Smart city technologies and citizens’ privacy: Research into the influence of smart city technology on citizens’ privacy in Scheveningen

(1)

I

Smart city technologies

and citizens’ privacy

Research into the influence of smart city

technology on citizens’ privacy in Scheveningen

(2)

II

SMART CITY TECHNOLOGIES AND CITIZENS’ PRIVACY

Research into the influence of smart city technology on citizens’

privacy in Scheveningen

Institute for Security and Global Affairs

Leiden University – Faculty Governance and Global Affairs

Master Thesis

12 January 2020

Author: Marguerite Hopmans – s2411717

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

Department: Crisis and Security Management

Leiden University, Turfmarkt 99, The Hague

Email: m.c.a.hopmans@umail.leidenuniv.nl

Thesis supervisor: Dr. Vlad Niculescu-Dincă

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

Institute of Security and Global Affairs

Department: Crisis and Security Management

Leiden University, Turfmarkt 99, The Hague

Email: v.niculescu-dinca@ffga.leidenuniv.nl

Second reader: Dr. Tommy van Steen

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

Institute of Security and Global Affairs

Department: Crisis and Security Management

Leiden University, Turfmarkt 99, The Hague

Email: t.vansteen@ffga.leidenuniv.nl

Word count : 20.700 (from introduction up to and including the conclusion)

Source frontpage : Buitenstijl (n.d.). Lichtmasten boulevard Scheveningen.

(3)

III

Foreword

Dear reader,

The past few months I have been busy doing research on privacy and smart city technologies. I have written this thesis in the context of the master Crisis and Security Management at Leiden University. I started this research out of curiosity into Smart Cities, after which I wrote two essays on the topic during the course Governance of Cyber Security. Immediately I knew that this was topic I would want to write my thesis about. A bonus is that I can combine my previous education on Human Geography and the knowledge I gained during my master on cyber, security and privacy. I hope that I can transfer this knowledge and provide you with some insights on the influence smart city technologies can have on citizens’ ideas on privacy.

I would like to thank my supervisor Vlad Niculescu-Dincă for the support and inspiration for writing my thesis and providing me with the opportunity to meet other scholars in the field of smart cities. I also want to thank the people at the neighborhood center Kommunika to get me in touch with local Scheveningers. Next to this I want to thank the fourteen respondents that wanted to be interviewed by me. Without them this research would have been nothing more than a literature review and their input has created an empirical aspect to this. And lastly, I want to thank the other Capstone students to whom I could always turn with questions. All of you have contributed to this thesis.

I hope you enjoy reading my thesis. Marguerite Hopmans

(4)

IV

Abstract

English

Privacy is a complex topic that is dynamic and contextual. Smart city technologies are changing traditional ideas of privacy in public space. Technology such as CCTV cameras reduce the inconspicuousness and anonymity citizens expect. Academic research has been done on the topics of smart cities and privacy, but these were mostly theoretically aimed. This research is an explorative empirical study to the perceived influence of smart city technology on citizen’s privacy. To research this topic a distinction is made between residents and visitors in Scheveningen Living Lab. As Scheveningen is a tourist destination, visitors make up an important part of the users of the city. These groups are chosen on the theoretical assumption that they both experience and perceive Scheveningen in a different way and might therefore also perceive the influence of smart city technology on their privacy differently.

In order to do this research, a qualitative study made up of fourteen interviews was conducted. Seven residents and seven visitors of Scheveningen have been interviewed. This assumption that these groups would differ in their perception on the influence of smart city technology on their privacy did not last. The results showed that privacy is indeed contextual and dynamic along disclosure and identity lines. The respondents rather disclose information in order to feel safe in Scheveningen than have privacy, although this contrasted earlier statements that they already felt safe in the area. The perception of smart city technology was also influenced by differing identities, such as respondent’s own identity, or the identity in group context. The perception of the influence of the governance of smart city technologies on privacy was also brought forward, because the respondents emphasized the importance of being informed about the project by the government in order to trust the government in the development of the Living Lab.

(5)

V

Nederlands

Privacy is een complex onderwerp omdat het dynamisch en context afhankelijk is. Smart city technologieën veranderen op een snelle wijze de ideeën over privacy in een publieke ruimte. Technologie zoals beveiligingscamera’s verminderd namelijk de onopvallendheid en anonimiteit waar burgers op rekenen. Er is al veel onderzoek gedaan naar smart cities en privacy, maar deze onderzoeken hebben meestal een theoretische focus. Dit onderzoek is echter een verkennend en empirisch onderzoek naar de perceptie over de invloed van smart city technologie op de privacy van burgers. Om dit onderwerp te onderzoeken wordt een onderscheidt gemaakt tussen bewoners en bezoekers in het Scheveningen Living Lab. Bezoekers vormen een belangrijk deel van de gebruikers van de stad, omdat het een toeristische bestemming is. Deze groepen werden gekozen vanuit de theoretische veronderstelling dat bezoekers Scheveningen op een andere manier ervaren en waarnemen en daarom mogelijk ook de invloed van smart city technologie op hun privacy anders ervaren.

Om dit onderzoek uit te voeren, werd een kwalitatieve studie uitgevoerd die bestond uit veertien interviews. Zeven bewoners en zeven bezoekers van Scheveningen zijn geïnterviewd. De veronderstelling dat deze groepen verschillende percepties hebben over de invloed van slimme stadstechnologie op hun privacy, kwam niet duidelijk naar voren. De resultaten toonden wel aan dat privacy inderdaad contextueel en dynamisch is wanneer wordt gekeken naar hun identiteit en naar wanneer burgers iets wel of niet openbaar maken en identiteit. De respondenten geven liever informatie vrij om zich veilig te voelen in Scheveningen dan om privacy te hebben. Dit was echter in tegenstelling met het gevoel van veiligheid dat ze hebben in het gebied. De perceptie van smart city technologie werd ook beïnvloed door verschillende identiteiten, zoals de eigen identiteit of de identiteit in groepscontext. De perceptie van de invloed van het besturen van smart city technologie op privacy werd ook naar voren gebracht, omdat de respondenten het belang benadrukten om te worden geïnformeerd over het project. Dit zou namelijk het vertrouwen in de overheid vergroten.

(6)

VI

Chapter 1: Introduction

All over the world, cities, municipalities and urban agglomerations are facing challenges in the fields of security, mobility and sustainability. Ongoing urbanization makes life in these urban areas busier and this can create issues such unsafety, congestion, pollution and energy shortages. Cities are therefore adapting smart city strategies in order to increase the livability (Nam & Pardo, 2011). Although the definitions differ on what a smart city is, it can be argued that a smart city uses technology to deal with these challenges and make the city more efficient, comfortable and safe (Braun et al., 2018). Smart city technology collects data through sensors in the environment and through information on citizens. The data that is gathered is analyzed through algorithms. The idea is that all these algorithms can help urban governments make policy decisions, and that they are, eventually, able to make data-driven decisions on their own. Think for example about data on congestion in city centers that can be used to guide traffic flows by creating a green wave using smart traffic lights (Hijink, 2020). Predictive policing systems are possible from a security perspective. The police can be dispatched to areas in the city that algorithms have predicted on the basis where crimes are most likely (Rienks, 2015).

