In late October, the University added LiveView Technologies security cameras to campus. These devices, positioned in various quads across campus, are equipped with advanced surveillance capabilities and cost approximately $32,000 each.
The cameras provide continuous 24/7 monitoring with high video quality, including infrared and thermal technology for enhanced nighttime visibility. Additionally, the devices feature security lights for nighttime illumination and crime deterrence. The cameras are also equipped with artificial intelligence technology.
Many students have commented on the presence of these cameras on campus. In an interview with The News-Letter, freshman Karen Izaguirre relayed her experience with the cameras.
“They’re everywhere,” she said. “There’s one inside the Freshman Quad that likes to flash into my dorm’s window, which makes it a little hard to sleep at night.”
Izaguirre then mentioned that her parents in Texas have also noticed the presence of security cameras around campus in the photos she had sent to them.
“[They would ask] if anything bad is happening around campus that causes us to have [the security towers],” she said.
One sentiment shared across many interviews conducted by The News-Letter regarding the implementation of the security cameras was the lack of transparency from the University.
Junior Shayna Faul commented to The News-Letter on the absence of information from the University regarding the rationale for the new installations.
“I don’t think the school has officially released an actual statement about [the cameras], so I don’t even know why they are there or what implications there would be,” she stated.
Senior Skye Neulight shared their experiences contacting the University administration for more information on the new security cameras.
“My friends and I have tried calling public safety and submitting written requests for information through their website,” they said. “We’ve only gotten very evasive responses or no responses at all. I’ve been hung up on twice. My email was never responded to… I think it’s really concerning that nobody is giving us answers because every day, our biometric data is being collected.”
A University spokesperson provided a statement in response to students’ concerns regarding the use of their personal information.
“Maryland state law restricts the use of facial recognition technology,” they said. “Johns Hopkins follows this law.”
In the Frequently Asked Questions section of the Resources for Protests and Demonstrations webpage, the University stated that security cameras have been a part of their efforts to keep the community safe for years. They explained that video footage is stored with a target retention period of up to 31 days and will be reviewed by Public Safety, law enforcement or other university personnel as needed in the context of serious student conduct or policy violations. The footage will be automatically overwritten based on the university’s storage capacity.
Freshman Student Government Association Senator Justin Pokrant discussed what he heard circulating on campus regarding the cameras in an interview with The News-Letter.
“I’ve heard rumors that maybe they’re testing some AI face-tracking stuff on us,” Pokrant offered. “Although I’m not going to believe every rumor I hear, if it’s something of the sorts where they’re conducting research on us, I feel like that’s something that students would need to know.”
While some students expressed concerns about the security cameras, others were indifferent or positive toward their implementation.
In an interview with The News-Letter, Sushrut Kumar, a master’s student in Mechanical Engineering, stated that the cameras did not bother him.
“I think [the security cameras] are fine. I don’t have any issue with them,” he said.
Sophomore Drew Chico explained that the cameras help him feel more secure on campus in an email to The News-Letter.
“I don't mind them at all,“ he wrote. “They help me feel safe when I'm walking alone on campus in the pitch black dark. I think it's a reasonable response from the administration to install them to ensure the safety of JHU affiliates.”
In an email to The News-Letter, the Hopkins Justice Collective (HJC) provided a statement detailing their perspectives and also questioned the use of the cameras in general. HJC argued that security cameras are currently placed in relatively low-risk areas around campus and thus do not meaningfully address crimes on campus.
Sophomore Emily Zurita-Ruiz expressed similar discontents with the addition of security cameras on campus in an email to The News-Letter.
“I think [the cameras] are annoying and unnecessary. I get the meaning behind them but it feels unnerving having a camera so obviously put in front of you,” she wrote. “The new cameras haven’t really made me feel any different about campus security since they really aren’t in the spots I would expect a crime to happen.”
HJC also suggested that the University’s money should be redirected away from surveillance equipment that may not improve campus safety and toward other student and community needs.
“Hopkins perpetuates the belief that students experience legitimate safety concerns on and around campus because this fear-mongering is profitable for them: it helps to manufacture consent for armed police on campus that will gentrify neighboring communities, criminalize our unhoused neighbors, and suppress student protest,” HJC wrote.
Neulight shared HJC’s sentiments regarding the efficacy of security cameras and mentioned that the cost of campus security could be better invested in improving existing initiatives for student safety, such as by reducing student wait times for the Blue Jay Shuttle.
“While JHU claims to foster a culture of free expression, there is now not a single central quad without an AI surveillance tower – and these are places that historically are used to congregate students for political demonstrations at Hopkins,” they added.
A University spokesperson also responded to concerns raised by some students about racial profiling by establishing that racial and ethnic profiling are prohibited at Hopkins. They stated that campus safety and security are dependent on respect for civil rights and liberties, and that the public safety and JHPD policies are designed to hold the security team accountable to this standard.
Neulight believes that the new security cameras are consistent with the University’s policies toward national and community security.
“The surveillance cameras are just a visible manifestation of a broader and deeper investment that Hopkins has in the militarization of not only Baltimore but also in the border,” they added. “[This is shown] through contracts with [Customs and Border Enforcement] and through weapons development with the Applied Physics Lab, which is constantly contracted with the Department of Defense and with investments in weapons manufacturers.”
HJC echoed these concerns, and suggested that Hopkins is able to justify increased surveillance and policing toward the Baltimore community at large by framing the city as a constant threat. They argued this isolates the University from its neighboring community and reinforces gentrification and displacement.
Pokrant underscored what he believed to be the root of the criticism and confusion surrounding the University’s implementation of the security cameras.
“I don’t see why there was a need to add the cameras,” Pokrant admitted. “Maybe I don’t know something, and maybe that’s the problem.”
Lana Swindle and Samhi Boppana contributed reporting to this article.
