Georgetown University is considering plans to redesign its security infrastructure to include advanced camera networks following the Dec. 13 mass shooting at Brown University, according to a recording of an internal meeting obtained by The Hoya. 

The university is focusing on redeveloping its camera systems to allow security officials to conduct more detailed surveillance, coordinate campus responses and expand police capabilities. Though the university has not yet settled on a plan, the upgrades could include line-crossing technology, which detects when people breach digitally drawn boundaries, and crowd-detection, which identifies groups in certain areas. 

Josh Bornstein, the vice president for public safety, disclosed the suggested changes during a Feb. 5 meeting with a public safety working group, according to a recording The Hoya obtained. The proposals come after the mass shooting at Brown in December, in which a shooter killed two and injured nine students in a building that lacked camera infrastructure. 

A university spokesperson said security cameras are crucial to campus safety, but noted the university has not decided on a plan.

“Security cameras are part of a layered approach to public safety, helping to prevent crime in real time and aiding in investigations,” the spokesperson wrote to The Hoya. “Georgetown’s approach to public safety, including the use of security camera technology, is similar to that of peer universities. We have not finalized any specific camera technology upgrade decisions at this time.”

Peer institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Chicago have extensive camera networks as part of their public safety programs.

If implemented, the upgrades Bornstein outlined would amount to an overhaul of the university’s current surveillance system, including connecting the Hilltop Campus and Capitol Campus networks. The current system includes five different camera models across two systems, according to Bornstein.

Bornstein said that while the university was doing “a lot of things” to improve public safety before the Brown shooting, it has fundamentally shifted its approach to security planning.

“After that incident, we reassessed our entire approach to security at the university and made some more changes,” Bornstein said at the meeting.

“All of this really speaks to us moving from a reactive approach to security safety to a proactive approach,” Bornstein later added.

Andrew Ferguson, a George Washington University Law School professor studying surveillance technology and privacy, said universities are increasingly turning to surveillance to mitigate public safety concerns, prompting privacy concerns.

“There is a sense that this need for safety is more important than concerns about privacy or liberty or even the lessons you’re teaching students about how to live in a world without surveillance,” Ferguson told The Hoya. “Everything you do in a university setting is its own teaching lesson, and one thing you’re teaching your students to do is to live under a system of surveillance.”

Natalie Gustin, the Georgetown University Student Association’s (GUSA) director of facilities, transportation and dining who attended Bornstein’s working group meeting, said she recognizes the university’s need for public safety but remains concerned about the implications of surveillance.

“I’m always going to be concerned, and I always want to have a foot in the conversation when it comes to these new surveillance methods because it’s double-sided,” Gustin told The Hoya. “It’s to keep us safe, but at the same time, no decision is made in a vacuum, and we know that. Around the country right now, these different surveillance tactics are being implemented to harm students, both intentionally and unintentionally, to prevent things like free speech and First Amendment protests.”

Government use of surveillance has grown in recent months as federal officers rely on camera technology, prompting privacy advocates to raise concerns about potential First Amendment violations.

In the aftermath of the Brown shooting, universities have faced increasing pressure to assess safety measures, which both Ferguson and Emerald Tse, an associate at the Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology, said is in line with previous trends after security failures.

Bornstein also said he is interested in developing object-detection technology that would notify officers of suspicious objects, such as a backpack left unattended for 30 minutes. However, he said he is concerned about false triggers, such as the system detecting crutches as firearms.

“I don’t want to take a swarm of cops around somebody who is lifting up a crutch that they use to walk somewhere and it triggers as a shotgun,” Bornstein said.

The GUSA Senate considered a bill denouncing the university’s alleged interest in facial recognition technology, but tabled the legislation at a Feb. 21 meeting.

At the Feb. 5 meeting, Bornstein said the university is not currently developing facial recognition technology. 

Ferguson said object recognition is based on the same technology as facial recognition and is just as concerning.

“I see object recognition as dangerous or as risky as facial recognition,” Ferguson said. “I understand this elemental gut sense that facial recognition is scarier just because I think it feels more futuristic. But you can do the exact same thing with object recognition.”

Bornstein said the crowd-detection software would allow the university to respond to suspicious groups at unusual times.

“During class changes, you’re going to have crowds all over the place, moving around,” Bornstein said. “What if a crowd gathers at 2 a.m. somewhere? Something could be going on. That might be something that we would want to pay attention to.”

Gustin said she is particularly concerned about the power the university could wield with crowd-detection technology.

“The group-recognition software is particularly concerning to me, and I know to a lot of other students, because a big gathering of people is either going to be a birthday party, or my first thought is protest,” Gustin said. “And I think I’m definitely concerned about anything that triggers police presence when it comes to First Amendment stuff.”

In the working group meeting, Bornstein said he supports students’ right to protest and encourages “people to make their word known.” The university spokesperson said Georgetown respects community members’ right to demonstrate, citing the university’s Speech and Expression policy.

The university is also exploring monitoring social media for messages threatening Georgetown, according to Bornstein.

Tse said security officials should look beyond surveillance to tackle public safety.

“Public safety is a social issue and that’s not necessarily something that can be solved by technology,” Tse told The Hoya. “By looking at the surveillance technology research, we have numerous examples of technology misidentifying people, getting things wrong, and in a lot of public safety or law enforcement contexts, it’s led to really, really serious life consequences.”

Laura Moy, faculty director at the Center on Privacy & Technology, said the university needs to go beyond the public safety working group to solicit community feedback.

“If it’s a product that might result in policing events taking place, it’s just really important that there be involvement of the entire community,” Moy told The Hoya.

Ferguson said surveillance only provides the perception of safety. 

“I think most of the surveillance technologies that we buy are a way to pretend or convince ourselves that we are buying safety when really we’re just buying surveillance,” Ferguson said.