According to an undated summary bulletin,
The University of California, Berkeley Police Department (hereafter UCPD) reserves the right to review and approve any proposed or existing installation of video security applications on properties owned, leased, or controlled by the campus. All video security applications must conform to federal and state law in addition to University policy. Video security applications must conform to standards established by the UCPD so recorded data are easily retrievable. Although video monitoring will not be used to view or record personal living areas, nothing in this policy prevents the use of video monitoring or surveillance in connection with an active criminal investigation or specific court order.
As of January 17, 2011, UC Berkeley has a new surveillance camera policy, available in full here. It appears that one of the primary functions of the recorded material will be to deploy it as evidence in OSC hearings:
Information obtained through video security applications will be used primarily for security and law enforcement purposes. However, the University may also use it in support of disciplinary proceedings against faculty, staff, or student(s), or in a civil suit against person(s) whose activities are shown on the recording and are the basis for the suit.
And then, of course, there’s this gem:
The following signage may be required by the UCPD at public locations monitored by video surveillance.
“THIS AREA IS SUBJECT TO VIDEO RECORDING:
For more information, contact UCPD at 642-6760”
An exception to this recommendation would be if announcing the use of video surveillance would undermine its purpose.
Keep an eye out. Apparently,
The location of outdoor video cameras will be published in the Annual Security
Report (Safety Counts)
Stay tuned for the next edition of Safety Counts, accessible here. Again, we urge you to read the new surveillance camera policy in full available here. Good looks to our friends and comrades on Twitter who’ve been spreading the word, and a special wink to the Daily Cal for neglecting this altogether.