Entry
Reader's guide
Entries A-Z
Subject index
Video Surveillance
Video surveillance uses video cameras to transmit data to monitors or recording devices and is designed to observe people in a variety of settings. Video cameras can be used as part of overall security efforts, as a tool to address theft or vandalism that has occurred, or as a tool to ensure worker productivity. Officials in institutions of higher learning who choose to use video surveillance cameras must balance concerns for safety and productivity with Fourth Amendment rights related to the privacy of students, faculty, and staff. This entry describes video surveillance technology and examines the tensions that can arise when officials approve its use on campuses. Officials at institutions desiring to use available technology must understand these issues and respect the privacy and security concerns in designing systems that will be both effective and accepted in their campus communities.
The quality of video surveillance technology has significantly improved in recent years. Technology exists to obtain video in settings where there is little or no light. Video equipment may be monitored in real time, but it is often tied to recording devices where electronic information is maintained in a computer database for review at a time after the recording is created. The collection of audio data is generally prohibited under Title I of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (ECPA) of 2002. However, the ECPA does not regulate silent video surveillance.
Video surveillance raises a number of competing legal and philosophical issues. The mere physical presence of video cameras on campus may suggest that campuses are dangerous places and thus have the unintended effect of reinforcing a climate of fear. On the other hand, the presence of video cameras can mislead students and others into believing that campuses are safe places, thereby creating false senses of security and blurring the line of responsibility that individuals must have for ensuring their own safety. In addition, the use of video cameras raises significant political issues that must be considered by leaders in campus communities. The fact that “someone is watching” may raise criticisms from students and staff who argue that the use of such cameras threatens their privacy. Some critics may ask whether “Big Brother” is coming to campus. From this perspective, cameras may be viewed as icons of an Orwellian approach to campus security, a potentially thorny political issue that must be considered and debated on campuses.
Video cameras used as part of a surveillance effort serve both a deterrent and an enforcement purpose. Placing cameras on campus and publicizing their use will have a deterrent effect. Video cameras, and the records they produce, can be used to identify offenders and to document conduct that runs afoul of institutional rules, policies, or laws.
Cameras may be placed as part of comprehensive plans to address potential problems such as theft, assaults, vandalism, bullying, and other offenses. In such situations, placement of cameras may not be made public, at least not their locations. Under these conditions, cameras may well have little deterrent effect but are employed to identify offenders as part of law enforcement efforts. Video surveillance technology thus gives institutional officials opportunities to identify suspects after unlawful or inappropriate activities have occurred.
...
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Affirmative Action and Race-Based Admissions
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Disability
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Faculty Issues
- Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
- Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
- Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents
- Knight v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
- Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association
- National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University
- Perry v. Sindermann
- Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing
- Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City
- Sweezy v. New Hampshire
- Urofsky v. Gilmore
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Finance and Governance
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Gender Equity
- Cases in Higher Education Law: Religion and Freedom of Speech
- Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth
- Bob Jones University v. United States
- Healy v. James
- Hunt v. McNair
- Locke v. Davey
- Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri
- Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
- Tilton v. Richardson
- Widmar v. Vincent
- Concepts, Theories, and Legal Principles
- Academic Abstention
- Academic Dishonesty
- Academic Freedom
- Affirmative Action
- Catalogs as Contracts
- Conflict of Commitment
- Conflict of Interest
- Copyright
- Disparate Impact
- Due Process, Substantive and Procedural
- Educational Malpractice
- Equal Protection Analysis
- Ex Corde Ecclesiae and American Catholic Higher Education
- Fair Use
- Hate Crimes
- Intellectual Property
- Student Moral Development
- Tax Exemptions for Colleges and Universities
- Tenure
- U.S. Supreme Court Cases in Higher Education
- Zoning
- Constitutional Rights and Issues
- Affirmative Action
- Age Discrimination
- Bill of Rights
- Civil Rights Movement
- Disciplinary Sanctions and Due Process Rights
- Disparate Impact
- Drug Testing of Students
- Due Process, Substantive and Procedural
