University Council sidelined for years on surveillance and now refuses relocation of two cameras

For years the university violated the University Council’s right to be consulted about the placement of surveillance cameras on campus. In November two requests to relocate two cameras were submitted to the council for the first time. The council now refuses permission.

University Council members are disappointed that the placement of cameras was not submitted to the council for years, while under the regulation on camera surveillance it should have happened for every security camera. For example, cameras were installed on new buildings such as Langeveld and Sport without the council ever being asked. The council should also have received an annual report on the cameras in use. That has not happened since at least 2019.

The responsibility for security on campus was recently reorganised; the department now responsible, Integral Safety, wants to do better and immediately put action behind those words: in November the department submitted two cameras for relocation to the council. The university hoped to resolve a blind spot on campus with the move. That blind spot was discovered after a break-in in the P building in 2024, which is under the K.P. van der Mandeleplein and mainly houses student associations. Burglars were able to do what they want for ages. After, they simply walked off campus with the loot without being noticed.

Not cost-effective

The University Council recently discussed the requests in a confidential agenda item. Sources report that the council had various objections to the relocation. The move would not be cost-effective, because a completely new camera system will be installed within a year anyway. So the relocation would only be useful for about six months, the council estimated.

At the same time, a new regulation on camera surveillance is being developed in consultation with the council. The current regulation dates from 2013 and does not yet take into account, for example, developments in privacy law and AI. The council would like to wait until that policy is finalised before any cameras are moved.

‘No crime solved’

The council also holds the view that the camera system is not very effective, because as one source noted, ‘no crime has been solved with it for fifteen years’ even when camera footage was available. Examples cited include the theft from the Erasmus Pavilion in 2024 and the recent break-in in the F building, in which the burglars simply covered up a camera. Another camera turned out not to be working.

The department Integral Safety disagrees with the conclusion that the camera system has not helped for fifteen years. According to head of the department Jos Bal, a man was recently arrested thanks to the cameras after a police chase that ended on campus. The cameras also help to identify nuisance caused by loitering youths, which in recent years has become a common problem on campus, and assist in first-aid situations. Integral Safety may submit the camera proposal to the council again with a more detailed rationale.