• No results found

Democracy in the smart city : a study of privacy, accountability, and equality in the smart city

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Democracy in the smart city : a study of privacy, accountability, and equality in the smart city"

Copied!
24
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Democracy in the smart city

A study of privacy, accountability, and equality in the smart city

"The truth about smart cities is [that] in the end, they will destroy democracy" - Leo Hollis (Poole, 2014)

by Emmie van der Veen (student number: 10617930), on 25 -06-2018 e-mail: emmievanderveen@me.com University of Amsterdam, Bachelorthesis Political Science (Politicologie) First reader: Gordon Arlen Second reader: Eric Schliesser


(2)

Introduction

Urbanization is growing. With more people living in cities every year, the strain on their living environment presents new challenges. Existing infrastructure is growing overtaxed, and it is difficult to adapt to the larger population, both in terms of governance and urban planning (Moore et al., 2003). The nature of these problems is often complicated, hard to define, and nested in other problems. These so-called "wicked problems" (Head & Alford, 2015) are not new, but their complexity and "wickedness" only increase along with the urban populations. In addition to having to adapt to a growing population and the challenges that alone brings, city governments are grappling with how to incorporate technological innovation effectively.

Especially Informational Technology (IT) has had a significant impact on how citizens live their lives, completely transforming the way we communicate in only a decade (boyd, 2014). This impact can also be observed in the phenomenon that brings IT and urban planning together: the smart city. Smart cities are cities where information technology and the "Internet Of Things" (smart appliances that connect to the internet to be able to 'learn' behavior) are used to manage and govern (Deakin, 2013). Through information technology, the smart city offers

opportunities to solve policy problems previously deemed unsolvable. This makes the smart city an attractive tool for governments, as is evident by the smart city initiatives all over the world. However, even though the possibilities are abundant, they are accompanied by concerns. Smart cities often fall victim to what Morozov (2013) calls solutionism: the promise that every problem, however wicked, can be solved by the use of the proper technology, overlooking real problems that information technology creates. In addition to this, the literature on smart cities addresses little governance issues (Chourabi et al., 2012). Critical literature questions whether the smart city is indeed possible, or if it will make good on its promises, but there is no

fundamental critique when it comes to governance issues. Also, even though the citizen plays a central role in the smart city, there is barely any literature on democracy in the smart city and

(3)

the ability of citizens to govern, even though the changes in functioning that accompany the transition to a smart city do influence democracy. This paper will speak about governance and the smart city, with a focus on three areas of concern: privacy, accountability, and equality.

Smart cities have an inherent problem with privacy. As the name implies, information technology makes use of large quantities of personal data. "Big Data" is a widely used umbrella term for various practices in which large amounts of data are the resources that are analyzed, traded, and computed. The outcomes of this analysis form the basis for strategic decisions. Big Data is the main ingredient in the smart city, and its operating principles stand in sharp contrast to the fundamental principles on which the legal right to privacy is founded (Brandeis &

Warren, 1890) (Morozov, 2013). In order to respect privacy, one is supposed to collect as little data as possible to achieve a pre-determined, specific purpose, and steps must be taken to ensure the data is accurate, to prevent false positives (Van der Sloot, 2015). In Big Data

practices, however, it is often the case that as much data is collected as possible, and afterward, the possibilities of the data determine the use. There is no goal specified beforehand, and if a dataset contains inaccuracies, it is often used regardless: even dirty data is useful if there is 1

enough of it (Choi et al., 2003). Considering the crucial role of privacy in democracy, it is a fitting first topic to examine in the context of the smart city. Accountability, the second topic, becomes a problem when too much of the decision-making power is delegated to the

information technology in the smart city. It is essential to map the mechanisms at work and see where and how accountability can be safeguarded in the smart city. The third topic, equality, is included because of the central place it has in democratic theory. Inequality is an issue that has gotten more recognition in society in recent years, and its detrimental effect on all-round well-being and prosperity (Wilkinson, 2013). The smart city might have a positive effect on the equality within a city; already, there are programs to that aim. However, the smart city risks becoming inaccessible and could create a new inequality by the way it operates.