- Eleventh Amendment
- Equal Protection Analysis
- Federalism
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment Rights of Faculty
- Fourth Amendment Rights of Students
- Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students
- Hate Crimes
- Hostile Work Environment
- Loyalty Oaths
- Political Activities and Speech of Faculty Members
- Privacy Rights of Faculty Members
- Privacy Rights of Students
- Religious Activities on Campus
- Sexual Harassment of Students by Faculty Members
- Sexual Harassment, Peer-to-Peer
- Sexual Harassment, Quid Pro Quo
- Sexual Harassment, Same-Sex
- Sexual Orientation
- Sports Programming and Scheduling
- State Aid and the Establishment Clause
- Student Press
- Title IX and Athletics
- Title IX and Retaliation
- Title IX and Sexual Harassment
- Unions on Campus
- Faculty Rights
- Governance and Finance
- Academic Dishonesty
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Boards of Trustees
- Catalogs as Contracts
- Cheating and Academic Discipline
- Collective Bargaining
- Conflict of Commitment
- Conflict of Interest
- Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
- Due Process Rights in Faculty and Staff Dismissal
- Equal Pay Act
- Extracurricular Activities, Law, and Policy
- Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
- Grading Practices
- Graduation Requirements
- Hazing
- Hostile Work Environment
- Loans and Federal Aid
- Personnel Records
- Sports Programming and Scheduling
- Student Press
- Tenure
- Unions on Campus
- Organizations and Institutions
- American Association of University Professors
- American Association of University Women
- Association for the Study of Higher Education
- Boards of Trustees
- Community or Junior Colleges
- Education Law Association
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Historically Black Colleges and Universities
- National Association of College and University Attorneys
- National Collegiate Athletic Association
- Proprietary or For-Profit Colleges and Universities
- Religious Colleges and Universities
- Single-Sex Colleges
- U.S. Department of Education
- Unions on Campus
- Primary Sources: Excerpts from Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Cases
- Berea College v. Kentucky
- Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
- Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth
- Cannon v. University of Chicago
- DeFunis v. Odegaard
- Gratz v. Bollinger
- Grove City College v. Bell
- Grutter v. Bollinger
- Healy v. James
- Hunt v. McNair
- Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York
- Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association
- Locke v. Davey
- McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
- Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
- National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University
- Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri
- Perry v. Sindermann
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
- Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights
- Southeastern Community College v. Davis
- Sweatt v. Painter
- Sweezy v. New Hampshire
- Tilton v. Richardson
- Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
- United States v. Virginia
- University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Religion and Freedom of Speech
- Academic Freedom
- Civil Rights Act of 1871, Section 1983
- Due Process, Substantive and Procedural
- Ex Corde Ecclesiae and American Catholic Higher Education
- Federalism
- Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students
- Religious Activities on Campus
- Religious Colleges and Universities
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act
- State Aid and the Establishment Clause
- Student Press
- Statutes
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights Act of 1871, Section 1983
- Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987
- Clery Act
- Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act
- Equal Educational Opportunities Act
- Equal Pay Act
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
- Higher Education Act
- Immigration Reform and Control Act
- Morrill Acts
- National Labor Relations Act
- Rehabilitation Act, Section 504
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act
- Stafford Act
- Tax Exemptions for Colleges and Universities
- Title IX and Athletics
- Title IX and Retaliation
- Title IX and Sexual Harassment
- Title VI
- Title VII
- Student Rights and Welfare
- Academic Dishonesty
- Assistive Technology
- Cheating and Academic Discipline
- Cyberbullying
- Disciplinary Sanctions and Due Process Rights
- Disparate Impact
- Drug Testing of Students
- Extracurricular Activities, Law, and Policy
- Fourth Amendment Rights of Students
- Free Speech and Expression Rights of Students
- Grading Practices
- Graduation Requirements
- Hate Crimes
- Hazing
- Loans and Federal Aid
- Privacy Rights of Students
- Sexual Harassment of Students by Faculty Members
- Sexual Harassment, Peer-to-Peer
- Sexual Harassment, Quid Pro Quo
- Sexual Harassment, Same-Sex
- Sexual Orientation
- Sports Programming and Scheduling
- Student Moral Development
- Student Press
- Student Suicides
- Student Teachers, Rights of
- Video Surveillance
- Technology
- Loading...
Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL
-
Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
-
Read modern, diverse business cases
-
Explore hundreds of books and reference titles
Sage Recommends
We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.
Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches