The Privatization of Surveillance and Governance in the ‘‘smart city’’
A case study of Living Lab Stratumseind, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Sofie Doorman 10545239
sofiedoorman@gmail.com
Msc Cultural and Social Anthropology Anthropology Department, GSSS University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 31-07-2020 Word count: 26.232 Supervisor: Dr. Vincent de Rooij 2nd Reader: Dr. Tina Harris
2
Plagiarism Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis meets the rules and regulations for fraud and plagiarism as set out by the Examination Committee of the MSc Cultural and Social Anthropology at the University of Amsterdam. This thesis is entirely my own original work, and all sources have been properly acknowledged.
Sofie Doorman 26/06/2020
3
How is anyone ever gonna come up with a book or a painting or a symphony or a sculpture that can compete with a great city? You can’t. Because look around: every street, every boulevard has its own special artform.
4
Abstract
In this thesis, I look at the usage of smart technologies of surveillance in public urban space with a focus on collaborations between private and public actors and security discourses. As a case study, I studied living lab Stratumseind, a popular nightlife street in Eindhoven where smart technologies are being tested with the aim to increase safety in the street. I analysis empirically the material I collected during three months of fieldwork in Eindhoven.
I argue, firstly, that collaborations between the different parties involved with living lab Stratumseind are based on different languages, histories, intentions, interests and ideas. These collaborations lead to a form of hybrid governance. Second, I argue that the technologies that are implemented in Stratumseind risk to bring forth consequences such as the reproduction of social inequalities and the criminalization of deviant behaviour. This is followed by a discussion of the question who, in cases of hybrid governance, can be held responsible for these unanticipated consequences. Third, I explore the dominant security and surveillance discourses in living lab Stratumseind, exposing a narrative of control.
5
A
CKNOWLEDGEMENTSFirst of all, I want to thank the people that I have met in Eindhoven and who have wanted to participate in my research in different ways. Brandon, whom I met in a coffee place while writing down my notes. His critical questions and interest have given me an extra push to dive deeper into the different meanings Stratumseind has for citizens of Eindhoven. Eus, my landlady, for always being interested to speak with me about my research and for sharing her experiences in Stratumseind, as a mother of two boys who have been going out there a lot. Tinus Kanters, Richard van den Vijver, Ton van Gool, Thomas Alflen, Paul van Dooren, Thomas, and Pascal for sharing their thoughts, visions and ideals of living lab Stratumseind, exposing their realities of the street. All the passengers, security guards, students, tourists and other people that have taken the time to talk with me or have shared Eindhoven’s nightlife, have been of important value to me.
I want to thank my good friend Mylene Frankfurt, who has taken me along in her life in Eindhoven, made me feel home, made walks with me and discussed my findings, thoughts and considerations.
Because of the outbreak of Covid-19, I have written this thesis at home, which has made my situation at home and the people with whom I live extremely important for this process. I want to thank my parents, Michiel and Corine, and sister, Fleur, with whom I shared much time during this period, for always being supportive and for bringing balance into my life. I want to thank my roommates, Donna and Nicco, for listening to my struggles and drinking many glasses of wine together in the evenings. And my boyfriend, Wouter, for his support and infinite trust.
I want to thank my supervisor Vincent de Rooij for guiding me through this process, giving me advice, giving me feedback whenever I needed it, proposing new ideas and supporting me when I experienced writing-blocks. I want to thank all teachers of this master’s program who have in different ways supported me during this year. Last but not least, I want to thank all the students together with whom I have been in this master’s programme. We have shared our struggles as well as our victories.
6
T
ABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction ... 7
Introduction to the topic ... 7
Theoretical framework ... 10
The rise of the “smart city” ... 10
Genealogy of the term “smart”... 13
Security discourses in the “smart city” ... 15
Social inequalities in the “smart city” ... 17
Research question... 18
Methodology ... 18
The field and the people ... 21
Positionality and self-reflection ... 25
Limitations and Covid-19 ... 25
Outline... 26
Chapter 1: Living Lab Stratumseind Different parties intertwined in one street ... 28
Getting to know Stratumseind ... 29
Planning the City ... 31
Stakeholders ... 32
Different perspectives ... 34
Presenting living lab Stratumseind ... 39
Conclusion ... 43
Chapter 2: Governing Living Lab Stratumseind ... 44
Tech engineers ... 44
Objective technology ... 51
Strengthening social inequalities ... 54
Hybrid governance ... 57
Conclusion ... 61
Chapter 3: Security in Living Lab Stratumseind ... 63
Language... 63
Security as an empty signifier ... 70
Conclusion ... 72
Conclusion ... 74
Scientific context of this study ... 76
Advice for living lab Stratumseind ... 77
Shortcomings ... 78
7
I
NTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC
I have always been interested in new technologies of control and surveillance that are being developed and put into practice in our society. In the same line, the increasing emphasis for security and safety in news media, popular media, politics and daily life has my interest. Therefore, I decided to focus on one of the new developed urban concepts of the last years: the “smart city,” designed to push its civilians into the ‘right’ direction. The ‘smart city’ is often presented as a morally and politically neutral concept, one of the reasons being that it increases safety in the city. Safety is often associated with a certain order, a certain calmness, or cleanliness. To make a city safe means to remove the disorder, noise and danger; the things that do not fit in. But safety is not the same for everyone. Inspired by Mary Douglas’ work on “purity and danger” (1966) I want to investigate how new technologies of surveillance and control, as they are used in the ‘smart city’, risk to define certain people and certain behaviour as “matter out of place,” as dirt that needs to be removed. Secondly, I want to investigate who the people in power are that can define dirt and cleanliness in the ‘smart city’.
Doing more research into this topic, I found out that in my own country a huge experiment is being done on the technological monitoring of peoples’ behaviour. Living Lab Stratumseind is a research and measurement laboratory in Stratumseind, a street in the Dutch city of Eindhoven. Sensors, cameras and other measuring instruments collect data about the people in the street with the aim to make the street safer.
Stratumseind is a popular nightlife street in the centre of Eindhoven, a city in the south of The Netherlands. Over a distance of just 225 meter more than 50 bars, cafés, clubs and restaurants are located. Because of the high density of entertainment industry in a relatively small space, on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights the street is packed with people. During these nights, incidents and conflicts happen regularly.
In 2014, the municipality of Eindhoven started the innovative project ‘Living Lab Stratumseind’ in which “smart” cameras and sound sensors gather data to follow and monitor the people in the street. The cameras and sound sensors register how people move, the
8
density of people in the street, sounds, light, temperature, the number of bikers, the frequency of trucks delivering products to cafés and restaurants and more. Other data is being collected through social media use (every time Stratumseind or one of the cafés in Stratumseind is mentioned on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram). Also information from breweries (e.g. how much beer is sold), cafés, bars, restaurants and clubs in the street is collected by the municipality. The combination of this real-time data makes it possible to find patterns in behaviour of people and dynamics in the street. The cameras and sound sensors are connected to each other and have for example learned to recognize potential conflict based on sudden changes in movement and sound, and to distinguish this from a partying group of people. In the future, technologies will communicate this automatically to the police
and the police is able to pass by and, when needed, intervene.1
The development and popularization of smart technologies leads to a fundamental change in practices of governance and surveillance. Before the digital era, people were controlled through the design of physical space: fences, walls and barbed wire, for example, functioned to stop people from going somewhere. In Stratumseind, however, it is smell, sound and light that is used to control the behaviour of people. The atmosphere, the invisible, the sensible is being designed. Moreover, the design changes constantly, based on real-time collected data and smart software. Users of the street are being governed in an invisible, subtle way that is constantly changing.
This development is being promoted and explained in many news articles, policy documents and scientific papers. However, not much empirical research has been done from
within ‘smart city’ initiatives. The Eindhoven project raises the question of how users of
Stratumseind experience this development? And, have the initial intentions of the innovations been met?
My thesis is built on three interconnected concerns.
1) Cities are changing because of the development of ‘smart city’ ideals. This brings along a powerful position for private tech companies in governing our cities.
9
2) A certain idea of what “safety” means, is used to legitimise the implementation of far reaching technologies of surveillance. Therefore, the people defining “safety” are in a very powerful position.
3) The assumption of objectivity and neutrality that comes with the use of algorithms and technology leads to the risk of strengthening existing social and political inequalities and inequities.
Through technology, possibilities of control over peoples’ lives increase. Personal questions about this idea in relation to the development of the ‘smart city’, are the following: What processes take place behind these innovations? What does “innovation” mean in our world? How do we govern public space? Who decides what “good” and “bad” behaviour is?
In order to answer these questions and to investigate living lab Stratumseind thoroughly, I have used the following theoretical framework. This framework led to the main research question, which will be discussed after the theoretical framework.
Picture 1. A lighting pole with the Philips lighting system and a camera in Stratumseind. Picture made by me on 29-11-19.
10
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Living Lab Stratumseind (LLS) must be seen as part of a wider development: the “smart city.” I will explain how this term is part of a marketing campaign and how companies profit from this development. But first, I will explain how I theoretically approach the “smart city”. THE RISE OF THE “SMART CITY”
“Smart city” is the name given to cities that make use of the collection of data about the city and its citizens and of data-driven and “smart” technologies to improve life in public space. This collection of urban big data produces “a highly granular, longitudinal, whole system understanding of a city system or service and enable city systems to be managed in real time” (Kitchin 2016: 2). Big data is usually obtained through installed sensors and already available data (e.g. from social media, Google, companies’ numbers of production, distribution and sale of certain products, information collected by traffic lights about how many bikers pass by, etc.). It creates a comprehensible system understanding of the city.
Over the past twenty years, the concept “smart city” gained attention from businesses, governments, academia and the media (Kitchin 2015: 131) and grew into an immensely popular urban concept. It is said to have “conquered the public imagination in the last decade” (Morozov & Bia 2018: 2) and has changed how we know, plan and govern our cities (Kitchin 2016). Smart cities are being developed all over the world, from South Korea to Rio de Janeiro, India and Toronto. Also everyday urban life in Europe is conquered by “smart” technologies. The Netherlands is one of the leading European countries where “smart cities” develop in a
rapid pace, with Eindhoven, Enschede and Utrecht as examples.2
There is not one kind of “smart city”. The concept dates back to the 1990s and is applied to many different situations and developments. The term “smart” sounds good (choosing between smart and dumb is not hard), serves all kinds of purposes (economical, technological, governmental, improving health care or ecologically-friendly use of resources) and is associated with different visions, projects and interpretations (Vanolo 2016). This makes it hard to define the difference between a “city” and a “smart city”.
2Naafs, S. (2018). ‘Living laboratories’: the Dutch cities amassing data on oblivious residences. The Guardian. March 1. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/01/smart-cities-data-privacy-eindhoven-utrecht
11
One thing, however, could be mentioned as characteristic for all “smart cities”: its aim is to increase the quality of life by the usage of “smart” technology, with a central role for the collaboration between tech companies, data-analysists, urban planners and the local government. In Toronto, for example, technological experts and urban planners experiment with smart modules that can change the function of a street based on the time of the day, the
weather and the changing needs of the cities’ inhabitants.3 In Copenhagen the municipality
works together with technologists on the project ‘Smart Biking’ to stimulate biking and to
make the city more sustainable.4 The municipality of Amsterdam has experimented with
‘Virtual Power Plants,’ an online platform which aggregated people’s production and consumption of solar energy and stored the surplus locally, which made it possible to trade
energy among neighbourhoods.5 The case study of this thesis, Living Lab Stratumseind, is a
similar “smart city” initiative in which life in the city is promised to be improved through the usage of smart technology.
The vagueness around the term “smart city” is, however, criticized and problematized by different scholars. The term risks to become a marketing tool that is used by companies and governments to attract corporate power, money and private tech companies (e.g. Google, Cisco, IBM and Tesla) (Pali and Schuilenburg 2019). Concerns are also voiced about the domination of private tech companies over governments (Sadowski and Pasquale 2015). According to Sadowski and Pasquale, tech companies promote “smartness” as an ideal so that they can make money out of it, pulling city leaders and investors into the world of smartness. They create needs in order to create and shape a market where they can sell their smart products. This way, solutions to social and political problems are being commodified (Morozov 2014). Morozov and Bria (2018) critique the neoliberal consumption-driven discourse of smart cities, arguing that the main rationale of the development of smart technologies is to create competitive tables in order to invite smart investments.
3 Schröter, R. Modular Street Can Switch From Traffic Lane To Sidewalk In Seconds. Pop Up City. 7 August 2018.
https://popupcity.net/modular-street-can-switch-from-traffic-lane-to-sidewalk-in-seconds/ [accessed 12-12-19]
4 Anonymous. Denmark: Smart Biking to Promote Urban Sustainability. Vita. 17 Oktober 2018.
http://www.vita.it/it/article/2008/10/17/denmark-smart-biking-to-promote-urban-sustainability/83737/
[accessed 06-12-19]
5 Anonymous. Storage and trade of surplus solar energy through home batteries. Amsterdam ‘smart city’.
12
Critics have also pointed to utopian visions and unrealistic abstractions of urban life, a lack of connection to real-world problems and real people, the technological domination over our daily life, the obsession with control and surveillance, and the inability to put citizens (instead of companies) in the centre of urban developments (Kitchin 2015, Kitchin 2016, Morozov and Bria 2018, Pali and Schuilenburg 2019, Vanolo 2014). For using smart technologies, social urban life needs to be abstracted into data, which is referred to as “datafication” (Van Dijk 2014). Because this abstraction is then used to tackle complex social, political and environmental problems, the risk exists that social inequalities, (unconscious) discriminatory and racist ideas of the data-analysts and the exclusion of certain groups are being reproduced and strengthened by technology (Greenfield 2013, Benjamin 2019, Vanolo 2016).
