Honolulu Marathon Video Surveillance Plan Raises Privacy Concerns

Thirty-five thousand runners are expected to descend on Honolulu for the 54th annual marathon this December, a massive gathering that is now at the center of a heated debate over government surveillance.

GovTech reported that the Honolulu City Council recently reviewed Resolution 215, a piece of legislation that would permit the city Department of Emergency Management and its designated agents to carry out visible video monitoring before, during, and after the Dec. 13 race. While officials frame the plan as a necessary step for public safety, civil rights advocates are sounding the alarm over the potential for permanent expansion of the city’s monitoring infrastructure.

The marathon, which begins at 5 a.m. on Ala Moana Boulevard and Queen Street, is projected to draw 10,000 local volunteers and supporters alongside international participants, according to a measure introduced Sept. 29 by Council Chair Tommy Waters. The proposed surveillance operation aims to deter criminal activity, protect spectators, and secure marathon-related venues through coordinated efforts involving the Honolulu Police Department and various federal, state, and city agencies.

Privacy concerns mount over video monitoring

The debate turned sharply critical during a Nov. 5 meeting, when the council moved to refer the resolution to its Public Safety and Economy Committee for further investigation. Residents and advocates expressed deep skepticism regarding how the footage will be handled and whether the technology could be used for purposes beyond immediate security.

Mandy Fernandes, policy director of the ACLU of Hawai‘i, warned that modern surveillance is far more invasive than the stationary cameras of previous decades. She said that third-party software could be used to process the video to generate artificial intelligence imagery or apply facial recognition technology.

Privacy surveillance illustrating how privacy concerns are addressed monitoring practices

“And I really think that we need to be issuing some sort of moratorium on the use of this technology and not just rubber-stamping it every time law enforcement says that there’s a legitimate law enforcement public safety purpose,” Fernandes told GovTech. “Because that’s not always the case.”

Fernandes also questioned the lifecycle of the data, specifically how the footage would be collected, accessed, shared, and eventually destroyed. The resolution currently lacks specific details regarding the total number of cameras to be deployed, their exact locations, the specific types of equipment used, or the duration of data retention.

Dylan Armstrong, a member of Manoa Neighborhood Board No. 7, highlighted the risks of judicial errors stemming from such technology.

“There have been many instances on the mainland of people being falsely indicted on criminal charges based on video surveillance evidence that was quickly proven false, but nonetheless was a gigantic waste of taxpayers' money and an enormous and unfair burden on the falsely accused,” Manoa Neighborhood Board No. 7 member Dylan Armstrong said.

The argument for increased security

Not everyone views the expanded digital eyes as a threat to liberty. For some participants, the presence of high-tech monitoring offers a sense of order in a high-density environment. Dale Vanderbrink, an Ala Moana-Kakaako Neighborhood Board No. 11 member, expressed support for the measure based on personal experience.

“Really it’s simple: as someone who runs the half-marathon and the 10K I do feel safer when HPD and surveillance is there,” Vanderbrink said.

Law enforcement officials have attempted to clarify the scope of the operation to mitigate these fears. HPD Major Clifford Ramson of the department’s Major Events Division said that the department intends to use camera trailers throughout the route, though he emphasized these are temporary units that will be removed after the event.

The department also plans to utilize aerial drones to monitor race conditions and assist first responders with traffic-related emergencies or other incidents. According to Ramson, the Department of Transportation Services also plans to use 47 existing city traffic cameras to record footage during the event to monitor for security threats.

The city’s current traffic cameras do not typically record data or video, serving instead as live feeds for traffic management and first responders, Ramson added. However, under the new resolution, these existing tools would temporarily shift into a recording capacity for the duration of the marathon.

Long-term implications for city infrastructure

One of the most contentious aspects of Resolution 215 is the possibility that the marathon’s security footprint will not be strictly temporary. The measure outlines plans for certain cameras to remain in service after the race, potentially repurposing them for different municipal functions.

The Department of Transportation Services could transition some cameras to traffic monitoring, while the Department of Information Technology might use others to monitor entry points and equipment near public buildings. This potential shift from a single-event security measure to a permanent infrastructure expansion is a primary driver of the current opposition.

The resolution’s proposed authorization is set to remain in effect through Dec. 15, two days after the marathon concludes. To address concerns regarding the “mission creep” of these technologies, the measure requires the Department of Emergency Management to report back to the Council by Jan. 15, 2027.

This mandatory report must detail camera retention, the disposal or refurbishment of equipment, and the specific protocols used for the destruction or retention of all surveillance footage collected during the period.