In the Netherlands many local governmental institutions are adopting smart city strategies as well. These technologies can be implemented as a government initiative, but they can also be tested in a ‘living lab’. A living lab is used to do research, to learn and to test new smart city technologies in real-life environments (Bakici et al., 2013). The latter means that technologies are tested in an unbiased environment where citizens live their normal lives. When implementing living labs in an urban environment, the perspective and involvement of the users of this part in the city is important, because they have to live, work or visit the place. Technology should be seen as a means to improve the daily lives of the users of the city and not as a goal in itself (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2019). This is something that must be kept an eye on, because the development of smart city technologies often descends from the belief in “technological solutionism”. This is the belief that datafication and digitization can solve complex urban problems (Morozov, 2013).

Problem definition

For smart cities and living labs to work, a lot of data needs to be gathered. This data comes from the environment, but also from citizens and their behavior in public space. The often constant data collection on the daily lives of citizens can lead to privacy concerns. It is generally not clear what happens with the data that is gathered, what it is used for and who has access to it (Braun et al., 2018). According to the Dutch Privacy Authority (2019) citizens are worried about their privacy because of these ever-growing data gathering practices in the online world. It is however difficult to know how citizens’ perception of privacy works in a smart city (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2019; van Zoonen, 2016). This is due to the complexity of the subject of researching privacy in a public space. Traditionally privacy, the human-right to be let alone, is applicable in the personal life, the life citizens live at home. And within public spaces it is generally not believed that you have privacy, but there is the right to be anonymous. As public space is being digitized by the increasing use of data-gathering technologies, the relation of citizens with public space can change, as this anonymity cannot be guaranteed. However, knowledge on citizens perception on privacy can be useful because if citizens perceive their privacy to be guaranteed, participation in a smart city can increase and smart cities technologies can optimize.

(9)

2

This leads to the following research question and sub questions:

How do citizens perceive the influence of smart city technology on their privacy?

1. What is privacy according to citizens?

2. What do citizens think of smart city technology in their environment?

3. What are important aspects for governing a smart city from a citizens’ perspective? 4. What is privacy in a smart environment according to citizens?

In order to do this research a case study is carried out. The smart city technology in this research is the development of smart lampposts in the Living Lab of Scheveningen, The Hague in the Netherlands. In a living lab, the goal is to increase citizen involvement, as the citizens are the ones who are providing data and testing the workings of the technology. It should not be forgotten, however, that there are more users of the city, such as commuters and visitors. In a living lab the focus should be on the all the users of a city, because in the end, the goals is to improve the environment and lives of these people (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2019; Nam & Pardo, 2011). In this research therefore there will be made a distinction between residents of Scheveningen and its visitors, because Scheveningen is known to be a popular and busy tourist destination.

Social relevance

Research into the issue of privacy and concerns in smart cities is important, because many cities with over 100.000 inhabitants are adopting smart city strategies. The social relevance of this study can be argued to be threefold. Firstly, it is important to keep researching privacy in a continuing digitizing urban environment, because the technological areas in which privacy is important are constantly evolving. Ubiquitous data collection and surveillance techniques have reduced anonymity in the city. Citizens become more and more visible in public space and public opinion polls show that people are worried about their privacy (DPA, 2019; Ståhlbröst et al., 2015).

Secondly, urban governments have a difficulty in estimating how their citizens perceive privacy (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2019; van Zoonen, 2016). If governments know whether smart city policy and its strategies have an influence on perceptions of privacy, then policy can be adapted accordingly. This is important, because for cities to be actually smart and improve urban life, urban governments cannot only rely on just installing technologies. Investing in human capital is just as, if not more, important to sustain a high quality of life. The technological solutions need to be in line with the expectations and needs that citizens have, and have to protect citizens from being exposed or forced into undesirable situations (Ståhlbröst et al., 2015).

Thirdly, this research is also important because smart cities are using the services that are considered great threats to privacy: big data, IoT and cloud services. Regulation has failed to deal with privacy problems these threats pose (Edwards, 2016). Although the GDPR has made regulation towards privacy protection stricter, this does not necessarily mean that citizens perceive their cities to be compliant (van Zoonen, 2016).

(10)

3

Academic relevance

Within academic research in this field there is a focus on theoretical research. Adding more empirical data into the field is therefore the first academic relevance of the research (van Zoonen, 2016). This research adds to the body of literature on privacy in smart cities because it shows insights of citizens and their perspective of the city instead of looking solely at theory and technology. According to Timan (2017) a step forward in researching privacy in public space is to categorize or make clear which contexts are important in understanding privacy. The same goes for research into the influence of data that is being collected and the goal of collecting this data. This research hopes to add to the empirical body of privacy literature in a smart city context.

The second part of the relevance is the incorporation of visitors into the debate on privacy in a smart city. This is new but considered to be relevant, especially in places like Scheveningen, where tourism is one of the biggest driving forces in the economy (Blom & Segeren, 2013). This group is relevant for studying privacy perceptions in the Living Lab, because yearly millions of tourists come for a beach day to Scheveningen (Municipality of The Hague, 2016b).

Lastly, this research is also useful in the context of studies on security management. Smart city strategies are often adopted according to a safety and security rhetoric

(Timan, 2017)

. This research takes this a step further by including links to privacy and citizens perspective. The goal is that the findings of this research can inspire further academic research or research by urban governments.

Reading guide

This thesis is structured as follows. The next chapter consist of the theoretical framework for this research. The most important theories and previous research on the topics of smart city technologies, privacy and citizens’ perception are explained. In the third chapter the methodology of the research is discussed. The research design is explained in this chapter, as well as, the case selection of the Living Lab of Scheveningen and the distinction between residents and visitors. It also discusses the research method. In this research interviews were chosen as the way to collect data. In chapter four the results of the interviews are discussed. After this the main question is answered in the last chapter. This chapter also interprets the results and explains what the results mean.

(11)

4

Chapter 2: Theoretical framework

‘Smart city’ is a term that is used urban development strategies. It is a term with many different scholarly definitions. What ‘smart’ is in a smart city depends on what these scholars consider the most important aspect in such a city (Hollands, 2015). On the one hand there is a focus on technology smart, where life in the city is made efficient through the use of sensors and data-analysis (Kitchin, 2014). On the other hand there is a focus on the smartness of people in the city (Hollands, 2015). The emphasis, however, is on the former when studying living labs. In living labs, the idea is to test ICT applications and sensors in a real time environment where the users of the city are present. The goal is to improve the daily lives of the users of the city (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2019; Nam & Pardo, 2011).

