MIT is installing hundreds of tiny eyeball-shaped surveillance cameras on campus, and some faculty members are protesting. The administration is exploring adding AI capabilities from Ambient.ai, and it has acknowledged that it tested those capabilities on campus without anyone’s knowledge or consent. A May 2026 Institute Faculty Meeting confirmed the tests were done in secret.
Now a group of MIT faculty members has decided to respond with… glitter. The Initiative to Beautify the AI-capable Surveillance Benevolently Installed by our Administrator Overseers and the MIT Corporation In Collaboration with Big Brother Tech Companies, or IBAISBIAOMITCORPICBBTC for short, is attaching luxurious gems of many colors to every single AI-capable camera on campus.
The initiative started in August 2026. Its goal is to make the cameras look nice as a sign of support for the surveillance now bestowed upon the campus from up high. The gems are removable, but the authors frankly cannot imagine who might dispute their aesthetic appeal.
The Camera Count
The Tech has reported on the locations of more than 500 cameras. Building 1 alone now has 6-7 cameras per floor. Some are so close to faculty offices that microphones could reasonably be expected to pick up and record conversations inside.
Building 1 also has cameras pointing towards faculty members’ offices and bathroom entrances. The initiative’s founders note that with such technology, searching for a particular person could be as simple as typing a request into a system. “Show me all footage of the curly-haired chemistry colleague going to the bathroom,” is one example they offer.
The Protesters’ Case
Some faculty members are actively protesting the cameras. Their complaints are broad and specific:
- The cameras are intrusive.
- They track movements, conversations, and bathroom rhythms.
- Campus culture has become increasingly repressive, stifling speech and chilling protest.
- The Panopticon effect is already in motion — constant yet unverifiable surveillance leads people to alter their behavior because someone could be watching.
- More surveillance does not equal more safety.
- Governments with authoritarian tendencies could enlist the data for broad-based repression.
- Facial detection and recognition systems have well-documented gender and racial biases.
- It is a waste of money.
The initiative’s founders are not having it. They refer to these colleagues as “annoying” and “causing trouble” for the “benevolent Big Brother Tech administrators.”
The Bedazzled Plan
The gems are the point. Each one marks the authors’ admiration for the surveillance now bestowed upon them. The initiative is funded entirely by the authors’ own pockets.
The authors note that at a time of austerity and belt-tightening, the MIT administration loves them enough to spend millions of dollars to watch over them as closely as if they were maximum security prison inmates, or bugs under microscopes. “For that reason, we, the co-authors, are paying for the luxurious gemstones out of our own pockets,” they say.
The Journals Cut
The initiative’s founders are also glad that the administration only consulted a handful of staff and faculty — they are pretty sure it was five — before transforming the campus into an AI-capable Panopticon. This was exactly the correct number of people, each with exactly the correct viewpoint on the issue.
The administration has also made deep funding cuts to the MIT Libraries. These cuts have set into motion a plan to cancel subscriptions to 700+ academic journals integral to research and teaching. But who needs journals when you have Grok and Instagram?
The authors are also glad that the administration did not broaden its initial decision-making process to hear from its own faculty who study AI, or from international students and scholars, people who have experienced intimate partner violence and stalking, trans and nonbinary people, and communities of color. Those perspectives definitely do not matter, and the five people who were consulted do indeed know exactly what to do.
“AI-CAPABLE CAMERAS! EVERYWHERE!”
What Bedazzling Actually Does
The initiative’s founders are explicit about their goals. They want to make the cameras look nice as a sign of support for the surveillance now bestowed upon the campus. They also expect the gems to change campus culture.
“Now that no action in our hallowed halls can be assumed anonymous or unmonitored, our whole culture will change,” they write. “And what a relief that is!”
They also hope the gems will turn the MIT tradition of hacking into a distant memory. They note that MIT is known for “freewheeling creativity of outside-the-box thinkers and doers” and that such licentiousness is not helpful for attracting the obedient NPC students and faculty that the Institute depends on.
The Auto-Prosecution Suggestion
The initiative founders also suggest a new use for the cameras. They wonder if MIT can now arrange for hacks — especially ones related to particularly ticklish topics — to trigger the AI-capable cameras to alert the Cambridge police directly, so that perpetrators can be auto-prosecuted.
“Sounds like science fiction, ri”
The authors leave the sentence hanging, but the suggestion is clear. They see the cameras as an efficient way to save resources and streamline prosecution.
The Gems Themselves
The gems are the heart of the project. Each one is an indicator of the authors’ admiration for the surveillance now bestowed upon them. They are luxurious, they are many colors, and they are removable.
The initiative started in August 2026 and will continue for as long as there are naked, AI-capable surveillance cameras waiting for bedazzlement.
A Campus Divided
The initiative’s founders are explicit about their goals. They want to make the cameras look nice as a sign of support for the surveillance now bestowed upon the campus. They also expect the gems to change campus culture.
The protest is a direct response to the initiative. Faculty members who oppose the cameras are making their objections known, and the initiative’s founders are responding with a plan that treats the surveillance as something to be celebrated rather than challenged.
The initiative is not a subtle move. It is a deliberate decision to adorn the cameras with gems, to make them look nice, and to signal approval of the surveillance now bestowed upon the campus. The authors present this as a form of support, as a way of showing their admiration for the technology and the administrators who installed it.
The gems are removable. The authors admit they cannot imagine who might dispute their aesthetic appeal. That admission is the core of their argument: they see the gems as beautiful, and they cannot fathom anyone disagreeing.
The initiative’s founders are explicit about their goals. They want to make the cameras look nice as a sign of support for the surveillance now bestowed upon the campus. They also expect the gems to change campus culture.
The gems themselves are the heart of the project. Each one is an indicator of the authors’ admiration for the surveillance now bestowed upon them. They are luxurious, they are many colors, and they are removable.
The initiative started in August 2026 and will continue for as long as there are naked, AI-capable surveillance cameras waiting for bedazzlement.
The debate is not over. The cameras are already up. The gems are coming. And the question of whether surveillance can be beautified — or whether beauty is the point — remains open.
Source material: “How we learned to stop worrying and love campus surveillance,” mit.edu.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.