Dirty data is a term describing datasets with reliability and/or validity problems of various natures.

(4)

This thesis aims to take a closer look at the role and functioning of democracy in the Smart city. Smart cities rely heavily on third-party knowledge and infrastructure, but because of the all-encompassing nature of the smart city, namely the full living environment, it is

imperative for the local government to keep some measure of governance. Due to a lack of in-house expertise on the rapidly developing informational technology, however, the city tends to fall short. There is an institutional gap here, one that is at risk of also becoming a democratic gap. However, the opportunities that the smart city offers are abundant, too. The question is: how do the democratic mechanisms of privacy, accountability and equality function in the smart city? To answer this, in this paper an extensive literature study has been conducted.

Current urbanization leaves no doubt that the future is the city. It seems that the future of the city is the smart city. Taking a closer look at the functioning of democracy within is long overdue.

(5)

What is the smart city?

With the term smart city becoming somewhat of a buzzword in policy-making circles, it is not surprising that the label 'smart city', rather than a simple political term or label used in policy making, has become a concept in itself, the usage of which is not always consistent (Chourabi et al., 2012, p. 2290). Conceptual research shows the many working definitions of the term, and the variations within them only illustrate how not two smart cities, much like regular cities, are the same. One of the metaphors that have been used to illustrate what a smart city is, is the organism:

"Smart cities are like organisms that develop an artificial nervous system, which enables them to behave in intelligently coordinated ways. The new intelligence of cities, then, resides in the increasingly effective combination of digital telecommunication networks (the nerves), ubiquitously embedded intelligence (the brains), sensors and tags (the sensory organs), and software (the knowledge and cognitive competence). "

(Chourabi et al., 2012, p. 2290)

The metaphor of the organism seems particularly fitting since the term 'smart' itself can be seen as a metaphor when it comes to non-personal entities like cities. The city is made up of thousands of things, objects, people, ideas, but forms one whole at the same time. This aspect- the embedded-ness of all components- is the most important identifier of the smart city. In academic research, all definitions have, in some form or another, two aspects in common: first, that a smart city integrates different aspects of urban planning efforts, recognizing that in a city, nothing exists in isolation; and second, the prominent role that Information- and

(6)

this paper, a smart city is therefore conceptualized as a city that makes use of Big Data Technology and the development of the Internet of Things to solve policy problems and organize the city more efficiently. The Internet of Things is the term used for the trend of having more and more household appliances equipped with sensors and connected to the internet. These appliances can then collect data on their users, and send that data to a company, who then uses it to improve their services. Think, for example, about a smart thermostat that learns from someone’s behavior and then automatically turns the heat up and down according to their living schedule. Big Data is a widely used umbrella term that includes various uses of aggregated data to analyze, usually utilizing algorithms. From an informatics standpoint, it does not differ from past statistical and other analysis in anything but scale. Computers nowadays have the capacity to process and store exponentially more data, which makes it possible to combine specific techniques of analysis and take more variables into account, to the point where some Big Data practices can calculate, for example, the moment in the week women in a particular age group feel most insecure about their body (Cukier & Mayer-Schönberger, 2013). In other words: Big Data adds

a level of accuracy and detail that was not possible before. 2

In the past, new technologies have always shaped the living environment and the practice of

policymaking. In what way do these data-driven technologies affect life in the smart city?

Nonetheless it is important to remember that Big Data in itself is not a data practice; instead, a smart city will

2

have programs that use many databases and combine algorithms to a specific end, and those practices then fall under the umbrella of Big Data.

(7)

Chourabi et al. (2012) identify eight core components of smart city Initiatives: management and organization, technology, governance, policy context, people and communities, economy, built infrastructure, and natural environment. The relationships between these different components and the ways they influence each other are explained in an integrative framework (see figure 1). A distinction is made between two levels of influence, with the three most influential factors in the inner circle and the five remaining factors that influence the smart city initiative in a more indirect manner, in the outer circle these different areas both shape the smart city and change as a result of the functioning of the smart city.