In the first paragraph of the theoretical framework smart city technologies are covered. In this paragraph surveillance and other data collection technologies are discussed, next to the actors of data collection and social power structures. In the second paragraph the topic of privacy is explained. This paragraph deals with the topics of changes of privacy in public space and the way citizens manage their privacy. The last paragraph of this chapter discusses several aspects of perception. Namely the perception of the environment, of technology and data concerns.

Smart city technologies

In smart cities, urban governments can implement ICT applications to develop the city and to deal with urban problems. These ICT applications can be sensors, cameras and Internet of Things (IoT) devices that are able to collect data on a topic like air pollution, traffic congestion, crowd movement or suspicious behavior to mention a few. Real-time data is collected, analyzed and can be used for data-driven decision making (Kitchin, 2014). The abovementioned examples show that data is gathered from the environment, such as the quality of air or the weather, but data is also gathered from people in the city. Data collection from people using CCTV cameras, crowd control, and noise meters can be used to increase safety and security, but can also create a feeling of being watched all the time (van Zoonen et al., 2019).

In this first paragraph of the theoretical framework, smart city technologies are discussed through a surveillance viewpoint. Although smart city technology is about more than surveillance, theory on this topic is helpful in explaining how citizens might perceive these technologies. Surveillance is namely a big part of smart cities, even so much that they are sometimes called ‘surveillance cities’, a term considered to be the dystopian alternative to ‘smart cities’ that is used in journalism and academia (Blauw & Martijn, 2019; Galič, 2019). The idea of this surveillance city is derived from the work “Nineteen Eighty Four” by George Orwell in 1949 , in this story citizens are constantly being monitored and controlled by their government.

The first section of this paragraph discusses the history and spatial dimension of surveillance on the basis of the work of Foucault and Bentham with a focus on the physical aspect of surveillance. After this, theories of Deleuze, Haggerty and Ericson are discussed. These scholars theorize about data collection and surveillance in networked spaces. This is especially relevant in a smart and networked city. Secondly, the actors within smart city technologies are discussed. This paragraph is about who is implementing and using the technology. Governments, companies, but also people can surveille or collect data. The last section of this paragraph discusses social power structures within smart city technology. In short, this paragraph is about the transformation of traditional surveillance into a more virtual and general form of data collection in smart cities.

(12)

5

Space of surveillance and data collection

Academic articles on surveillance in smart cities often reference Foucault and Bentham and their traditional ideas of the Panopticon prison and disciplining society. These theories apply to a physical space. Bentham designed the ‘ideal’ round prison (see figure 2.1). Guards were placed in the center and could watch every inmate at all times, because the cells were placed around the guards. The inmates could not see the guards in the middle (Galič et al., 2017). The idea is that the chance of being watched by the guards provides enough incentive to behave appropriately (Galič et al., 2017; Leman-Langlois, 2002). Surveillance in this aspect is physical, surveillance is done in a specific place, with specific roles for the watchers and the watched. In a present-day public space, the physical spatiality of surveillance can be explained by CCTV cameras. Citizens in public space do not know if they are being watched, but they could all be watched, and footage can be stored. Storing CCTV footage means that there is also a possibility that inappropriate behavior is saved. The uncertainty whether you are seen and if proof is available or not constructs good behavior by citizens in theory (Galič et al., 2017).

Figure 2.1 The idea of the Panopticon Prison (Smith, 2013)

However, in contemporary society, surveillance has also changed beyond this single directed gaze of the watcher towards the individual, such as the guards and prisoners in the panopticon. Surveillance now has broader gaze that is can be directed at society as a whole (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). Surveillance has also shifted from being physical and territorial to being de-territorialized (Bogard, 2006). De-territorialized surveillance means surveillance in a digital and networked space. Because of these changes, the traditional notion of surveillance and the panopticon has become outdated according to Haggerty and Ericson (2000). In the digital and networked space, the development of technology has made surveillance ubiquitous. When talking about surveillance, Haggerty and Ericson therefore talk about surveillance assemblages, which is the idea that surveillance cannot be captured as something isolated that happens in a specific place to specific people only.

In the digitized modern society, surveillance is about more than the possibility of being watched. It is about increasing information into a surveillance assemblage. Data can be gathered everywhere nowadays and in this case it is not about surveillance per se, but about data collection technologies in general (Galič et al., 2017). Governments collect data on people, not only about their whereabouts, but about their daily lives in general. In order to make governing easier, governments link their databases in order to create profiles of people, or how Haggerty and Ericson call it: data-doubles of individuals (2000). This makes surveillance assemblages complex and difficult to entangle due to their rhizomatic structure. This is a structure that grows phenomenally because of its expanding use (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). According to a 2011 report called iOverheid, the Dutch government experiences a growing need for more data while having a difficult time keeping track of these data flows (WWR, 2011).

(13)

6

Actors in smart city technologies

Multiple actors are involved in the physical and online space of surveillance and data collection in smart cities. This section discusses the role of the government, of private corporations and the roles of individuals. In urban areas, governments face a challenge of a growing global urban population. In a smart city, governments collect data and use surveillance assemblages to make governance and urban systems more efficient, safe or sustainable through data-driven decisions (Kitchin, 2014). A government can use surveillance assemblages to govern, control, and provide security (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). An example in the Netherlands is the Criminality Anticipation System (CAS) and this uses data to predict where chance of certain crimes is high in a city. The police can then be dispatched to this area. The idea is that more police presence will keep criminals at distance, but also will improve reactivity of the police (Rienks, 2015). Another example is the use noise meters in lampposts. When the lamppost picks up certain types of sounds, such as violent sounds, the light color can be changed in order to redirect the behavior (Eindhoven University of Technology, 2014).

The digitization of society has also come with advantages to use data collection for corporations. Data-doubles discussed in the previous section, are useful in tracking behavior of consumers and marketing them the right goods in order to increase consumerism (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). Data collection in an economical perspective creates ‘surplus value’ which is the profit that can be made on the ‘surplus of information’: digital and physical traces that people leave behind (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000, pp. 615–616). This surplus of information can be linked to data profiles that are made of people. On this basis, you receive online advertisements for example (Chester, 2012). Within smart city development, private companies like Alphabet and IBM are taking the lead in developing all kinds of technologies that can be used in smart cities. Alphabet tries to develop a whole neighborhood in Toronto, Canada from the ground up called Sidewalk Labs.

Lastly, next to the gaze of governments and companies, individuals can also surveille and collect data. When considering surveillance, think about vlogs on YouTube for example, youtubers open up about their daily lives in detail and their goals is to get as many views as possible. There is also the possibility to direct the gaze of the individual to the companies or the government. This is called sousveillance and means ‘watching from below’ (Mann & Ferenbok, 2013). Sousveillance is considered a critical stance towards surveillance and is about being able to record the ones who are surveilling. In the latter instance of collecting data, individuals can also play a role. In the Netherlands there are several projects carried out by the government in which individuals can start collect data on air quality and noise levels for example (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 2019).

