In Concord, New Hampshire, a lawsuit claims that hundreds of low-income renters have had their private lives monitored through devices installed in their subsidized apartments. The case, filed Sept. 2 by the ACLU and two legal aid groups, centers on the Concord Housing and Redevelopment Authority’s use of sensors from Sweden-based company Minut to track tenants’ behavior.
For nine years, one resident of a subsidized complex considered their apartment a sanctuary after recovering from trauma and homelessness. That changed when a white device appeared above their bed. Initially mistaking it for a smoke detector, the tenant discovered its true capabilities after it fell from the ceiling. “I was physically repulsed by what I read,” the tenant said, speaking anonymously due to fears of retaliation. The device could detect more than smoke, monitoring movement, noise, and even Bluetooth signals from Apple devices.
Sensors Create Detailed Tenant Profiles
The lawsuit alleges that across Concord, these devices have generated detailed data profiles on roughly 300 CHRA units, potentially revealing intimate details like when residents engaged in sexual activity. The sensors, disguised as smoke detectors, monitor motion, measure noise, scan for Bluetooth signals, identify moisture indicating mold, and detect tobacco or marijuana smoke. Over time, this data can create detailed profiles of tenants’ daily routines, including sleep patterns and private moments.
Minut Markets Devices for Rentals
Minut markets its devices to short-term rental owners to catch guests smoking or exceeding occupancy limits. In subsidized housing, such behaviors can trigger lease violations, risking eviction for tenants whose housing depends on government assistance.
The lawsuit seeks to remove devices from apartments and delete all the data they’ve collected. It highlights a 2024 incident where CHRA sued a tenant to reinstall a monitor after it fell, only dropping the case when privacy concerns were raised. The tenant now fears continued surveillance despite the device’s removal. CHRA’s executive director, Julie Palmeri, stated the devices were installed solely for the purpose of enforcing mandatory HUD smoke-free policies and addressing excessive noise, adding that the agency “never accessed, viewed, or utilized motion-sensing features.” However, plaintiffs’ data shows information was readily available to the agency.
Related Post: Maritime Innovation Center to Lead Regional Blue Tech Economy
Cities Expand Surveillance Tech Use
Other cities have adopted similar technology. In New York’s Saratoga Springs, HALO sensors were used to detect smoking, with officials comparing data collection to “having an expert witness on the stand.” A Saratoga Springs spokesperson clarified they no longer use HALO, having switched to Wynd sensors. Concern Housing deployed hundreds of devices across its properties, generating thousands of alerts for suspected smoking or vaping.
University of Baltimore law professor Michele Gilman cautions that the unobtrusive design obscures the depth of data collected. “It may not have a camera, but it is quite all-seeing,” she said. The lawsuit argues this surveillance violates constitutional privacy rights, particularly for vulnerable populations. Legal experts note that data profiles could serve as eviction evidence, with tenants altering behavior out of fear.
The technology’s spread raises concerns about privacy erosion in public housing. As one tenant noted, the only place in their apartment free from surveillance was the bathtub—ironically, a space traditionally considered private. The lawsuit frames this as part of a broader trend where marginalized communities face heightened scrutiny through government-controlled surveillance tools.
The sensors, installed in late 2024, generated the same scale of data across roughly 300 CHRA units, according to the lawsuit. These readings include motion events, with some apartments logging over 1,300 daily movements. The data could identify sleep patterns or private activities, such as the case of a tenant whose midnight spike in sound and motion, a likely “highly personal” event, was captured between 2:57 and 3:15 a.m.
Property managers accessed real-time alerts and detailed tenant records via a mobile app, which CHRA officials used to monitor noise and air quality. Despite claims that motion-sensing features were never utilized, plaintiffs’ data shows the information was readily available to the agency. When one tenant questioned whether devices tracked movement, a property manager denied it, according to obtained emails.
