TL;DR
Get business pricing on tools and workshop supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
Five tenured MIT faculty members began decorating campus surveillance cameras in August with googly eyes, rhinestones and other ornaments. The action protests the university’s reported $3 million purchase of more than 500 AI-capable cameras; MIT says the equipment is intended to close gaps in existing security coverage.
Five tenured MIT faculty members have been decorating campus security cameras with googly eyes, rhinestones and other ornaments to protest the university’s reported investment of more than $3 million in over 500 cameras, some capable of using artificial intelligence to identify faces and objects. The project, which began in August, is intended to make surveillance visible to people passing through campus, according to the professors and a report by Hyperallergic.
The faculty members named in the report are Catherine D’Ignazio, Marah Gubar, Tanalís Padilla, Dwai Banerjee and Karrie Karahalios. They have held seven decoration sessions, with students, faculty and staff joining some of them. The ornaments include sequins, tinsel and googly eyes. D’Ignazio told Hyperallergic that the group makes small figures from the materials.
The Tech, MIT’s student newspaper, reported four months before the campaign began that the university planned to spend more than $3 million on over 500 cameras from 2025 to 2026. According to that report, the cameras are to be placed in exterior locations, academic facilities and other busy areas. They can be activated to identify faces and objects using AI. MIT told Hyperallergic the new equipment is “intended to close gaps in MIT’s existing security camera coverage.”
The faculty say the decorations do not interfere with camera functions. MIT Police have generally removed the ornaments after sessions, according to the report. Gubar said one officer asked for her name on one occasion. She said her tenured status made her less vulnerable to administrative consequences than students or staff might be.
A Visible Challenge to Campus Monitoring
The action brings a disagreement over campus security, AI and oversight into public view. The cameras are part of a substantial expansion of MIT’s surveillance infrastructure, while the faculty protest questions whether adding AI identification features will make people safer and who should have a say in their use.
The debate also reaches beyond equipment. Gubar told Hyperallergic that students and other participants may be reluctant to speak publicly or give their names because they fear retaliation. That concern is her account, not a confirmed policy of MIT. Still, it highlights how surveillance decisions can affect not only privacy but also people’s willingness to take part in campus life and protest.
AI security camera with face recognition
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Camera Campaign Began
The campaign followed the student newspaper’s report on MIT’s planned purchases and a university faculty advisory committee formed to consider whether the cameras should use AI. Hyperallergic reported that many eligible faculty were not allowed to take part. D’Ignazio said the organizers believed administrators knew their position; the report does not include the university’s explanation for who could participate or how members were selected.
The professors drew inspiration from artist and MIT alumnus Jill Magid, who decorated CCTV cameras at Amsterdam’s police headquarters in 2002. Magid told Hyperallergic she wanted to question the visible and invisible parts of surveillance. The MIT faculty also circulated copies of Magid’s posters to campus community members as part of their campaign.
““Many of us would not feel safer with cameras on all around us, especially not ones with AI.””
— Marah Gubar, speaking to Hyperallergic
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Questions About AI and Oversight
The available reporting does not establish how many cameras are already installed, when each camera will become operational, or whether AI identification will be enabled across the system. The full details of the advisory committee’s membership and decision-making process are also unclear from the report.
MIT’s statement explains the stated security rationale but does not address the faculty’s concerns about AI use, privacy or the committee process. The report also does not describe any formal university response to the decorations beyond police removing them after some sessions. The professors’ concerns about possible retaliation reflect their account; the article does not establish that participants have faced disciplinary action for the protest.
outdoor surveillance camera with night vision
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Further Sessions and University Response
The faculty campaign had held seven decoration sessions by the time of Hyperallergic’s report, and community members had joined in. The report does not provide dates for additional sessions or a timetable for the camera rollout. Further developments to watch include whether MIT clarifies its AI use and oversight plans, and whether the faculty advisory process changes.
For now, the professors’ intervention is a public protest rather than a reported change to the university’s surveillance plans. MIT has not, in the material provided, announced that it will pause or revise the camera purchases.
security camera ornaments googly eyes rhinestones
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Who is decorating the MIT security cameras?
Five tenured faculty members—Catherine D’Ignazio, Marah Gubar, Tanalís Padilla, Dwai Banerjee and Karrie Karahalios—started the campaign. Students, faculty and staff have also joined some sessions.
Why are the professors decorating the cameras?
They say the decorations draw attention to the university’s planned expansion of surveillance and the cameras’ reported ability to use AI to identify faces and objects. The professors have questioned whether the system will make people safer.
Do the ornaments stop the cameras from working?
The faculty members told Hyperallergic that the ornaments do not interfere with camera functions. MIT Police have generally removed them after decoration sessions, according to the report.
What has MIT said about the camera expansion?
An MIT spokesperson told Hyperallergic the cameras are intended to close gaps in existing security coverage. The material provided does not include a detailed university response to the faculty’s concerns about AI or committee membership.
Source: rss
Fall yard work Picks
leaf blowers
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
