Social Impacts of Municipal Technology: Surveillance, Accessibility, and Crispy Brussels Sprouts

This is the fifth installment in our series on technology convergence, cybersecurity, and the implications for policymakers. You can read the full series here.

More times than not, asking the right question is more important than getting an answer. Such is the case with connected communities deployments where municipal technologies purport to have the ability to solve all the right problems. Said another way, the technology vendors are telling municipalities which questions to ask and then answering them. But are those the right questions? Can we apply technology to any problem and get the outcome we want? In this post, our series will turn to the social impacts of connected community deployments and whether we are asking the right questions and in turn getting the right results. I’ll be the first to admit that this aspect is like having to eat your vegetables. Not the most fun, but extremely important. So, we will make this more like eating crispy brussels sprouts. Highly nutritious but also enjoyable.

The list of possible problems in especially large municipalities is long and diverse. That list can include things like waste and sanitation, traffic, law enforcement, power, connectivity, accessibility, and more. A quick look at that list may have you thinking that at least a good portion of those issues could be solved, or at least measurably improved upon, by the right kind of technology implementation. You could imagine how overflow sensors on trash cans or in sewers could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of sanitation services. The same goes for traffic where monitors could tell us how to more efficiently route traffic. Electricity services can be monitored and distributed more effectively. The list goes on, but so does the list of issues. 

Also high on the list of issues for municipalities are social and those issues bracket all of the rest. What we do in a municipality to attempt to make some aspect of it better must observe the potential for social impacts. There are even some technical solutions that claim to be able to do things like improve racial inequity. This is where asking the right question is critically important and where the Brussels sprouts must be eaten. Municipal officials should undertake social impact studies much in the same manner that environmental impact assessments are undertaken before large building projects. Technology projects are famous for their second and third order effects and when deploying a vast array of connected technologies directly inside our communities, it is our duty to evaluate and make public the potential to impact large or small populations within the community where technology will be deployed. Below is a brief overview of some potential social impacts from a connected communities deployment followed by a template for a connected community social impact assessment that can be used to improve technology governance by municipal officials.

Law Enforcement and Surveillance

Examples of the types of technologies that are significantly more scalable in a 5G-enabled connected community include things like SoundThinking (formerly ShotSpotter) and public surveillance systems. The argument for how these technologies could help law enforcement quickly locate suspects is about as clear as the argument for how they could be abused. China’s deployment of connected communities architectures has long been criticized for its alleged aim to create digital authoritarianism. There are case studies on China’s use of connected community technology to monitor and oppress ethnic Uyghur populations leading to mass oppression. Any thought that a similar situation could not happen in the West should perish with the reading of this sentence. It is unlikely that the EXACT SAME outcome will come to pass in the West, but there are plenty of opportunities for an ethnic or economic minority population to experience adverse outcomes from technologies intended to aid law enforcement. As an example, the concentration of the deployment of these technologies in certain neighborhoods speaks to the potential for abuse. Sure, SoundThinking will alert more often when it is densely deployed in certain neighborhoods but not in others. Surveillance will detect more malfeasance where it is more concentrated. 

None of this is to say that these technologies should not be used at all. Very few things are truly an either/or, 100% or 0% proposition. This just illustrates why effective governance and a social impact assessment should be undertaken to introduce accountability into technology decisions.

Accessibility

Another tale told by some connected community vendors is that connecting your municipal services increases the availability and accessibility of services for underserved communities. An example of this might be a phone app like the OurDallas app for Dallas, TX. This app provides access to non-emergency services such as reporting utility outages, graffiti, and access to other city services. The idea is that the solution will allow more citizens to take advantage of municipal services that are now available 24 hours a day via the app. This app and other similar solutions may make the opportunity to use municipal services more accessible but it does not equate to a substantive change in participation in these services by any population, let alone underserved populations. The truth is much harder and that is that gaining more access to municipal services for underserved communities means going out and building trust. A technology solution will not do that for you. The solution is a tool that can help once the trust is built. There is still no shortcutting community engagement and organization. 