There is no one right way or optimal recipe to make the transition to a smart city, precisely because of the diverse nature of these factors. There are, however, some minimal requirements that are needed even to begin to consider a city on their way to becoming a smart

city. A physical infrastructure comprised of sensors and cameras is necessary to collect the data

that is the foundation for smart policies. The data this infrastructure generates then needs to be stored and computed. This process requires computing power, servers, and most importantly, expertise to manage. While this seems overwhelming, in reality, many cities have some of the infrastructures already in place in the form of traffic control cameras, speed sensors and security cameras. Lamp posts and traffic lights are strategic places to quickly expand on the existing sensor network, for they are placed at regular intervals all over the city. These

requirements are well within the realm of possibilities for most cities. It is trickier, however, to process and compute the data in a way that is useful and workable, and to have the expertise to understand, manage, and improve such a system, let alone develop one. Parties that are experts on developing systems using vast quantities of data are mostly tech companies with the internet as their revenue model. Experts include parties such as Google and Facebook, but also internet and telecom providers like KPN and Verizon, and big all-round Technology Companies like IBM and Microsoft. These are all possible partners who can be contracted to make the smart city a reality. A public-private partnership between the city government and private companies

(8)

for matters of this scale is everything but unusual; local governments outsource services of all kinds via a multitude of ways (Hollands, 2008). Public-private partnerships are often perceived as a positive way to bring the efficiency of commercial parties into government, without the negative connotations associated with ‘privatization' (Hollands, 2008), but at the same time, they are criticized for hollowing out the public services that governments should provide (Savas, 2000).

This critique, along with the potential conflict of interest that exists between

government and corporation, or between corporation and citizen, is very relevant when looking at the outsourcing of the smart city data computing systems. Internet Tech companies that provide free services do so by collecting enormous amounts of user data which are then sold or analyzed in one way or another to provide advertisers with the knowledge to target their audience very specifically. In terms of a business model, users are not the company's

customers; they are their product. When such a party plays a significant role in the development of the living space of people, it presents a conflict of interests right from the start. The citizen wants a safe and livable city, and the company wants citizen's data to make money off.

Informational capitalism

A phenomenon that is important, with regard to the public-private partnership between the smart city and tech companies, is the commodification of personal data. As briefly described in the above paragraph, the business model of tech companies is not to get paid for a service they provide; it is by collecting, handling and computing large amounts of data and turning that into a product that may be sold. Radin (1996, pp. 5-6, pp. 118) discusses in her book four

comprehensive criteria for commodities: they have to be interchangeable against other

commodities, objectified, functional, and they must have value on a scale that is translatable to a monetary value (Rössler, 2015, p. 147). When applying this to data, we see precisely this

(9)

happen: personal data becomes objectified, in other words, it is made into something separate from the person from whom it originated. Many services are based on personal data, the most widespread one being targeted advertising. It is exchanged for services, like on Facebook and Google, where users create free profiles and make use of the various services the companies provide, in return allowing the companies to mine their data. Those companies then sell the data to advertisers, which fulfills the final criterium and shows personal data has a monetary value. So, the market has been brought in to the realm of personal data and privacy (Van der Veen, 2017).

This mechanism and the speed with which it has become nearly ubiquitous in the digital world has prompted scholars to coin the term informational capitalism to describe this

phenomenon (Morozov, 2013). The neo-Marxist urban theory has before critiqued cities for being a capitalist mode of production, saying cities should be recognized as such in the Marxist theoretical framework (Yingxiang, 2006). The smart city takes this argument further by

introducing informational capitalism.

Considering this, how does this affect the role of the citizen? The citizen has a particular relationship with their government; but they also have a relationship to the third party that is involved with organizing the smart city, as a user. As the divide between these actors becomes less clear, how will the role of the citizen change?

(10)

Democracy in the smart city

How do we conceptualize democracy? Political theorists have been thinking about democracy for at least two thousand years, and yet, a consensus on what the concept embodies has not yet been reached. Rather than addressing these long-standing theoretical questions, this paper will focus on the functioning of democracy in the context of the smart city. The smart city itself exists in the context of consolidated liberal democracy, The Netherlands, and therefore, the topic of this paper is naturally relevant for broader debates about the form and function of liberal democracy.

A democracy is a form of governance that enables collective decision making according to some principle of political equality. Political equality assumes that every member of

democracy is equally qualified to participate in the decision-making process (Dahl, 1998). Dahl identifies five principles characteristic of an ideal democracy: effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda and inclusion of adults (Dahl 1998, pp. 37–38). Each of these principles is necessary to ensure the political equality of all members of the democracy. Dahl constructed these principles with an ideal society in mind but does think they are also practically applicable as a tool to assess democratic organizations and states.

In Democratic Innovations; Designing Institutions For Citizen Participation (2009), Graham Smith constructs an analytical framework to compare and evaluate democratic innovations. To this end, he introduces four democratic goods: inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgment, and transparency. Smith suggests that these goods embody Dahls five classic criteria, but he takes Dahl’s argument further. Smith wishes to construct a framework for assessing real-world democratic institutions, and to this end, he adds two more goods of a more institutional nature to the list: transferability and efficiency. These goods make sure that democratic innovations that are entirely impractical are not wrongfully celebrated (Smith, 2009, p.13).

(11)

Democratic values: privacy, accountability, and equality

The introduction explained that privacy, accountability, and equality are relevant values to evaluate in the context of a smart city. However, in what way are they valuable for democracy?

Looking back at the principle of political equality, we see that in suggesting that every member is equally qualified to participate in the decision-making process, it is implied that making political decisions in itself is not a skill someone can perfect above others: that every citizen has some claim to political equality by merely being that particular citizen. This idea of political equality helps inspire the democratic principles and goods mentioned earlier. Along with this, the democratic good 'considered judgement', and, along with that, the democratic principle 'enlightened understanding' show that in a democracy, there must also be the possibility for the citizen to educate themselves; that there is a need to be able to develop oneself and one's ideas and values. For this function, privacy is essential.

The mechanics of this are illustrated by what is initially a literary term: the flattening of

character. Originally mostly used in a prison setting, both based on practical models and

hypothetical ones like Bentham's Panopticon, but nowadays also used in the debates on the surveillance state, the term flattening of character refers to the way constant surveillance makes people conform to a norm to the degree of losing their personality; their character becomes flat (Lanzing, 2016). People conform to the same set of norms and adopt the same character. But not only individual privacy has a vital part to play in a democracy. Collective privacy and the privacy of groups have historically been essential in any civil rights movement. As a classic negative liberty, Rössler describes the role of privacy as "the ability to tell your government: this is none of your business." (Rössler, 2005). Ultimately, the value of privacy in a democracy is not what it hides, but what it protects: freedom.

Accountability plays a far less subtle role in a democracy than privacy does; as Warren (2014, p. 41) states in the Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, "Democratic

(12)

accountability is […] inherent in the representation cycle: authorization constitutes and

empowers representatives who are then held to account for their decisions." Warren then even goes on to say: "democracy could not be conceived, let alone practiced, without vast and

complex webs of accountabilities between people and those who govern on their behalf and in their name" (Warren, 2014, p. 41)

Even when thinking about democracy as an ideal, there is almost always some form of

delegation of power. The democratic principle that all people affected by a collective decision

should have a say in that decision to an equivalent degree (Warren, 2014, p. 40), implies that every citizen has some decisive power. That power is delegated to an agent, who is tasked with carrying out the decision, or, more often, to represent the citizen's needs in deciding on their behalf.

The citizens depend on this agent or representative to exercise their power. This 3

dependence makes them vulnerable to the representative. To counter that, they need to be held accountable for their actions. In this way, accountability is the connection between the

individuals entitled to influence and the ones representing them and acting on their behalf (Borowiak 2011, 11). The representative is empowered via a process of authorization (for example, an election) and the constituents are empowered by accountability: their ability to hold their representatives to account for their decisions (Warren, 2014).