These important critiques are mostly build on theoretical analysis and the reading of governmental and policy documents. Rob Kitchin (2014) critiqued critical scholarship on “smart cities” for “the use of canonical examples and one-size fits all narratives” and “an absence of in-depth empirical case studies of specific ‘smart city’ initiatives and comparative research that contrasts ‘smart city’ developments in different locales” (p. 132). Many scholars speak about the “smart city,” emphasizing typical characteristics. Their critique is based on the reading of corporate and policy documents, online information and previous research on the topic. What is unseen or neglected here, is the messy character of these cities, the diverse histories, political economies and cultural realities, the different starting points, visions, ambitions and priorities of the cities and involved stakeholders (Kitchin 2014: 133) and the everyday tensions, struggles and inconsistencies of “smart cities”. For example, thoroughly researched “smart cities” are Songdo (South Korea), Masdar (United Arab Emirates), and PlantIT Valley (Portugal). These are cities where a ‘smart city’ and a digital infrastructure are being built from scratch through public-private partnerships. Another intensively studied ‘smart city’ is Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), where, because of hosting the World Cup 2014 and
Olympic Games 2016, IBM6 set up an integrated, big data-fed control room. These different
kinds of smart cities, with completely different aims, histories and developments, are
6 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) is one of the biggest technology multinationals worldwide. It has more than 350.000 employees, made a revenue of 79,6 billion US dollars in 2018, and is active in more than 160 countries.
13
understood, discussed and critiqued from within one similar “smart cities” narrative (Ibid.: 133).
Therefore, in addition to the already existing body of literature on “smart cities,” which have mostly been theoretical studies from a distance to the everyday reality in a “smart city,” I will provide an analysis of an empirical study of one particular “smart city” initiative. This provides me the space to show its messiness, struggles and inconsistencies, and to make sense of this messy situation. This also allows me to provide both an overview of Living Lab Stratumseind and to assess the role of security discourses that are used to legitimate the use of “smart” technologies in this initiative and strengthen certain power dynamics and social inequalities.
GENEALOGY OF THE TERM “SMART”
The term “smart city” is strongly performative (Söderström et al. 2014: 307); it “shapes the imaginaries and practices of a myriad of actors” (ibid.). Its emphasis on smart indicates the utopian imaginary of the future of the city that tech companies aim to promote. When analysing a “smart city” initiative, it is therefore important to investigate this term as part of a larger discourse and to analyse the power relations involved, the history of the term, and the different meanings attached to it.
Söderström et al. (2014) have done research into the use of the term “smart city” among commercial international newspapers in English. They found that the term was used first mid-1990s. In examples of 1994 and 1997, “smart” referred to an ICT infrastructure that captured, automized and optimized the whole functioning of the city (ibid.: 310-311).
During the economic crisis of 2018, IBM’s CEO Sam Palmisano gave a talk entitled ‘A Smarter Planet: The Next Leadership Agenda’. He explained in his speech that the world and cities had to become “smarter” in order to become more sustainable and economically efficient. Around the same time, IBM launched a “smarter planet” advertisement that is still running today. On 25 September 2009, IBM officially filed the term “smarter city” to be registered as a trademark (Ibid.: 311) 7.
7 The term ‘‘smart city’’ is legally unprotected and can thus be used freely and applied widely. The term ‘smarter cities’ legally belongs to IBM and refers to the company’s software and campaigns (Söderström et al. 2014).
14
This way, IBM obtained an important and crucial position in the urban technologies market, which they had shaped mostly themselves. Early 2000s, the company had done studies which identified cities as a big untapped market (Townsend 2013: 64). In the years that followed, IBM developed a “full scale contracting” for city governments (McNeil 2013: 7, in Söderström et al. 2014: 311) and contracted cities like Singapore and Rio de Janeiro which are considered successfully and famously pioneering “smart cities”. In 2010, IBM launched the “Smarter Cities Challenge” for which they invited cities from all over the world to compete for nine grand city challenges: administration, citizen engagement, economic development, education and workforce, environment, public safety, social services, transportation, and urban planning. They choose 100 municipalities, which they supported for three years to address the challenges the cities were facing by offering consultancy, technical assistance, grants and experts to advice on how to make the city “smarter and more effective” (IBM 2013). Through this strategy, IBM became market leader in the business of smart urban technology in terms of sales and strategy (Söderström et al. 2014: 312).
IBM thus created a market for themselves of which they became the market leader. In this market, according to Townsend, “Siemens and Cisco aim to be the electrician and the plumber [ ...] [and IBM] their choreographer, superintendent, and oracle rolled into one” (2013: 63, in Söderström et al. 2014: 316). This market of urban technologies and smart cities depends on the idea that the city has problems that need to be solved through technology and innovation. This form of ‘technological solutionism’ (Morozov 2014) will be discussed later in this introduction.
Because the term “smart city” has been created by private tech companies and used to design a business model of which they profit themselves, it is important to study the discourses and political contexts in which the “smart city” became a normalized term and “smart technologies” a normalized tool to “solve” complex urban problems. The term “smart” has captured the thinking of the municipality of Eindhoven and influences their policy. This policy and the discourses that accompany them affect the reality on the ground. I will analyse the perspectives of different stakeholders on Living Lab Stratumseind and their practices and ideas about the usage of “smart” technologies.
15
In this research, I will use Morozov and Bria’s (2018: 4) definition of “smart technology” as “any advanced technology deployed in cities with the intent of optimizing the use of resources, producing new resources, changing user behaviour, or promising other kinds of gains in terms of, for example, flexibility, security, and sustainability”. This broad definition allows me to include all innovations of Stratumseind and to envision other possibilities, functions and opportunities of “smart” technologies.
SECURITY DISCOURSES IN THE “SMART CITY”
According to Rob Kitchin, “much of the writing and rhetoric about smart cities seeks to appear non-ideological, commonsensical and pragmatic” (Kitchin and Dotche 2011: 131). However, the ‘smart city’ is not non-ideological. With the development of “smart technologies,” a new kind of security state arises. Smart cities often focus on technologies of surveillance, mainly invisible surveillance, and the argument of safety is often one that motivates and legitimizes the implementation of “smart” technologies. Also in Stratumseind, increasing safety in the street is one of the main goals of the implementation of smart technologies. Security discourses among stakeholders of Living Lab Stratumseind form a crucial part of this thesis. How do they talk about safety? Whose safety will be protected? And how are these discourses embedded in a political, economic, historical and cultural context?
A lot has been written about what is currently called the ‘securitization of society’ (Schuilenburg 2015). This term identifies a development in which the state increasingly uses security measures to protect and control its citizens and to make a certain order possible. The aim is often to protect itself against imagined and constructed dangers, like refugees. Nowadays, especially in smart cities, businesses become a large player in the security industry, which brings along an extra need for critical analysis of security practices (Schuilenburg 2015B, Kitchin 2016).
The development and popularization of “smart” technologies lead to a fundamental change in practices of security, governance and surveillance of cities. Before the digital era and the development of “smart” technologies, people were controlled through the design of physical space. Fences, walls and barbed wire were for example used to stop people from going somewhere. In Stratumseind, however, smell, sound and light are used to control the behaviour of people. The atmosphere, the invisible, the sensible is being designed. Moreover,
16
the design changes constantly, based on real-time collected data and smart software. Users of the street are being governed, and the modes of governance are invisible, subtle and dynamic (Murakami Wood 2015, Townsend 2013).
Surveillance and security are closely interlinked with a promise of care and control (Lyon 2006, 2007): they function to care for people, to give them a good, safe, healthy, comfortable life, and at the same time they promise to control people. In smart cities specifically, surveillance plays an important role. Surveillance is a form of security, but it is also a way to support certain modes of ordering. Galič (2019) analysed different surveillance technologies in living lab Stratumseind and stated that “surveillance does not function for itself alone but works to support other modes of ordering, which – in turn – can (and often do) generate and support the need for surveillance. A good example of this is the relationship between security and surveillance, where security is commonly used as a justification and a goal of the mass deployment of surveillance” (Galič 2019: 81).
The widely varying uses and meanings of the term “security” in ‘smart city’ initiatives, leads me to think of it as an empty signifier (Laclau and Mouffe 1985). The empty signifier is a paradox based on the theory of Saussure (1959). Saussure approached language as two-sided signs, consisting of a “signifier” and a “signified”. An empty signifier is a signifier without a signified. This becomes possible when a term has become so flexible that it can serve many different aims and contexts, depending on the needs of the person using the term; it has lost its meaning.
Laclau and Mouffe (1985) use the term empty signifier further to explain a hegemony, which is an “unachievable fullness” that seems to be full because of the presence of an empty signifier. The empty signifier symbolises the fullness or completeness of the hegemony. Such hegemonized empty signifiers are, for example, sustainability (Brown 2015) and digital discourses (Barassi 2016). Hegemonic projects have the ideal to construct a social order with the aim to function as a social imaginary, “a horizon” which “is not one among other objects but an absolute limit” (Laclau 1990: 64). The ‘smart city’ can be seen as such a horizon, and security as the empty signifier that makes it possible.
17
SOCIAL INEQUALITIES IN THE “SMART CITY”
Different scholars have shown that the use of smart technologies in public space risks to bring forth consequences that were initially not intended by the technologists, companies, policy makers or governments (e.g. Kitchin 2016, Pali and Schuilenberg 2019, Vanolo 2016). These unanticipated consequences (Merton 1936) can lead to the strengthening of social inequalities, classification, stigmatization and exclusion.
The “looping effect”, as explained by Ian Hacking (1990), describes that people and institutions that are perceived as ‘experts’ in society, have the power to ‘produce’ knowledge. When they categorize and label people, these categories and labels are perceived as expert knowledge. Therefore, the ‘experts’ can create ‘kinds of people’. In living lab Stratumseind, technologists, computer programmers, data analysists and urban planners are perceived as experts. They develop technologies based on categorizations like ‘normal’, ‘abnormal’, ‘deviant’, ‘anomalous’ or ‘risky’ behaviour. These labels are built into the technologies and risk to become treated as solid and objective labels.
According to Ruha Benjamin, “tech fixes often hide, speed up, and even deepen discrimination” (Benjamin 2019: 8). This is often not caused by bad intention of the makers, but because the makers “ignore and thus replicate social divisions” (ibid.). Once a technology is implemented in a city, it is hard to trace back who developed the technology based on which information, assumptions and ideas. The “man behind the screen” is invisible (ibid.: 11).
As Pali and Schuilenburg write: “[a]n ideology of safety, order and risk-free space can lead to the tendency to remove every contravention of that order – everything that is not ‘clean’ – from the city. (…) In cities, it is often the beggars, homeless people, loitering youth, the mentally ill, messy or slovenly individuals, those who seem technologically illiterate or unlikely to buy anything who seem ‘out of place’ (Douglas 1980 [1966])” (Ibid: 9). This form of inclusion and exclusion relates to the idea that the ‘deviant’ is usually characterized as dangerous (Young 1999: 393). Smart technologies have, therefore, the power to draw lines between “what is acceptable and what not” (Pali and Schuilenberg 2019).
Smart cities are usually governed by collaborations between governments, companies and knowledge institutions. This form of “hybrid governance” (Schuilenburg 2015: 41) brings
18
along a redistribution of responsibilities. In living lab Stratumseind, the municipality of Eindhoven collaborates with several tech companies, the technological university of Eindhoven and other knowledge institutions. The dominance of tech companies in the governance of smart cities is a point of concern for different scholars (e.g. Morozov and Bria 2018). Sadowski and Pasquale remark that “[t]he shift in political language — wherein the social contract is replaced by the corporate contract — is subtle, but critical for understanding the politics smuggled into the technocratic agenda of smart cities” (2015: 4).
RESEARCH QUESTION
The explained theories and my initial interests have led to the following research question:
How do different stakeholders motivate and legitimise the implementation of smart technologies in Living Lab Stratumseind, Eindhoven, and what are the consequences of this
implementation for the governance of this area?
METHODOLOGY
This study was a combination of dwelling, participant observation, sensory observation, interviews and online research.
I have been dwelling through Stratumseind, the streets around Stratumseind, and the city of Eindhoven. By dwelling, I got to know the city, the way it lives, the way people interact with each other and with the space around them. Every city has its own ‘feeling’ and every neighbourhood within a city is different (Sennett 2018). Dwelling through the city made it possible to place Stratumseind in a larger spatial and social context.
Participant observation in Stratumseind was specifically focused on the users of the street and on the way smart technologies influenced their experience of the street. I have made many walks, set down at terraces, I went out in Stratumseind for drinks at night or to go dancing in one of the clubs. During those evenings, I spoke to different people, saw how police officers intervened small fights or I noticed the Philips Lighting system at work. I have had many conversations with visitors of Stratumseind, ranging from students to tourists to construction workers. After each short conversation or interesting event, I wrote down in my
19
notebook what I found interesting, surprising, informative, patterns that I found or other potentially relevant information.
Observations of Stratumseind included as well a form of sensory observation, which meant that I focused on sound, light, smell or touch as I walked through the street on different times of the day and week. Senses show how experiences of a place can differ between people and over time (Ingold 2011). This was specifically interesting to investigate the difference of the street between day and night. During the day, the street was quiet, bars were closed, people passed by and street had a grey colour. During the night, the street was full with people and different colours of lights were used by different bars, which gave it a completely different atmosphere (see picture 2).
Also, the sensuous experience is in constant interaction with knowledge. I already noticed during the preliminary investigation that the more I knew about cameras, the more I saw them and the more I felt physically different when I saw them, as is described by theory on the panopticon (Foucault 1977). Cyborg rights activist Aral Balkan explained that “[a] ‘smart city’ knows everything about you. All of your movements, who you are, who your friends are, who you’re talking to, where you’re going. The only other structure that I know that has that design, is the panopticon. And that’s a prison. (...) The panopticon influences your behaviour,
even if no one is actually watching you.”8 Therefore, making the connection between
knowledge, spatial experience and unconscious behaviour was important in order to study the consequences of the technological innovations in Stratumseind on the daily lives of its users. Next to these forms of observation, I conducted ten semi-structured interviews. Each interview with a different stakeholder of living lab Stratumseind. I recorded all interviews by phone, receiving informed consent from all the informants. After each interview I wrote down a short summary in my notebook. I have transcribed them completely afterwards.
8 Quoted from a broadcast of the documentary television programme VPRO Tegenlicht, titled “Making cities: de stad van de toekomst” (“Making cities: the city of the future”), 16-05-12 [seen 10-11-19]
20
Interviews have been important to learn more about the intentions of different stakeholders. I gained understanding of the interplay between the different parties involved with living lab Stratumseind, their interests and existing power structures. I aimed to understand their perspectives and life worlds. The respondents that asked to read the thesis before I would hand in the final version, have read the thesis. I have changed the text if they wished so, in a way that fitted my arguments and ideas.
Lastly, I have done online research in different ways. The municipality of Eindhoven, involved organizations and involved companies promote living lab Stratumseind online. I have analysed the material in order to compare the way they promote living lab Stratumseind with the way visitors experience the street on the ground. Also, several newspapers and websites have written about different initiatives in the street, which I have analysed.
Until now, little empirical research has been done on smart cities (Kitchin 2014).Kitchin
provides a list of insights on smart cities that ethnographies, fieldwork and interviews can add to the field of study. Three of these insights I hope to add through this thesis, are:
21
- “The ways in which initiatives are rolled out in practice and are fractured and reworked in the messy realities and politics of implementation and contestation.” - “What the effects of different techno-social arrangements are on urban systems,
economic sectors and populations.”
- “The extent to which initiatives create or perpetuate inequalities between communities.” (2014: 134)
THE FIELD AND THE PEOPLE
Eindhoven is the fifth largest municipality in the Netherlands with 234.401 inhabitants in June
20209. An important player in the growth of the city is Philips, which began as a light bulb
factory and is now a multinational and global player in the field of electronics. Also, the Technological University of Eindhoven (TU/e) is a prestigious university and is important for the city. Therefore, technology is an important part of Eindhoven’s identity. Eindhoven works hard on technological innovation in order to improve the quality of life in the city. Living Lab Stratumseind is not their only ‘smart city’ project. The municipality has for example worked on a “smart traffic management system” in one of their test grounds, with “smart digital eyes and ears in the lighting,” which should improve traffic flow and increase safety.10 Next to living
lab Stratumseind, Strijp-S also functions as a living lab.11
Stratumseind, also known simply as Stratum, is a 225 meter long street in the centre of Eindhoven. The street consists of more than 50 catering establishments, among which cafés, grand cafés, restaurants and snack bars, and is the entertainment centre of Eindhoven. The street is known for the amount of violence and conflicts during the nights. When I did a small online research in November 2019, I found many newspaper articles where beatings and fights were described, for some of which people have received prison sentences up to one
9 See https://www.eindhoven.nl/bevolking [accessed 03-07-20]
10 See https://www.eindhoven.nl/persberichten/project-jouw-licht-op-040-stopt-per-1-december-2019
11 Strijp S is an area outside of the centre of Eindhoven where former factories of Philips were located. In recent years, it has been renovated and changed into a popular neighbourhood where design, art and technology are central features. Strijp S is also a living lab, according to their website with the aim to “improve quality of life for the visitors and inhabitants of Strijp S”. The municipality has installed sensors to improve the quality of air, cameras to monitor and analyse traffic flows, and “smart lighting” systems. See: https://strijp-s.nl/living-lab-strijp-s/ [accessed 07-03-20].
22
and a half year12. In 2015, around 800 incidents were recorded.13 One explanation given for
the amount of violence is the density of the street: 55 cafés and 10 restaurants on 250 meter, attracting 20.000 people a weekend. Partly due to problems with safety, the municipality started the project ‘Stratumseind 2.0’.
Stratumseind 2.0
In 2012, the municipality of Eindhoven, together with Horecavereniging Stratumseind (an association of all local entrepreneurs of the street), initiated ‘Stratumseind 2.0’: a project in order to improve the quality of life, safety in and attractiveness of Stratumseind (Stratumseind
2.0 Plan van Aanpak 2013-2017/ Stratumseind 2.0 Action Plan 2013-2017).
According to the website stratumseind-eindhoven.nl,14 Stratumseind 2.0 is built on
four pillars:
1. “Fresh New Vibes: entrepreneurs, property owners and breweries work together in a strong formal collective and together they work on the right developments and mentality in Stratumseind.
2. Safe and Sound: Everyone, from each origin, age or gender, should feel safe and welcome in the street.
3. Share the Magic: The “stratumseind-feeling” should be shared with lovers, friends, colleagues or family.
4. Powered by Tech: Stratumseind is an innovative nightlife area. Its story is built together with Philips, TU/e and other partners. The street is a progressive and international example.”
Different projects have started under the umbrella Stratumseind 2.0. All these project have the aim to achieve the goal formulated earlier: to improve the quality of life, safety in and
12 See https://www.omroepbrabant.nl/nieuws/2950038/tiener-die-man-tegen-zijn-hoofd-schopte-op-stratumseind-moet-half-jaar-de-cel-in [accessed 08-10-10] 13 See https://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2012308-eindhoven-zet-schijnwerpers-op-agressieve-feestgangers.html [accessed 08-10-19] 14See https://www.eindhoven.nl/nieuws/tijdloos-eindhoven-wint-citychallenge-boeiende-binnenstad [accessed 10-10-19]
23
attractiveness of Stratumseind. As part of Stratumseind 2.0, Living Lab Stratumseind was developed one year after the start, in 2013.
