> My high school also had cameras. Isn’t that rather typical?

Security cameras are incredibly typical. Having cameras that record _audio_ are not, and having cameras whose audio and video recordings are handed over to an AI company is _absolutely_ not typical.

Security cameras on the outside of a building to deter after hours crime is fairly normal.

Security cameras on the inside of a high school strikes me as deeply NOT NORMAL

Admittedly it's been many decades since I was at high school. I think some of your metaphorical frogs might be getting boiled here.

Based on the article I really didn’t feel like I could assume that they were really recording audio. I had a hard time believing that MIT was violating state law.

MIT very clearly states that audio isn’t being recorded:

> No. The security cameras do not record audio. Massachusetts law prohibits recording audio without the knowledge of those being recorded. Additionally, we do not use facial recognition technology with our security cameras.

Whether or not the cameras possess microphones is irrelevant.

Many cameras include microphones that the user has no intention of enabling. These are like that, since they're in a state where no-consent audio recording is illegal.

No audio recordings are made or handed over to anyone. Handing video over to a service provider to do things like weapons detection is not uncommon and not inherently a privacy problem. It's done in hospitals today.

Is there any equivalent to spraying a camera with paint for audio?