The division between these three acors might exclude certain other groups, but it does provide an overview of different actors within data collection and surveillance that play a role in a smart city where governments, companies and citizens are part of daily urban living. These actors form key players in the debate on social power, surveillance and data collection. The next section discusses this.

Social power of data collection in smart cities

In discussing space and actors, different power relations become visible. On the one hand there are governments and companies who surveille and collect data, and on the other hand there are people who can to the same. In a smart city both processes are visible, but the focus is on the former. In the previous section a distinction between governments and corporations was made. In smart cities however, this distinction is not clear due to corporate ownership (Graham, 2011, p. 102). Data collection in the smart city is often done by public-private partnerships where both parties work together in developing technologies (Galič, 2019). Within critical smart city science there is however a debate going on that

(14)

7

this partnership is more private-public then public-private, because private institutions take the lead (Hollands, 2015; Sadowski & Bendor, 2018; Söderström et al., 2014). Take the example of SideWalk Labs again, where a private company starts acting as a government, while other than a government whose goal is to improve the lives of its citizens, the main goal of a company is making profit (Sadowski & Bendor, 2018). In the case of SideWalk Labs, the journalist platform ‘The Intercept’ found evidence that Alphabet was planning to sell data collected in Sidewalk Labs (Kofman, 2019). In smart cities there is thus a chance that private partners gain more power than the urban government.

Traditionally social power can take the form of controlling citizens in the Foucauldian sense (disciplining power) that is performed by a government. Social control refers to several processes that stimulate the ‘right’ kind of behavior or restrain ‘bad’ behavior (Rule, 2015, p. 13). In smart societies control can take shape in a consumption sense due to the influence of private companies. Surveillance and data collection is used to provide certain perks: data in exchange for service and goods (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). The implementation of new surveillance technologies in public spaces is often based on the rhetoric of safety and security, but the economic point of view should not be forgotten (Timan, 2017). In a smart city these forms of power and control merge into one surveillance assemblage (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000).

The forms of social power are not limited to this, public-private partnerships can also be used for caring for the subjects (citizens), by protecting and securing them (Lyon, 2006). This is visible in a smart city by providing security for individuals using CCTV cameras and noise meters to detect suspicious behavior and using crowd control technologies to protect people in big crowds. Research also shows that surveillance through CCTV cameras generally increases citizens feeling of safety (Zurawski, 2010) The gaze of surveillance and data collection is directed at different kind of spaces: mostly public and semi-public spaces, but also private ones collecting data from the ‘suspicious’ and the ‘non-suspicious’ (Galič, 2019). A surveillance assemblage tries to record (visually, auditory or informationally) flows of phenomena in order to control, to govern, to be secure, for profit or entertainment (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). The logic of social control in smart cities and living labs is thus the optimization of consumption, while minimizing labor and costs at the same time, or in other words, creating an efficient city (Harcourt, 2014).

Conclusion

The idea of surveillance has been around for long. The self-disciplining power of the possibility of being seen has changed over time. Although this physical aspect is still visible in many cities in the form of CCTV cameras and other sensors. Surveillance has transformed to become more virtual and networked and be more about data collection in general. In a smart city, behind all these cameras and sensors there is a lot of technology and datasets which make for a surveillance assemblage (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). Public governments and private companies are busy developing smart city technologies that can be used in public spaces to make life in the city more efficient and comfortable. Data gathered through surveillance and information on data doubles creates surplus value for governments and companies. Information that seems rather simple or straightforward can be exchanged between different institutions and companies and can add up and become very complex and networked datasets. However, consequences of these technologies that form this surveillant assemblage are difficult to predict or oversee (Timan, 2017). It is important to consider that social and technical aspects of these smart city technologies are intertwined. The public-private partnerships change traditional power dynamics in the city, and this has now become a combination creating a safe, sustainable and efficient city, while also optimizing consumption.

(15)

8

Privacy

The ubiquitous surveillance and data collection in smart cities is done by services that use big data, IoT and cloud storage systems that record data in a public setting (Edwards, 2016; Timan et al., 2017). These systems and their use of data gathering processes are known to be privacy sensitive and are able to violate privacy principles (Edwards, 2016). According to Zhao (2017) privacy expectations of citizens decline when public space is digitized. When a new (surveillance) technology is introduced in a neighborhood, the privacy expectation lowers as well (Ståhlbröst et al., 2015). Research from the Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) shows that citizens are concerned about privacy in a digitizing society. Fifty to seventy percent are worried about data from their mobile phones (location-tracking) or about data from surveillance cameras (DPA, 2019). The introduction of the GDPR has made legislation on privacy protection stricter in the European Union. And although this will improve privacy protection, it does not necessarily mean that people will perceive technologies used in their daily environment as privacy compliant (van Zoonen, 2016). To establish further knowledge on why this can be the case, this paragraph firstly analyses what privacy is in a public space and what its risks or concerns are. The second part discusses how citizens manage their privacy in a digitized and surveillance dominated public space.

Privacy in private and public space

Traditionally, privacy was considered to be the principle ‘to be let alone’ (Galič, 2019; Kaminski, 2015; Koops et al., 2016). Privacy can then be expected in places such as the home. In this case privacy is often framed as a dichotomy with publicity: something is either private or public. ‘To be let alone’ is to withdraw oneself into a private, physically demarcated place (Kaminski, 2015). In public spaces privacy is considered non-existent and unnecessary because people are ‘just another face in the crowd’, which guarantees a decent amount of anonymity or inconspicuousness (Galič, 2019; Koops et al., 2016). However, digitization of public space and the increasing possibilities for surveillance and data collections through smart city technologies have changed this: instead of being inconspicuous, people are now visible when being on the streets (Galič, 2019).

To describe privacy as a dichotomy is thus not ideal in light of smart city technologies. Using the ‘typology of privacy’ by Koops et al. (2016) privacy can be divided into eight ideal types that range from a personal zone of a negative freedom from … (or ‘being let alone’) to a more public zone of positive freedom to … ( or ‘self-development) (see figure 2.2 on p.9). Koops et al. (2016) describes eight types of privacy overarched by the ninth type: informational privacy. It can serve several functions. Altman (1977, p. 68) describes privacy as being able of ‘managing social interaction’, it can ‘establish plans and strategies of interacting with others’ and it is used for the ‘development and maintenance of self-identity’ and is related to autonomy and self-esteem.

According to Galič (2019) the latter is problematic in a digitizing public space because data collection and surveillance can harm self-development. Privacy in a public space is not meant for withdrawal of one-self out of the public, as this is not desirable, it is about being able to autonomously develop identity and entering into social relations or express yourself politically for example. As she argues in one of her articles: “privacy is an infrastructural condition allowing for a fuller exercise of other rights of freedoms, including those connected to public space, such as: right to access, to representation and freedom of assembly and association” (Galič, 2019, p. 12). Privacy is therefore not only important for the individual self, but also for society and democracy, because it protects possibilities for social and political relations to be formed and maintained (Galič, 2019; Koops & Galič, 2017).

