Abstract
Digital twins are virtual models of cities that are built on real-time data extracted from sensors located within our built environment. Digital twins funnel a wide range of collected data from urban environments into automated decision-making frameworks that govern how we plan, design, build, operate and manage smart cites, including occupants. However, this use of collected data to predict and shape future behaviour in the city is accompanied with limited transparency about how automated decisions are made. Digital twins can consequently lead to ‘black box cities’ where data extraction seamlessly results in an automated decision-making output. This chapter examines whether the data collection practices that underpin digital twins are dataveillant and considers how information privacy legal obligations, articulated in the design of digital twins, may affect occupant perception of how trustworthy the system is. A conceptual framework of trustworthiness is applied to digital twins, with the three elements of trustworthiness being: ability, integrity and benevolence. The chapter examines how digital twins can be designed to be trustworthy by explicitly considering the role of socio-political values in data generation and analysis, especially that of information privacy law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
While these principles are grouped under three headings of Function, Trust and Purpose, this paper proposes to apply the Mayer model to provide a new taxonomy for these principles. The element of ability broadly encompasses Insight (Gemini Principle 3), Security (Gemini Principle 4), Quality (Gemini Principle 6), Federation (Gemini Principle 7) and Evolution (Gemini Principle 9). While the element of benevolence captures the principles of Public good (Gemini Principle 1), Openness (Gemini Principle 5), and Curation (Gemini Principle 8). The element of integrity is met by the digital twin adhering to the standards articulated through the nine Gemini Principles.
References
Alam KM, Saddik AE (2017) C2PS: A digital twin architecture reference model for the cloud-based cyber-physical systems. IEEE Access 5:2050–2062
Andrejevic M (2012) Exploitation in the data-mine. In: Fuchs C, Boersma K, Albrechtslund A, Sandoval M (eds) Internet and surveillance: the challenges of web 2.0 and social media. Routledge, New York, pp 71–88
Andrejevic M, Burdon M (2015) Defining the sensor society. Telev New Media 16(1):19–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476414541552
Austin L (2019) Re-reading westin. Theor Inq Law 20(1):53–81
Barocas S, Selbst A (2016) Big data’s disparate impact. Calif Law Rev 104:671–732
Burdon M (2020) Digital data collection and information privacy law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
CDBB (2018) The gemini principles. https://doi.org/10.17863/cam.32260
Clarke R (1988) Information technology and dataveillance. Commun ACM 31(5):498–512. https://doi.org/10.1145/42411.42413
Clarke R, Greenleaf G (2017) Dataveillance regulation: a research framework. J Law Inf Sci 25(1):104–122. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3073492
Cohen JE (2012) Configuring the networked self: law, code, and the play of everyday practice. Yale University Press, New Haven
Cohen JE (2013) What privacy is for. Harv Law Rev 126:1904–1933
Cohen JE (2019) Turning privacy inside out. Theor Inq Law 20(1):1
Deloitte (2017) New technologies case study: data sharing in infrastructure. A final report for the national infrastructure commission. https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Data-sharing-in-infrastructure.pdf
Deutsch M (1958) Trust and suspicion. J Confl Resolut 2:265–279
Doyle S (2019) Siblings make sense of smart cities. Eng Technol 14(1):42–45
Esposti SD (2014) When big data meets dataveillance: the hidden side of analytics. Surveill Soc 12(2):209–225. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.5113
Foth M, Brynskov M, Ojala T (2015) Citizen’s right to the digital city: urban interfaces, activitism, and placemaking. Springer
Foth M, Mitchell P, Estrada Grajales C (2018) Today’s internet for tomorrow’s cities: on algorithmic culture and urban imaginaries. In: Hunsinger J, Klastrup L, Allen M (eds) Second international handbook of internet research. Springer, Berlin, Germany
Franklin-Hodge J (2019) Foreword. In: Green B (2019) The smart enough city: putting technology in its place to reclaim our urban future. MIT Press, Cambridge
Gandy OH, Nemorin S (2018) Toward a political economy of nudge: smart city variations. Inf Commun Soc 22(14):2112–2126. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2018.1477969
Green B (2019) The smart enough city: putting technology in its place to reclaim our urban future. MIT Press, Cambridge
Geuijen K, Moore M, Cederquist A, Ronning R, van Twist M (2017) Creating public value in global wicked problems. Pub Manag Rev 19(5):621–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192163
Graham S, Marvin S (2001) Splintering urbanism: networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.1680/icsic.64669.187
Heilweil R (2019) ‘New York City couldn’t pry open its own black box algorithms. So now what?’ Vox: recode. https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/12/18/21026229/nyc-ai-algorithms-shadow-report
Hildebrandt M (2015) “The public(s) onlife. A call for legal protection by design.” In Floridi L (eds) The onlife manifesto. Being human in a hyperconnected era. Springer, Charm, pp 181–194
Hill D (2020) Small pieces loosely joined: practices for super-local participative urbanism. Archit Des 90(3):66–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2570
