Balancing Physical Security and Privacy in Higher Education: A Practical Guide

Strategies for Responsible Deployment of Physical Security

First and foremost, be judicious about where you deploy face recognition. Private companies have some latitude when it comes to collecting employee data, but public institutions must closely adhere to rules about what data they collect on constituents. Identify very specific use cases and locations where face recognition provides clear security benefits rather than deploying it campuswide — provided your jurisdiction allows for its use.

Second, you can minimize your exposure to FOIA requests by limiting what your cameras capture. This can be as simple as angling cameras downward to focus on your building entrance, with minimal sidewalk or street coverage. Some institutions use technology to blur or mask certain areas from recording entirely.

Third, establish clear retention policies. Rather than keeping video data indefinitely based on available storage, set specific retention periods. Thirty days typically makes the most sense for most higher education applications. This policy-driven approach provides legal protection when requests come in months after an incident. If your documented policy is for a 30-day retention, and someone requests footage from six months ago, you can’t be expected to have that data anymore.

Video redaction technology, commonly required in K–12 environments, is also available for higher education. While less critical when dealing with adults, this technology allows institutions to blur faces before sharing footage with law enforcement or other entities.

Finally, traditional face recognition isn’t the only use for AI and pattern-recognition technologies. Similarity search technology analyzes physical characteristics such as height, apparel and even gait without storing biometric data. It can therefore identify individuals with a degree of probability but without the typical biometric privacy implications.

The Benefits for Higher Education Are Real

Despite the challenges, there are legitimate security benefits to these technologies. Face recognition excels in incident investigation. If someone breaks into a building, you can quickly determine where else they’ve been on campus. You can also use face recognition or other forms of pattern-recognition to set up proactive alerts when banned individuals attempt to return to campus. Similarly, biometric access control ensures that only certain authorized personnel can enter restricted areas.

The key to deploying these tools thoughtfully is to develop clear policies around their use that include appropriate safeguards based on local regulations and desired outcomes. Higher learning institutions must work with technology partners who understand the nuances of the region or municipality, as well as exactly what the college is trying to achieve. Everything from storage expenses to the specific technology used, the risks tied to it, the type of campus (urban vs. suburban) and regulatory constraints will determine the most sensible setup. You shouldn’t have to navigate that alone.

AI, biometric data, pattern recognition and other cutting-edge technologies are unquestionably ingrained in physical security. Meanwhile, state and local legislation are still playing catch-up. Higher ed institutions that have thoughtfully addressed the benefits and risks from the start will be well positioned to protect their communities while respecting individual privacy rights.

This article is part of EdTech: Focus on Higher Education’s UniversITy blog series featuring analysis and recommendations from CDW experts.