(16)

9

Figure 2.2 Typology of privacy (Koops et al., 2016, p. 484)

There are two developments that further dismiss the inconspicuousness citizens could expect in public space, that are related to smart city technologies. The first is the development of public-private partnerships (Timan, 2017). In publics spaces this can become problematic, because as a citizen you are often not aware of who control the public space you are in. Differently put, as a citizen you expect the public place to be governed by the government and not by private parties, while the latter produce the technologies that are used. The protection of public values is no longer solely in the hands of the urban government. According to the DPA (2019), this can be problematic, because Dutch citizens are worried about protection of data by these private companies.

The second issue is about confusion on when data is collected, sensed or recorded and on who owns the data (Timan, 2017). Citizens now leave big digital footprints when going into public spaces. This happens because people take their phones with them that can be tracked, connect to free Wi-Fi, are spotted on CCTV cameras. Two things are privacy sensitive here, the human body in the physical space, but also their private virtual information flows (Timan et al., 2017). What happens with data and the data-doubles that are created out of this is confusing, and what the consequences are is not clear (Haggerty & Ericson, 2000). The “audience” of citizens’ public actions is ambiguous in smart cities that are using different data collection and surveillance techniques (Palen & Dourish, 2003). Privacy and its protection are thus important in public space, because anonymity and inconspicuousness are not guaranteed anymore, but also because personal information can be gathered when you’re out on the streets without being aware of this.

Privacy management

The addition of smart city technologies in public space makes it complicated for people how to perceive their privacy. The theory on boundary management by Altman (1975, 1977) can shed some light into how people manage privacy. This theory is adapted by several scholars and in this research the framework of Palen en Dourish (2003) is used because they apply the concept to a ‘networked world’ and is specifically helpful in understanding privacy in a digitized society. Boundary management is a highly dynamic process in which people can decide to make themselves more open or accessible or more closed off from others in different situations or contexts (Altman, 1977, p. 67). What is privacy

(17)

10

appropriate in one situation, can be a violation in the other. Privacy boundaries are thus moving dynamically according to the context (Kaminski, 2015; Nissenbaum, 2011; Palen & Dourish, 2003; van Zoonen et al., 2019).

According to Palen and Dourish (2003) there are three boundary dimensions that are important in a networked society such as a smart city. The first is the dimension of disclosure between what is private and public for a person. In this case, privacy management is not simply ‘the right to be left alone’ or the avoidance of information disclosure. To put this in context, people rather disclose some personal information in order to feel safe, than to be private and not feel secure (Palen & Dourish, 2003). An example is rather walking through a busy street where you are visible, than taking a secluded route where you are private.

The second dimension is that of identity. This boundary constitutes the self and the other. Privacy is often considered as something individual, because of ‘personal’ data or the visibility in the public space of individuals. However, it can also be something of a group, such as individuals representing a broader movement. Think about the right to self-development which should be protected by privacy (Galič, 2019). As an individual you adapt your actions or your information sharing strategies with the receivers of this information with them in mind. In order to provide someone with your information, or to withhold it, you have to know who your audience is. This is difficult in a public space filled with smart city technology, because you do not know when, what or how data is collected and who does this. The third dimension has to do with temporality (Palen & Dourish, 2003). Privacy management is not only context but also time dependent. Past actions and expectations of future actions influence privacy perception in present day. The development of smart city technology can be a hindrance in this case, as it is difficult to foresee how your decisions on information disclosure in the present have consequences in the future. Surveillance in exchange for safety in public spaces can seem like a good idea at the moment, but it might not be as beneficial in the future. This dimension is linked to what Kaminski (2015, p. 1142) calls ‘ephemerality’ and is about the recording of data. People used to rely on the idea that their social interactions were impermanent. But personal data on interaction is now stored and this can change the boundary management calculation of people (Kaminski, 2015).

The environment and its features are also used in privacy boundary management (Altman, 1975; Kaminski, 2015). Adding surveillance cameras or other technology to this environment can change the features that people rely on when calculating their privacy. But it is difficult to say whether people do this on purpose, as they often rely behavioral patterns about how to behave in public space. The results of research ‘Your Neighborhood, Your Data’ show that people do not necessarily change their behavior when having a choice between walking a route filled with surveillance cameras, or taking a longer route without cameras (van Zoonen et al., 2019). People often chose the first option because as one respondent answers: “why would you explicitly choose […] for the route without cameras? […] Are you then a guy who has done wrong, or?” (van Zoonen et al., 2019, p. 30).

Boundary management is thus dependent on context of different situations and the above-mentioned dimensions. When managing privacy, people often do not figure out the context of every situation in order to determine how to interact with the world around them. People use shortcuts that are based on assumptions they have learned about their environment in order to quickly determine the context. They evolve and change over time due to technological development for example (Palen & Dourish, 2003).

(18)

11

Conclusion

The common theme that returns in each section on privacy and its perception is that context is important (Nissenbaum, 2004, 2011; Palen & Dourish, 2003; Timan et al., 2017). External factors that influence this context, privacy perception and management are firstly the growing presence of public-private partnerships in smart cities. These make it difficult to distinguish between more public and private forms of surveillance and data collection. Secondly, new technologies and the rapid development of IoT devices being used in smart cities make interpreting the consequences of data collection hard for citizens (Timan, 2017). It is important to keep in mind that technology in itself does not directly interfere or support personal privacy, but technology can be considered as the context within privacy boundary management (Kaminski, 2015; Palen & Dourish, 2003). What influences boundary management is disclosure, identity, temporality and the (technological) environment (Kaminski, 2015; Palen & Dourish, 2003). This shows that next to contextual, privacy management can also be considered as relational, because these processes influence each other and are reciprocal. This is important, because these relations can influence an individual or a groups agency (Brincker, 2017). However, it has to be kept in mind that people rely on mostly on shortcuts to manage their privacy, and are not consciously deciding what the context of each situation is, in order to determine what to disclose or not (Palen & Dourish, 2003).

Perception

The previous chapters have shown that smart city technologies changed traditional notions of privacy in public space. It is also clear that context is important when studying smart city technologies and privacy. In the former, context matters because it depends who gathers the data, who processes, who stores and who uses it. In the latter, context matters, because privacy can be perceived differently in certain situations. In this paragraph the perception of smart city technologies is discussed in a spatial, social and technological manner. The first section discusses the socio-technical landscape (Timan, 2017). This part explains the different uses and perceptions of use of public space. Secondly, the topic of technological mediation is discussed. This topic is about the influence of technology on humans and vice versa. Lastly, the perception of citizens data concerns is covered.

