People’s strategies for perceived surveillance in Amsterdam Smart City

Shazade Jameson*, Christine Richter, Linnet Taylor

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate people’s perception of datafication and
surveillance in Amsterdam Smart City. Based on a series of focus
groups, we show how people understand new forms of hypervisbi-
lity, what strategies they use to navigate these experiences, and what
the limitations of these strategies are. We show how people tried to
discern between public and private sector actors, to differentiate who
they trusted by building on the existing social contract. People also
trusted the objectivity of data in relation to prior experiences of social
contexts and discrimination. Lastly, we show how the experiences of
some of the inhabitants in our study who were most vulnerable to
hypervisibility highlight the limits to strategies based on the neutral-
ity of data. By asking about perceived surveillance rather than
emphasising actual practices of surveilling, we show differentiated
contexts and strategies, providing empirical grounds to question the
dominant technical framing of smart cities.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-19
Number of pages19
JournalUrban Geography
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 2019

Fingerprint

Smart city

Cite this

@article{a5433872cc2c4eafbecf4076012ba5de,
title = "People’s strategies for perceived surveillance in Amsterdam Smart City",
abstract = "In this paper, we investigate people’s perception of datafication andsurveillance in Amsterdam Smart City. Based on a series of focusgroups, we show how people understand new forms of hypervisbi-lity, what strategies they use to navigate these experiences, and whatthe limitations of these strategies are. We show how people tried todiscern between public and private sector actors, to differentiate whothey trusted by building on the existing social contract. People alsotrusted the objectivity of data in relation to prior experiences of socialcontexts and discrimination. Lastly, we show how the experiences ofsome of the inhabitants in our study who were most vulnerable tohypervisibility highlight the limits to strategies based on the neutral-ity of data. By asking about perceived surveillance rather thanemphasising actual practices of surveilling, we show differentiatedcontexts and strategies, providing empirical grounds to question thedominant technical framing of smart cities.",
author = "Shazade Jameson and Christine Richter and Linnet Taylor",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1080/02723638.2019.1614369",
language = "English",
pages = "1--19",
journal = "Urban Geography",

}

People’s strategies for perceived surveillance in Amsterdam Smart City. / Jameson, Shazade; Richter, Christine; Taylor, Linnet.

In: Urban Geography, 2019, p. 1-19.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - People’s strategies for perceived surveillance in Amsterdam Smart City

AU - Jameson, Shazade

AU - Richter, Christine

AU - Taylor, Linnet

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - In this paper, we investigate people’s perception of datafication andsurveillance in Amsterdam Smart City. Based on a series of focusgroups, we show how people understand new forms of hypervisbi-lity, what strategies they use to navigate these experiences, and whatthe limitations of these strategies are. We show how people tried todiscern between public and private sector actors, to differentiate whothey trusted by building on the existing social contract. People alsotrusted the objectivity of data in relation to prior experiences of socialcontexts and discrimination. Lastly, we show how the experiences ofsome of the inhabitants in our study who were most vulnerable tohypervisibility highlight the limits to strategies based on the neutral-ity of data. By asking about perceived surveillance rather thanemphasising actual practices of surveilling, we show differentiatedcontexts and strategies, providing empirical grounds to question thedominant technical framing of smart cities.

AB - In this paper, we investigate people’s perception of datafication andsurveillance in Amsterdam Smart City. Based on a series of focusgroups, we show how people understand new forms of hypervisbi-lity, what strategies they use to navigate these experiences, and whatthe limitations of these strategies are. We show how people tried todiscern between public and private sector actors, to differentiate whothey trusted by building on the existing social contract. People alsotrusted the objectivity of data in relation to prior experiences of socialcontexts and discrimination. Lastly, we show how the experiences ofsome of the inhabitants in our study who were most vulnerable tohypervisibility highlight the limits to strategies based on the neutral-ity of data. By asking about perceived surveillance rather thanemphasising actual practices of surveilling, we show differentiatedcontexts and strategies, providing empirical grounds to question thedominant technical framing of smart cities.

U2 - 10.1080/02723638.2019.1614369

DO - 10.1080/02723638.2019.1614369

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 19

JO - Urban Geography

JF - Urban Geography

ER -