From: Sally J. Clark <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 5:45 PM

Thanks for reaching out. I know surveillance concerns are not just long-standing, but exacerbated by recent misuse of recorded data. I wish we lived in a better world these days. This reply may give you more than you want to know, but please let me know where I've missed an answer. Answers are below, by the way. A short bit of project context first.

I've been part of rationalizing UW's approach to security cameras for the past couple of years with the goal of a standardized enterprise-wide approach — thresholds for security camera use and requirements for technology and data security. When I started the project, we found that while the Seattle campus doesn't have as many security cameras as other peer institutions, the campus has hundreds that have been installed ad hoc over time. These are trained on entry ways, doors and loading docks to try to prevent building break-ins, vandalism and other crimes, and provide evidence when these issues have occurred anyway. These security cameras are a range of ages, some still with local data storage.

More recently we've read through the After Action Reports from violent incidents at other universities. In every case additional cameras have been recommended for situational awareness — the ability for law enforcement to learn what an incident actually looks like when possible and better track the movements of an assailant through campus spaces in order to respond more directly.

When we looked at UW's approach to cameras a couple of years ago we found that there were lots of ad hoc cameras, but no enterprise-wide standards to address the technology and the data security. So, that was job 1. We hit a milestone with that work last month with President Jones' approval of Administrative Policy Statement 13.5. () This new APS setting standards for use of security cameras and technology/security standards was built through a working group that included UWIT, UW Facilities, EH&S, Housing & Food Services and others. Drafts and the final version were shared in advance with reps from UW's labor unions for feedback. You likely know this part already, but APS's are shared with Faculty Senate before approval in a 30-day posting.

The standardized approach is intended to ensure cameras are installed only when a professional assessment deems them necessary and that the installation meets high standards for data protection.

Overall, I'll note for context that UW's ability to have greater situational awareness through an "area capture" security camera like the one at the LSB is critical to the very small team of law enforcement we have on campus. We do not have a big group of officers on campus who can blanket an area when a call for assistance comes in. Well positioned cameras can be critical in quickly assessing and responding appropriately.

That's a long introduction to trying to answer your questions below.

SALLY J. CLARK
Vice President
Division of Campus Community Safety
206.616.8401 / [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

What is the goal for this camera, and is there a process for assessment?

The goal for this "area capture" security camera is to provide awareness when a call is received about suspected criminal activity involving the major pathways west and south of LSB.

Is there live monitoring?

There can be live monitoring when checking an incident call, but only by UWPD. The new policy no longer allows local-level monitoring.

Does UWPD have mutual aid agreements to share camera data with other local, state or/and federal agencies?

No, a request for data would need to be submitted as a PDR or obtained through a legal order. Necessary redactions would apply in the former.

If the camera data is being stored: where is the physical location of the data storage? Is storage performed in-house or is it being contracted out to a company?

We're contracting for secure cloud storage and adhering to State law for retention.

What security measures are in place for this data? Who can access it? Is there a log of accesses retained that can be audited?

Access is by UWPD only and a log is maintained for any data requests.

Is there a part of the University external to UWPD that is responsible for ensuring access controls placed on camera data are being followed?

This function would not be external to the University, but rather a function of UW's Internal Auditor.

Does the camera or any software used by UWPD with the camera data perform algorithmic analysis on the data -- for example face, gait or object tracking?

While vendors are very excited about these functions, we are not and are not contracting for these capabilities.

What model/brand is the camera and what is the field of view / resolution capabilities?

For security reasons I'm not going to go more granular than saying the vendor is Avigilon. This camera's three lenses capture 1) the upper stairway, 2) the lower stairway plaza and connections to the Hitchcock pedestrian bridge, and 3) Pacific St. between the Hitchcock Bridge and the east edge of HSEB with the Burke-Gilman Trail along the lower edge. Resolution is 8 MP.

Is it a fixed camera or can it be moved by a remote operator?

This is a fixed camera.

Is this part of a network of cameras on campus?

It's one of several cameras on campus positioned to give views of high-activity pass-through areas where vandalism and other crimes historically have been reported nearby.

Is there any public/community process to decide where new cameras are installed?

This area capture security camera was an administrative infrastructure decision. Any proposed installations do go through the campus Architectural Review Commission.

Who is ultimately in charge of cameras on campus, are there policies, rules you can point me towards that regulate their use?

The Division of Campus Community Safety is the lead. We work with UW Facilities and UWIT to ensure security camera requests are vetted and that the standards for technology and data security are met.