Thread

How we learned to stop worrying and love campus surveillance

269 points · 139 comments · cdrnsf

Grombobulous · 1790375209 · focus · HN ↗
I keep wondering if there’s some kind of positive correlation between prestige of an institution and level of immaturity and fragility of their employees.
Look, I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever, but in what universe is a handful of cameras (less than 10 per building) in a publicly accessible space on a private university unusual or alarming?
I thought every university had this, but I guess I’m now learning that my university wasn’t prestigious enough to be exempted from reality.
My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?
Keep in mind that pretty much 100% of schools this size have assaults take place every single year on school grounds, in a country where school shootings happen on a literal weekly basis.
Speaking of the supposed cost waste of these cameras: I would be surprised the university can get reasonably priced insurance without them.
Edit: this comment has picked up a lot of attention. I encourage those who are disagreeing with me to go directly to the university’s FAQ on the subject that is linked in the article. They directly state that this surveillance system isn’t new, it merely has some new cameras added to the existing system, audio isn’t recorded, facial recognition isn’t used, AI isn’t used, budget from other programs wasn’t sacrificed to add cameras, and data is stored inside an MIT data center. That’s one reason why I hold skepticism about the objectivity of the authors. I thought the authors were not very generous to the school’s willingness to clarify, and based on that FAQ a lot of accusations/assumptions in the article and discussion seem to be false.
<a href="https://evpt.mit.edu/campus-security-cameras-frequently-asked-questions" rel="nofollow">https://evpt.mit.edu/campus-security-cameras-frequently-aske...
1. malicka · 1790376000 · focus · HN ↗
  > My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?
  Security cameras are incredibly typical. Having cameras that record _audio_ are not, and having cameras whose audio and video recordings are handed over to an AI company is _absolutely_ not typical.
  1. collyw · 1790376460 · focus · HN ↗
    Is there any equivalent to spraying a camera with paint for audio?
    itishappy · 1790378413 · focus · HN ↗
    Might as well just smash them if you're already vandalizing. Spray painting is not a lesser offense here.
  2. browsingonly · 1790378296 · focus · HN ↗
    Many cameras include microphones that the user has no intention of enabling. These are like that, since they're in a state where no-consent audio recording is illegal.
    No audio recordings are made or handed over to anyone. Handing video over to a service provider to do things like weapons detection is not uncommon and not inherently a privacy problem. It's done in hospitals today.
    coderatlarge · 1790380619 · focus · HN ↗
    how accurately can a model do lip reading these days?
  3. Grombobulous · 1790378947 · focus · HN ↗
    Based on the article I really didn’t feel like I could assume that they were really recording audio. I had a hard time believing that MIT was violating state law.
    MIT very clearly states that audio isn’t being recorded:
    > No. The security cameras do not record audio. Massachusetts law prohibits recording audio without the knowledge of those being recorded. Additionally, we do not use facial recognition technology with our security cameras.
    Whether or not the cameras possess microphones is irrelevant.
    [deleted] · 1790379698 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  4. arcwhite · 1790385343 · focus · HN ↗
    Security cameras on the outside of a building to deter after hours crime is fairly normal.
    Security cameras on the inside of a high school strikes me as deeply NOT NORMAL
    Admittedly it's been many decades since I was at high school. I think some of your metaphorical frogs might be getting boiled here.
    blitzar · 1790405440 · focus · HN ↗
    > Security cameras on the inside of a high school strikes me as deeply NOT NORMAL
    1999 - <a href="https://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Columbine_Shooting_Security_Camera.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Columbine_Shooting_Secur...
    2022 - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting 2023 - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting
    I could go on ... but most of the school shootings in the us seem pretty well documented on cctv
    arcwhite · 1790435434 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah as a non-American I can understand why it might be that way, but I think you should understand that globally this is not normal and is indicative of deep problems
    If you're taking cameras in high schools because of school shootings as your baseline of normality, you probably need to calibrate a little differently

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.