PRIVATE REVIEW COPY — ENGLISH WORKING TRANSLATION OF THE NAME-REDACTED NORWEGIAN TEXT
Not anonymous. The account may still identify people through prisoner number, location, dates and events. The author's original labels such as “documented fact” are not new verification by this editorial review. This is not a certified translation or evidence that an email was sent. The Norwegian source controls if wording differs. Repeated page headers have been omitted; all thirteen numbered sections and their source list are translated below.

EDITORIALLY NAME-REDACTED TEXT COPY — private publication candidate. The author's name and earlier statement about naming have been changed in the source copy. Removing names does not guarantee anonymity: the contents and course of events may still identify people. This copy establishes no email delivery.

PUBLICLY REDACTED MASTER LETTER — children, third parties, identifiers and security information omitted
Innsatt 2601-46 | Bergen Prison | 7 August 2026

NEWS TIP / SYSTEM CONCERN
Norway digitised our rights — in prison, we must beg for minutes on a PC from 2011

On digital access to justice, human dignity, KOMPASS and how system-generated frustration can be used as evidence of risk

From Innsatt 2601-46, a prisoner at Bergen Prison, unit C — 7 August 2026

This is not about unrestricted entertainment or a demand for unlimited internet. It is about reading digital post, using BankID, answering NAV and the Tax Administration, working with a lawyer, protecting one's position in a child-welfare case and appealing decisions affecting one's freedom.

[SOURCE PROTECTION AND PRIVACY] [The author's name has been redacted in this new text copy. The content may still identify people.] My child, other family members, fellow prisoners and staff are anonymised in this public version. Complete documentation can be given to a journalist under agreed source protection or to an oversight body through a secure channel. The public attachment contains no child's name, date of birth, school, addresses, bank accounts, full medical record, criminal-case details or employee numbers.

1. What this case is really about

Almost all important duties and rights in Norway have become digital. Decisions arrive in Digipost or Altinn. NAV, the Tax Administration, banks, municipalities and lawyers expect sign-in, electronic attachments, searchable documents, scanning and prompt answers.

In prison, freedom has already been taken away. Yet, in practice, access to family life, finances, health, a lawyer and administrative cases can also become dependent on a few minutes at an old PC, whoever happens to be on duty, and how much private information a prisoner is willing to disclose to demonstrate that the need is serious enough.

My experience is having to ask, wait, explain, follow up and start again after every change of shift. By my own count, approximately 19 different staff members had to learn sensitive information about my child, health, finances, NAV, tax, lawyer contact and parole so that I could justify necessary PC time. This is my account as a party and should be checked against duty rosters and logs.

Dignity does not disappear in a single major decision. It is scraped away a little at a time when you must beg for ten minutes to do what the state simultaneously holds you responsible for doing.

2. The technical reality on unit C

[DOCUMENTED FACT] Screenshots from 25 July 2026 show an HP Compaq 8200 Elite SFF with an Intel Core i5-2500, 8 GB RAM, a mechanical Hitachi hard drive of approximately 500 GB and Windows 10 Pro. The processor family dates from 2011. This documents the age of the hardware platform; the prison's acquisition date must be checked in its asset register.

[MY ACCOUNT — THE AUTHOR] Word and Adobe can freeze or crash, the computer needs restarting, and memory use is often around 70–80% during ordinary work. I have observed similarly old arrangements on units B and M. The number of machines, failure rate and actual comparability must be verified by the prison or an independent inspection.

Measurement / service — speed — comparison with 21.33 Mbps:
• Documented prison connection test: 21.33 Mbps download / 21.21 Mbps upload — 1×.
• Mobile subscription advertised at up to 150 Mbps — approximately 7× faster.
• Ordinary fibre package for a housing association: 250/250 Mbps — approximately 12× faster.
• 5G broadband advertised at up to 500 Mbps download — approximately 23× faster.
• Gigabit fibre: 1000/1000 Mbps — approximately 47× faster.

21.33 Mbps is a theoretical maximum of 2.67 megabytes per second before protocol overhead and sharing. 21.21 Mbps upload is approximately 2.65 MB/s. This is capacity measured against a test server, not productive working speed through sign-in, security systems, browser, BankID, Google Drive, PDF, virus scanning, saving, scanning, printing and restarting.

[MY ACCOUNT — THE AUTHOR] The measurement was made during the school holiday and appeared to be the connection's upper limit. On an ordinary working day, several PCs share the connection. This must be checked through network configuration, concurrent-use logs and new measurements on normal working days. Even under the favourable test conditions, download speed was only approximately 8.5% of a 250 Mbps fibre connection — about one twelfth.

Nkom reported in 2025 that 96.2% of Norwegian households already had access to gigabit speed. The contrast is therefore between the prison's actual tools and ordinary digital society, rather than a luxury connection.

3. 1.4 GB: ten minutes of PC time are used up before the documents can be read

A specific set of screenshots from 7 August 2026 shows a 1.4 GB ZIP archive being opened from Google Drive through the available arrangement:

Time — progress — message still on screen:
12:46 — 6% — “Opening file from Google Drive”
12:48 — 20% — “Opening file from Google Drive”
12:52 — 62% — “Opening file from Google Drive”
12:55 — 85% — “Opening file from Google Drive”

The change from 6% to 85% took nine minutes. This represents approximately 1.106 GB and an observed average speed of around 2.05 MB/s, or approximately 16.4 Mbps. A linear calculation gives roughly 11 minutes and 24 seconds just to complete opening the archive. Extraction, checking, sorting, reading and legal work come afterwards.

In a ten-minute session, time expires before a document is available. In a thirty-minute session, around 38% of the time disappears on opening alone.

This is not a laboratory test of raw bandwidth. That is the point: it measures the actual end-to-end experience a prisoner encounters when a large document archive must be accessed using the available equipment and software.

4. July 2026: five parallel cases that could change my life

In July, I had to handle several official deadlines at once. The information below is based on the documents and my deadline overview; formal deadline calculations must be finally checked against the originals:

Case — time-critical need — possible consequence:
• Child welfare: approximately 484 pages; complaint/comments by the end of July — contact with my child, my role as a father and procedural rights as a party.
• NAV — child maintenance: deadline around 15 July — ongoing financial obligations based on disputed facts.
• Tax Administration / collection: deadline around 21 July — deductions, debt, payment history and rebuilding after release.
• Correctional Service, Western Region: supplementary comments around 24 July — progression, security level and future assessments.
• Parole: refusal on 17 July, with a seven-day appeal period — the actual date of freedom and return to the community.

At the same time, the school was closed, removing the alternative school PC and access to Word. The social counsellor who usually helped was on holiday. According to my account, the person able to give access to an offline PC was also absent. The ordinary telephone arrangement generally provides only thirty minutes a week, subject to capacity. A call to a lawyer, bank, NAV or family can therefore use up the entire week's calling time.

5. When a system failure becomes a risk factor against the prisoner

[THE AUTHORITY'S ACCOUNT] The incident report from 12 July describes thirty minutes of PC time, a further fifteen minutes, an important child-welfare case, loud behaviour and forceful contact with a door. It ends by saying that a colleague accompanied me back to the PC room so I could finish my work. The report does not describe a physical attack on a person.

[MY ACCOUNT — THE AUTHOR] I acknowledge shouting, scolding and behaving unacceptably. I apologise for that. I have explained that the reaction followed several days with little sleep and food, PTSD-related strain, approximately thirty pages of handwritten notes, and fear of missing the deadline in a serious matter concerning my child. The strain is not an excuse; it is necessary context for assessing seriousness, cause and prevention.

[DISPUTED MATTER] The report uses wording that I struck hard three times. A later digital copy of my own account uses the phrase “struck with a closed fist at a door I passed”, while my present recollection is that I knocked hard three times to get attention. The signed original and the precise movement must be checked. I do not want to replace one possibly imprecise wording with another categorical statement.

Five days later, on 17 July, the incident report was discussed in the refusal of parole. The decision says the report was not given decisive weight, but it was nevertheless included in the description of emotional regulation and risk factors. On 22 July, the prison sent my lawyer “the documents referred to in the decision”, after the decision had been made.

[UNRESOLVED] The disclosed package does not document whether my contemporaneous account was put forward or considered before the refusal. A digital Drive copy was created on 23 July and therefore does not prove use before 17 July. I report that a physical account was handed in and later read by a senior prison officer. Receipt, scanning, registration and case-processing metadata must resolve this.

On 24–25 July, another conflict arose around brief and unclear promises of PC time. I also acknowledge becoming loud and agitated then. This incident occurred after the refusal and therefore cannot justify the decision of 17 July, but it may be used during the appeal and in later decisions. It is therefore essential that my explanation, duty rosters, queue/booking logs and the full causal sequence accompany the record.

The same technical arrangement that made it difficult to deal with the child-welfare case triggered an incident that was used adversely in the parole case. I then had to use that same restricted arrangement to appeal the consequences.

6. Bitterness, PTSD and a self-reinforcing cycle

When this happens day after day and year after year, extreme bitterness and distrust of the Correctional Service and justice system can build up. I have felt it myself. This is not a threat or an attempt to absolve me of responsibility. It describes a preventable institutional effect.

Many prisoners arrive with trauma, mental illness and very weak support networks. Unpredictability, total dependence, constant observation, inability to withdraw and fear that any reaction will become a report can aggravate PTSD and anxiety symptoms. The Parliamentary Ombud has documented severe psychological strain and shortcomings in prison health services in several contexts.

Missing tools → loss of control → intense reaction → incident report → the report is used as evidence of poor regulation → more difficult release, progression or contact with children → still greater pressure.

Individual responsibility and institutional responsibility are different questions. I must handle frustration without shouting and scolding. The Correctional Service must also organise a known risk situation so it does not unnecessarily create new conflicts. Rehabilitation cannot mean first making responsible action practically impossible and then treating the reaction as proof that the prisoner does not take responsibility.

7. KOMPASS: a possible improvement or an amplifier of digital control?

In 2026, KDI introduced a circular on KOMPASS — the Correctional Service platform for prisoners' access to digital services. On paper, it may provide access to public services and simple working tools, among other things. But the circular makes KOMPASS a controlled allowlist system, not ordinary internet access.

• Only pre-approved websites and services are available.
• Each unit determines frequency and duration based on need, security and resources. The circular gives no quantified minimum period of access.
• At high security, services involving communication may require direct, one-to-one screen observation.
• Breaches can end the session and affect subsequent access and other permissions.
• The circular provides no binding minimum requirements for numbers of PCs, SSDs, RAM, scanners, printers, personal storage, file sizes, support or holiday cover.

[EVIDENTIAL HYPOTHESIS] If KOMPASS is placed on top of the same 2011 hardware, the same single terminal, the same verbal queue and the same limited staffing, the result may be less practical freedom, more screen observation and greater dependence on staff — while the prison can formally say digital access has been established.

[MY ACCOUNT — THE AUTHOR] Staff have told me that KOMPASS may in practice become more restrictive and that some social counsellors are reluctant to accept the responsibility. These source accounts should be checked through confidential interviews, the local implementation plan and staffing analysis.

KOMPASS can represent a real improvement only if it comes with more modern terminals, uninterrupted working time, secure private storage, scanning, printing, a BankID arrangement, a confidential lawyer mode, prompt approval of necessary services and cover during holidays and absence.

8. Bergen is the documentable case — the problem is national

As early as 2022, the Office of the Auditor General concluded that the authorities had done little to compensate for prisoners' lack of access to digital services. In 2023, the Parliamentary Ombud established that security alone could not determine access to necessary computer facilities for education; the prisoner's rights and proportionality had to be assessed specifically. In 2025, the Ombud emphasised more generally that digital systems must have alternative manual arrangements so citizens' rights do not become illusory.

In 2025, NAV and KDI published national guidance saying prisoners have the same rights as the population generally and that actual access to NAV services must be ensured throughout the sentence. The KOMPASS circular in 2026 shows that KDI knows about the problem. What is missing is a binding national minimum standard for equipment, time, privacy and functionality.

The Correctional Service's own principle of normality is that imprisonment consists of deprivation of liberty, while prisoners otherwise retain their rights subject to necessary and proportionate restrictions. Sections 2–4 of the Execution of Sentences Act require satisfactory conditions, facilitation of return to society and cooperation so prisoners receive the services to which they are entitled.

Bergen is therefore more than a local complaint. It is a test of whether a digitised Norway accepts that rights operate one way for citizens with a mobile phone, fibre and BankID, and in a completely different, arbitrary way for people under the state's full control.

9. What does the Correctional Service prioritise?

Physical activity, outdoor spaces and shared meals can be good rehabilitation measures. The point is not to remove them. The point is that mental health and rehabilitation also involve protecting contact with one's child, preventing unnecessary debt, reading one's decisions and preparing for release.

[UNRESOLVED / LINE OF ENQUIRY] I observe that the exercise park at Bergen Prison appears considerably larger than the one at Bjørgvin — approximately three times larger by my estimate, though this must be measured. I have also heard that an outdoor pizza oven on unit M cost at least NOK 80,000. That amount is an unconfirmed rumour and must not be published as fact without an invoice, procurement documents and a funding source.

The journalistic question is legitimate: how much has been spent on visible projects management can display, and how much has been spent since 2011 on the basic digital infrastructure prisoners need for NAV, Digipost, Altinn, the Tax Administration, lawyers, banking, child welfare and release planning? Budget allocations cannot necessarily be transferred one for one, but the priorities can and should be examined.

10. A minimum standard that would prevent harm

• Enough modern, secure PCs with SSDs and at least 16 GB RAM — not merely new software on old hardware.
• Predictable written booking, a visible queue and priority for documented legal deadlines.
• Uninterrupted working sessions proportionate to the task; ten or thirty minutes is not meaningful access in large, complex cases.
• Private persistent storage, version history, full-text PDF search, a scanner, printer, file upload and submission receipts.
• A confidential mode for lawyer, health and protected public-authority contact — control of the channel without reading the content.
• A regular contact person and named substitute during school holidays, absence and weekends.
• A technical error log, measurement of actual working time and automatic replacement time for freezing, restarting or system failure.
• Trauma-sensitive de-escalation: a known pause plan, written messages and technical/organisational context accompanying every incident report.
• A genuine alternative when KOMPASS or BankID does not meet the need.

