CISO ruling: frame retention / camera-derived data — archiving frames that show people and plates #200

New Issue

2026-10-04T15:22:49-04:00

logan commented

2026-10-04 15:22:49 -04:00

Source: design-canvas/camera-sources.md §D (2026-10-04 camera-source survey).

Even if NYSDOT permits it (see the NYSDOT-writing issue), archiving camera frames, or attaching them to incidents for replay, is new processing of imagery that can show people and licence plates. That needs a CISO ruling consistent with BUSINESS_MODEL.md's person-name suppression (until E&O is bound) and the "no retention, class counts only" stance in design-canvas/gods-eye-view-notes.md.

Questions for the ruling: retain frames at all? If so, how long, who sees them, per-tenant isolation, deletion; are aggregate class counts (no frames) acceptable as the default?
Blocks: camera-detection / frame-archive features. Related: server-26#44 (retention promises with no enforcement).

Source: `design-canvas/camera-sources.md` §D (2026-10-04 camera-source survey). Even if NYSDOT permits it (see the NYSDOT-writing issue), archiving camera frames, or attaching them to incidents for replay, is new processing of imagery that can show people and licence plates. That needs a CISO ruling consistent with BUSINESS_MODEL.md's person-name suppression (until E&O is bound) and the "no retention, class counts only" stance in `design-canvas/gods-eye-view-notes.md`. Questions for the ruling: retain frames at all? If so, how long, who sees them, per-tenant isolation, deletion; are aggregate class counts (no frames) acceptable as the default? **Blocks:** camera-detection / frame-archive features. Related: server-26#44 (retention promises with no enforcement).

logan referenced this issue

2026-10-04 17:59:35 -04:00

Live ops wall + pluggable camera providers with licence gating (server-26#198) #208

logan added the area/legal area/osint

labels 2026-10-05 02:05:01 -04:00

logan referenced this issue