City of Reno officials went to great lengths last year to avoid releasing the locations of the city’s security cameras. This Is Reno requested locations of all City of Reno-operated security cameras in May. Despite multiple requests and an order for public records, the city only produced a vague list of security cameras with non-specific locations.
“The record lists the existing locations of all security and surveillance cameras owned and operated by the City and/or RPD, e.g., ‘CH-1-Council Metal Detector’, ‘CH-2-Bridge Lobby’ and ‘NECC-1-Lobby Desk,’” an unnamed records official wrote, who refused to explain what the abbreviations for each camera stood far—in this case, City Hall.
“When a request requires an agency to ‘create new documents or customized reports by searching for and compiling information’ from individual files or records, NRS 239 does not require their production and disclosure,” the official continued. “Here, the existing computer program cannot readily compile the information you are requesting. That information would require a staff member to physically visit all 148 camera locations, update and customize the location description to meet your heightened specificity criteria, and manually create a new standalone document/report.”
The city claimed the Nevada Public Records Act gave officials the authority to withhold details because they said they do not have to create new records. This Is Reno then ordered copies of invoices for the cameras, installation records, any repair or maintenance documentation and footage from the cameras for a specific day.
The city said those records would cost nearly $15,000 to produce. Officials further said there are no records of the cameras being purchased, nor were there any records identifying the camera models.
“Your request is voluminous, burdensome and costly not only for the City but to the local taxpayers and not legally required,” the city official said.
Most of the cameras are visible to the public.
They are installed at various city properties within buildings and pointing at and capturing live footage of public areas. At City Plaza, one of those cameras captured video of rioters in real-time. Additional security cameras captured all rioting that occurred within City Hall. View the video below.
In partnership with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, University of Nevada, Reno students Dez Peltzer and Colin Brandes, using the names of the cameras, were able to geolocate many of them in Google Streetview. View them here.
Surveillance cameras have become topical for a variety of reasons. The city in 2022 purchased for $200,000 the license to use Fusus, a platform that allows police to monitor private security cameras owned by citizens and businesses.
“The model expands police access to personal information collected by private cameras that would otherwise require warrants and community conversation,” the EFF notes on its website. “Because these cameras are privately owned, police can enjoy their use without having to create and follow records retention and deletion policies.
“The real-time capability additionally provides remote overwatch capabilities that will enhance officer and community safety and enable a higher and more timely level of service,” former RPD Chief Jason Soto wrote in a memo to the council before the council approved the technology.
Beryl Lipton with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, also hosted at UNR’s journalism school, said that people have a right to be concerned about these technologies.
“The adoption of Fusus is another example of a troubling trend in law enforcement: the reliance on private actors and databases to collect, hold, and sell access to very sensitive information on people’s locations and lives,” she said in 2022. “Use of private companies in this way allows law enforcement to circumvent transparency and civil rights guidelines. These guidelines, like the need to gather a warrant or bounds around appropriate sharing of personal information, exist to protect individuals from government overreach and malfeasance.”
