Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance And Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chico Unified board approves campus camera system but disables facial/AI features after community pushback
Summary
After hours of public comment urging a pause, the Chico Unified School District board voted 4–0 to proceed with a contract to install Verkada cameras with AWS storage but limited to the vendor's vehicle‑history feature; the board and commenters debated privacy, data storage and contractor risk.
The Chico Unified School District Board of Education voted 4–0 to install a new campus camera system using vendor Verkada and store footage on Amazon Web Services, while the board limited the system's active features to vehicle‑history only and said it will not enable facial‑recognition attributes.
The decision followed an extended public‑comment period in which parents, teachers and community members warned that cloud storage and vendor history raise privacy and security risks. "This $2,000,000 contract has ceded power to a private company with a history of data breaches," said Alicia Bridal, a community member, who urged the board to table the item until all trustees could participate. Theresa Vaughn, a parent, asked the board to "pause and not be on the bleeding edge of AI surveillance on our campuses."
Vice President Olson moved the directive to install Verkada cameras, storage on AWS, and to enable only the vehicle‑history feature; member Robinson seconded the motion. Board discussion focused on technical limits the district can impose, how to prevent use of facial or behavioral‑analysis attributes, and whether cloud storage or local storage presents fewer attack vectors. Board members said they had reviewed vendor capabilities and community input from prior focus groups and forums. "We are replacing an older system with a more current system that's going to be more effective for our staff," a board member said during debate, adding that AI features would not be turned on by default.
Multiple public commenters pointed to past litigation and reported data breaches involving third‑party vendors and asked for stronger oversight, local storage alternatives, or nullification of the contract. Board members acknowledged those concerns, told speakers they had listened, and said the AWS option was chosen in part because it offers centralized protections the district believes exceed the district's internal security capacity.
The motion passed on a roll‑call vote recorded as 4–0. The board directed staff to proceed under the constraints described in the motion and to continue outreach and oversight with the community and relevant stakeholders. The district did not provide additional details in the meeting about the contract's implementation timeline, data‑retention periods, or redaction/access protocols; those specifics will be part of subsequent staff reports and procurement paperwork.
