Advertisement

The Surveillance Society: Which Factors Form Public Acceptance of Surveillance Technologies?

  • Julia van HeekEmail author
  • Katrin Arning
  • Martina Ziefle
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 738)

Abstract

Currently, surveillance technologies are increasingly used to give people a sense of safety in medical as well as crime surveillance contexts. On the one hand, perceived safety can be supported by adequate surveillance technologies (e.g., cameras), however, the systematic use of surveillance technologies undermines individual privacy needs on the other hand. In this empirical study, we explore users’ perceptions on safety and privacy in the context of surveillance systems. In order to understand if the acceptance of surveillance depends on usage contexts, surveillance technologies in the urban were compared to the medical context. Using an online survey, 119 users were requested to indicate their acceptance regarding different types of surveillance contexts and technologies, differentiating perceived benefits and barriers as well as safety and privacy needs. We investigate acceptance differences towards surveillance technologies at various locations (private and public) as well. In this paper, we especially explore the impact of different surveillance contexts, locations and individual perceived crime threat on the acceptance of surveillance technologies and on the needs for privacy and safety.

Keywords

Technology acceptance Surveillance technologies Privacy Safety Fear of crime Medical vs. Crime surveillance Public vs. Private environments 

References

  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    La Vigne, N.G., Lowry, S.S., Markman, J.A., Dwyer, A.M.: Evaluating the Use of Public Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention. Final Technical Report. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whitaker, R.: The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance is Becoming a Reality. The New Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ziefle, M., Wilkowska, W.: What makes people change their preferences in public transportation – opinions in different user groups. In: Giaffreda, R., Cagáňová, D., Li, Y., Riggio, R., Voisard, A. (eds.) IoT360 2014. LNICST, vol. 151, pp. 137–143. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19743-2_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Plouffe, L., Kalache, A.: Towards global age- friendly cities: determining urban features that promote active aging. J. Urban Health 87(5), 733–739 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leonhardt, S.: Personal healthcare devices. In: Mekherjee, S., et al. (eds.) AmIware: Hardware Technology Drivers of Ambient Intelligence, pp. 349–370. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klack, L., Möllering, C., Ziefle, M., Schmitz-Rode, T.: Future care floor: a sensitive floor for movement monitoring and fall detection in home environments. In: Lin, J.C., Nikita, K.S. (eds.) MobiHealth 2010. LNICST, vol. 55, pp. 211–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-20865-2_27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klack, L., Schmitz-Rode, T., Wilkowska, W., Kasugai, K., Heidrich, F., Ziefle, M.: Integrated home monitoring and compliance optimization for patients with mechanical circulatory support devices (MCSDs). Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39(12), 2911–2921 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith, M.J., Clarke, R.V.: Crime and public transport. Crime Justice 27, 169–233 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marshall, R.D., Bryant, R.A., Amsel, L., Suh, E.J., Cook, J.M., Neria, Y.: The psychology of ongoing threat: relative risk appraisal, the September 11 attacks, and terrorism-related fears. Am. Psychol. 62(4), 304 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baumer, T.L.: Research on fear of crime in the US. Victimology 3, 254–264 (1978)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loewen, L.J., Steel, G.D., Suedfeld, P.: Perceived safety from crime in the urban environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 13(4), 323–331 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Isnard, A.: Can surveillance cameras be successful in preventing crime and controlling anti-social behaviours? In: Proceedings of the Character, Impact and Prevention of Crime in Regional Australia Conference, Townsville, Australia, 2–3 August 2001Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wiecek, C., Saetnan, A.R.: Restrictive? Permissive? The Contradictory Framing of Video Surveillance in Norway and Denmark. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Working Paper 4 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sheldon, B.: Camera surveillance within the UK: enhancing public safety or a social threat? Int. Rev. Law Comput. Tech. 25(3), 193–203 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chattopadhyayr, D., Dasgupta, R., Banerjee, E.R., Chakraborty, A.: Event driven video surveillance system using city cloud. In: Proceedings of the first International Conference on Intelligent Infrastructure at the 47th Annual National Convention Computer Society of India (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Song, M., Tao, D., Maybank, S.J.: Sparse Camera Network for Visual Surveillance – A Comprehensive Survey. Cornell University (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, D.A., Maxfield, M.G.: Fear in the neighborhoods: an investigation of the impact of crime. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 17(2), 160–189 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blöbaum, A., Hunecke, M.: Perceived danger in urban public space: the impacts of physical features and personal factors. Environ. Behav. 37(4), 465–486 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gumpert, G., Drucker, S.J.: Public boundaries: Privacy and surveillance in a technological world. Commun. Q. 49(2), 115–129 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arning, K., Kowalewski, S., Ziefle, M.: Modelling user acceptance of wireless medical technologies. Wirel. Mobile Commun. Healthcare 61, 146–153 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M., Muehlhans, H.: Join the ride! user requirements and interface design guidelines for a commuter carpooling platform. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013. LNCS, vol. 8014, pp. 10–19. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39238-2_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alsnih, R., Hensher, D.A.: The mobility and accessibility expectations of seniors in an aging population. Transp. Res. Part A. Policy Pract. 37(10), 903–916 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dickerson, A.E., Molnar, L.J., Eby, D.W., Adler, G., Bédard, M., Berg-Weger, M., Trujillo, L.: Transportation and aging: a research agenda for advancing safe mobility. Gerontologist 47(5), 578–590 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Covington, J., Taylor, R.B.: Fear of crime in urban residential neighborhoods. Sociol. Q. 32(2), 231–249 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scarborough, B.K., Like-Haislip, T.Z., Novak, K.J., Lucas, W.L., Alarid, L.F.: Assessing the relationship between individual characteristics, neighborhood context, and fear of crime. J. Crim. Justice 38(4), 819–826 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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., Riggio, R., Voisard, A. (eds.) IoT360 2014. LNICST, vol. 151, pp. 97–103. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19743-2_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kientz, J.A., Arriaga, R.I., Chetty, M., Hayes, G.R., Richardson, J., Patel, S.N., Abowd, G.D.: Grow and know: understanding record-keeping needs for tracking the development of young children. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1351–1360. ACM, NY (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39265-8_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    World Health Organization. Ageing & Life Course Unit: WHO global report on falls prevention in older age. World Health Organization (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lord, S.R., Menz, H.B., Sherrington, C.: Home environment risk factors for falls in older people and the efficacy of home modifications. Age Ageing 35(2), 55–59 (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koskela, H.: ‘The gaze without eyes’: video-surveillance and the changing nature of urban space. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 24(2), 243–265 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Patton, J.W.: Protecting privacy in public? Surveillance technologies and the value of public places. Ethics Inf. Technol. 2(3), 181–187 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J.P., Horn, A.-K., Hughes, B.N.: Facebook and online privacy: attitudes, behaviours, and unintended consequences. J. Comput. Mediat. Comm. 15(1), 83–108 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marx, G.T.: Ethics for the new surveillance. Inform. Soc. 14(3), 171–185 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mark, W.: Fear of victimization: why are women and the elderly more afraid? Soc. Sci. Q. 65(3), 681–702 (1984)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    van Heek, J., Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: How fear of crime affects needs for privacy safety - Acceptance of Surveillance Technologies in Smart Cities. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS 2016), pp. 32–43 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia van Heek
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katrin Arning
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction CenterRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations