Sensor data

As long as anonymised so data gathered without face recognition and personal details being available for use by others (a la Facebook fiasco), then compiling trend or environment information seems a very efficient use of data for the benefit of many

In general I support the principle that no individual should be able to be identified by the data (e.g. if there is a sensor counting the number of people going past a particular point, it should not have the ability to pick up or record my mobile phone identifier or take a picture of me. Likewise, a sensor counting cars entering a certain area should not have the ability to recognise and record the car’s number plate).

There are certainly benefits in terms of urban planning, but I think these can only be realised if the data is collected on a London-wide basis (as opposed to a borough-by-borough basis).

I am concerned that I might have to pay for the results that my data generate (e.g. I don’t want to have to pay for the app that lets me know the location of empty parking places when my use of those parking spaces “fuels” the app).

I am also concerned about transparency in the collection and use of the data – I think the location of all sensors (both on public or private land) should be registered along with their capabilities (i.e. what they can record) and that this register should be open and free to public access. Likewise, the use of the data should be specified.

I have a slight worry that too much technology may produce a level playing and render traditional urban skills such as local knowledge, map reading & interpretation, etc no longer valuable. Which might be a sad loss.

At the same time, sometimes a level playing field is good and fairer. BUT if it is technology based, it will favour the rich – the ones with access to the most sophisticated (and expensive) smart devices. and the tech-savy.

If everyone is assumed to have smart devices and be online all the time, the city will become less hospitable to those who – for whatever reason – do not have constant access to online information.

If you travel – and don't make use of expensive data roaming services – you can already feel that many useful services (such as transport timetables) aren't as available as they should be.

Is this a joke?

Are you asking how I would feel about the lamp post outside my house being used to record my conversations?

That is an unacceptable breach of my privacy, but I have no doubt it's secretly being done.

Just to be clear I vote no.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.