Socio-technical landscape

According to several scholars the composition of a space is important in the way citizens perceive the it, but also their privacy within this space (Altman, 1975; Kaminski, 2015; Timan, 2017). In order to know how this perception works, it is meaningful to know what space is. The discipline of human geography can provide some insight on this matter. There is a difference in space and place. Space can be considered as some kind of area in the physical world. But spaces often have a specific function and due to this function, it becomes a place. This process is called place-making (Tuan, 1979). A socio-technical landscape is an overarching term for looking these specific functions and the relationships between citizens, the place, its composition and possible underlaying power structures, such as the presence of CCTV cameras.

Place-making is about giving meaning to a space in order to make it a place. Place-making can be done by government officials, in promoting certain areas as business districts or a zone for creatives for example. Residents and visitors also give meaning to places. While for tourists a certain retail environment can be seen as a place of leisure, it can be seen by citizens as a purely functional place. Next to this, new meanings can be given by using a specific place in different ways than urban planners have planned. A retail environment can, for example, also be considered as a place where locals go for social bonding (Williams & Lew, 2015). Different people, or groups of people, such as citizens and

(19)

12

tourists, can give meanings to space and it should therefore be studied in its (physical, social, cultural or technological) context.

Residents and visitors can thus give a diverse range of meanings places. This also means that these groups emphasize different aspects what they think is important in a certain place. Security aspects are important for the quality of life for residents. These can be objective crime rates or the subjective perception of crime in the neighbourhood or their feeling of safety (Colquhoun, 2004). High crime rates, or only the perception of this, can lead to a lower perception of the quality of life.

Smart city technologies are often based on a rhetoric of safety and security in order to improve the livability (Timan, 2017). This improvement can be done by responding to the way people’s perception of safety is influenced. According to England and Simon (2010) people feel more safe during daytime then in nighttime and they feel more safe when surrounded by other people (they know). In the light of this safety perception, smart city technologies can be used to ‘design out crime’ (Colquhoun, 2004). This is a way to influence the design of a place in order to diminish the number of dark and quiet places where people can withdraw. Placing more (smart) lamppost and creating a more open space, can create a feeling of safety for citizens as this decreases the number of places where undesirable behavior can occur.

According to research on the relation of crime and safety perception by Zurawski and Czerwinski (2008) people who generally feel safe in their environment still feel the need to install security technology such as CCTV cameras in order to create a safer environment. By doing this they can control fears that are not necessarily linked to their own environment, but fears related to things they have seen in the news(papers) or on social media about criminal activity. People do not mind CCTV cameras, because they are meant for catching criminals. As these people are no criminals themselves, they feel like they have nothing to lose from having more security technology in the environment (Zurawski, 2010; Zurawski & Czerwinski, 2008).

An indicator that is more important for visitors than for residents, is experiencing the ‘extraordinary’. This is what Urry (1990) calls the ‘tourist gaze’. This theory tries to explain why people visit other places that they have no attachment to. Tourists do this because they anticipate that it will bring them pleasure and because such an experience is different from the everyday life (Williams & Lew, 2015). This pleasure people anticipate is substantiated on the images people have of such a place. For Scheveningen these images are being a beach and summery destination that has the pier as one of the main activities.

Technological mediation

In a subfield of philosophy called the philosophy of technology, an argument is made that the environment and its artefacts can influence humans and vice versa. Technology herein indicates a broad understanding of humanly designed artefacts: from a speedbump to a smart lamppost or a smartphone for example. The classic philosophy of technology argued that technology would distance humans from the world and from themselves, because technology is seen something that ‘allows a controlling and functional way of dealing with reality’ (Verbeek, 2000, p. 278). This means that technology is seen as something dystopian that can become autonomous at the cost of humans (Ellul, 1964 in Voordijk & Dorrestijn, 2019, p. 20).

There are, however, more scholars that oppose this claim using (post)-phenomenology arguing that humans and the world cannot be seen as separate, but in relation with each other and that technology is

(20)

13

mediating this relation (humans-technology-world) (Verbeek, 2000, p. 141). This is called technological mediation and is defined by Goeminne and Paredis as follows:

“[On the one hand] technologies help to shape how reality can be present for human beings, by mediating human perception and interpretation; on the other, technologies help to shape how humans are present in reality, by mediating human action and practices”. (2011, p. 101)

In more recent work, Verbeek (2009b) argues that a ‘smart environment’ such as a smart city or a living lab, is made up of technologies that come together with the environment in which the relation between humans and technology changes to a more pervasive one. In this article Verbeek talks about ambient intelligence and persuasive technology. Technologies in the environment can pick up information on what is happening and can respond accordingly on the basis of this information. Smart city technologies can therefore influence ‘ideas, intentions, and behavior of human beings’ (Verbeek, 2009b, p. 231). If perceptions and actions of humans are mediated through technologies their perception of the influence of smart city technology on their privacy might be mediated as well.

Data concerns

The focus on the solutions smart city technology can bring to urban problems can lead to overlooking of the people in the city and their concerns (van Zoonen, 2016). Services used in smart cities are receptive to cyberattacks and therefore also privacy breaches of personal data (Khatoun & Zeadally, 2017). There are some ideas about techniques that can improve online privacy, such as ‘informed consent’ and ‘anonymization’ (Barocas & Nissenbaum, 2014; Langheinrich, 2001; Martinez-Balleste et al., 2013). The idea of ‘informed consent’ is that people are aware of the fact that data is being collected, that they know what consequences come along with this data collection and that they agree on these terms (Barocas & Nissenbaum, 2014). The technique of ‘anonymization’ is used to make personal data anonymous by providing pseudonyms of the data that is collected.

In a smart environment, and especially in a living lab it can be difficult to impossible to guarantee these things (Barocas & Nissenbaum, 2014; Langheinrich, 2001; Martinez-Balleste et al., 2013). There is no direct contact between the data collector and the person in the living lab, and there is no way of knowing who will enter the living lab in advance (Strandburg, 2014). As a citizen or a passer-by, you cannot always be aware when, and why, data on you is being collected. Being anonymous in a smart city is also not a possibility anymore, even the pseudonymizing of data and data-doubles can in an environment where so much data is collected lead back to the person in question (Barocas & Nissenbaum, 2014). This can lead to a perception of a ‘Big Brother’ like society in where citizens are followed in their daily affairs. In which some people adopt a hopeless attitude arguing that: “It doesn’t matter. They already know everything about me” (van Zoonen et al., 2019, p. 39) Although this does not seem the case for most people in the Netherlands yet. There are people who adopt a critical stance towards these surveillance practices, but the general trend seems to be that “people have nothing to hide” (Martijn & Tokmetzis, 2016). In which people argue that if they have no criminal tendencies, they should not worry about their privacy. Arguing that privacy is something that is useful for criminals rather than for the rest of the population. To oppose the perception of ‘Big Brother is watching you’, scholars discovered that including citizens in smart city projects is important (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2019; Shelton & Lodato, 2019; Thomas et al., 2016). Local governments are advised to involve citizens in the process to create awareness and a feeling of inclusion. Citizens therefore will understand the actions of the government more, and citizens will also start trusting the government more when they are kept in the loop (Thomas et al., 2016).

