Public scrutiny over privacy concerns on campus was reignited as Stanford released its new General Use Plan (GUP) for public comment on Oct. 15. The plan calls for the expansion of automated license plate reader (ALPR) technology in tracking traffic flow in and out of campus, replacing a manual counting system used since 2000. According to the GUP, automation using cameras would “significantly reduce the risk of human error,” despite both student and local worries over privacy.
The GUP’s inclusion of ALPRs comes as the technology has been the subject of controversy nationwide. In August, following continued criticism and a petition, Stanford ended a contract with ALPR provider Flock Safety citing “data security issues,” opting for Genetec cameras instead. The move followed similar contract terminations with Flock by local jurisdictions including Santa Clara County, Mountain View, Santa Cruz and Campbell.
Critics are worried about data security and privacy. “We have a concern about scope creep,” said Cara Silver, a member of Safety Over Surveillance Palo Alto, a coalition of local advocacy groups focused on ALPR usage. “If ALPRs are kind of enshrined in the GUP, we have a concern that the functionality may increase over time and that the use categories may increase over time.”
Students harbor similar concerns over the implementation. “I think it’s important for us to understand what it means to continue using technologies that have shown and face public distrust,” said Angela Nguyen ’26. “Once a technology is used, whether that’s on campus or beyond, it’s super hard to revert from using it.”
The University maintains that these traffic data cameras, however, remain distinct from public safety cameras. According to Stanford Transportation executive director Lesley Lowe, the overarching goal of the ALPRs was to “modernize some old technology.” She described issues with the cordon system ranging from road safety concerns, inaccuracies in counting and simple inefficiency as reasons for necessitating a change.
“What we put forward is the opening to a conversation about trying to modernize [cordon counting],” StanfordNext Project Executive Whitney McNair said. “We’re open to working with the community and working with the county on determining what is the best approach or best tool.”
Both Genetec and Flock have both come under scrutiny around their data storage policies. In Montreal, a Genetec camera was removed in August following a report by CBC Radio-Canada raising concerns over a lack of transparency with regards to their origins and potential uses. Genetec was also the target of a 2024 complaint alleging the company had done business with firms tied to the Iranian government, “enabling adverse impacts on human rights.”
Meanwhile, Flock has faced criticism for sharing camera data with federal groups like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as well as enabling stalking by police officers. Flock is also the subject of a pending lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the company’s technology contributed to a Fourth Amendment violation.
While the new GUP does not specifically address the particular vendor these cameras will be contracted from, it does emphasize that “ALPR data used for traffic monitoring is different from Flock Safety or similar law enforcement data systems.”
Some critics say a potential alternative to ALPR usage could already exist. “What we suggested at the GUP hearing […] was self-reporting and using data sets that Stanford already has,” Silver said, specifically mentioning data on parking permits and employee numbers. ALPR usage needs to be avoided, she said, in situations where the cameras are “just not necessary.”
“It’s civil rights more than anything,” Silver said. “I think it’s a Fourth Amendment issue, [and] a violation of privacy.”