Living Lab Stratumseind
Living lab Stratumseind has different functions. Twenty research institutions, local entrepreneurs, the police, tech companies, the municipality of Eindhoven and many other parties are involved. As it is part of Stratumseind 2.0, it aims to improve the quality of life, safety in and attractiveness of Stratumseind. Second, it offers tech companies the opportunity to test their products in a real life situation. Testing in living labs makes it possible for tech companies to call their products ‘proven’ in real life, which increases the reliability and the value of the product. This is a service the municipality of Eindhoven offers to tech companies. In exchange for this service, the products of the tech companies should help the municipality to make the street safer, livelier and more attractive.
Picture 3. A pole in Stratumseind with smart technologies: a sound sensor (the white box), Philips lighting system (the large black box) and place for new technologies. Picture made by me on 03-02-20.
24
Different kinds of technologies are being tested in Stratumseind. Smart lights developed by Philips are hung up on special poles (see picture 3), these lights can change colour and intensity, based on the moment of the day and the number of visitors. The idea behind this technique is to change the atmosphere in the street in order to decrease aggression and violence. Smart 3D sound sensors designed by Sorama (an Eindhoven-based tech company) are hung up on the same poles (see picture 4). They register sounds in and around the street, placed strategically at specific places (see picture 5). Another example is smart camera software, developed by Oddity.ai (an Utrecht-based tech company), which is installed in already existing camera’s, sometimes attached to the same pole. Also counting cameras are installed on all entry points of the street (see picture 5). Next year, the municipality wants to start experimenting with smell in the street in order to make people calm and discourage aggressive behaviour. Also several projects have taken place under the umbrella of Living Lab Stratumseind.
Picture 4. A pole in Stratumseind with smart technologies: a sound sensor (the white box on top), a camera with software from Oddity.ai, presumably a counting camera and other technologies I do not recognize. Picture made by me on 29-11-19.
25
POSITIONALITY AND SELF-REFLECTION
Everyone who does research, specifically in the social sciences, makes choices. These choices are motivated by personal beliefs, political ideas, life experiences and certain assumptions. Even someone who tries to be as objective and neutral as possible, is influenced by his or her own beliefs and expectations. My beliefs have been an important part of why I started this research and the results that I have found. I would not have done this research if I would not have had a political interest in the topic beforehand.
I have always been quite sceptical about technological interventions in our daily lives. At the same time, I am interested by the technology that is increasingly being implemented in our lives and cities. Together with my interest in security and surveillance, living lab Stratumseind turned out to be a research site to discover the world of smart technology and new forms of security. This made my position a rather naïve one, because I was not ‘into’ technology. However, before moving to Eindhoven, I read a lot about (smart) technologies and their risks and possibilities. I talk along about technology, not as a professional, but as an interested laywoman.
LIMITATIONS AND COVID-19
Picture 5. Locations of video counting cameras (red dots) and sound sensors (blue dots) on Stratumseind. Copyright: Eindhoven municipality.
26
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic that broke out while I was doing fieldwork in Eindhoven, I had to leave the city earlier than planned. This caused a two week shortage of my fieldwork. In those two weeks, I had planned to go out in the street to experience nightlife in the street, which obviously was not possible anymore. I also wanted to interview someone from the municipality of Eindhoven, who had after the outbreak of Covid-19 no time left to make an appointment. It was also that week that I e-mailed Maarten Duindam from Sound Intelligance, who programmes the algorithms from the sound sensors of the company Sorama, to make an appointment. In the chaos of the start of the pandemic, he let me know that he could not do an online interview.
It is unfortunate that I had to leave Eindhoven around the time that I finally started to really understand what was happening in living lab Stratumseind and I got to know people there. I think that the last two weeks could have been two valuable weeks in which I would have gained a more thorough understanding of the situation. However, I cannot say that I missed specific experiences because of Covid-19. Apart from the interviews that I wanted to do and the experiences I could have had in the street, Covid-19 did not have an enormous influence on my fieldwork.
OUTLINE
In the first chapter I will introduce the different stakeholders involved with living lab Stratumseind. Based on my experiences in the street, I investigate the discrepancy between, on the one hand, the stories I heard about living lab Stratumseind and, on the other hand, the reality I encountered on the ground experienced by users of Stratumseind. Drawing on Scott’s (1999) analysis of modern state building, I look at Stratumseind from a planners perspective and a users perspective. By understanding Stratumseind as two different realities – the physical place and the invisible, digital project – I elaborate on the terms “inside” and “outside” that receive a different meaning in these different realities. Then, I discuss the commercial interests of the invisible, digital project Living Lab Stratumseind. This way, the chapter functions as an introduction into different perspectives on living lab Stratumseind.
In the second chapter, I focus on smart surveillance technologies that are tested in living lab Stratumseind. I investigate the way these technologies are designed and implemented, and I question whether social and ethical risks are taken into account during
27
this process. I discuss both the perspectives of the tech companies and of the municipality of Eindhoven. Then, I investigate the way these collaborations influence governance of the city. I argue that the surveillance technologies risk to strengthen, reproduce and create social inequalities, and that it is unclear who is responsible for these possible unanticipated consequences.
In the third chapter, I continue this line by an investigation of the term ‘security’ in living lab Stratumseind. Relating security to practices of inclusion and exclusion, I see the technologies as a way to ‘design in’ people and ‘design out’ others. I understand ‘security’ as an ‘empty signifier’ (Laclau and Mouffe) that functions to hold up the hegemonic idea that living lab Stratumseind and other ‘smart citiy’ project are part of a utopian future.
28
C
HAPTER1:
L
IVINGL
ABS
TRATUMSEINDD
IFFERENT PARTIES INTERTWINED IN ONE STREETHow can one live in someone else’s utopian vision?15
- Jan van de Pavert, Dromen in Beton
As a first step in understanding the growth of “smart city” initiatives, it is important to understand where this growth is coming from. We should look at the web of people interacting with “smart city” ideas and practices. Many different actors, cultural, social and historical events in society, and the existence of technological possibilities are crucial preconditions for this development. Universities, national and international politics (e.g. the war on terror), governments, businesses and technologists are together leading to the rise of “smart city” initiatives.
Also in living lab Stratumseind, many different actors come together, each from a different position with different interests, intentions, motivations and ideas. Through open interviews, informal encounters on the street and long conversations in bars, I got to know different individuals that are, from different positions, involved in Living Lab Stratumseind. They each have their own background and their own language, beliefs, personal and economic motivations. The in-depth understanding of this “smart city” initiative makes it possible to see its complexity, its messiness, and the dynamics and interactions that play under the surface.
