Although he admits that they acted negligently, Bram Leferink op Reinink writes that 'the smart cameras are no longer a cause for concern' (Mare, 9 December). The university may have made mistakes, but it has now 'assured us that [the cameras] are now all located within a secure network and set to the highest privacy level'.

If we were to conveniently assume that the university has now checked this thoroughly (unlike the last time they claimed this) and that the promised tests will be successfully completed, it seems that the hack-prone camera images are now a thing of the past. But that doesn't solve the underlying problem.

In a public conversation that study association CIROS organized on Monday evening between students, teachers and representatives of the university, an employee of the University Services Department stated that a 'hypothetical expansion of the software modules is only possible through management procedures, including a new processing agreement and data protection impact assessment…'

Intended to be reassuring, this statement also pointed to one of the great dangers of systems that can do more than necessary: now that powerful minicomputers with depth cameras are installed in 371 places within the university, students and employees outside management lo longer have oversight over (the extension of) their functionality. When a hacker breaks into the protected network of the university and gains access to the questionably-secure cameras or the executive board decides that it wants to collect more data after all, the possibilities of this powerful system are there for the taking.

Less exciting reasons could also lead to an extension of the functionality. For example, a future software update could require the system to be reconfigured, or new cameras installed. The (temporary) adjustment of the privacy level to make this possible is then not visible on the devices.

Putting up these cameras for efficiency and with an emphasis on management suggests a deeper problem: the commercialization of the university. It is becoming more corporate, trusts its employees less, sees students as customers and likes to keep its image spotless.

It also fits into that picture to continue to deny potential problems and to blame Mare for the fuss that has arisen (something that was severely criticized by the University Council).

If the university had communicated openly about this from the start, staff and students would have been able to contribute ideas about possible dangers, alternatives and compromises. Those who would not agree with the final decision could have expressed their dissatisfaction to show the lack of support for the measure or could have adapted their behavior to avoid the cameras (as far as possible).

Now, in retrospect, the academic community is faced with a fait accompli. The cameras have been installed, the money has been spent and trust has been damaged. Although the technological and legal checks that should have taken place in advance can be caught up with, it is unfortunately too late to involve the staff and students who are affected on a daily basis.

Emiel Beinema master student Communication Design for Innovation and Computer Science at TU Delft (and former student at Leiden University)