.
In Belgium, topics such as the anticipated and potential effects of introducing the PrisonCloud service platform for incarcerated individuals were previously discussed by Beyens (2015). Additionally, the tension between “lesser eligibility” and the movement toward further normalization of prison regimes through expanded access to phones, digital platforms, and access to the internet or other communication channels with the outside world has been addressed by Maes et al. (2019). The study of Mertens et al. (2021) on the impact of in-cell phone access uncovered benefits experienced by those imprisoned, including increased autonomy and a greater sense of privacy. Yet the researchers also warn against the decline in staff contact and its negative implications.
To date, hardly any studies have thoroughly examined the effect of digital communication on life in a closed prison context, while this context fundamentally differs from life and communication in society in several ways. Additionally, the potential risks and unintended negative consequences of digitalization for incarcerated individuals remain significantly underexplored in both national and international research.
This article addresses the impact of the implementation of the digital service platform PrisonCloud on internal communication and life in a Belgian prison. It focuses on the interactions between prison staff and incarcerated individuals and the changing dependency relationships and autonomy of incarcerated individuals. The article builds on the data of Robberechts’ (2021) unpublished doctoral study, 1 which employed the theoretical frameworks of Crewe (2011a) and Downes (1992) to analyze the experiences of incarcerated individuals with the digital environment. By focusing on the interactions between prison staff and incarcerated people, which are both shaped and affected by the use of the platform, the unintended consequences of digitalization for staff are integrated into this study as well.
Our research starts from a dynamic-constructivist approach, acknowledging both technological autonomy and human agency. It builds on the idea that the impact of digitalization is shaped by institutional constraints, regulatory frameworks, and the agency of both staff and incarcerated individuals. We emphasize that the effects of digitalization manifest primarily in interactions between individuals rather than through technology alone. Therefore, the dynamic interplay between technology, institutional structures, and agency is highlighted.
Belgian penitentiary context
With the introduction of PrisonCloud in the prisons of Beveren, Marche-en-Famenne, and Leuze-en-Hainaut in 2014, Belgium was internationally promoted as a leader in the digitalization evolution of the prison system (Beyens, 2015). At the time, Van De Steene (2013) described it as a unique service delivery platform for securely providing services to detained individuals, with its safety and affordability as two important features. To provide access to the platform, each cell in the abovementioned prisons is equipped with a “dumb computer,” a TV screen, a keyboard, a headset, a remote control, and a mouse. Additionally, incarcerated individuals receive a personal and unique USB stick on which all their data is stored, enabling them to consult the platform in their cell (Robberechts, 2021). The platform functions as an information hub where incarcerated individuals can access local prison regulations, the library catalog, telephone charges, the daily menu, staff announcements, and more. It also enables two-way communication, allowing incarcerated individuals to respond to internal information by sending messages and to make phone calls to people outside the prison. 2 Additionally, incarcerated individuals have access to various services directly from their cell, including television, movies, games, an alarm clock, a calendar, canteen orders, and applications such as Microsoft Office and Moodle 3 (De Bolle et al., 2020; Robberechts and Beyens, 2020).
In 2022 and 2023, respectively, the new prisons of Haren and Dendermonde were opened and introduced a new service platform called JustFromCell, which is now also being used in four other Belgian prisons, namely in Arlon, Ieper, Brugge, and Ittre. As part of the digitalization policy of the justice system, the JustFromCell platform will be implemented in seven additional prisons in Tournai, Leuven Hulp, Namur, Leuven Central, Ghent, Hasselt, and Saint-Hubert (Team Justitie, 2024). At present, it is unclear how and to what extent the two service platforms differ from one another and whether PrisonCloud will eventually be replaced by JustFromCell.
This article sheds light on the transformative impact of the use of digital service platforms on prison life. Since the study focuses on the broad mechanisms of and consequences associated with the digitalization of communication rather than on any specific technology, we believe that the findings are applicable and relevant to both current and future situations involving the use of digital platforms in a detention context. As Belgian prisons continue to expand their digital services, they are potentially facing similar outcomes and challenges. Given the growing political interest in digitalizing Belgian prisons and the continuing move toward digital connectivity in society, the relevance of this work extends beyond Belgium and can inform global prison digitalization practices.
