Re: URGENT Request: Computer Lab Surveillance

Ken Harmaning (headMC@oa.ptloma.edu)
Mon, 4 Mar 1996 15:01:28 EST

I am on the other side of the picture. There are a number of very
isolated and relatively sound proofed areas where people can work behind
locked doors or be by themselves, (sound studio, editing areas, practice
rooms, stairways and hallways, etc.) We had enough assaults and
intimidations by off campus intruders that some of our students refused
to schedule practice rooms after dark. Other institutions have had
assaults and lawsuits because of inappropriate behavior by students or
outsiders. The intent is not to spy but to provide a way of monitoring and
preventing or at least responding to dangerous situations. We couldn't
hire enough people to be in all the places where situations could occur.
Basically, the surveillance system allows one person to monitor 14
different locations and provides video recording on a twenty-four hours
basis.

I do have some problems with the decision making process. We had
significant discussions with administration, students, faculty and staff
during the design and construction phases of the projects. Our concern
is client safety and responsibility not what the teacher is doing in the
classroom. In fact we don't even look at the labs during regular hours.

WKH

Bobbi A. Kerlin <bakerlin@flash.lakeheadu.ca> wrote:
> THE PROBLEM
>
> This evening, in the faculty of education university computer lab where I
> teach, I gave a special demonstration for a number of media folks from an
> educational television network. As I left I saw that a surveillance camera
> had been installed in the lab overnight. This was done without my knowledge
> and without any consultation. I have no idea who is behind the decision to
> install the surveillance camera but I expect the dean had to give his
> approval for it installation. I have had previous conversations with him
> about this and he knows clearly my thoughts about these issues.
>
> THE ISSUES
>
> 1. The surveillance cameras represent a violation of my academic freedom.
> None of colleagues is required to teach under these conditions.
>
> 2. The conditions of my contract have been altered without any input,
> consultation or due process. Our faculty is normally governed by democratic
> procedures.
>
> 3. I feel a strong sense of responsibility with respect to the social
> consequences of our use of technology to support and nurture human growth
> and development. The installation of a surveillance camera violates the
> sense of trust that I want to convey to my students and sends a negative
> message which is unwarranted and undeserved. It's very presence establishes
> a tone of mistrust. The learning conditions in my lab have been altered --
> in the negative.
>
> 4. Yet another issue relates to the concept of technological determinism:
> whether we use technology for constructive and positive purposes or whether
> we ignore those consequences and simply use technology for whatever purpose
> we want simply because we have the capacity to do so -- regardless of the
> human consequences or long term effects.
>
> 5. We have choices about how we spend our money -- whether we put it into
> human or technological resources. I would rather support more student lab
> assistants than put dollars into technology.
>
> 6. There have been NO incidents of theft or even the slightest vandalism
> this year in the lab that might provide an argument to support the
> installation of the surveillance camera.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Harmaning Voice: 619/221-2264
Point Loma Nazarene College Fax: 619/523-0459
3900 Lomaland Drive InterNet: headMC@oa.ptloma.edu
San Diego, California 92106-2899
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++