Data Walk: Seeing Data Flows in Utrecht
11–05–2019
On the 11th May, Sensor Lab and Utrecht Data School hosted a ‘Data Walk’ to raise awareness about data collection in Utrecht. “Which sensors and technologies in public space are collecting data and how can we, as citizens, actively participate or intervene in this process?” was the leading question of the event. Here’s how it went:
Introduction
We hosted the Data Walk as part of our research program “Demystifying the Smart City”. Although “Smart City” is a term used by city planners, geographers, municipalities and tech companies, citizens often have neither heard of the concept nor could they explain what it encompasses. That’s why we first gave an introductory presentation on the concept of Smart Cities and discussed what kind of data is used by municipalities and how they are collected in visible and invisible ways. Here are some examples:
Data Walking
Data Walking is a research project developed by the designer David Hunter and also used as a method by researcher Dr. Allison Powell. The first uses it for “exploring the potential of walking to gather environmental data and through multiple walks and visualisations build a rich picture of that area“, the latter as a way to “observe data mediations in the space of the city”. For our version we focused on observing how data is gathered in Utrecht’s public space.
For the walk, we have equipped each of the 3 groups with a map of a route through the city centre and the central station back to the Sensor Lab. Every group member got a task and was either the navigator of the group or the photographer, the note taker or the documenter of interesting objects, sensors etc. that sparked discussion in the environment.
During the walk with the theme ‘ownership’ each group of 4 persons conducted field research and mapped out city sensors and other forms of digitisation in public space to discuss its implications. After about an hour, the groups came back to the Sensor Lab and prepared short presentations with photos and their findings which they were keen to share and discuss with the other participants.
Presentations & Discussion
Experience of the participants during the walk
Most of the participants reported that their awareness on sensor technologies was raised during the walk. Although many of them walk daily on parts of the chosen route, they have only now noticed most of the sensors. Besides being an eye-opening experience, a few participants also stated that they would have expected to find even more sensors in public space.
Observations of sensors on the chosen route
- Sensors in cars
- Sensors used in the OV mobility network
- Cameras in the shopping mall Hoog Catharijne
- Cameras the city: used for mobility and security?
- Big grey cameras operated by the police in Utrecht
- Screen in Utrecht Centraal showing a new statement everyday
- Wi-Fi tracking (Utrecht Centraal)
- Bus stops: screens indicating waiting time
- Screens indicating available parking spots for cars or bikes
- Smart trash
- Bike share service (e.g. NS bikes)
- Uber eats ( GPS tracking of bikes, collection of orders etc.)
- Parking metres
- Fire alarms
- Solar panels
Unidentified objects
Whereas the participants reported on many different sensors, there were still some they could not identify. Two of those can be seen on the following photos:
The photo on the left was found in Hoog Catharijne, the one on the right in Utrecht Centraal. A suggestion for the one on the left was an object detector or counter which might allow to track how many people pass through this part of the mall. However, the participants were not sure and could not find any information about the sensors in the given space.
Questions raised
Following are some of the questions raised by the participants during the presentations and discussion:
- Is it clear for citizens that a certain place is being watched?
- Regarding smart waste bins: We somehow own the trash that we’re throwing away and reveal personal information about us in a way. How do smart waste bins work exactly? What kind of information is collected about my behavior? How does the municipality interpret that?
- Observation: In Utrecht are various sensors from different owners
- How and with whom do the owners of the sensors share collected data? We do not have any insights when the sensors do not belong to the municipality.
- Are all of the sensors and data actually used? Does that matter? Who are the owners of the sensors that we see in public space?
- Where is the data stored? In Utrecht, in the Netherlands, somewhere else in the world?
- How long is the data stored for?
- Are there any hidden sensors we do not know about?
- How can we use the sensors in public space?
- How can we see what the sensors in public space are used for?
- Example: WiFi tracking at Utrecht Centraal for example: What’s the purpose of the WiFi tracking? Are personal data collected? Should that data be open data?
Topics of discussion
Cameras & surveillance — feeling safe or watched?
Probably the biggest topic of discussion concerned surveillance. All participants reported on many cameras in public space, especially around the central station (see photo below). Given this high number of cameras, they were wondering whether they are only used for safety issues and crowd control or also for monitoring purposes in the context of the reconstruction of the area around the central station for example. “Are all of the cameras used or are some of them only for prevention? And are there more cameras where criminality is expected?” were some of the queries.
Additionally, some participants were wondering if there was some sort of pride involved in showing the ownership of cameras / means of surveillance. They have reported on one example found at the construction site at the Jaarbeursplein. On a big sign, the security company proudly and visibly brands the act of public surveillance. Interestingly, the other sensors did barely have any branding. Those sensors’ owners are not easily identifiable at all.
Against the background of surveillance, the participants discussed whether they rather felt safe or watched. Interestingly, their feelings changed towards different types of cameras. Especially the big grey cameras operated by the municipality/police which are easily discernible were rather well accepted as the participants supposed they were used under certain conditions only. On the contrary, the attitude towards other cameras operated by commercial owners, was more biased. Concerns were raised as the participants supposed the commercial owners might not follow rules as strictly if they are not controlled. Additionally, the fact of not knowing the owners of the cameras and their aim confused and annoyed many as reads the following quote:
“why is it the information about this so hidden, why is it so difficult to find the information? Are they proud having the cameras there or is it something they don’t want to know us discover, to know about? It’s not very transparent, the whole thing.”