Methodology
This ethnographic study employed data triangulation. Data were collected through observations of interactions between incarcerated individuals and staff, semi-open interviews with incarcerated individuals and staff, and document analysis. The document analysis included documents related to the internal organization of the prison and user manuals for PrisonCloud, for both incarcerated individuals and staff. Additionally, meeting reports of the Prisoners’ Council, briefings, and emails concerning the use of the platform were analyzed. This added to the understanding of the general and organizational context of the use of PrisonCloud.
Over a period of six months (January–June 2017), 300 h of observations were conducted during morning, evening, and weekend shifts. The initial observations were exploratory and open, followed by a month of targeted observations in March 2018, focusing on the diversity of actors within the prison. From June 2017 to July 2018, interviews were conducted with 36 incarcerated individuals and 27 staff members of staff, using a topic list. Incarcerated individuals were recruited via a call by email on PrisonCloud to all detained persons. Of the total prison population of 306, 52 individuals or 17% of the total prison population of the studied prison gave their consent to participate within four days of the call. However, between the application, and the actual interviews, some detained individuals were conditionally released, others were released with electronic monitoring, while some were transferred to another prison or changed their minds on participating in the study, which accounted for their dropping out. To ensure a diverse range of participants, incarcerated respondents were selected with regard to relevant variables such as cell-sharing, regime, and language, which were mentioned in the messages. They were all interviewed in their cells.
Twelve custodial 4 and 15 non-uniformed 5 staff accepted to participate in the interviews. The custodial staff was mainly orally recruited during the observations on the landings; the non-uniformed staff was recruited via e-mail, based on a list that we received in the prison. The response was limited because various prison services suffer from permanent staff-shortages. As it was very difficult to convince people to participate, the selection process happened in a less structured way, accepting everybody who accepted to do an interview. The observations were therefore highly valuable, as additional information was gathered through informal conversations with custodial staff.
All interviews, except one, were recorded using a recording device and transcribed later. The recordings were used solely for research purposes and were deleted after transcription, ensuring that all real names and sensitive data were omitted. The analysis of interviews and field notes from the observations was carried out using the MAXQDA program. The research was approved by the Ethical Commission in Humane Sciences of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Moreover, to enter the field, official authorization was granted by the Belgian Prison Service and the local prison administration, with the understanding that all data would be processed in line with the Law on Privacy and Protection of Personal Data. The Prison Service's permission also stipulated that participation was voluntary, and that incarcerated people had the right to end their participation at any point.
Inspired by Crewe's (2011a) framework, which allows for an in-depth analysis of incarcerated people's detention experiences, several transversal themes were inductively identified in the data.
Detention experiences through a digital lens
Crewe (2011a) developed the concepts of depth, weight, and tightness to refine the understanding of the experiences of incarcerated individuals. In Robberechts’ research, these concepts serve as a framework to analyze the impact of a digitalized prison context. Through cross-cutting themes, the perspectives of both the detained individuals and staff are presented in an integrated way. In a prison context, technology is not merely a material provision that detained people and prison staff utilize but a significant factor shaping various dimensions of prison life. Technology transcends the physical confines of prison walls, with custodial staff playing a crucial role in monitoring and negotiating these boundaries.
As a form of bidirectional technology, PrisonCloud impacts not only the overall operation of the prison but also specifically the meaning and experience of the prison cell, in which digital life unfolds. Moran (2013) describes the cell as a liminal space, characterized by a state of transition that creates a form of “betweenness”: a place between different spaces, between the outside and the inside. Comfort (2008) and Moran (2013) argue that a liminal space is characterized by the temporary role changes one undergoes in this specific space. Based on this concept, one can also consider how technology can transform spaces within the prison into liminal spaces. The introduction of phones on the landings was an initial step allowing detained people to temporarily assume different roles and bring part of the outside world inside. The introduction of PrisonCloud relocates telephone contact with the outside world to imprisoned people's cells, thereby transforming the cell into a liminal space where they can assume different social roles around the clock.
Depth of imprisonment
Crewe (2015: 54) described the concept of “depth” as “the distance or polarity between the prison and the outside world, with distance having an almost literal as well as a metaphorical meaning.” Distance, as defined above, refers to literal physical distance, temporal distance in terms of the duration of the sentence, and the sense of isolation and disconnection. Crewe's concept of depth initially referred only to the polarity between the prison and external life. However, depth can also relate to the distance and isolation of detained people from (social) life within the prison (Robberechts, 2021).