(21)

14

Van Zoonen (2016) has done research into privacy concerns of citizens in smart cities and found that whether people perceive concerns towards their privacy is based on the subject of who collects the data, what data it collects and what the purpose is of this data. The biggest privacy concerns arise when personal data is collected with a surveillance purpose. Citizens are averagely worried about personal data used for service purposes or impersonal data used for surveillance purposes. The least concern is for impersonal data with a service purpose (van Zoonen, 2016, p. 475). Van Zoonen (2016) mentions in her article that there are also two paradoxes. The first is called the privacy paradox and this is about the idea that citizens perceive privacy to be important, while they do not act upon this importance. In later research about the knowledge, attitudes and behavior of citizens in a smart city, the privacy paradox was not found (van Zoonen et al., 2019). The second is called the paradox of control. People seem to believe that their data is better privacy protected if they feel like they are in control of this data, although this does not have to be the case.

Conclusion

In this chapter perception of the environment, of technology and data concerns was explained. The composition of the socio-technical landscape influences how people perceive that place. For residents or visitors’ different functions of a place are more relevant than others. A feeling of safety is important for residents. For visitors as well, but they also attach value to the ‘extraordinary’. The both perceive the place differently because they have different expectations of the place. In the next part, technical mediation was discussed which argues that smart city technologies are becoming more ambivalent and omnipresent, become more fluently woven into our daily lives (Verbeek, 2009b). Lastly, several data concerns were discussed that show that traditional privacy protection mechanisms like informed consent and anonymization do not necessarily hold up in the smart city, although people do not have to perceive this that way (Barocas & Nissenbaum, 2014). Research from van Zoonen (2016) also shows that it matters who collects the data, what data is collected, and what is used for citizens to perceive their data to be private enough or not.

(22)

15

Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter provides methodological accountability for this research. Firstly, the research design is discussed. Secondly, a description of the research area is given. Thereafter, the sample strategy is explained and operationalization of the main topics in the interview is given. This chapter ends with the explanation on how the data is analyzed and reported.

Research design

To answer the research question on perception of influence of smart city technologies on citizens privacy, a qualitative case study was chosen as the right method. This decision was made in order to collect more empirical data on privacy perception in a technology laden public space, next to the broad theoretical ideas that are constructed (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2019; van Zoonen, 2016). Qualitative research methods can in such a case better answer research questions that are related to experiences or perceptions of individuals (Winchester & Rofe, 2010).

In order to answer the main question, the choice was made to carry out a case study to the perception of citizens in Scheveningen Living Lab. This single case is chosen due in order to be able to do an in-depth analysis and study the relationship between smart city technologies and privacy amongst citizens (Meyer, 2001). The single case study also helps in comparing the data from the research as this is about specific smart city technology. Therefore, the decision was made to focus on one case. Scheveningen Living Lab is a case that fits the research topic as well, because a main focus on a specific type of development, namely ‘smart city hubs’, which are smart lampposts. The first lampposts should be placed before the start of the summer season in 2020. The fact that the lampposts are not there yet, might create an issue in researching the perception of citizens, because they have not seen all of the technology yet. However, the lampposts will not look (vastly) different than what they look now, other than that they carry technical equipment (see figure 3.4. and 3.5 on p.19), so therefore it is possible to conduct the research. In the next paragraph a detailed description of the case study and research area is given.

To collect the qualitative data, interviews have been chosen as the specific method. Fourteen interviews were conducted amongst citizens. This number of interviews was necessary in order to reach a certain level of saturation of information where new respondents did not necessary provided new insights anymore. The citizens were divided into two groups, namely residents of the place of the Living Lab called Scheveningen Dorp and Noordelijk Scheveningen, on the one hand and visitors on the other. This distinction was made, because both groups enter the living lab, while they have different roles and characteristics. There is a temporal difference for example. The resident lives in the area and will visit the Living Lab often, while the visitor will be there only for a day or a few days a year. There is also a difference in the meaning this place has for these groups. A daily urban environment for the residents versus a place of something new (Urry, 1990). In this research residents are defined as people who live in Scheveningen Dorp or Noordelijk Scheveningen at the time of the interview and visitors are people who have visited Scheveningen from June 2019 till December 2019. These months were chosen, because people could have still seen the new boulevard and because summertime is when most visitors go to Scheveningen.

The conducted interviews were semi-structured and used photo elicitation. This way it is possible to ask participants about certain aspects, such as the Living Lab, smart technologies, surveillance, privacy and the environment with the possibility of asking for examples of experiences and perceptions they have. In order to cover all the topics, the questions were supported by prompts in order to extend the

(23)

16

depth of a certain issue (Dunn, 2010). Using this type of interview also creates some space to ask follow-up questions in order to ask for concrete examples and experiences citizens and visitors have. The photos in the interview were used to show parts the visible parts of the Living Lab, such as cameras that are already present, pictures of the lampposts now, pictures of the technology on the lamppost and pictures of the environment for the visitors in order to help them recognize the research area (see the photos in Appendix II).

The advantage of using pictures in research is that when asking questions and getting answers, both the interviewer and the interviewee are talking about the same subject and that the interviewer can better interpret answers (Harper, 2002). The negative side of using this type of prompt, is that it will possible steer people into certain answers, but they will also make sure that something is talked about when it is important that the interviewees understand what the technology looks like in order for them to talk about it. The pictures that were used, were made by the researcher. In order to this, some field trips were made and observing was done in order to see where the technology was placed.

Description of research area

The area where this research took place is the Living Lab in Scheveningen, The Hague. In this paragraph, first The Hague Smart City project is explained. The next section consists of a description of the neighborhood Scheveningen in The Hague. The last section will be explicitly about the Living Lab in this area, what the projects are and who is involved.

The Hague Smart City

The Hague is one of many cities in The Netherlands that is adopting a smart strategy. The Hague strives to become a ‘model city’. According to Saskia Bruines, a Councilor of the municipality, cities should take advantage of the digitizing world and collaborate innovatively to find ways to use the data (van der Sangen, 2018). The Hague strives to cooperate with other cities to promote and develop smart city strategies more effectively. Within the Netherlands the city is part of G5, the biggest municipalities that work on smart city initiatives. Each of these cities takes a leading role in the following subjects. Eindhoven is about ‘smart mobility’, Amsterdam leads in ‘circularity, Utrecht is about ‘healthy urban living’, Rotterdam about ‘sustainability’ and in The Hague the leading role is on ‘safety and security’ (VNG, 2018).