In practice, accountability needs to be institutionalized in a democracy. To make good on the abstract promises of accountability institutional arrangements need to exist via which citizens can demand an account. Bureaucracies are in some ways an institutional system of accountability: by describing governing offices, their duties, their place in the hierarchical structure, and the limits to their authority and power, they provide tangible guidelines for government officials to adhere to and make it easier to carry out checks and balances.

This dependency is what Warren terms the vulnerability to power.

(13)

Therefore, achieving adequate accountability structures is an increasingly important governance challenge for contemporary democracies.

How do these come together? The next section will examine these three concepts in the context of a smart city and systematically look at what the pitfalls and opportunities are for each of them in a governing sense. The aim of this chapter is twofold. On the one hand, to help city governments become aware of specific pitfalls, so they can take steps to avoid or counter these. Secondly, to provide the city government with a starting point from which to work with by showing the opportunities that each of these concepts could provide for the smart city.

The role of privacy in the smart city

Privacy in the context of the smart city must be viewed as a matter of how citizens interact with the world around them, and the freedoms that exist or do not exist in those interactions. As Daniel Solove states: "Part of what makes a society a good place in which to live is the extent to which it allows people freedom from the intrusiveness of others. A society without privacy protection would be suffocating, and it might not be a place in which most would want to live." (Solove, 2015) However, what privacy makes a city 'breathable'?

In her book Privacy in Context (2010), Nissenbaum explains how one's expectations of privacy is mostly dependent on the context in which they live. If someone asks another person to look in his or her handbag, this is met with a completely different reaction in a grocery store than if it were to happen at an airport. When looking at personal data, we see how the context of a business transaction is applied, primarily, to the perceived context of social interaction. To illustrate: people use social media to keep in touch with their friends, and using this data for a business transaction is therefore inappropriate (Nissenbaum, 2010, ch. 8)(Van der Veen, 2017). In other words, the areas of life of which the functionality is enhanced or replaced by technology,

(14)

are changed on a fundamental level, too, while still occupying the same place in people's lives with the perceived context that goes along with it.

As a result, privacy boundaries established by the traditional contexts start to blur. The differences between the contexts change or even completely disappears. If walking in the street using Google Maps, our perceived context is that we are moving through a public space, but the context is also generating geodata for a company that monetizes that data: a business transaction. The data mining that has invaded nearly all contexts of life has turned many aspects of daily life into business transactions. This process is called decontextualization or context

collapse (Lanzing, 2016).

The city is a thousand different contexts in itself, one of which is our home. A place that historically, notably has been private, and is the base for the concept of privacy in a legal sense (Rössler, 2005). If the smart city wishes to be(come) this as well, it should be aware of, and protect, the different contexts that exist in the city. Because of the nature of

interconnectedness of the smart city, it is at high risk for context collapse. Taking the affected contexts into account is therefore essential to do early in the policymaking process.

Opportunities

One way smart city projects can avoid context collapse, and can build a strong foundation in its general privacy policy, is by using Privacy by Design. Privacy by Design is a theory that originates in product design, but nowadays also has a firm foothold in other sectors, one among them being policymaking. The most important idea is that in order for something, be it policies or products, to be genuinely privacy conscious, the element of privacy must be at the very core of

(15)

the design itself. It is not a sauce one can add at the end and be done with it, because then the dangers of function creep will still be present. 4

Because smart cities are incredible technology- and data-based, building policies while making use of privacy by design is of the utmost importance. But not only will it help prevent the adverse effects of context collapse and a general erosion of privacy, but it will also provide the city with a solid base on which to continue to build new policies with the technology of the future.

The role of accountability in the smart city

Pitfalls

Earlier in the thesis, it was suggested that accountability is vital in securing democratic influence after delegating power to a representative. In a smart city, however, there is another delegation of power: that of the people to technology. This delegation is, of course, not new. In a way, the technology exists for the purpose of delegating tasks to it. Technology is better at many things than any human, especially in terms of efficiency and productivity, which is in part why the smart city holds so much appeal. Algorithms already are a determining factor in many transportation issues, and in the smart city, nearly everything would to some extent be determined by algorithms and software. But what does this mean for accountability?