This paper further expands the concept of depth by adopting a digital lens. Using Downes’ (1992) three dimensions—informational depth, recreational depth, and social depth—it illustrates how PrisonCloud impacts all three levels of depth, which deepens our understanding of the prison experience in current digital detention environments.
Depth at the informational level
Downes’ informational depth refers to the openness of the prison to the outside world through access to information sources such as newspapers, news broadcasts, and radio (Downes, 1992: 15–16; cited in Crewe, 2015: 54). Digital technology accelerates the flow of information from inside to outside and vice versa, reducing the polarity between inside and outside. Internally, PrisonCloud facilitates a faster dissemination of information, as a message can appear on all computer screens in the cells. However, the polarity at the informational level is partly maintained, because the detained do not (yet) have internet access in Belgium (see below), limiting their ability to independently access external information and services in society (Robberechts, 2021).
Furthermore, depth is impacted not only by the increasing possibilities of contact with the outside world but also by the increasing isolation within the prison as a result. In new prisons in Belgium, alongside the introduction of advanced digital possibilities, the inclusion of a toilet and shower in each cell ensures that detained individuals no longer have to leave their cells for basic necessities. This transforms the prison cell into a multifunctional space that serves as a bathroom, sleeping area, relaxation space, study space, etc. (Robberechts and Beyens, 2020). The flip side is that detained people less frequently (need to) leave their cells and consequently may choose to participate less in social life and activities within the prison. This concern is also highlighted in Hofinger and Pflegerl's (2024) study.
In terms of distance and connectivity, PrisonCloud paradoxically ensures that detained people are more connected to the outside world but face a higher risk of isolation from life inside. This is even more pronounced for the most vulnerable people in prison, such as sexual offenders. Moreover, the cell becomes a liminal space, where technology enables detained individuals to be in multiple “places” simultaneously through phone contact, assuming various roles. This potential 24/7 connectivity with family, friends, lawyers, and external support services shapes imprisoned people's identities, posing a risk of role confusion as they shift between being incarcerated individuals, partners, parents, and other roles (Robberechts, 2021).
In more recent work, Crewe (2025) revisits and nuances his original concept, arguing that depth is not solely constituted by separation from society but also by confinement within the institution. Building on Pakes’ (2023) observation that the availability of technology enables imprisoned individuals to maintain a virtual presence in the lives of their loved ones and allows the outside world to become a “semi-permanent presence” within the prison, Crewe (2025) points out that such developments also reduce incarcerated people's sense of isolation. And while Crewe (2025) only briefly mentions technology, our paper reveals that digital platforms such as PrisonCloud not only reduce social distance but also produce paradoxical effects inside prisons, which further explains the complexity of the concept of the prison experience's depth in a digitalized context.
Depth at the recreational level
Downes (1992) describes recreational depth as the extent to which detained people can engage in recreational activities within the prison. While citizens can freely choose activities and forms of relaxation, this is much less the case for individuals in detention. In terms of space and time, their access to recreation and entertainment outside their cell is limited in various ways, for example, going to the yard at specific times. In addition to opportunities to spend time outside the cell, such as in the library or the gym, the use of PrisonCloud can be considered a form of recreation and a way to “relax” by enabling people in detention to check their inbox, play games, or watch TV (Robberechts, 2021). Given the limited choices in prison, these passive activities are crucial for detained individuals’ well-being, as they are a way to pass time, fulfill basic needs, and maintain a connection with the outside world. In addition to telephone contact, allowing them to stay connected to the outside world, TV provides a certain level of connection and a feeling of being closer to “the surface of freedom” (Crewe, 2011a). The presence of background noise from the TV not only has a calming effect on detained people (Knight, 2017; Vercruysse, 1998) but can also reduce feelings of loneliness (Robberechts, 2021). As one respondent described: Imprisoned person: I have to turn on my TV as soon as I’m inside my cell. Interviewer: Why? Imprisoned person: Then you’ve got something that talks and is visible. When you enter your cell, you have nothing to do. It's just walls. There's nothing you can do. The first thing you do is turn on the TV. Then there's something that's talking, that you can listen to. You know what I mean? You can put on the news or a movie or something else. Usually there's something interesting on it. You can always turn it on. Interviewer: So, it creates a kind of presence? Imprisoned person: Yes, obviously. If you don’t have a TV, you’re really… you’re in this oblivion box because you’re in prison. And your room is the next level of this oblivion box. And if you don’t have a TV, you’re even deeper. (Interview with imprisoned person 18, Robberechts, 2021: 88)
