Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

All Eyes on You! Impact of Location, Camera Type, and Privacy-Security-Trade-off on the Acceptance of Surveillance Technologies

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Smart Cities, Green Technologies, and Intelligent Transport Systems (SMARTGREENS 2017, VEHITS 2017)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 921))

Abstract

While surveillance technologies are increasingly used to prevent or detect crimes and to improve security, critics perceive recording and storage of data as a violation of individual privacy. Thus, it has to be analyzed empirically where and to what extent the use of surveillance technologies is accepted and whether the needs for privacy and security differ depending on the location of surveillance, the type of technology, or the individual characteristics of city residents. By applying a conjoint analysis, our study investigated the relationship between different locations of surveillance, different types of cameras, increase of safety implemented by reduction of crime and intrusion of privacy operationalized as different ways of handling the recorded footage. Findings show that locations are the most important factor for crime surveillance scenario preferences, followed by increase of security, and intrusion of privacy. In the decision scenarios, the type of camera played only a minor role. Sensitivity analyzes enabled detailed examinations of the trade-off between privacy and security and a segmentation of different respondent profiles led to an identification of influencing characteristics on the acceptance of crime surveillance. Outcomes show the importance of integrating city residents’ preferences into the design of infrastructural city concepts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. La Vigne, N.G., Lowry, S.S., Markman, J.S., Dwyer, A.M.: Evaluating the use of public surveillance cameras for crime control and prevention. Final Technical report, The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Centre, Washington, DC (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ziefle, M., Schneider, C., Valeé, D., Schnettler, A., Krempels, K.H., Jarke, M.: Urban Future outline (UFO): a roadmap on research for livable cities. ERCIM News 98 (2014). http://ercim-news.ercim.eu/en98/keynote-smart-cities

  3. Dailey, K.: The rise of CCTV surveillance in the US. BBC News Magazine, 28 April 2013 (2013) http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22274770

  4. La Vigne, N.G., Lowry, S.S.: Evaluation of camera use to prevent crime in commuter parking facilities: a randomized controlled trial. Technical report. Urban Institute, Washington, DC (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Whitaker, R.: The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance is Becoming a Reality. The New Press, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cerezo, A.: CCTV and crime displacement: a quasi-experimental evaluation. Eur. J. Criminol. 10, 222–236 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gerrard, G., Thompson, R.: Two million cameras in the UK. CCTV Image Mag. 42, 10–12 (2011) http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/CCTV-Image-42-How-many-cameras-are-there-in-the-UK.pdf

  8. Patton, J.W.: Protecting privacy in public? Surveillance technologies and the value of public places. Ethics Inf. Technol. 2, 181–187 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010057606781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Welsh, B.C., Farrington, D.P., Taheri, S.A.: Effectiveness and social costs of public area surveillance for crime prevention. Ann. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 11(1), 111–130 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jho, W.: Challenges for e-governance: protests from civil society on the protection of privacy in e-government in Korea. Int. Rev. Admin. Sci. 71(5), 151–166 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852305051690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Joh, E.E.: Privacy protests: surveillance evasion and fourth amendment suspicion. Arizona Law Rev. 55, 997–1029 (2013). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2285095

  12. Song, M., Dacheng T., Maybank, S.J.: Sparse Camera Network for Visual Surveillance—A Comprehensive Survey. Cornell University Online Library (2013). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.0446.pdf

  13. Hampapur, A., et al.: Smart Video Surveillance – Exploring the concept of multiscale spatitemporal tracking. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 22(2), 38–51 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2005.1406476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Isnard, A.: Can surveillance cameras be successful in preventing crime and controlling anti-social behaviours? In: Character, Impact and Prevention of Crime in Regional Australia Conference. Townsville, Australia, 2nd–3rd August 2001 (2001) http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/regional/isnard1.pdf

  15. Cameron, A., Kolodinski, E., May, H., Williams, N.: Measuring the effects of video surveillance on crime in Los angeles. Report for california research Bureau. School of Policy Planning and Development, CA, USA (2008). https://www.library.ca.gov/crb/08/08-007.pdf

  16. Firmino, R.J., Kanashiro, M., Bruno, F., Evangelista, R., da Costa Nascimento, L.: Fear, security, and the spread of CCTV in Brazilian cities: legislation, debate, and the market. Journal of Urban Technology 20(3), 65–84 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2013.809221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sousa, W.H., Madensen, T.D.: Citizen acceptance of police interventions: an example of CCTV surveillance in Las Vegas, Nevada. Crim. Justice Stud. 29(1), 40–56 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wiecek, C., Saetnan, A.R.: Restrictive? Permissive? The Contradictory Framing of Video Surveillance in Norway and Denmark. Technical report, Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim (2002). http://www.urbaneye.net/results/ue_wp4.pdf

  19. Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations. NY Free Press, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Arning, K., Gaul, S., Ziefle, M.: “Same same but different” how service contexts of mobile technologies shape usage motives and barriers. In: Leitner, G., Hitz, M., Holzinger, A. (eds.) USAB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6389, pp. 34–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16607-5_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. van Heek, J., Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Where, wherefore, and how? Contrasting two surveillance contexts according to acceptance. In: 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (Smartgreens 2017). SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, pp. 87–98 (2017). https://doi.org/10.5220/0006325400780090