Resource Distribution

Perhaps one of the most promising applications for connected communities is being more efficient with resource distribution. Everyone would agree that using less energy or more effectively distributing it is a win for the municipality. However, just like the potential for abuse in law enforcement, there is a potential for abuse in resources. If a connected community architecture is able to detect and even define the resource demands across the municipality, it will also be able to do the same for individual neighborhoods, Congressional districts, ethnic concentrations, and more. Having the ability to distribute energy more efficiently by definition means having the ability to change how much energy goes to what geographic area at what time. That makes for more efficiency but it also makes for new potential to reduce or cut energy or other resources to a given population. While many may hand wave and say that something so egregious would never take place, it is critical that we all think about this kind of impact so we can ensure it does not happen. 

That sentiment is important across all connected community applications. Effective governance and accountability are the two keys to ensuring we keep technology-enabled abuse to a minimum. The potential to impact our critical infrastructure has implications for our homeland and national security but so does the potential to violate the constitutional rights of even a single citizen. Connected communities deployments should absolutely be a part of municipal growth and planning but we need to ensure we are asking the right questions and making sure our technology solutions are answering those questions. It is easy to say that a given city now has an app and anyone can use it at any time, but are they? Did that solve the accessibility problem? Have you put a policy in place to prevent law enforcement overreach and assigned an accountable official? If you haven’t, you are flirting with a possible scandal involving people’s rights and that is the quickest way to get connected community technologies removed from your municipality.

See? That wasn’t so bad. Crispy brussels sprouts are delicious!

Below is a template for municipal decisionmakers to use in their assessments of the social impacts of integrating connected community technologies.

Appendix - Tool for Municipal Leaders

Social Impact Assessment Template for Connected Community Technology Project

Project Title: [Insert Project Title]

Project Description:

Provide a brief overview of the connected community technology project, including its objectives, scope, and expected outcomes.

I. Introduction

1. Project Overview

• Describe the project's purpose and objectives.

• Explain the relevance of the project to the city's goals and priorities.

2. Assessment Scope

• Define the geographical area and community demographics affected by the project.

• Specify the technology or critical infrastructure components involved.

II. Stakeholder Analysis

1. Stakeholder Identification

• List all key stakeholders, including government agencies, community organizations, businesses, and residents.

• Identify their roles and interests in the project.

2. Stakeholder Engagement

• Describe how stakeholders have been or will be involved in the project planning and decision-making process.

• Explain any public consultations or community engagement efforts.

III. Social Impact Assessment

1. Positive Impacts

   - Identify the potential positive impacts of the connected community project on:

   - Quality of life for residents.

   - Economic development and job creation.

   - Environmental sustainability.

   - Accessibility and inclusivity.

   - Public safety and security.

- Data and personal privacy.

   - Include quantitative and qualitative data where applicable.

2. Negative Impacts

• Identify the potential negative impacts of the project on:

  • Displacement or gentrification.

  • Privacy and data security.

  • Digital divide or inequality.

  • Environmental concerns.

  • Cultural or social disruptions.

• Include quantitative and qualitative data where applicable.

IV. Mitigation and Enhancement Strategies

1. Mitigation Measures

• Propose strategies to mitigate or minimize negative impacts.

• Explain how these measures will be implemented and monitored.

2. Enhancement Measures

• Suggest actions to enhance positive impacts and maximize benefits for the community.

• Detail how these measures will be integrated into the project.
  
  

V. Monitoring and Evaluation

1. Metrics and Indicators

• Define specific metrics and indicators to assess the social impact of the project.

• Explain how data will be collected and analyzed.

2. Reporting

• Specify how and when progress and impact reports will be made available to stakeholders and the public.

• Describe mechanisms for feedback and adjustment based on monitoring results.

VI. Conclusion

1. Summary

• Provide a concise summary of the anticipated social impacts of the smart city technology project.

• Highlight key mitigation and enhancement strategies.

2. Approval

• Confirm that this Social Impact Assessment has been reviewed and approved by relevant city officials or authorities.