The Spectrum of Control: A Social Theory of the Smart City

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
The Spectrum of Control: A Social Theory of the Smart City by Mind Map: The Spectrum of Control: A Social Theory of the Smart City

1. Biometric Surveillance: as a form of monitoring, Automated Policing : As a form of brutal and exacting manipulation

2. They are technologies of search: (when we apply them, Technologies of reputation (when used to evaluate us)

3. a contextual overview of the “smart city”

3.1. global market for smart city solutions is booming

3.1.1. the corporations created a market for such smartness

3.1.2. over 12.5 billion devices connected in 2010 alone- 50 billion by 2020

3.1.3. IBM: US$3 billion : a new IoT unit

3.2. ambiguity of the "Smart City" label

3.2.1. the label allows for a flexible, dynamic space in which to plug a a variety of products, practices, and policies

3.2.2. gives them cover in case something goes wrong or does not deliver

3.2.3. Smart city is not just linearly scaled version of smart home

3.2.3.1. it's fundamentally about infrastructural and civic applications, techno-political ordering of society & data & control

3.2.4. Bruce Sterling: author of -The Epic Struggle of the Internet of Things

3.2.4.1. genuin IoT wants to invade things- monitor, measure

3.3. Implementation

3.3.1. smart initiatives promise to provide city leaders with the means necessary for achieving their entrepreneurial ends

3.3.2. ‘shock therapy’ method

3.3.2.1. city undergoes a quick, large­ scale integration of ‘smart’ ideals, technologies, and policies into an existing landscape.

3.3.2.1.1. Intelligent Operations Center by IBM (2010) for the city of Rio de Janeiro

3.3.3. the idealistic models are the built from scratch projects that are being constructed where nothing existed before.

3.4. Adam Greenfield - Against the Smart City (2013)

4. ideology of the smart city - focussing on the aspirations of corporate, govt and academic exponents

4.1. the world must rethink IT investments by focussing on integrated systems

4.2. The shift in political language

4.2.1. hyper-collab partnerships between the public and private sectors

4.3. the asymmetry of public-­private partnerships

4.3.1. top managers at firms earn multiples of the public servants, ps allows private sphere to reshape the public sphere

4.3.1.1. cities have embraced a pro-­business governance model of urban development

4.3.1.2. social contract replaced by corporate contract

4.4. material motivations

4.4.1. civil servants can easily multiply their pay by moving from government to corporate offices

4.4.1.1. none ask hard questions

4.4.2. Clifford Geertz: I “I have a social philosophy; (contractors) you have political opinions; (Leaders) he has an ideology” (interest groups)

4.5. political character of the smart city

4.5.1. Lawrence Solum : Singapore : AI driven traffic authority

4.5.1.1. the system would not be very forgiving of individual experimentation

4.5.1.2. offenders? would they be removed by cranes? legal and political aspects of automated law enforcement

4.5.2. Who is ultimately in charge of “hyper collaborative partnerships between the public and private sectors?

4.5.3. Who imposes the deadlines? What are the penalties when they are not met?

4.5.4. What are the problems that the smart city will use “end­-to­-end solutions” to solve?

4.5.5. How would the solutions be prioritized? should new forms of surveillance focus first on drug busts, or evidence of white-­collar crime, or unfair labor practices by employers?

4.5.6. How to decide what should be considered worthy/ unworthy of computational scrutiny?

4.5.7. Would autonomous car control systems prioritize preventing pedestrian deaths, or merely aspire to smooth flows of cars into and out of the city? What's/ who decides the scope of aspirations of automated systems?

4.6. The IoT is not simply a chance to watch people, but to produce and reproduce certain patterns of interaction - and to replace people w robotic agents

5. Smart cities in societies of control

5.1. social theory : the general range of recurring forms, or patterned features, of interactions and relationships between people

5.2. Foucault's concept of bipolar

5.2.1. viewing citizens as analog ­cum­ digital information nodes, or “citizen sensors”

5.2.2. reimagines and reconstructs the city, in itself, as a machine, which can and must be administered and managed

5.3. Deleuzian “society of control”

5.3.1. dividuals

5.3.1.1. when monitored by sensors, citizens are becoming less 'individuals' & more 'dividuals' - entities ready to be divided into any number of pieces, with specific factors separated, scrutinized, and surveilled

5.3.1.1.1. The content of what one does becomes less imp & the metadata becomes more imp

5.3.1.1.2. How do we attempt to retain humanistic interactions/ relations?

5.3.1.1.3. An individuals enrollment into networks via recognition softwares, without the individual's consent

5.3.1.1.4. a factor - becomes representative of the whole & becomes all that matters

5.3.2. rhizomes

5.3.2.1. The array of underlying technical systems, which are often hidden from sight & mind

5.3.2.2. rhizomatic apparatus of monitoring & control can be intimidating. No one wants to be on the wrong side of its algorithms

5.3.2.3. the amount of control the array of underlying mechanisms have over you become bluntly apparent when your password gets rejected

5.3.2.4. The distinction between control & consent is important to several recent initiatives toward the creation of smart cities

5.3.2.5. we should take the city’s increasingly technologized systems of governance as expressive texts in need of interpretation

5.3.2.6. IoT and all­ pervasive surveillance are building less a smart city than a cyborg city

5.3.2.6.1. In such cyborg cities concepts like consent vs. coercion, control vs. autonomy do not exist as binaries — but rather they exist on a continuum

5.3.3. passwords

6. 2 illustrative examples

6.1. 2. automated policing: as a form of manipulation

6.2. 1. biometric surveillance: as a form of monitoring

7. The soft power of biometric surveillance

7.1. Georgio Agamben : impotentiality : making it very difficult for us to not do an action - infrastructure is constructed w tech advancements assumed

7.2. Physical traits (faces, fingerprints, irises, retinas and DNA) Behavioral traits (voice, signature, gait (how a person walks) and keystrokes)

7.3. Biometrics present new ways to convert data into profit, a figurative strip­-mining bodies (and their actions) so that ever more actionable information can be extracted from them

7.4. Biometrics break bodies down into their component parts in ways that allow them to be marketed more easily

7.4.1. present a way to not only dividualize people at minute scales, but also provide the means to intensify commodification

7.5. At the subtle end of the spectrum of control, the systems act on us in ways that are functionally and/or physically invisible

8. The hard power of policing technologies

8.1. protesters in Kiev, Ukraine : message: can cause 15 years of jail

8.2. using technologies that break­up protests — or even prevent them from happening in the first place

8.3. Paul Virilio : in the case of a surprise attack the supreme authority would have to risk abandoning his supremacy of decision by authorizing the lowest echelon of the defense system to immediately launch anti­missile missiles”

8.4. That creates a dangerous dynamic among protesters: the only politics worth engaging is the complete overthrow of regimes determined to disadvantage peaceful dissenters

8.5. When big data is touted as a way to understand and control society without sufficient attention to the history (or patterns of thought) that gave rise to the data analyzed, it is set to rationalize unjust patterns of extraction and discipline.

8.6. And what if the above ­normal crime rate in the neighborhood simply reflected past patterns of intense policing that reflected racism?

8.7. Those affected lose a chance at individualized treatment and understanding, as technical systems treat people as a mere collection of data points.

9. Cyborg urbanization, blurred boundaries

9.1. the boundaries between body–city–technology are blurred

9.2. urban cyborg: one who doesn’t live in the city, but who lives as part of the city

9.3. No objects, spaces, or bodies are sacred in themselves; any component can be interfaced with any other if the proper standard, the proper code, can be constructed for processing signals in a common language

9.4. “coded message” in order to avoid detection, to keep third parties from understanding exactly what is going on. In algorithmic decision ­making, this third, mysterious aspect of code too often predominates.

9.5. "What" is making the decisions to distribute the resources, dictate access etc.

10. Taking Back Control

10.1. The right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city.

10.2. The pursuit of complete interoperability, legibility, and access between data systems must be closely interrogated, and often blocked.

10.3. consistent citizen consultation and serious penalties for misuse of data