Eyes and Apps on the Streets: From Surveillance to Sousveillance Using Smartphones

Abstract

This article explores the concept of surveillance by assessing the nature of data gathered by users of a smartphone-based tool (app) developed in Sweden to assist citizens in reporting incidents in public spaces. This article first illustrates spatial and temporal patterns of records gathered over 9 months in Stockholm County using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to exemplify the process of sousveillance via app. Then, the experiences of user group members, collected using an app-based survey, are analyzed. Findings show that the incident reporting app is more often used to report an incident and less often to prevent it. Preexistent social networks in neighborhoods are fundamental for widespread adoption of the app, often used as a tool in Neighborhood Watch schemes in highcrime areas. Although the potentialities of using app data are open, these results call for more indepth evaluations of smartphone data for safety interventions.

Inclusive, Safe and Resilient Public Spaces: Gateway to Sustainable Cities?

“…The age of new technology has also contributed to the development of methodological, and ethical challenges. For example, Ceccato [62] emphasized on what happens in public space is getting new expressions, for example, the role of guardians in surveillance has been redefined. "Eyes on the streets" by Jane Jacob [36] is complemented by "apps on streets" [62].…”

“…For example, Ceccato [62] emphasized on what happens in public space is getting new expressions, for example, the role of guardians in surveillance has been redefined. "Eyes on the streets" by Jane Jacob [36] is complemented by "apps on streets" [62]. Ceccato explored the concept of surveillance and related terms by evaluating the nature of the data captured by users of an incident-reporting app.…”

“…While exploring spatial patterns of guardianship through civic technology platforms at the level of neighborhood units in England, Solymosi [63] found that it is possible to make use of civic tech data to explore people's engagement in guardianship and map their guardianship capacity in physical space by using digital traces of behavior available online, however, there are limitations associated with crowdsourced data as they are characterized by bias sample self-selection as well as participation inequality [62] also highlighted technological, legal, institutional, ethical, and cultural-that limits the use of apps/smartphones for planning purposes. The author emphasized that the issues of data privacy, the responsibility of actions (e.g., intervening) and accountability should be addressed before data of this kind is used [62]. So what makes a public place inclusive, safe and resilient from the socio-technological perspective?…”

The Device–Object Pairing Problem: Matching IoT Devices with Video Objects in a Multi-Camera Environment

“…Another way to identify persons is to exploit IoT devices, such as smartphones and smartwatches, which have become virtually the users’ IDs. Personal devices can also store owners’ profiles and be used in sensitive domains such as factories, hospitals, and restricted areas [ 5 , 6 ]. Further, with the global deployment of 5G, IoT devices nowadays can communicate almost anywhere.…”

Representations of environmental protest on the ground and in the cloud: The NOTAP protests in activist practice and social visual media

“…Over the past decades, digital communication technologies (DCTs) have shaped the way people communicate and engage with each other on matters of crime and justice. With respect to justice in particular, the widespread use of social media and availability of mobile phones with embedded cameras has allowed, for example, for a greater participation of citizens in crime reporting and police investigations, both as citizen journalists and digilantes (Ceccato, 2019; Huey et al, 2013; Nhan et al, 2017). Individuals have exploited DCTs’ affordances not only to assist the police but also to monitor them, and therefore undertake counter-surveillance or – following a much used concept in the surveillance studies literature coined by Mann and colleagues (2003) – sousveillance (watching from below).…”