Depth at the social level
Regarding the social level of depth, various studies emphasize the importance of combating social death and keeping in contact with the outside world through maintaining family connections (Goffman, 1961; Marti, 2017). Radio and TV facilitate contact with the outside world but are one-way communication tools, with information brought in from outside only (Knight, 2012). Telephony can be considered an interactive communication tool, as people in prison can engage in conversations with people outside. However, it can still be described as one-way communication, as those imprisoned cannot receive incoming calls, limiting the flow of communication. This has financial implications, as making phone calls from prison is still more expensive than in the outside world, and detained individuals cannot benefit from special offers or make phone calls through internet applications. However, it is important to emphasize that the ability to make calls from one's cell is a significant step forward in maintaining family bonds and contact with the outside world, similar to the introduction of the option of video visits during the COVID-19 crisis (Beyens et al., 2020). Face-to-face visits should, however, not be replaced by digital visits: as Rettie (2009: 422) points out, “Face-to-face copresence is often preferred and affords thicker information, body talk, and communication.”
Due to access to regular phone contact with the outside world from their cells, people in detention can receive negative news or miss significant social or family events without being able to offer support or participate. In addition to the three described levels of depth according to Downes, depth also pertains to temporal distance from freedom (Crewe, 2015). Access to external digital communication intensifies the incarcerated person's perception of time in society as going exponentially fast, which starkly contrasts with time in prison, which seems to stand still (Beyens et al., 2022). It is therefore confronting to be in contact with family and friends whose lives outside prison continue to move forward (Robberechts, 2021).
In conclusion, we can state that PrisonCloud has deepened the prison experience of imprisoned people on informational, social, and recreational levels, while also potentially making it shallower. On the informational level, PrisonCloud accelerates the internal and external flow of information, paradoxically making the incarcerated feel more connected to the outside world while possibly isolating themselves more from life inside. Technology transforms the cell into not only a multifunctional space but also a liminal space, which in turn influences the detention experience. Moreover, technology can mitigate the prison experience at the recreational level due to increased opportunities for relaxation. Finally, we observe that PrisonCloud can play a role in combating social death. However, the 24/7 contact possibilities with the outside world bring new challenges for imprisoned people.
The weight of imprisonment: a light-absent prison and changing power relations
According to Crewe (2015), weight refers to the psychological burden of imprisonment. It is not directly linked to safety but rather to how security is implemented and how staff authority is exerted. Significant factors impacting weight are the role of staff and their relationship with imprisoned people (Crewe, 2011b; King and McDermott, 1995). Prison officers are not just keyholders but also wield a certain degree of soft power (Crewe, 2011b). The extent to which staff's power is present or absent influences the weight of detention. Crewe et al. (2014) describe this power as “light” or “heavy” and in terms of “presence” or “absence.” Presence refers to the visibility and availability of staff when carrying out their duties (Crewe et al., 2014). This has both a literal dimension—“whether staff are actually there, how they use their power and their ability to ‘get things done’”—and a communicative dimension—“how they convey confidence, and set boundaries and expectations” (Crewe, 2015: 57). Being “actually there” requires visibility and availability (Crewe et al., 2014: 397). The digital platform clearly impacts staff's soft power through less presence. The multifunctional cell meets various basic needs, reducing the detained person's need for physical contact with staff and leaving the cell (Robberechts, 2021). Consequently, the platform also potentially affects dynamic security (Dunbar, 1985). Previously, staff could use social interactions with imprisoned people during daily activities to stay informed about their moods and needs and respond preventively. In the digital prison, a greater level of activity takes place behind the cell door and this invisibility causes levels of concern for staff. Particularly in closed units, where staff's presence and visibility are reduced, staff authority and dependence feel heavier. The availability of in-cell digital services can thus have a “soothing” effect in such cases.
In units with a partly open-door regime, and high staff visibility and availability, imprisoned people rely less on the digital platform and wait for face-to-face contact to address their queries to staff. Here, staff's authority is generally perceived as lighter. However, direct contact between staff and imprisoned individuals is important not only for dynamic security but also, according to staff, for enforcing obedient behavior and “getting things done” (Robberechts, 2021: 113). PrisonCloud gives more autonomy to detained individuals and reduces or eliminates staff's subtle disciplinary opportunities in certain cases, resulting in the loss of a kind of authority (Robberechts, 2021: 114). Senior officer: A substantial disadvantage of PrisonCloud is that it has increased the distance between the prisoner and the prison officer. Because the prisoner can do anything. Most of the time, he doesn’t need the prison officer. He just needs the prison officer to open or close his cell door. He does not need the prison officer to buy products from the canteen. He does not have to behave himself to buy products. He can do it all when it suits him, and he doesn’t have to take others into account. And in that respect, I think it is a very bad system. (…) It does not matter to him when a prison officer asks him to be more polite. (Interview with custodial staff 1, Robberechts, 2021: 113) Senior officer: You usually pay more attention to the “attention seekers” and the troubled detained people of whom we need to make more observation reports. But there are shadows in this prison. Detained people who never leave their cells are often sex offenders. They do have their visitors, but that is the only thing. Except for these visits, they never leave their cell, never. I think we do not do enough about that. This happens in every prison. It is mostly the sex offender who does not leave his cell. And we just focus on keeping order. These people are quiet, and behave themselves. They are always quiet. When we do cell searches, they will come easily without any discussion. Detained people who do not want to go to the courtyard or the open wings are the most vulnerable prisoners. Every time they go to the open wings, the same things happen. So, they stay on the closed wings. (Interview with custodial staff 4, Robberechts, 2021: 117)
Due to its transformation into a multifunctional space, the cell becomes a place that meets many basic needs of imprisoned people, making the PrisonCloud technology a de facto digital gatekeeper. Consequently, the detention experience can become lighter (Robberechts, 2021). Imprisoned person: Previously, you depended on the prison officers to take a shower,
6
to make a phone call, you name it. And here, you have it all. It's nice and easy. You can close the door and make a phone call, you can take a shower and so on and so forth, and do various things. (Interview with imprisoned person 14, Robberechts, 2021: 118) Prison officer: Detained people can make phone calls as long as they want, they choose when, how. I think it is a great improvement for them. For us, it takes away a certain power. Which is partly positive, partly negative. In the [non-digital] prison I used to work in, if a prisoner misbehaved all day long and was very demanding, I wouldn’t have let him call. Detained people who behaved could call. Then I would have been like: “You can call first because the other one didn’t behave.” First, detained people have to behave well and then they are allowed to make a phone call. Actually, that's a way to teach these men something. To educate them a bit, to re-educate them. Um, the negative aspect of it… Especially from a security perspective, there are people who abuse it. Colleagues just punish misbehaving detained people by no longer allowing them to make a phone call. That is a no-go for me. That's, uh, actually, that's a punishment that the prison governor is allowed to give. (Interview with prison officer 3, Robberechts, 2021: 106)
In conclusion, it can be stated that the implementation of PrisonCloud impacts the discretionary power of staff. However, this is due not solely to the mere implementation of the platform but also to the policy of equal access and the introduction of basic rights for people in detention. Moreover, mediated by the platform, power appears to have shifted upward to management and downward to the self-empowered incarcerated person. Additionally, the implementation does not have a straightforward impact on the perceived weight of detention, which also depends on whether the person is detained in an open or closed section and on their individual need for social contact. So, while some people experience digital access as liberating, others see it as an additional barrier to human interaction, further shaping their carceral experience.
Tightness of imprisonment: The insecurity of self-regulation
According to Crewe et al. (2014), the perceived tightness of detention can be seen as an aspect of both depth and weight, where tightness refers to psychological impact and the power component. Tightness denotes a form of power that is not authoritarian but is still invasive, focusing on both psychological and behavioral self-regulation. It involves a feeling of tension and restlessness due to uncertainty, as individuals are unsure what to do or how to do something without making a mistake (Crewe et al., 2014).
This state of uncertainty can arise from changes in expectations or from a process of responsibilization. The shift in power dynamics is accompanied by changes in expectations, referring, among other things, to the fact that imprisoned individuals are regarded as responsible agents who have certain rights but also responsibilities that they must acknowledge and regulate (Bosworth, 2007). Crewe (2015) equates responsibilization with providing a space within which imprisoned people must and can make choices for themselves and encouraging them to exercise their autonomy appropriately. This study illustrates that the implementation of PrisonCloud has impacted the responsibilization of imprisoned people and staff and has brought about certain expectations.
Platforms as tools of responsibilization
Imprisoned individuals have obtained more autonomy but have also been given more responsibilities to shape their lives in and from their cells (Robberechts, 2021). Responsibilization occurs through communication and budget management, as explained below. It can also become a source for staff to informally exert soft power.
Responsibilization through digital communication
Responsibilization of detained people through digital communication with staff relates to expectations that arise about the language used by both staff and detained individuals. Digital communication through the platform requires basic digital literacy and writing skills, preferably in the institution's language. However, language barriers persist, as in the superdiverse prison population, many detained individuals cannot speak or write in the required official language. Thus, these individuals depend on staff or peers for help.
In addition, unlike face-to-face interactions, the digital medium limits the ability to clarify misunderstandings. Digital messages also create a traceable communication trail, and messages can be used as evidence that may work for or against either staff or the imprisoned person.
Responsibilization through budget management
As the platform has become an indispensable communication tool for the organization of prison life, all its functions are made available to all imprisoned people (conform the equal access policy). However, some functions, such as the use of phones, for example, have significant costs, hampering equal access for all detained people. Although there have been improvements, calling from the prison cell is still more expensive than making calls outside (Robberechts, 2021). The detained person can buy “phone credits” and various other goods through PrisonCloud, such as food, hygiene products, movies, stamps, a limited version of Microsoft Office, and TV access. Despite the possibility of receiving financial compensation for participation in training and work in prison, a large proportion of incarcerated people remain financially dependent on their social network outside (Vanhouche and Paterson, 2023). This financial dependence is exacerbated by scarce work opportunities for those willing to work in prison (Robberechts and Beyens, 2020) and the low remuneration for this kind of work. 7
With direct access to paid facilities, the imprisoned individuals must deal with rising costs in a responsible way, requiring good budget management skills. However, due to boredom, a lack of self-control, and the misleading untransparent payment system that uses credits instead of euros, many unexpected costs are incurred (Robberechts, 2021). Consequently, imprisoned people may quickly spend a lot of money and not realize it until later, leading to a “financial hangover.”
Hidden tightness
The platform thus impacts how imprisoned people spend their time and money and how they communicate. Their financial situation, written communication, and time management can become part of their penitentiary file and be considered in the early-release decision-making process of the sentence implementation court, as illustrated in the following quote: Public prosecutor at the sentence implementation court: For example, there are people who pay nothing to the family members of the victim but rent all James Bond movies in prison. Another example is a man who horribly stabbed his own wife and buys a PlayStation in prison to play very violent games. We sometimes request this information, as it can provide details of what that person is like. (Translated interview with public prosecutor on the National Broadcasting VRT, 2020, in Robberechts, 2021: 156)
In addition to the traceability of data, the—justified or unjustified—distrust of imprisoned people in the tracking possibilities also contributes to the experience of hidden tightness (Robberechts, 2021). This suspicion mainly impacts feelings of privacy. The platform enables imprisoned people to directly contact medical services, enhancing their privacy. Furthermore, privacy increased as telephones moved from the wing to the cell, eliminating physical eavesdropping. In Belgian prisons, the tapping of imprisoned people's phone calls is subject to the same laws as phone tapping in society. 8 However, various imprisoned participants in the research seemed fearful of being digitally monitored and overheard, which creates a certain “looseness” (Robberechts, 2021). The ambiguity and uncertainty regarding which data can or cannot be collected, who has access to it, and how these data can be used, creates a kind of “hidden grip.” Keeping imprisoned people in a state of data ignorance contributes to an increasingly paranoid atmosphere. Due to the traceability of the data and the opacity of data handling, PrisonCloud can be described as an “imaginary” panopticon, as people fear being monitored at any time without their knowledge. Therefore, imprisoned people may regulate their use of the platform and resort to alternative technologies, such as illegal smartphones (Robberechts, 2021).