This is a suitable role for The Hague, because it is the city of Peace, Justice and Security. The city is also the national seat of government and receives important members of other governmental institutions. Security in the city is therefore important, but it should not turn the environment in an unattractive surveillance city. The goal in The Hague is therefore to use existing security solutions such as physical barriers, next to innovative technologies such as sensors and data analysis to increase security, while minimizing nuisance for uses of the city (VNG, 2018). Next to safety and security, the municipality focusses also on other themes in society, such as livability and sustainability. The aim of The Hague is to use data to make effective policy decisions (van der Sangen, 2018). The municipality has done this in corporation with other parties, such as Netherlands Statistics and private partners such as T-Mobile for 5G testing and Eneco, Eurofiber, PwC and academic institutions for the development of smart lampposts (Futureproof The Hague, 2017).

Scheveningen

This research is about one of the eights subdistricts of The Hague, named Scheveningen. This is the coastal area of the Hague and is a popular tourist destination in the summer. During the past years, the

(24)

17

boulevard of Scheveningen has been redeveloped (and still is being redeveloped) to make it attractive for citizens, companies and visitors throughout the whole year (Municipality of The Hague, 2019b). With this redevelopment there was opportunity for innovation. The municipality therefore rolled out a project called ‘De Gezonde Kust’ (The Healthy Coast) and the ‘Living Lab of Scheveningen’ in the area.

The research area in Scheveningen was centered around the neighborhood ‘Scheveningen Dorp’ and ‘Noordelijk Scheveningen’ (see figure 3.1). This is the place around which the Living Lab in Scheveningen will be concentrated, namely around the Zwarte Pad, and the Boulevard. Scheveningen Dorp is known for being the traditional Scheveningen. The place knows a strong and close culture based on the sea and the harbor families, together with a growth of tourism (Municipality of The Hague, 2016b). Noordelijk Scheveningen is less known for this typical Scheveningen culture and is more known as a tourist destination, specifically the beach side (Municipality of The Hague, 2016a). In the summer the area is busy with tourists, in the winter it is quieter. In the summer the neighborhoods struggles with parking spots and traffic overload (Municipality of The Hague, 2016b, p. 6). In the summer the citizens also experience nuisance of noise from beach clubs, motorized vehicles and litter. Although, citizens in the neighborhood are, overall, satisfied with their surroundings. On average citizens grade their living environment with an 7,6 in Scheveningen Dorp and a 7,1 in Noordelijk Scheveningen. Their neighborhoods are considered safe and there is relatively little criminal activity (Municipality of The Hague, 2016b, p. 6).

Figure 3.1. Scheveningen Dorp and Noordelijk Scheveningen in The Hague (Statistics Netherlands, 2008)

Living Lab

In 2017 the municipality proposed a policy idea of turning Scheveningen into a living lab. The reasons for this are the uniqueness and diversity of the place. There are large fluctuations in quiet and busy days, the weather conditions are heavily fluctuating and there is a combination of urban and natural environments (Futureproof The Hague, 2017). According to the municipality this makes Scheveningen the ideal test bed for smart city initiatives that can improve daily urban life (Municipality of The Hague, 2018). It also coincides with the modern redevelopment of the coast ‘de Kust Gezond’.

The most well-known project in the Living Lab of Scheveningen is the development of smart lamppost, also known as ‘smart city hubs’. These smart city hubs have the regular function of a lamppost next to other technologies. They are smart in the sense that they can adjust their brightness, have an energy savings mode, can change in color and have movement sensors in order to turn the light on (Griffith, 2019). Next to their light function there are possibilities to equip them with technology to gather data

(25)

18

from the environment. A smart city hub can be equipped with thermometers, surveillance cameras, microphones and electric vehicle charging points among other things (Beelen, 2018; de Laaf & van Meerten, 2019). In figure 3.2. a current smart post is visible. This is placed by the police near the Zwarte Pad on the beach, where there is much nuisance. These technologies are used to point people to empty parking spots, gather knowledge on crowds in the streets and are able to send out warnings and fines for driving a scooter through a street that is meant for pedestrians only (Municipality of The Hague, 2018). The smart equipment on the lampposts can be visible or unable to detect (Omroep West, 2017). The municipality of The Hague is busy developing the smart city hubs and applications that can be used on a 5G network. The smart lampposts will be placed before the summer of 2020 (Municipality of The Hague, 2019a). In the Living Lab, the technology will be tested. This is mostly about testing proven concepts to see how the technology works in an unbiased environment. The Living Lab will be developed firstly near the Zwarte Pad and on the Noordboulevard and Middenboulevard (see figure 3.2). In the next coming years 500 to 800 smart lampposts will be placed in Scheveningen (see figure 3.4 on p.19) (De Scheveningsche Courant, 2019).

The municipality also tries to keep citizens in the loop on the smart city developments. At a neighborhood consultation in September 2019 in Scheveningen, representatives from the municipality explained the new projects. Some citizens were worried about 5G being harmful to human health or about privacy. To them was explained that 5G is a safe technology and that the municipality has to obey the law on privacy protection and will not handle citizens data badly (De Scheveningsche Courant, 2019). The municipality of The Hague has also written in a formal letter to representatives from the neighborhood that they understand the worries of citizens and consider it important to communicate about these processes as clearly as possible (De Klinker, 2019).

Smart city technologies and citizens’ privacy: Research into the influence of smart city technology on citizens’ privacy in Scheveningen

Smart city technologies

and citizens’ privacy

Research into the influence of smart city

technology on citizens’ privacy in Scheveningen

SMART CITY TECHNOLOGIES AND CITIZENS’ PRIVACY

Research into the influence of smart city technology on citizens’

privacy in Scheveningen

Institute for Security and Global Affairs

Leiden University – Faculty Governance and Global Affairs

Master Thesis

12 January 2020

Author: Marguerite Hopmans – s2411717

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

Department: Crisis and Security Management

Leiden University, Turfmarkt 99, The Hague

Email: m.c.a.hopmans@umail.leidenuniv.nl

Thesis supervisor: Dr. Vlad Niculescu-Dincă

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

Institute of Security and Global Affairs

Department: Crisis and Security Management

Leiden University, Turfmarkt 99, The Hague

Email: v.niculescu-dinca@ffga.leidenuniv.nl

Second reader: Dr. Tommy van Steen

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

Institute of Security and Global Affairs

Department: Crisis and Security Management

Leiden University, Turfmarkt 99, The Hague

Email: t.vansteen@ffga.leidenuniv.nl

Word count : 20.700 (from introduction up to and including the conclusion)

Source frontpage : Buitenstijl (n.d.). Lichtmasten boulevard Scheveningen.

Foreword

Abstract

English

Nederlands

Table of contents

Chapter 1: Introduction

Problem definition

Social relevance

Academic relevance

(Timan, 2017)

Reading guide

Chapter 2: Theoretical framework

Smart city technologies

Space of surveillance and data collection

Actors in smart city technologies

Social power of data collection in smart cities

Conclusion

Privacy

Privacy in private and public space

Privacy management

Conclusion

Perception

Socio-technical landscape

Technological mediation

Data concerns

Conclusion

Chapter 3: Methodology

Research design

Description of research area

The Hague Smart City

Scheveningen

Living Lab