Show summary Hide summary
Student leaders at Cal Poly won unanimous support from the Associated Students Inc. board this week for a resolution demanding removal of automated license-plate readers on and near campus — a push that turns a local privacy dispute into an immediate question about data, trust and campus safety. The vote intensifies pressure on university officials who last month said they would review their relationship with the vendor and examine how license-plate data is accessed and stored.
Board weighs student demands after months of activism
The motion, introduced by College of Liberal Arts representative Scott Drouin, calls for the removal of Flock Safety cameras and aims to prohibit the use of any **automated license plate readers** on campus. Board members said the effort reflects weeks of student organizing and consultation with campus groups, including Tech for Liberation.
College of Science and Mathematics representative Joe Fewel emphasized the resolution targets all ALPR systems, not only the brand currently installed.
OKConnect unveils platform to help business leaders strengthen community bonds
Azerbaijan jails nine journalists and activists: rights groups warn of new press crackdown
ASI Chair Alyson Engel read a letter from the President’s Office dated May 22 in which Cal Poly President Jeffrey Armstrong pledged to keep the community informed while the university reevaluates its contract with the camera vendor.
University officials have signaled a review will include policies around **data access** and **storage**, though student advocates say that is only the start. At a March town hall, Armstrong told the campus the university does not share information collected by on-site cameras, but activists remain skeptical and are seeking firmer guarantees.
What students and faculty are asking for
Voices at the board meeting ranged from legal concerns to calls for new governance and technological alternatives. Students said the cameras may violate California privacy law, pointing to Civil Code section 1798.90.55 as a reference for their complaint.
Several students urged a public forum with university administrators and the Cal Poly Police Department so the campus can hear directly how the devices operate and how data are handled. Some framed the issue around vulnerable populations: advocates argued license-plate tracking presents a specific risk to **undocumented students** and others who fear profiling.
- Immediate removal: The resolution asks that on-campus ALPR devices be taken down.
- Public review: Calls for open hearings involving university leadership and campus police.
- Policy examination: Demands a clear, public statement about data retention, access and sharing.
- Alternatives: Suggestions included replacing commercial systems with student-led projects that prioritize privacy-preserving design.
Administration and public-safety rationale
Cal Poly public-safety officials have defended the decision to deploy the devices, citing the cameras’ solar power capability and their usefulness for investigations. Assistant Vice President of Public Safety George Hughes described those operational benefits at the earlier town hall.
Still, some faculty and alumni joined students in pressing for action. Computer science professor John Clements criticized the commercial model behind the technology, saying the vendor monetizes vehicle data, and urged the campus to hold firm to promises made in recent communications.
Former ASI president Sam Aborne proposed immediate institutional steps: a formal committee to issue a ban and educational opportunities for students to design alternative systems that meet campus safety needs without large-scale surveillance.
Technology and ethics on campus
On the board, College of Engineering representatives pushed for solutions that balance functionality with civil liberties. Jacob Larson argued that it is technically feasible to build camera systems and analytics that avoid mass data collection, and Nimisha Thakur, a software engineering student, warned that any replacement must be evaluated for the specific AI it uses.
“If the university selects new technology, it matters which algorithms are integrated and how they’re governed,” Thakur told the board, urging ethical review as part of procurement.
Drouin stressed the resolution alone cannot force administrators to remove the cameras; sustained student engagement will be necessary to influence the outcome.
For now, the board’s unanimous vote signals a shift in campus sentiment and sets a tighter timetable for university leaders to deliver concrete answers about privacy protections, who can access license-plate records and whether commercial partners may retain or profit from that data.