In conclusion, it can be stated that the system seems to have become “looser” in terms of communication and the ways imprisoned people can spend their money and time. As Hofinger and Pflegerl (2024) point out, the shift in responsibility for vital services from the institution to the imprisoned via digital devices brings both opportunities and challenges, as it offers autonomy and participation but also risks, such as, increased dependency on limited resources, and the pitfalls of self-governing. Imprisoned people can be evaluated and held accountable for their choices in the use of PrisonCloud. The responsibilization process of imprisoned people thus simultaneously loosens and tightens the prison experience (Robberechts, 2021). Despite equal access to the platform, the use of PrisonCloud is not equal for everyone, as many imprisoned people face language barriers, financial dependence on their social network, and reliance on access to work in prison. These factors, combined with a lack of institutional support, contribute to the experience of tightness.
Conclusion and discussion
In this paper, experiences of imprisoned individuals were analyzed using Crewe's (2011a) framework of depth, weight, and tightness. We show that the introduction of a digital platform has intended and (sometimes paradoxical) unintended effects on the prison experiences of imprisoned people and staff. The experiences of individuals in detention are not uniform and strongly depend on individual needs and digital skills, the presence of a social network in- and outside prison, and whether people are detained in an open or a closed regime. For staff, views on and experiences with the introduction of the digital platform vary, depending on their roles and social skills.
In terms of depth, which relates to distance and connectedness, we find that digitalization makes the prison more permeable. Internal and external information flows accelerate but are still slow compared to the speed at which information spreads in a free society, thereby reinforcing feelings of exclusion and lag. Regarding relaxation and leisure activities, numerous opportunities were introduced with the platform's implementation. Although reintegration is an official aim in Belgian sentence implementation, the possibilities to take classes (e-learning) remain severely limited due to the ban on internet access for security considerations. Socially, the platform offers opportunities for telephone contact with family, which can prevent social death, although various studies emphasize the importance of physical visits. Additionally, the new, multifunctional nature of the cell brings imprisoned people closer to the outside world but may paradoxically isolate them more from social life within the prison, increasing the risk of confinement within the institution. Therefore, the shift from face-to-face social interactions to digital interactions between prison staff and imprisoned people impacts the depth, weight, and tightness of the detention experience.
As described above, the weight of the punishment heavily depends on the presence, visibility, and approachability of staff. The power shift, shaped not only by the platform's implementation but also by broader institutional and interpersonal dynamics, can be described as both positive and negative. Initially, penitentiary staff perceive a reduction in their soft power, since imprisoned people no longer need them to access certain services. Their power shifts partly to management and partly to the newly self-empowered imprisoned person. This autonomy can be seen as an advantage for incarcerated individuals when prison staff goes on strike and most activities are blocked, which happens regularly in Belgium.
In terms of the tightness of the detention experience, we find that the regime initially appears looser due to increased autonomy of the imprisoned. However, imprisoned individuals experience a hidden tightness due to their data ignorance and the intransparency and uncertainties surrounding the traceability of their communication and digital activities. While staff seem to lose some of their “visible” power, responsibilization processes also lead to subtler, informal forms of control and power over imprisoned people. Detained individuals are given various opportunities to spend their time and money but are expected to make responsible choices with limited means, mirroring digital inequalities in society.
These findings point to a broader paradox: while digital tools like PrisonCloud aim to normalize prison life and support reintegration, they also import and amplify the social pitfalls of technology in a closed detention context, especially for socially disadvantaged and vulnerable groups that may require more support and guidance to overcome these pitfalls. Further research is needed for this purpose. Our findings demonstrate that the effects of implementing digital communication technologies in prison cannot simply be discussed in terms of pros and cons but must be nuanced and juxtaposed per user group. However, we believe that, despite the challenges associated with using a digital service platform such as PrisonCloud, the digitization of communication in prisons is inevitable when working toward the normalization of prison life. Nonetheless, efforts must be made to prevent unforeseen and undesirable consequences, such as hidden tightness (read: control), language barriers, social isolation within the prison, and a lack of social and digital skills among staff. This study further illustrates that the adoption of a digital platform is more complex than just implementing a new technology in an existing context. To meet the goals of normalization, reintegration, and inclusion through digitalization, staff and incarcerated individuals need to be informed and trained, and digitalization should be part of a broader form of change management. At the same time, it must be taken into account that technology is not a panacea that will solve problems of staff shortages and communication.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (grant number G024316N).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.