Even the abovementioned grey cameras owned by the municipality, of which a total of 60 cameras are located in the city, would only indicate a serial number and a telephone number to call, which to some participants was too little information about the use of the given cameras.
At the same time, and a little contradictory, some participants reported first on their annoyance with the overload of cameras and lack in transparency, but did also mention how the cameras make them feel safe. Although surprised to discover so many cameras at the Jaarbeursplein during the Data Walk, one participant said laughing: “oh that’s a safe place where I could leave my bike actually (laughs)”, which shows the mixed feelings about the use of cameras for surveillance.
Suggestions: improved communication, augmented reality
A suggestion for improvement was, most importantly, to better communicate and inform about the sensors in public space, especially if operated by the municipality. Clearly visible branding of the municipality’s sensors in public space would be the first step. Additionally, it could be helpful to develop an app using augmented reality which would show the owners and use of sensors in public space. This could be a convenient option for smartphone users to understand what kind of data the sensors in public space collect.
Moreover, we were lucky to have the Advisor for Data Ethics Technology & Society of the municipality of Utrecht amongst the participants. She shared with us how the Data Walk inspired her to reflect on the issues at stake from a broader, citizen-led perspective. To her, the Data Walk was a nice opportunity to see and experience the questions at stake together with citizens. In her group, the participants discussed that it would be important to have better, two-way communication between the municipality and citizens, to open up the dialogue about the use and goals of sensors in public space. They understood that, otherwise, the lack of transparency can lead to frustration amongst citizens. According to her, the sensors are mostly used to improve the city or its services for residents and she also acknowledges that this is often not transparently communicated. Thus, it will be important to involve residents more in technological solutions in the city. For that end, she envisions more citizen participation events like citizen panels to open up the discussion.
My work now is to see how we can have an ethical smart city or a democratic one from inside the municipality. […] That’s what I’ve learned now from walking in this group, that we should have a broader discussion, also with the people that know a lot about the techniques [eg. providers of sensor technologies]. […] And we have to make sure how the public wants to be informed about this [use of sensor technologies in public space]. How can we make this really an inclusive open city? Because now, it’s more like either companies or the municipality decide: this is a camera, and there are a lot of them as we saw. But how can we make this a discussion and then see how it add value to a city and our society? So it should be more open and clearer why it [sensors] is there.
Advisor for Data Ethics Technology & Society of the municipality of Utrecht
On WiFi tracking
As explained above, WiFi tracking means that people can be tracked using the signal from their mobile devices like smartphones and tablets. On the chosen route for the Data Walk, Utrecht Centraal was the only location that would use WiFi tracking. However, the participants had to look out for the information. In one case, the information shown on the photo was hidden behind a trash can which makes you wonder if passers-by are really encouraged to read the information. Against this background, one group reported how surprised they were to see that the icon about the WiFi tracking was the very last and least visible of the list. To them, this correlates with the order of importance that might be given to this practice, at least how it is communicated to the public. The biggest concern linked to this practice was that WiFi tracking can be personalized if the operators of the tracking system combine other personal data with it.
When asked how they would feel about WiFi tracking in the entire city centre, the participants gave mixed answers. Some said they would be okay with it as long as they would be properly informed about the practice and goals. Others stated how, in that case, they would prefer cameras over WiFi tracking: Although cameras film your whereabouts in the city, they still only track one moment of your history and cannot recognize you yet. WiFi tracking however can keep track of the entire route you take in the city. However, if you switch your phone to airplane mode or do not take it with you at all, you would not be concerned.
Ownership: open data, appropriating the city, hidden sensors
During the discussion, the participants mentioned different aspects linked to the topic “ownership”. The main concerns, also stated at the beginning of this article, involved questions like “who are the owners of sensors?”, “who do they share the data with?”, “can we have access to the data?”, “where is the data stored?”, “how long is it stored for?”, “how much data collected by the municipality should be open data?”. Additionally, a participant was raising the question if there might be hidden sensors we do not know about. For example, citizen sensing in the centre by inhabitants (who could monitor noise for example). Or a cable net operator who could use Internet routers also for other purposes than just providing internet connection. Those would be two different examples in which either the citizens have all the control over data as they are sensing them themselves. Or, in the second scenario, a big company would gather lots of data without the awareness or consent of the residents. As those questions remained unanswered, the wish to reappropriate the city and the collected data grew stronger. A participant suggested that, rather than only using data for services like crowd control and safety or optimizing city operations like mobility and energy use, it would be nice to be able to play with this data and “make funny things with it”. So that citizens regain some control over the data and use it to make their city more liveable rather than optimized and over-controlled.
Conclusion
In summary, the Data Walk showed to be a creative approach to raise awareness on the topic of data collection. All the participants were eager to discover and document sensors and discuss about data in their groups during the data walk. During the following presentations of their findings, we had a lively discussion as summarized above. Essentially, it seemed that citizens do not question but enjoy the use of technologies in their city as long as they benefit from it. Examples given were informative bus stop screens, or those used to indicate free parking spots for bikes and cars, free WiFi or the OV network. However, in the context of Smart Cities, many sensor technologies are in use like cameras and object detectors and citizens often do not know what the sensors in public space are used for. It is especially this lack in knowledge of the citizens and lack of transparency by the municipality and sensor operators which confuses and annoys many citizens as reported our participants. For the future, it would be nice if the sensor operators were more transparent and communicative about the data and data collection procedures. As confirmed by the Advisor of Data Ethics Technology & Society of the municipality of Utrecht, especially the municipality should invest in more two-way communication with citizens about the issues at stake and involve them in decision-making about the use of technologies in their city.
