The official site ofthe Mayor of Londonand the London Assembly

What's wrong with my comment? I don't know what's objectionable about it.

I tell you what IS objectionable, though. Sensors on park benches, spying on us through our phones, sensors on our high streets...

Why can't the Mayor just invest in our high streets and parks?

This is exactly like the novel 1984. Or, for older Londoners, The Prisoner.

Big brother prying where it isn't wanted

I am fine with it as long as the following conditions are met:
1. the scope of data collection is transparent and publicly known
2. the usage of data is transparent and publicly known
3. the data are not shared with other institutions, especially commercial companies

I think people are misunderstanding what this means. "Sensor" data does not equal video cameras. I feel that the question is too broad and am unable to then write an appropriate response. I therefore will address the one example given, I feel perfectly fine about sensors gathering data about free car parking spaces if it is merely a pressure sensor or something like that. I think sensor data where there is no information that can be used to identify the individuals is fine. Same goes for usage of parks, if it is merely a motion sensor perhaps that just "counts" as people enter or exit that is perfectly fine. However, if you are using cameras to then figure out if it is children, adults, etc and this data can be used to identify individuals, that is getting to be a bit invasive. Also important to note that this would only apply to the PUBLIC domain. Obviously gathering sensor data from private areas is completely unacceptable without express permission from each individual.

I'm fine with this so long as the data-gathering is made public, is aggregated, and for a specific, transparent purpose that is for the public good (ie NOT Facebook / Cambridge Analytica!).

Collecting anonymous data is absolutely fine.

It would very much depend on what information the sensors are collecting. Data regarding rainfall, parking spaces and sunlight are fine, however, any data collected regarding human activity would have to be collected in a consensual manner, ensuring that everyone taking part agrees to be tracked in such a way.

I do feel that, used correctly, sensor data can benefit a city, providing important information that could augment our lives, reduce waste and streamline efficiency. However, safeguards need to be made clear, so that the data is only used to benefit people, and not used to capitalise against them.

As long as it's sensible data being collected I'm fine with that. However, the technology used can't be harmful, e.g. microwaves beaming nonstop the whole area like the "great" smart meters must be avoided!

Sensors that help us - nearest bus stop with bus going in my next destination direction, closest parking place, nearest A&E with shortest queue accounting for time to get there, etc etc. are to be welcomed, but collecting/monitoring personal data is definitely off-limits whether by the sensor computer system or the smart device used to benefit from the sensors

Blanket rejection of sensors is puerile and absurdist, pwerhaps Luddite-like!

As long as the sensor data is restricted to environmental information (noise levels, air quality, etc.) and does not allow video or voice capture, then I can see benefit in it. The parameters regarding what data can be collected need to be tightly controlled with public input to any decisions about changes.

It makes perfect sense to collect data that does not identify individual people and use it to improve services, infrastructure, safety, etc. That data can even be sold on an aggregated level, again to improve services, infrastructure, etc. It would be a disservice to the community not to use this kind of technology.

Of course the collector of the data needs to take all reasonable precautions to protect the data from unauthorised access and fallback mechanisms need to be in place for failure of data collection where we rely on sensors - e.g. traffic lights should still work even when sensors controlling them fail.

In line with similar comments...it really depends upon the type of data collected, and how it will be used in the longer term. The question is indeed too broad.

The anonymous Official Representative asks us what we think are the benefits. Not benefits and drawbacks. This person inadvertently or deliberately biases his/her/bot question. Not a good omen. Checking car park spaces seems harmless enough; thin edge of a totalitarian wedge?
Full disclosure is required for us to arrive at an informed opinion. Until then, safest to oppose it.

In principle gathering anonymous sensor data to provide real time information could be useful. However trust of governments is low and the recent scandal involving facebook and Cambridge Analytica shows how supposedly anonymous or confidential information can be misused.

Given the ned to make decisions about issues like these that affect us all, there is a clear need for information and so for data. Of course such data logging should be carried out, and, of course, it should be subject to critical review to ensure it is fit for purpose. (No use basing important decisions on data that is unrepresentative, for example.) This kind of critical review of data is, I am sure, standard practice.

Generally speaking, I'm not concerned by the concept of gathering data (it's doesn't mean I support that) but firstly I'd like to know in details about what kind of data is collected, how is then processed and finally how is meant to be used...

I think that sensor data collection is acceptable where it has been specifically agreed to. For example if buses or underground trains collected ridership data and you explicitly consented to this on purchasing a ticket. Where it is suggested to be applied without reference to those being sensed I do not think it is appropriate. There is also the issue of the EU GDPR compliance and liability ensuring that you do not collect and store certain information in the sensing of your information. Presumably the ANPR system deployed in London faces the same potential compliance and potential liability issues.

Just received this reply:
"Hi Spawater

Thanks for your comment.

We're keen to find out what Londoners think about sensor data, positive or negative. That's why we ask them what they think the benefits are, and whether they have concerns.

How would you like sensor data to be used?

Talk London"

I prefer not to have my time wasted by cut'n'paste replies from bots.

How about we keep what we have and put the extra money in to policing , at least until it a bit safer on the streets .

Sensors collecting data is fine if and only if all these criteria are met: the data collected is anonymous; cannot identify an individual; is used for a specific purpose by specific approved organisations; is aggregated into volumetric data at the earliest feasible point; individual sensor records are permanently deleted after aggregation into a volume for a period. This style of use would enable levels of use of facilities and services without tracing movements and actions of individual people. I agree with other comments that the use of sensors and what data they are recording should be fully public and open to challenge.

I find it curious that people are so sensitive about data gathered electronically. If someone was sitting on a park bench with a clipboard, few people would give them a second glance. But as soon as it's gathered electronically, it's an issue. I don't blame the individuals who are perfectly entitled to their views, but we are influenced by the media and politicians who all have an agenda which varies from ignorance to points scoring over the opposition or selling copy. A proper analysis of the real risk and against the benefit gets lost somewhere.

For me, I do not believe that it would be legal under the new GDPR regulations to gather data that identified individuals without their express permission so we're probably safe on that score (and MI5 are more than capable of tracking dangerous people using existing methods anyway). Sensors would enable real time monitoring of usage over a much longer timescale than any human could do. However, it's dumb data and needs to be used intelligently. Maybe no one uses that park bench because it's always got bird poo on it. Moving it might be sensible, removing it would be wrong. There may be reasons why particular streets are underused - if it's a perception that it's unsafe, then turning street lights off will only make it worse. So I'm happy for anonymous data to be collected (and I don't see that as spying), but it needs intelligent humans with local knowledge to make sensible decisions on it.

I am not clear from the description/definition of 'Sensor Data', given above. about the benefits of the system to the ordinary 'person in the street'. My recommendation is to spell out those benefits such that they convey that the system is set up for the common good (if indeed it is).

It's handy knowing when the bus is due but as most stops don't have a display you still have to wait. I only have a cheap phone so can't check if a bus is due.

I would be happy to have street lights turned off in the night for a few hours. Surely burglars would then have to carry a torch and we might see them more easily?

No personal data collection though. I might have a store loyalty card but still use cash to pay mainly to confuse 'Big brother'.

The Mayor should spend out money wisely. Don't be like Livingston, I presume, who put solar lights on bus stop signs. How many years had we managed without?

I can think of a number of useful sensors that could be used to improve the environment and facilitate daily life:

- aircraft noise level using microphones with an upward pointing beam pattern to exclude ground-based noise with the sensor recording the average noise level calibrated such that it can be compared with the CAA measures
- road noise
- pollution levels from different sources such as
-- SO2 (e.g. from wood burning stoves)
-- pm5, pm10 etc
-- CO2
-- hydrocarbons
-- VOCs
-- NOx
- Car parking sensors could have number plate recognition to enable automatic billing.

More intrusive sensors such as whether someone is sitting on a bench must be robust to tracking such it can only be mapped to CCTV with a warrant.

However, more important sensors such as speed cameras do not seem forthcoming. The legislative framework around these doesn't seem to make it easy to prosecute speeding vehicles, and there is no enforcement of 20 mph limits in my borough. Time and resource should be focused on these before considering less critical sensors.