Hollands RG (2015) Critical Interventions into the corporate smart city. Camb J Reg Econ Soci 8(1):61–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu011
IEEE (2019) Ethically aligned design: a vision for prioritizing human well-being with autonomous and intelligent systems (First Edition)
Jacobs J (1961) The life and death of great American cities. Random House, New York
Keymolen E (2016) Trust on the line. A philosophical exploration of trust in the networked era. Wolf Legal Publisher, Amsterdam
Kitchin R (2016) The ethics of smart cities and urban science. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 374(2083)
Kitchin R, Cardullo P, Di Feliciantonio C (2018) citizenship, justice and the right to the smart city, the programmable city working paper 4 (18 October 2018). https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/b8aq5>
Lefebvre H (1996) The right to the city. In Writings on the City. Selected and translated from French by E. Kofman and E. Lebas. Blackwell, Malden
Mann M, Mitchel P, Foth M, Anastasiu Cioaca I (2020) BlockSidewalk to Barcelona: technological sovereignty and the social licence to operate smart cities. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol (JASIST). (Forthcoming)
Marcuse P (2012) Whose right(s) to what city. In: Brenner N, Marcuse P, Mayer M (eds) Cities for people not for profit: critical urban theory and the right to the city. Routledge, London, pp 24–41
Marsal-Llacuna M (2015) Building universal socio-cultural indicators for standardizing the safeguarding of citizens’ rights in smart cities. Soc Indic Res 130(2):563–579
Marshall A (2018) Alphabet’s sidewalk labs launches a platform for making the city of tomorrow. Wired. https://www.wired.com/story/alphabet-sidewalk-labs-coord-city-of-tomorrow/
Mayer M (2012) The “right to the city” in urban social movements. In: Brenner N, Marcuse P, Mayer M (eds) Cities for people not for profit: critical urban theory and the right to the city. Routledge, London, pp 63–85
Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):709–734
Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K (2013) Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston
Mcknight DH, Cummings LL, Chervany NL (1996) Trust formation in new organizational relationships. Minneapolis: Management Information Systems Research Center, Curtis L. Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota
Murakami Wood D (2015) Smart city, surveillance city. Computing & Law, June/ July 2015. https://www.scl.org/articles/3405-smart-city-surveillance-city
Murakami Wood D, Mackinnon D (2019) Partial platforms and oligoptic surveillance in the smart city. Surveill Soc 17(1/2):176–182
Nissenbaum H (2016) Must privacy give way to use regulation? 2015–16 Faculty seminar: democracy, citizenship, and constitutionalism. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/andrea-mitchell-center/sites/www.sas.upenn.edu.dcc/files/Nissenbaum-UPenn-Democracy.pdf
OASC (2019) Annex 1: minimal interopability mechanism (MIMs). https://oascities.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/OASC-MIMs.pdf
OECD (2012) Machine-to-Machine communications: Connecting billions of devices. OECD digital economy papers, No. 192. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9gsh2gp043-en
OECD (2015). Emerging Issues: The Internet of Things. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264232440-8-en
Pieroni A, Scarpato N, Di Nunzio D, Fallucchi F, Raso M (2018) Smarter city: smart energy grid based on blockchain technology. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 8(1):298–306
Porter TM (1995) Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Raetzsch C, Pereira G, Vestergaard LS, Brynskov M (2019) Weaving seams with data: conceptualizing city APIs as elements of infrastructures. Big Data Soc, 1–14. doi:10.1177/2053951719827619
Robinson R (2016) Why smart cities still aren’t working for us after 20 Years. And how we can fix them. Article based on a United Nations presentation. https://theurbantechnologist.com/2016/02/01/why-smart-cities-still-arent-working-for-us-after20-years-and-how-we-can-fix-them/
Sadowski J, Pasquale F (2015) The spectrum of control: a social theory of the smart city. First Monday 20(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i7.5903
Sidewalk Labs (2019) Replica. https://replicahq.com/
Sisson P (2018) Your city is watching you: How machine learning and “computer vision” will transform our cities, Curbed. https://www.curbed.com/2018/1/17/16897222/machine-learning-urban-planning-sidewalk-labs
Solove DJ (2013) Privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harv Law Rev 126(7):1880–1903
van Dijck J (2014) Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveill Soc 12(2):197–208
Wan L, Nochta T, Schooling JM (2019) Developing a city-level digital twin–propositions and a case study. In the proceedings from the International Conference on Smart Infrastructure and Construction, pp 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1680/icsic.64669.187
Westin AF (1967) Privacy and freedom. Atheneum, New York
Westin AF (2003) Social and political dimensions of privacy. J Soc Issu 59(2):431-453. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00072
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wang, B.T., Burdon, M. (2021). Automating Trustworthiness in Digital Twins. In: Wang, B.T., Wang, C.M. (eds) Automating Cities. Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8670-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8670-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-8669-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-8670-5
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)