A tenant in a subsidized apartment in Concord, New Hampshire, had spent nearly a decade treating their home as a sanctuary—a place to heal from trauma and homelessness. Then, a small white device detached from the ceiling near their bed.
Initially, they assumed it was a smoke detector. Upon closer inspection, however, they identified it as a Minut monitor, a product from Sweden designed to track movement, noise levels, and even signs of smoking or vaping within private residences. The device could also detect moisture, Bluetooth signals from Apple products, and, over time, construct a detailed profile of daily routines.
The tenant, who requested anonymity to avoid retaliation, described feeling “physically repulsed” upon learning the device’s full capabilities. “This had been a place where I was able to recover from a decade of trauma. But this has completely destroyed my trust in [public] housing,” they said.
A lawsuit filed September 2 by the ACLU, ACLU of New Hampshire, and New Hampshire Legal Assistance accuses the Concord Housing and Redevelopment Authority (CHRA) of installing these monitors in approximately 300 units without fully explaining their functions. The devices, marketed as “smoke detectors,” actually collect data, including motion, noise patterns, and behaviors that could expose sensitive personal activities.
How invisible surveillance traps tenants
Unlike overt surveillance tools such as cameras, Minut devices integrate seamlessly into living spaces, making their invasive nature less apparent. The lawsuit highlights that companies like Minut, HALO, and Alertify promote these systems to short-term rental providers, but public housing agencies deploy them to enforce lease terms, such as prohibitions on smoking or excessive noise. A single alert, whether for noise violations or unauthorized occupants, can serve as evidence in cases where housing stability depends on compliance.
Read Also: Phoenix Street Medicine Teams Face New Local Restrictions
Christopher Schott, director of the Fair Housing Project at New Hampshire Legal Assistance, framed the dilemma bluntly: “For tenants residing in public housing, their option here is, ‘You can live in this apartment that you can actually afford, but you have to be surveyed,’” he says. “And if you don’t agree to that, you don’t have a house.” The choice for tenants is between being surveyed or being homeless.
A disabled tenant receiving Social Security benefits nearly faced eviction after refusing to have the device reinstalled. The CHRA initially pursued legal action to force entry, claiming the need to reinstall the monitor. Only after the tenant’s legal team raised privacy objections did the agency withdraw the case. The tenant said, “they wanted to use the courts to force entry into my home to reinstall a surveillance device they had not fully disclosed the features of nearly directly over my bed.”
HUD’s smoke-free policy masks deeper data collection
The CHRA insists the monitors were installed solely to enforce HUD smoke-free policies and address noise concerns. Executive director Julie Palmeri stated in a statement that the agency “never accessed, viewed, or utilized motion-sensing features.” However, documents obtained by the plaintiffs reveal that such data was indeed collected and stored.
Michele Gilman, a law professor at the University of Baltimore specializing in poverty and surveillance, described the devices as capable of compiling data on motion, noise, and even sleep patterns, information that can expose deeply personal habits. “There are a lot of data points here that are being collected; and aggregated; and, apparently, retained without any limitation,” she says.
The lawsuit seeks the removal of all monitors from CHRA units and the deletion of any collected data. Schott called the case “a shot across the bow to make sure, nationally, that other housing authorities aren’t doing this or something like it.”