  24. van Heek, J., Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Safety and privacy perceptions in public spaces: an empirical study on user requirements for city mobility. In: Giaffreda, R., Cagáňová, D., Li, Y. (eds.) Internet of Things 2014 LNICST, vol. 151, pp. 97–103. Springer, Berlin (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19743-2_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Luce, R.D., Tukey, J.W.: Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. J. Math. Psychol. 1, 1–27 (1964). https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-x

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Orme, B.: Interpreting the results of conjoint analysis, getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research, pp. 77–89. Research Publications, LLC Madison (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sawtooth Software. CBC/HB System for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation. Version 5.0. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series (2009a)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rao, V.R.: Applied Conjoint Analysis. Springer, New York (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87753-0

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Park, H.H., Oh, G.S., Paek, S.Y.: Measuring the crime displacement and diffusion of benefit effects of open-street CCTV in South Korea. Int. J. Law Crime Justice 40(3), 179–191 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2012.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Saetnan, A.R., Lomell, H.R., Wiecek, C.: Controlling CCTV in public spaces: is privacy the (only) issue? Reflections on Norwegian and Danish observations. Surveill. Soc. 2(2–3), 396–414 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  31. van Heek, J., Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: How fear of crime affects needs for privacy and safety—acceptance of surveillance technologies in smart cities. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems, 23–25 April 2016, Rome, Italy, pp. 32–43 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Denning, P.J.: The Invisible Future: the Seamless Integration of Technology into Everyday Life. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York (2001) https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=504949

  33. Welsh, B.C., Farrington, D.P.: Public area CCTV and crime prevention: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Q. 26(4), 716–745 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820802506206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sawtooth Software: Testing the CBC Design (2015, 2017). https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/help/lighthouse-studio/manual/hid_web_cbc_designs_6.html

  35. Sawtooth Software: Market Simulators for Conjoint Analysis. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sawtooth Software: Survey Software & Conjoint Analysis - CBC Latent Class Technical Paper. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Welsh, B.C., Farrington, D.P.: Making Public Places Safer: Surveillance and Crime Prevention. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195326215.001.0001

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Himmel, S., Ziefle, M., Arning, K.: From living space to urban quarter: acceptance of ICT monitoring solutions in an ageing society. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2013. LNCS, vol. 8006, pp. 49–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39265-8_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: “Get that camera out of my house!” Conjoint measurement of preferences for video-based healthcare monitoring systems in private and public places. In: Geissbühler, A., Demongeot, J., Mokhtari, M., Abdulrazak, B., Aloulou, H. (eds.) ICOST 2015. LNCS, vol. 9102, pp. 152–164. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19312-0_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Pavone, V., Esposti, S.D.: Public assessment of new surveillance-oriented security technologies: beyond the trade-off between privacy and security. Public Underst. Sci. 21(5), 556–572 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510376886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Slobogin, C.: Public privacy: camera surveillance of public places and the right to anonymity. Mississippi Law J. 72, 213–299 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.364600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sheldon, B.: Camera surveillance within the UK: enhancing public safety or a social threat? Int. Rev. Law Comput. Technol. 25(3), 193–203 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2011.617494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bowyer, K.W.: Face recognition technology: security versus privacy. Technol. Soc. Mag. 23(1), 9–19 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/MTAS.2004.1273467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kim, J.E., Boulos, G., Yackovich, J., Barth, T., Beckel, C., Mosse, D.: Seamless integration of heterogeneous devices and access control in smart homes. In: 8th International Conference on Intelligent Environments. Guanajuato, México, 26th–29th June 2012 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/IE.2012.57

  45. Visser, M., Scholte, M., Scheepers, P.: Fear of crime and feelings of unsafety in European countries: macro and micro explanations in cross-national perspective. Sociol. Q. 54(2), 278–301 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/tsq.12020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Foster, S., Wood, L., Christian, H., Knuiman, M., Giles-Corti, B.: Planning safer suburbs: do changes in the built environment influence residents’ perceptions of crime risk? Soc. Sci. Med. 97, 87–94 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.08.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol. Bull. 88, 888–918 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1980)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human-Computer Interaction Center, RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 57, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Julia Offermann-van Heek, Katrin Arning & Martina Ziefle

Authors
  1. Julia Offermann-van Heek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katrin Arning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martina Ziefle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Offermann-van Heek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Innovation Value Institute, National University of Ireland, Maynooth, Maynooth, Ireland

    Brian Donnellan

  2. Siemens Corporate Technology, Munich, Germany

    Cornel Klein

  3. School of Computing, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Markus Helfert

  4. Ford Research and Advanced Engineering, Dearborn, MI, USA

    Oleg Gusikhin

  5. University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    António Pascoal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Offermann-van Heek, J., Arning, K., Ziefle, M. (2019). All Eyes on You! Impact of Location, Camera Type, and Privacy-Security-Trade-off on the Acceptance of Surveillance Technologies. In: Donnellan, B., Klein, C., Helfert, M., Gusikhin, O., Pascoal, A. (eds) Smart Cities, Green Technologies, and Intelligent Transport Systems. SMARTGREENS VEHITS 2017 2017. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 921. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02907-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02907-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02906-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02907-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation