NHS Surveillance Policy Sparks Privacy Debate

By Tanjua Damon

The Newtown Board of Education agreed Tuesday night that its Camera Surveillance on School Grounds Policy needed more work before it is implemented.

The board voted 5 to 1 in a straw poll, with Margaret Hull the lone dissenter, that surveillance cameras at the high school should be left on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The vote came after a lengthy discussion about civil liberties, student privacy, and for what the cameras were originally intended.

The board has been reviewing the policy for a month making changes to the wording. But Ms Hull has expressed concern that the cameras are on all day taping students’ movements. The cameras are not monitored in real time, but administrators have used the footage retroactively when an issue has arisen.

“I think that when we first decided to buy these cameras, we did buy them and install them to protect our assets. Now they are being used to monitor hallways during the school day,” Ms Hull said. “My concern was they may be monitored in real time going against student’s civil liberties of privacy. I thought the cameras would be turned on when administrators left the building. Personally that is what I would be most comfortable with. I think it’s a serious issue. I think it’s very gray right now. I don’t think its clear.”

Board vice chairman Vincent Saviano agreed with Ms Hull’s view that constant monitoring could foster a “Big Brother” atmosphere in the school, but explained that since the cameras are in place and are already being used 24/7, that the cameras either have to be on all the time or not at all. He went on to say that to create a schedule of times the cameras should be on and when they should be off for administrators to follow would be too complicated.

“It’s more than agreeing on a policy. We’ve stepped back a bit –– should they be on 24/7 or only when administrators are not there,” Mr Saviano said. “I feel bad we didn’t think about it like Margaret has [before we put the cameras in]. It’s hard to write a policy on it when we’re not clear on what the applications of the cameras are going to be.”

Assistant Principal Lorrie Arsenian attended the board meeting to help clarify what the high school is using the cameras for and to present how the administration feels about the system.

“I have to say it’s a deterrent from an administrative point of view. We’re not out to get students. They are not being monitored,” Ms Arsenian said. “We know we aren’t watching in real time. We don’t have the time to watch in real time.”

Ms Arsenian told the board there have not been any negatives to the system at this point, but acknowledged the system has only been in place since the beginning of the school year. She also told the board that parents as well as students do have a good feeling and a sense of security with the cameras in place. She added that the cameras also are helpful when administrators are investigating a situations because now they are able to go back and review a scenario.

“Sometimes we have to give up a little bit of safety for civil liberties,” Ms Hull said. “I want them [students] to feel like they are at their own house. I don’t think you necessarily have to be doing something wrong to feel uncomfortable being videotaped.”

Board member Lisa Schwartz pointed out that the school is a public building, but agreed the policy should be looked at more closely.

“Maybe we didn’t think deeply enough,” Ms Schwartz said. “The question of on or off, or monitored or not monitored, wasn’t explored at length. I think it’s a great exercise to look at.”

Earl Gordon explained that he could not exactly remember the complete conversations when the board was initially looking at purchasing the cameras. He pointed out that even if it was just to protect the assets, the high school could be “vulnerable 24 hours a day.”

“I feel fairly comfortable if there is a reason to go back and view the tapes if the administration thinks there is a reason,” Mr Gordon said. “Basically it comes down to philosophical differences. I’m not willing to go the full nine yards of turning them on and off.”

School board chairman Elaine McClure believes that the most important aspect is the need to protect the students and that the cameras can help that happen.

“To me our students in that school are the most important thing,” Ms McClure said. “The world is not a perfect place. Things happened we don’t want to happen.”

Mr Saviano pointed out that the board needs to decide before implementing a policy where it stands on the cameras and when they should be used.

“What do we feel is important for our reality? Nothing beats adult interaction,” Mr Saviano said. “What really is the overall value the cameras are bringing to the situation? The decision is going to be all or nothing. It’s unfair to put one handcuff on an administrator and tell them to decide when to use it.”

Newly appointed board member Andrew Buzzi, an attorney, said he did not see the issue as one of civil liberties, but one of policy. He also explained he thought the board could be putting itself in “serious legal liability” if the cameras are not used all the time.

“There are many cameras in public and private buildings. They are there for many reasons. What we need to decide is what our policy is going to be,” Mr Buzzi said. “They were in place but we didn’t use them. I don’t think we can pick and chose. I don’t think we have that luxury.”

“We should have had this discussion before we bought the cameras,” Mr Saviano added. “We’re past philosophy. We’re in reality.”

The board will continue to refine the policy so that it reflects how the cameras are being used.