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.