If software makes a decision, who is responsible? The programmer who wrote the code? The government agency who assigned it? The third party who funded it? The team of people overseeing the process? It is a near-impossible question to answer, because even the people developing the technology, often do not fully understand it. In an interview in 2016,

Function creep is the phenomenon where products designed for one thing get used for another, completely 4

unintended goal. Cameras placed next to highways might initially be only installed for fining speeding cars, they are now used in some places by the Belastingdienst (the Dutch taxation authority) to investigate fraud in vehicle taxes. This expanding use is an example of function creep. smart cities run a very high risk of function creep in their policies because the sensors used are capable of much more than the goal for which they are initially placed.

(16)

Paul Haahr of Google said that even they did not fully understand its query interpretation algorithm. So in the smart city context, policy decisions might be managed part by technology for which nobody can be held fully accountable. Remembering the role of accountability in a democracy, this is alarming. When there is a delegation of power but no accountability, citizens are left powerless, and democracy does not exist. With the development of the smart city, it is of the utmost importance to strengthen existing and develop new accountability systems to safeguard accountability in the smart city. Also, to only delegate decisions of a tactical nature, that concern collective inefficiencies to technology, and not ones of a strategic nature, that concern individual gains and losses. In a democracy, in some cases, the delegation of choices becomes abdication, because to govern is to choose (Washburn, 2017).

Opportunities

Governments can prevent these problems for an essential part by understanding the boundaries of power delegation. By focusing their resources on technology that will improve communal efficiencies on a level of only tactical decision making, municipalities could benefit significantly from what the smart city has to offer in this regard, without sacrificing citizens autonomy and governmental accountability. Besides this, governments should take great care to understand what technology is being used, how, and why, and make this information public.

(17)

The role of equality in the smart city

Pitfalls

Smart cities can potentially solve many inequalities, but they can also reinforce existing inequalities, or even create new ones. The poor may become the information poor- a lack of resources translates easily so the smart city (Smith, 2009). How accessible is the smart city for the homeless, the disabled? There still is a number of people who do not use the internet. This 5

inequality is now often presented as only a generational problem, but what if there always will be a group within society that either is not able to use the internet or wishes to remain

anonymous and offline to some degree (Taylor et al., 2016)? Is that something to be punished for by the city in which they live? Do we want people to have the freedom to choose to live anonymously in a city? When the smart city continues without regards to these questions, it might very well drive the less tech-savvy citizens away: data gentrification.

To navigate this problem, Taylor et al. ask the question: what kind of governance of digital data creates an equal playing field for the elderly, the young, the vulnerable, and the marginalized? A first step in answering this question when making policy would be to think of the accessibility of service first, and then look at ways technology can assist, instead of the other way around. As Taylor states: "Data infrastructures [need to] open the city to the people, not the people to the city" (Taylor et al., 2016, pp. 29-30).

Another pitfall for the smart city when it comes to inequality is the individualism that it perpetuates. The focus of the smart city is on improving efficiency within the city, but those improvements are often very much aimed at the individual. Since a city is a collective entity, this can lead to complications. As Washburn illustrates: "A city is a communal creation, and a city cannot perform from everyone’s perspective as if they were the only one that mattered. The

The digital divide is the term most often used for the difference between the populace that has fully embraced

5

(18)

light cannot turn green in both directions. The elevator cannot be waiting on every floor. Decisions have to be made about which direction and which floor, and those decisions, even in small ways, effectively create winners and losers." (Washburn, 2017) This way, the smart city's algorithms can create new inequalities, a new subset of 'losers'. The sense of infinite

improvement that the smart city perpetuates is false. The focus of the smart city is mostly on improving efficiency and effectiveness, and the increased citizen participation that IT has made possible has not been realized to its potential. To shift the focus of the city towards equality and democracy, would give it a stronger foundation in the future.