Through sharing stories of different stakeholders and analysing the parts where they cross, I aim to sketch a picture of living lab Stratumseind that is different from the usual picture that is presented of this street. In this chapter, I will show how different parties have made their way to Stratumseind, how they need to cooperate, and how these dynamics eventually create a specific situation on the ground. I follow Marc Schuilenburg in his perspective on evaluating security interventions:
29
“Evaluation involves more than the instrumental question as to whether something works or not. It also involves examining the ratio of the dynamics and mechanisms of fighting crime. One way of doing this is to look at the interactions among the actors on the ground. How do they relate to one another and how do they regard one another? Which kind of language do they use, and what do they hope to achieve? How do they interpret the agreements made, and how much importance do they attach to their observance?” (Schuilenburg 2015: 21)
Specifically in the field of security and technology, these collaborations and intertwining interests have consequences for our daily lives and futures. An analysis of these collaborations and their discourses can help us to understand the rise of the “smart city” and new forms of governance that this will bring along.
GETTING TO KNOW STRATUMSEIND
On a grey morning in February, when I had just moved to Eindhoven, I went to café De Spijker, a student bar at the beginning of Stratumseind just in front of the church. To get there, I had to walk through Stratumseind. It was quiet, some people walked or biked through the street. In the morning, almost all cafés are closed, so not much was happening in the street. Some trash lay around from the night before. Construction men were working in one of the bars. During the day, the empty bars lose their identity, their function. It becomes an environment through which people pass (see picture 6). When I arrived at De Spijker, one of the few bars (‘bar’ is actually not the right term here, De Spijker is a restaurant during the day, a bar in the evening and a night club during the night) open at that time, I sat down at the terrace and ordered a coffee. In front of me, preparations for Carnaval took place. A large tent was being built up in between the church and café De Spijker. When the waitress, a student, brought me my coffee, I asked her what kind of street Stratumseind is. Enthusiastically she started telling about all the students that come here to go out. She explained that the different cafés play different kinds of music. Here in De Spijker it is mostly pop, sing along and Dutch music; actually, all music which is popular among students. Two cafés play R&B, another café plays house. This tells you a lot about the kinds of people that come to those cafés, she told me. When I asked her to tell me something about Living Lab Stratumseind, she looked confused and stayed silent. I explained her something about the experiments that are being done with
30
light and other technologies to increase safety in the street, but she had never heard of it. She was not really impressed by my story and not really interested in it either. She liked to go out here, that was most important to her.
This is a reaction I got almost every time when I spoke about Stratumseind with students, which is the biggest group that goes out there. While the living lab exists since 2014 and is promoted in local newspapers and through online campaigns, the students don’t know much about the development. Some students I spoke to, knew some general things, e.g. that Philips did experiments with lights. But they did not know the details of it, nor were they really interested in them. When I explained more about the living lab, most of them were not impressed and did not care.
And not only students were unaware of the developments. When I was going out in Stratumseind one night, I met two police officers in the street. I asked them whether they made use of the technologies in Stratumseind. They told me they did not. In fact, they did not know much about the technologies in the street, and were not eager to talk about it. One of
31
them remarked that they were never informed about these developments, and that they were not interested in them either. They could do their job without them.
The next week, I made an appointment with the project manager of the police team that works in Stratumseind. I told him about my experiences in the street, and he told me that he is not informed about most of the developments of the living lab either. He learns about them through the newspaper, and often he does not know how the implemented technologies work. Also, the technologies are often not easy to use for the police, he says, because of practicalities. He does not feel involved in the living lab.
The police and students express a completely different image of the living lab than I got when reading websites, scientific articles, promotion material and policy documents about Living Lab Stratumseind. When reading about the living lab, it seemed as if it was one of the most innovative “smart city” projects in the world, and that the whole street was influenced by colour, camera’s, sensors and other “smart” technologies. The municipality gives presentations to international audiences on the living lab. Tech companies as well as the municipality have expressed that safety is one of their main aims, and that they work together with the police. And yet the police does not feel involved. What is happening here?
PLANNING THE CITY
In Stratumseind exists a discrepancy between, on the one hand, stories from students and police officers working and living in Stratumseind, and, on the other, stories from the municipality and tech companies planning Stratumseind. In an analysis of modern state planning, James Scott explains that the ordering of social life takes place from above, by urban or architectural planners who “gaze down, exactly as if they were in a helicopter.” However, “no or very few human observers will [ever] replicate [this perspective]” (1988: 55-56). The perspectives of architects or urban planners have no necessary relationship to the order of life as it is experienced by its residents, while at the same time, the residents do experience the consequences of the plans that are made from the perspective of the planners.
For understanding the rise of “smart city” initiatives and the problems this brings along, Scott’s writing on modern states, and the way modern states govern their population through schemes of social life, is relevant. In the end, the “smart city” is a multidimensional scheme of
32
social life, through which the state can understand, control and manipulate its citizens. As Scott explains, the ones who make those schemes have the power to decide which categories are used to define and schematize individual citizens. These schemes, plans and overviews provide governments the possibility to control and manipulate their citizens. The control and manipulation of citizens and their environments can be for the good – in order to improve public health and transportation – or for the bad – with the Second World War as one of the worst examples in European history. Scott analysed the rise of the modern state in the twentieth century in relation to a “high modern ideology,” inspired by the Enlightenment, that privileged linear streets, numbers, surnames, schemes and measurable citizens in order to improve health and mobility, while, at the same time, providing states with possibilities of control and manipulation. In the “smart city,” the high modernism ideology is still present; however, public-private partnerships and the rise of global capitalism have changed its context.
States in the age of information technology have become more complicated than the modern states Scott has analysed. I will investigate what the influence of those planning practices are on the power dynamics that are at stake: how and by whom is living lab Stratumseind planned?
STAKEHOLDERS
Different stakeholders are involved with planning, developing and designing living lab Stratumseind. I will give an overview of the stakeholders of the project, excluding the users of the area, in order to identify the ‘planners’ of living lab Stratumseind.
The municipality of Eindhoven is the central responsible party for the governance of the living lab. They initiated the living lab in 2013 and formulated its goals. They assign contracts with different companies and knowledge institutions, and stay in contact with their citizens.
The Dutch Institute for Technology, Safety and Security (DITSS) is an non-profit organization, funded by the government, that uses technological innovation to solve safety and security issues through technology in Brabant (a province in the south of The Netherlands, of which Eindhoven is the largest city). They work according to the “triple helix principle”, which means that they stimulate cooperation between knowledge institutes, governments
33
and companies. The municipality of Eindhoven detaches people from DITSS to manage and organize the living lab and to work together with the different partners. DITSS thus plays a central role. Tinus Kanters from DITSS is the project leader of Living Lab Stratumseind from the beginning of its existence.
Several private tech companies test their products in Stratumseind. These are both local companies (e.g. Oddity and Sorama) and large, international companies (e.g. Atos, IBM, Intel, Cisco and Philips). The tech companies design and produce technologies for the living lab. They have multiple interests to participate in the project. First, it makes it possible to test their technologies in real life, instead of just in an artificial laboratory, which makes them more trustable. The experiments also offer companies the possibility to sell their product to the municipality of Eindhoven.
