Letters | How well do ‘smart prisons’ protect inmate privacy and mental health?

Not enough is known to the public about the mental impact of such constant surveillance, with cameras installed even in restrooms, or how inmates’ privacy rights are being protected

Reading Time:2 minutes

A prison guard shows the artificial intelligence facial recognition video analytics system being tried out at Pik Uk Prison in Sai Kung in 2019. Photo: EPA-EFE

Published: 6:00am, 28 Nov 2021

In May, the Correctional Services Department launched the smart prison system in Hong Kong, a plan that is estimated to cost HK$36.68 million (US$4.7 million), with annual expenses of HK$3.57 million. The initiative includes systems for health signs monitoring, passage surveillance and video analytic monitoring, and aims to improve operational efficiency and prison management.

The department’s good intentions of protecting prisoner well-being aside, we believe that the government should review the impact of the smart prison system on the mental health of prisoners and ensure that their rights to privacy are protected.

In these smart prisons, prisoners wear wristbands that allow staff to track and monitor their real-time location and heart rate. Surveillance cameras are installed everywhere, including in the restroom, to record footage that can be analysed to detect any deviant conduct. While these systems could help to prevent prisoners from committing suicide or engaging in violent behaviour, the mental health consequences of living in a prison under constant electronic surveillance should not be overlooked.

Despite our inquiries, the department did not directly address our concern about the potential stress caused to inmates by 24/7 monitoring. Instead, it referred to the psychological services provided to prisoners. The department also refused to provide further operational details of the video surveillance system or to allow us to visit the smart prisons to learn more about the system, citing security and public health concerns.

To protect the mental health of prisoners, the government must observe the principles of privacy preservation when operating smart prisons. According to the privacy commissioner, the six data protection principles are applicable to the Correctional Services Department. In fact, the department has consulted the privacy commissioner on matters relating to the smart prison initiative. But the privacy commissioner refused to tell us what issues were discussed and what measures have been taken to protect the privacy of prisoners.

To protect the privacy and the mental health of prisoners in smart prisons, we urge the Correctional Services Department and the privacy commissioner to make clear to the public any privacy issues relating to the smart prisons and to collaborate with health experts and prisoner rights advocates on these matters.