(19)

Conclusion & discussion

Smart cities, in their nature, pose a threat to democracy, and action is necessary to ensure the continued functioning of the democracy in the smart city. While the smart city has a lot to offer in terms of functionality and efficiency, it has a troubled relationship with three concepts that essential to democracy: privacy, accountability, and equality. However, the development of the smart city comes with an atmosphere of change and optimism, and this should be utilized to implement policies that both prevent these problems and advance democracy in the smart city. Most opportunities come from the way the smart city integrates different facets of governance. This holistic approach can tackle a problem from different sides, and promises to be more effective in its solutions. A way to be mindful of the problems that arise from the smart city itself would be to let the goals and ideas determine the technology and not the other way around. It is not an easy task. However, as everything in the city innovates, its democracy should, too.

This paper was a first step towards analyzing the democracy in the smart city. For

policymakers, it could be beneficial to do a case study on policies, using these criteria. That way, there could be more practical tips included. This paper could also be the basis for an evaluation of a smart city initiative. A case study of a smart city could offer insights that this paper's more theoretical approach does not offer. In general, this paper could raise more awareness regarding the importance of protecting privacy when it comes to transitioning towards a smart city. A fully realized smart city has virtually no room for privacy, but if privacy is considered early in the process, this does not have to be the case.

Because this paper addresses the smart city as a phenomenon, this research was limited to general observations about the functioning and values of the city. Therefore, it cannot do justice to the diversity of the smart cities in existence. Moreover, a literature study is always

(20)

open to further revision as there are always additional theories to further explore and elaborate on the argument.

For further research, it is therefore recommended to study additional literature to provide a more comprehensive understanding of practical measures that could incorporate democratic innovations and safeguards for privacy, accountability, and equality.


(21)

Bibliography

• boyd, d. (2010). "Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances,


Dynamics, and Implications." In Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on

Social Network Sites (ed. Zizi Papacharissi), pp. 39-58

• boyd, d. and Crawford, K.. (2012). "Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon."

• Brandeis & Warren (1980) The Right To Privacy.

• Caragliu, A; Del Bo, C.; Nijkamp, P (2009). "Smart cities in Europe". Serie Research Memoranda

0048. VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and

Econometrics.

• Cukier, K.; Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2013) Big Data- a review. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

• Choi, B; Hong, E; Kim, S.; Kim, W.; Lee, D (2003) A taxonomy of dirty data. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 7, pp. 81–99

• Deakin, M.; Al Waer, H.. "From Intelligent to Smart Cities". Journal of Intelligent Buildings International: From Intelligent Cities to Smart Cities. 3 (3). doi:

10.1080/17508975.2011.586671.

• Deakin, M. (2013-08-22). "From intelligent to smart cities". In: Smart Cities: Governing,

Modelling and Analysing the Transition. Taylor and Francis. p. 15

• Van Dijck, J. (2004) Composing the Self. Of Diaries and Lifelogs. Fibreculture journal, 3

• Dubnick, M. (2014) Accountability as a cultural keyword. In: The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford University Press: Oxford

• Fitzgerald, M (2016) Data-Driven City Management: A Close Look At Amsterdams Smart city Initiative. In: MITSloan: Massachusetts

(22)

• Head, Brian & John Alford (2015) Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management. Administration & Society 47(6) 711–739

• Hollands, R. G. (2008) Will the real smart city please stand up? Retrieved on: 4-6-2018 from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13604810802479126. Routledge: New York and London

• Johnson, B. (2008). Cities, systems of innovation and economic development. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 10(2-3), 146-155.

• Koot et al. (2010) A study on the re-identifiability of Dutch citizens

• Lanzing, M. (2016) The transparent self. Published under a Creative Commons license at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10676-016-9396-y.pdf

• Moore, M., Gould P. and Keary, B. (2003) Global urbanization and impact on health. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 206, pp. 269-278

• Morozov, E. (2013) The Real Privacy Problem. (MIT Tech. Review, 22/10/2013) • Morozov, E. To save everything, click here.

• Nissenbaum, H. (2010) Privacy in Context. Stanford University Press • Radin, M. (1996). Contested commodities. Harvard University Press: Boston

• Reiman, J. & Leighton, P. (2016) The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, And

Criminal Justice. Routledge: New York

• Rössler, B. and Mokrosinska, D.M. (eds.) The Social Value of Privacy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Rössler, B. (2015). Should personal data be a tradable good? On the moral limits of 


markets in privacy’, pp. 141-161 in: Social Dimensions of Privacy. Cambridge University Press.

• Rössler, B. (2005), The Value of Privacy. Polity Press: Cambridge

• Savas, E. (2000) Privatization and public-private partnerships. Adapted from: E. S. Savas, Privatization in the City: Successes, Failures, Lessons (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2005), chapter 1

(23)

• Schwarz, B. (2016) Interview with Google's Paul Haahr. retrieved on 4-6-2018, at: https:// www.seroundtable.com/google-dont-understand-rankbrain-21744.html

• Sloot, B. van der (2015) Privacy as Personality Right: Why the ECtHR’s Focus on Ulterior Interests

Might Prove Indispensable in the Age of “Big Data” Utrecht Journal of International and

European Law 25, pp. 25-50

• Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations. Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Solove, D.J. (2015) 'The Meaning and Value of Privacy', pp. 71-81 in B.

• Sweeney, L. (2001). Computational disclosure control: a primer on data privacy protection. PhD thesis,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Supervisor: Abelson, Hal.

• Taylor, L. (2016) No place to hide? The ethics and analytics of tracking mobility using mobile phone data. Environment and Planning D - Society & Space

• Taylor, L. (2016) ‘Safety in numbers? Group privacy and big data analytics in the developing world’, in L. Taylor et al. (ed), ‘Group Privacy’.Taylor, L., Richter, C., Jameson, S., and Perez del Pulgar, C. (2016) ‘Customers, users or citizens? Inclusion, spatial data and governance in the smart city.’ Maps4Society Final Project Report. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2792565 • Taylor, Van der Sloot (2017) Group privacy: new challenges of data technologies

• Van der Veen, E. (2017) Better safe than sorry: an essay on the ethics of data commodification. UVA: Amsterdam

• Warren, M. (2014) Accountability and democracy. In: The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford University Press: Oxford

• Washburn, A. (2017) Are Smart Cities Doomed To Promote Inequality? ArchDaily, retrieved on 30-06-2018 from https://www.archdaily.com/880506/are-smart-cities-doomed-to-promote-inequality

• Wilkinson, R. (2013). How economic inequality harms society. TEDx-talk. Retrieved on: 4-6-2018 at: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-dont-understand-rankbrain-21744.html

(24)

• Yingxiang, Z. (2006) Capitalist and urban social change- perspective of Neo-Marxist urban theory. Beijing: Tsinghua Tongfang Knowledge Network Technology Co

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

A highly cited definition of smart city that incorporates many of these elements is “a city is smart when investments in human and social capital and traditional

We identified two necessary and 5 “intensity” items and propose an algorithm that translates these items into a single smartc-city index (SCI) that expresses the degree to which

Hij beschrijft in dez e serie v erschill ende methoden die kunnen worden toegepast bij vegetat iekundi g onderzoek in netuurtuinen.. We hebben deze artike lenserie voor u

The main question of this research therefore is: “Do governments, businesses, and academics in smart city Groningen deal with privacy differently?” To answer

Heel veel uitdagingen waar we voor staan, daar hebben we wel wat ideeën over, de antwoorden die je zou kunnen geven maar waar men niet precies weet wat voor antwoorden er

Stockholm answered to mainly focus on the Smart City components: smart locks, smart traffic and smart lighting. Although it was not mentioned as one of the

The exchange of data is made possible by these functional building blocks such as tags that identify citizen, sensors that collect data about citizens, actuators

In deze para- graaf schets ik twee andere belangrijke manieren waarop smart cities in schril contrast staan met Lefebvres recht op de stad: door het uit- bannen van verschil