Policy Search
EWU Policy 603-04 (Security & Parking Cameras) (new) – First Read
- Comment period ends June 12, 2026.
- Policy Proponent: Vice President for Business & Strategy
- This is a new policy that outlines the requirements for the use of security cameras and drones on campus or in an EWU leased facility. It also applies to the use of license plate recognition technology by an EWU department consistent with recent changes in state law.
Under Section 1-3. Restrictions, there needs to be an explicitly stated prohibition from placing security cameras near the entrance of the student mental health counseling center, or any location that could capture students entering or leaving this office.
Section 1-6 states that a log must be maintained for all locations where surveillance devices are located, and document those who have access to view or monitor images. Can the location portion of that information be accessible to the university community so that we know where security cameras or security drones are recording?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/02/flock-police-surveillance-tech-birds-iran-press-freedom
Police across the country have been proven to use similar cameras to stalk young women. I would be interested in an expanded section more thoroughly detailing access, training, and audit procedures.
It is entirely misguided to have installation locations and drone deployment be approved solely by the Chief of Police. The police have one important interest in these cameras, but their bias is entirely towards solving crimes (which more cameras would make at least a little easier). There is no provision in this policy for the legitimate privacy interests of other parties. Security cameras also have a chilling effect on those exercising First Amendment rights. There has been a massive proliferation of cameras on campus with no notice to stakeholders. For example, the newly remodeled Science building has three cameras at each entrance (one just outside, one in between the double doors, and one just inside), not to mention cameras along the hallways, along the side office hallways, and so on. Users of this building were not consulted or even notified of this prior to the installation. This is a radical departure from what the building used to be like, and it’s very different from many other buildings on campus.
More cameras don’t always make us safer. They may reduce some risks of harm (though this is arguable—shooters might even enjoy being on camera), but they increase others.
There is also no reasoning given why drone footage should be maintained three times as long as other camera footage. If no incident has occurred—which we would know quickly—why retain the footage for nearly three months?
Looking at this again, I am struck that we’re creating camera records that are subject to public records requests. Even if we’re not worried about the warrant and subpoena access, open records requests should concern us all. We have not, as a campus community, decided that the benefits of all this camera data outweigh the risks.
Parking should be free. We don’t need cameras for something that should be accessible to all.
Having a policy that outlines how cameras will be used for license plates for parking services and law enforcement, when allowed by law, is tolerable. Security cameras are not acceptable or appropriate for our campus community. Do not approve section 1 of this policy.
In section 1-2 license plate readers are mentioned. Several modern ALPR cameras utilize AI or other machine learning algorithms not found in traditional ALPR cameras that allow them to read facial features or vehicle features such stickers, damage, vehicle brand, and vehicle type. It would be nice to see some assurance that camera footage must be manually viewed with no allowance for AI technology. If AI is involved, what is the policy on markers or other tertiary data derived from footage? Are those allowed to be saved, shared, or distributed? This needs to be addressed.
In section 1-4 it is mentioned that all security camera devices, security drones, and locations must be approved in advance by the chief of police. This process needs to be transparent. Additionally, it should be required that the positions are audited and approved by a panel that consists of diverse viewpoints to ensure that the cameras do not violate policies such as FERPA, HIPAA, and also to ensure that they do not put students and faculty practicing their first amendment rights at risk.
It also seems like a major oversight that the chief of police may authorize footage to be forwarded to specified locations. There should be checks and balances to prevent abuse, as well transparency when such action is taken. The chief of police alone should not be able to authorize this without overview by additional parties outside of the department.
In section 1-6 the information provided is an okay start, but needs to be more robust and allow for more transparency. In addition to the minimum information provided in the document, the logs should also record what actions were taken on the viewing such as play/pause/rewind, the duration of the viewing session, the reason for viewing the camera feed, and the specific camera viewed. For the sake of transparency, this log should be publicly available for audits.
In section 2-5 it is stated that vendors are prohibited from sharing information with non-authorized agencies, persons, or entities. It does not describe who the authorized parties are, for what they are authorized, at what points they have been authorized, or for what reasons they may be authorized. We need to be explicit about authorizations and under what conditions the authorizations may occur. While authorization is peppered throughout the document, it could use its own well-defined section.
The reality is that the data provided by cameras is simply too rich and detailed to allow for a haphazard deployment. The current state of the policy indicates a myopic viewpoint that favors the viewpoint of law enforcement while fundamentally ignoring the needs and viewpoints of the campus population. Until a time comes that the way we are surveilled is completely transparent and democratized, the risk for surveillance camera abuse is too great. EWU is a place of learning — somewhere for adults of all ages to grow and change – something that cannot be fully realized in the presence of surveillance that burdens the student body and faculty with the weight of suspicion.
Given the push for this is for security/safety, can you please find another way other than cameras? I would say our campus is different from downtown Spokane. This is a community.
I’m ok with the proposal of more transparency regarding camera use & policies. I also understand that it might be good to have some oversight or multiple people involved with general camera footage access. However, I do believe that in an emergency situation (e.g. an active threat) that the police department needs to be able to quickly access cameras on campus to identify and stop active threats (or other serious crimes) on campus. In those situations, police can’t be getting permission from some administrator to stop a threat to public safety. They need to act. So, in those circumstances, the police need to be able to access cameras without having to worry about layers of red tape.
I don’t think that video footage should be accessible via public records requests. But since they are, I’m concerned about members of the public using that footage to stalk employees or students. I think that there should be some sort of oversight regarding this access. Especially if there is excessive access or other indication that suggests illegal activity.