11. What I ask the media and oversight bodies to investigate

1. How many functioning prisoner PCs actually exist on units B, C and M, how old are they, and how many prisoners share them?
2. What do the asset register, support history, failure/restart logs and replacement plan show?
3. Is 21.33/21.21 Mbps the configured ceiling, and how many PCs and services share the connection on normal working days?
4. Is there a written queue, measurable deadline-priority rules and functioning holiday/absence cover?
5. How many productive hours does each person receive after start-up, sign-in, waiting and technical failures are deducted?
6. How will KOMPASS be introduced locally: hardware, number of terminals, approved services, file functions, BankID, storage, privacy and staffing?
7. Can lawyer and public-authority communications take place without staff reading confidential content?
8. Was my own account after the 12 July incident received, registered and assessed before the parole decision on 17 July?
9. What weight did the incident report actually receive, and are the initiating system failures included when reports are used for parole, leave, progression or contact with children?
10. What did the exercise parks and other visible projects cost; what did the pizza oven cost, if that information is correct; and how does this compare with investment in digital access to justice?
11. How many prisoners nationally have missed deadlines, incurred debt or had their family/release cases weakened by inadequate digital access?
12. Why is there still no binding national minimum standard, years after the Auditor General's criticism?

12. Documentation and qualifications

I am not asking for my account to be accepted uncritically. I ask that it be checked against the computer, network, procurement records, duty and booking logs, registration metadata, staff, other prisoners, the Western Region and KDI.

I offer the following material through an agreed secure channel:
• Original screenshots of hardware, the connection test and ZIP-opening progress.
• Administrative decisions, access-to-records correspondence and redacted incident-report extracts.
• The July deadline overview and document list.
• Contemporaneous accounts, with an open explanation of conflicting wording about the door.
• A complaint concerning a later PC incident, a preservation request and a technical test protocol.
• Complete material for a lawyer or oversight body, not uncritical public release.

[LIMITATION] I do not establish that management deliberately provokes incidents, that individual staff have malicious motives or that criminal misconduct has occurred. I argue that the present arrangement has a documentable and foreseeable risk of generating frustration, conflict and negative records that may later be used against the prisoner.

13. Sources for the public systemic issues

The URLs below reproduce the source list with extraction line-break artefacts removed. Their inclusion is not a new verification of every claim made in the letter.

1. KDI Circular 1/2026 — KOMPASS:
https://www.kriminalomsorgen.no/kdi-rundskriv.237914.se.html
2. Office of the Auditor General, Document 3:4 (2022–2023):
https://www.riksrevisjonen.no/rapporter-mappe/no-2022-2023/undersokelse-av-helse-opplarings-og-velferdstjenester-til-innsatte-i-fengsel/
3. Parliamentary Ombud 2023/1662 — computer for educational use:
https://www.sivilombudet.no/uttalelser/betydningen-av-retten-til-utdanning-ved-vurderingen-av-en-innsatts-tilgang-pa-datamaskin-til-skolebruk/
4. Parliamentary Ombud 2024/1884 — alternative manual arrangements:
https://www.sivilombudet.no/uttalelser/digitale-systemer-i-forvaltningen-plikten-til-a-ha-alternative-manuelle-losninger-for-a-oppfylle-borgernes-rettigheter/
5. NAV/KDI — national cooperation guide 2025:
https://www.nav.no/samarbeidspartner/veileder-nav-kriminalomsorgen
6. Correctional Service — normality principle / rights:
https://www.kriminalomsorgen.no/straff-i-fengsel
7. Execution of Sentences Act:
https://lovdata.no/lov/2001-05-18-21
8. Regulations on execution of sentences:
https://lovdata.no/forskrift/2002-02-22-183
9. Nkom — 96.2% gigabit coverage in 2025:
https://nkom.no/aktuelt/full-gigabit-dekning-kan-koste-12-4-milliarder-kroner
10. Telia — up to 150 Mbps mobile and up to 500 Mbps 5G broadband:
https://www.telia.no/bedrift/mobilabonnement/prov-norges-beste-mobilnett-med-fornoydhetsgaranti/
11. Altibox — 250/250 and 1000/1000 Mbps for housing associations:
https://www.altibox.no/boligselskap/flexm/
12. Parliamentary Ombud — 2026 report on inadequate prison healthcare:
https://www.sivilombudet.no/aktuelt/tortur-forebygging/ny-rapport-om-innsatte-far-ikke-nodvendig-helsehjelp/

Contact: Innsatt 2601-46, Bergen Prison. An email response can be used to arrange an interview through the prison and secure delivery of documentation. A lawyer can participate if required.