White Paper

Surveillance Technology in Public Housing: Proliferation, Consequences, and Recommendations

December 12, 1024
|
Gretchen Carr, BA Public Policy

Public Housing Agencies are rapidly moving to install camera surveillance systems, equipped with facial recognition technology and artificial intelligence tools, citing concerns with public safety and crime prevention. The proliferation of this technology has prompted legislators and advocates to question the efficacy of camera surveillance systems in the public housing context.

Much remains unknown about the implications of this regarding the privacy of residents of public housing and the disparate impacts algorithmic discrimination has on these residents, who are predominantly women and people of color. 

A growing body of research reveals three chief concerns with these camera surveillance systems: imprecision, privacy issues, and negative effects on marginalized communities. 

These trends have led advocates and legislators to call for one of two solutions—banning this technology in public housing or enacting and enforcing more regulations. 

A one page version of this white paper, Surveillance Technology in Public Housing Over-surveils but Under-protects, is available for policymakers. 

surveillance cameras showing rooms in apt. building
Photo credit: iStock zmeel

Key findings

  1. Camera surveillance systems, including facial recognition technology, surveillance cameras, and the use of artificial intelligence, have increased in public housing complexes. These systems play a growing role in granting building access to residents and evicting tenants for minor lease infractions.

  2. This surveillance technology has a poor track record for accurately identifying residents, especially residents of color, women, and transgender tenants.

  3. As a result of these inaccuracies, surveillance technology within the context of public housing raises equity concerns in addition to concerns over the infringement of public housing residents' privacy rights.

  4. As this technology becomes increasingly pervasive, its equity and privacy implications become more pressing.

  5. A combination of federal legislation and agency guidance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development is needed to increase regulation of this technology and limit its adverse effects.