The suggestion made by one board member of the University of Toronto to deploy drones and identify the faces of participants in the camps and seek financial compensation from "bad actors" within the movement has raised concerns among protesters and privacy advocates.

The meeting, held on June 27, allowed council members to discuss the administration's response to the action while waiting for a court decision on the injunction that ultimately led to the camp's closure. In the days leading up to the forum, protest organizers urged council members to pressure the university to publicly disclose any investments with ties to the Israeli military and to divest from them.

Although the live stream of the forum is no longer available to the public and the university has yet to upload the minutes, CTV News Toronto reviewed the recording of the meeting, during which members did not discuss ways to meet the specific demands with the administration.

Instead, several council members called for the university to enforce measures or dismantle the camp entirely, citing concerns about anti-Semitic rhetoric coming from the camp.

Graduate member Brian Madden told the council as part of a proposal that the university seek financial compensation from participants who violated school conduct rules: "I don't think you can really get treatment unless you also have justice."

Madden continued: "I realize it’s difficult to identify the people in the camp. But I would say, I find it unreasonable that with the technology we have today - facial recognition, artificial intelligence, machine learning - we can’t really fly a drone in there and somehow identify those who are out there, at least some of them."

"Not all of them are just 300 bad actors, but if we don’t hold those who are accountable, then it’ll be implied that all of them are."

When contacted for comment, Madden did not respond to requests for further comments.

In a statement to CTV News Toronto, the university said it does not use any form of facial recognition technology, artificial intelligence, or drone technology for surveillance. It added that during council meetings, members have the opportunity to engage in open discussions with senior administration and during those conversations, "suggestions and ideas that may differ from established policies and practices can arise."

The university also reiterated the commitment made to students on the day they evacuated the campus that the administration would not take legal action against known participants in the camp, or in relation to other pro-Palestinian protests on campus.

However, in the wake of this action, the university's response and the reassurances from its board have raised ongoing concerns among those who participated in the months-long protest.

Sarah Resekh, the event organizer, said: "It is very concerning," referring to the surveillance proposals.

Resekh stated: "We have already seen Toronto police deploy these types of technologies and now what we're seeing is the board calling for the expansion of the very same surveillance technologies to include the campus."

The use of surveillance and/or punitive measures in the context of protests and law enforcement more broadly is a concern for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, according to Agnès Boucher McNichol, the Director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program and Acting Director of the Privacy Program.

Boucher McNichol said in an interview with CTV News Toronto: "We have the right in Canada to go out and about without revealing our identity without fear of mass surveillance by the state. The moment we accept a proposal that the state or other actors can surveil those participating in any legal activity, I think we are giving up a very important fundamental right - privacy rights."

She added that using facial recognition technology also carries the risk of misidentifying individuals.

"When you think about using facial recognition technology (FRT) in the context of law enforcement, you’re considering the risk of falsely accusing innocent people of crimes they didn’t commit, which is critical for us," Boucher McNichol said. "It’s extremely problematic."

The lawyer added that whether an employee or not, simply proposing such measures leads to a chilling effect on free expression.

She said: "Because people who might have wanted to participate in this protest, but are fearful that their participation in a completely legal protest might be surveilled by the state or other actors, might choose not to go."

Those participating in the camp have already faced forms of retaliation for their involvement, including threats directed at participants from members of the public and warnings of police retaliation conveyed by campus security, according to Resekh. She added that the board's proposals for surveillance and retaliation could lead to the escalation of such actions.

She said: "There’s a reason people are hiding in these protests - not because they don’t believe in what they’re advocating for, but because of the vilification. People have been harassed in the streets since we left the camp because it’s possible they are associated with it."

While council members pointed to the need to protect the student body and university staff against anti-Semitic sentiments within their proposals for enforcement, the ruling later issued by Justice Marcus Cohen found no evidence that anti-Semitic rhetoric came from within the camp or from participants within it. During the protest, one person was arrested and charged with assault, but neither police nor the university clarified the defendant's involvement, if any, in the movement.

According to Resekh, efforts to depict the protest as violent or odious are often rooted in anti-Palestinian sentiments.

She explained: "It’s an old trope that the imperial world continues to recede to minimize these students’ cause as malevolent or illegitimate. Depicting us as haters or violent, for example, often gives people a justifiable reason to incite or express hatred."

In his final message regarding the action, the President of the University of Toronto, Meric Gertler, acknowledged a "deep" division within the university community.

Gertler said: "Members have exchanged a wide range of views with me and the administration since the start of the camp. Some of our colleagues and students have felt frustrated or unwelcome." He added, "In the coming months, we will work to address these harms and find long-term solutions."

Resekh says that doing so will require not only a willingness for reconciliation on the administration’s part but a reevaluation of its response that led to this point.

She continued: "The university can hold on to any beliefs it has, but it cannot take our tuition dollars and allow them to be invested in weapons manufacturers that kill the families and friends of its students. We will show until our demands are met."

As the new semester approaches, Resekh says those associated with the camp movement "want every new student to know what this university is - what they care about, who they don’t care about, and where our tuition money is being invested."

The university's semester begins on September 3.