The Technological University of Eindhoven (TU/e) takes part in designing and developing technologies for the living lab. The TU/e cooperates with private tech companies and the municipality of Eindhoven in different projects.
The police is involved with safety in living lab Stratumseind. From their position as experts in the field of safety and security, and with street-knowledge, they are sometimes involved in the development of technologies for the living lab. This was, for example, the case with De-escalate. However, this does not mean that they have real influence. The tech companies and the municipality decide whether and how they involve the police in the process.
Local entrepreneurs – the café, bar, and restaurant owners – are an important part of Living Lab Stratumseind. Horecavereniging Stratumseind (the association of all local entrepreneurs of the street) initiated together with the municipality Stratumseind 2.0. Living lab Stratumseind is one of the projects that arose from this initiative. The aims of the living lab – increasing safety, attractiveness and liveability – are in line with the interests of the entrepreneurs. Just like with the police, the municipality and the tech companies decide whether and how the local entrepreneurs are involved.
34
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
The multitude of stakeholders and planners of living lab Stratumseind makes it a complicated collaborative project. In order to investigate the dynamics between the different stakeholders, I share two stories that show different perspectives on living lab Stratumseind, different languages to speak about the project and different intentions to participate in it. The first from a policeman, the second from the director of a tech company.
“WHAT ARE THEY DOING?”
Entering a police office always feels weird. One would either come here to report an offense or because of being suspected to have committed an offense oneself. I enter a large
entrance hall. The woman behind the desk greets me in a loud, cheerful voice. I explain that I have an appointment for an interview with Richard van den Vijver. She nods and tells me to wait in the waiting area. A minute later, a tall man comes up to me with a smile. We shake hands and enter a little room next to the waiting area, which is usually used to interrogate people.
Richard is the project manager of the police team that works in and around Stratumseind during the weekend, and he is football coordinator at local top division football club PSV. He is thus used to work with crowds. He likes to work in Stratumseind, he says, because of the diversity between the nights and the amount of people. He names it “a unique little street” (een uniek straatje) and a “child disco”. “The main trouble here,” he explains to me with a serious voice, “is caused by the old classical story: alcohol and women. Men touching the wrong woman, men showing “machismo” (haantjesgedrag, lit. rooster/cock behaviour)”. Also, he adds, it is important to be aware of what happens outside of Stratumseind. Young people arguing at schools who meet again at Stratumseind, sport associations, dynamics between villages from outside Eindhoven, dynamics between Eindhoven and Belgium, bachelor parties, football matches. Also concerts, parties or other events happening in Eindhoven, university schedules and exam periods influence the dynamics at Stratumseind, he says. One needs to be aware of all dynamics that are at play. To be updated at the beginning of the night, Richard and his team make a walk along the security guards of the cafés; they know what is going on.
35
Without trivializing the serious character of violence in Stratumseind, he also puts it into perspective: “it is Stratumseind, a narrow street, a lot of youth, alcohol. Then [the number of incidents] is quite normal. These are not all shocking things. Someone is urinating, someone else is using a false ID to enter a club. And then you see the number of arrests and that sounds like a lot.”
When I ask Richard about the technologies that are being tested in Stratumseind, he looks at me with a sceptical face. He is not against them, he explains, but he does not yet experience any advantage since the beginning of the living lab in 2013. Also, he never sees long term results of the tests. He states, “the living lab is presented beautifully to the outside world, but I don’t notice anything of it in practice.” A few years ago, he says, electronics company Philips joined the police on the street to understand their experiences and needs. Then, Philips developed a dashboard which the police could use to change lighting in the street. Richard only used it to brighten the lights five minutes before Stratumseind closed in order to let people go home. The whole dashboard was not necessary, but that specific function was useful. One year later, the license of the dashboard had to be extended, but there was no money for it, so the project stopped. I ask Richard who should have paid this money. He answers: “You tell me. Everyone pointed at each other. The municipality said ‘the police asked this so they have to pay for it,’ Philips said ‘we developed this for you so we don't have to pay.’ The ball was passed around. I don't know where the ball is now but we don't have this system anymore.”
Richard has many more questions about the technologies: “What are they doing? In what stage is it? What are the results? Or is it not working and are they going to do something new?” He sights and says, “it's been the same thing for five years. I see little change.” He looks at me, showing a mixture of amusement, confusion and frustration. “There is actually just one thing I would really like Philips to design,” he says at the end of our conversation, “a sprinkling installation with water from the Dommel.” The Dommel is the river next to Stratumseind. “Because when it rains, people always go home,” he says, and starts laughing out loud.
“IT IS A HIGH RISK, HIGH REWARD CASE”
During his master’s Business Entrepreneurship, Thomas had to set up a start-up in the field of technology. Looking for a market where technology could play a role and where he could set
36
up a successful start-up, he found out that little innovation took place in the public security sector. After doing some more research, he found that observers of the municipality spend hours in control rooms looking at camera images, waiting for situations where they have to intervene. If there were software that could identify violent behaviour, he thought, these observers would not have to watch the camera for whole days. Also, algorithms never get tired, so more incidents can be registered by algorithms than by humans, Thomas reasoned. Together with two study mates, he turned this idea into a business model and “entered the market”.
It was a “high risk, high reward choice,” he says. Thomas sits in front of me, he is a blond man of about 26 years old with sparkling eyes. Enthusiastically he tells me about the exciting journey he and his two study mates are in. Since they finished their master’s two years ago, they continued with the start-up and set up their own company Oddity.ai. The headline on their website is “Meet Oddity.ai - The future of safety” (see picture 7). And below that: "We believe that through human and machine cooperation, Oddity can bring public safety to a
whole new level".16 At the moment, they are busy with giving presentations to police teams,
having conversations with potential investors and trying to convince potential clients, while finetuning their product through pilots in living lab Stratumseind. We are in his office in Utrecht, which is located in what used to be Het Pieter Baan Centrum, a centre for psychiatric observation of suspects of serious criminal offenses. The building offers temporary housing
for small businesses that ‘add something positive to society’.17 When Thomas opened the big,
heavy entrance door for me, he suggested to first give me a tour through this historical building. We moved through the building, where almost no window can be opened, and we walked along old cells for psychiatric offenders.
When we passed some guys in the hallway who seemed to be in their twenties, Thomas told me that many young people have offices here and they regularly have drinks together. Later, we passed a room with a kitchen and a big wooden table in the middle, which is the
16 This was the literal text on https://oddity.ai/ [accessed 12-11-19]. Oddity.ai renewed their website in May 2020, in order to show their new vision. They removed the lower text (‘We believe that through human and machine cooperation, Oddity can bring public safety to a whole new level’). It can therefore not be found back anymore. The current subtitle states: ‘Oddity is first to develop a commercial violence recognition algorithm using advanced deep learning techniques’ [accessed 18-06-20]
