Where, Wherefore, and How? - Contrasting Two Surveillance Contexts According to Acceptance

Julia van Heek, Katrin Arning, Martina Ziefle


Surveillance technologies are used all over the world for various reasons. In urban environments, surveillance technologies are predominantly used for detecting or preventing crimes. Simultaneously, an increasing number of technologies are used for medical monitoring at home, but also at clinical facilities, and at public environments for assuring patients’ medical safety. An intensive policy discussion about perceived advantages (especially increasing safety) and perceived barriers (in particular the invasion of privacy) comes along with the use of surveillance technologies. In this paper, it is examined where and for which contexts the use of surveillance technologies is accepted and under which conditions safety or privacy is perceived as more important. We investigate the acceptance of surveillance technologies for medical and crime surveillance scenarios using a conjoint analysis approach including four relevant aspects: location of surveillance, increase in safety, invasion of privacy, and the applied camera type. Results show both, context independent findings as well as context-sensitive findings: e.g., for crime surveillance, the location is most important followed by the trade-off between privacy and safety, while these three factors are of similar importance for medical surveillance. From a practical viewpoint, the findings might contribute to a differentiated surveillance policy in cities.


  1. Aghajan, H., Augusto, J. C., Wu, C., McCullagh, P., & Walkden, J.-A. 2007. Distributed vision-based accident management for assisted living. In International conference on Smart homes and health telematics, pp. 196-205, Springer.
  2. Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M. 1977. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888.
  3. Arning, K., Ziefle, M., 2015. “Get that Camera Out of My House!” Conjoint Measurement of Preferences for Video-Based Healthcare Monitoring Systems in Private and Public Places. In Inclusive Smart Cities and e-Health, pp. 152-164. Springer.
  4. Barrett, D., 2013. One surveillance camera for every 11 people in Britain, says CCTV survey. Telegraph. 10th July 2013.
  5. Bowyer, K. W., 2004. Face recognition technology: security versus privacy. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 23(1), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTAS.200 4.1273467.
  6. Cardinaux, F., Bhowmik, D., Abhayaratne, C., Hawley, M. S., 2011. Video based technology for ambient assisted living: A review of the literature. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 3(3), 253-269.
  7. Chen, B.-W., Chen, C.-Y., & Wang, J.-F., 2013. Smart homecare surveillance system: Behavior identification based on state-transition support vector machines and sound directivity pattern analysis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 43(6), 1279-1289.
  8. Dailey, K., 2013. The rise of CCTV surveillance in the US. BBC News. 29th April 2013.
  9. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., Warshaw, P. R., 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 982- 1003.
  10. Dey, S., Chakraborty, A., Naskar, S., Misra, P., 2012. Smart city surveillance: Leveraging benefits of cloud data stores. In 37th Conference on Local Computer Networks Workshops (LCN Workshops), 2012, pp. 868-876. IEEE.
  11. Filipponi, L., Vitaletti, A., Landi, G., Memeo, V., Laura, G., Pucci, P., 2010. Smart city: An event driven architecture for monitoring public spaces with heterogeneous sensors. In Fourth International Conference on Sensor Technologies and Applications (SENSORCOMM), 2010, pp. 281-286. IEEE.
  12. Fleck, S., Strasser, W., 2008. Smart camera based monitoring system and its application to assisted living. Proceedings of the IEEE, 96(10), 1698-1714.
  13. Fyfe, N., 2004. Zero tolerance, maximum surveillance? Deviance, difference and crime control in the late modern city. The Emancipatory City, 40-56.
  14. Gurley, R. J., Lum, N., Sande, M., Lo, B., Katz, M. H., 1996. Persons Found in Their Homes Helpless or Dead. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(26), 1710-1716.
  15. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199606273342606.
  16. Himmel, S., Ziefle, M., Arning, K. (2013). From Living Space to Urban Quarter: Acceptance of ICT Monitoring Solutions in an Ageing Society. In HumanComputer Interaction. Users and Contexts of Use, pp. 49-58. Springer.
  17. Kim, J. E., Boulos, G., Yackovich, J., Barth, T., Beckel, C., Mosse, D., 2012. Seamless Integration of Heterogeneous Devices and Access Control in Smart Homes. In 2012 Eighth International Conference on Intelligent Environments, pp. 206-213. https://doi.org/10.1109/IE.2012.57.
  18. Klack, L., Schmitz-Rode, T., Wilkowska, W., Kasugai, K., Heidrich, F., Ziefle, M., 2011. Integrated Home Monitoring and Compliance Optimization for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 39(12), 2911. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10439-011-0407-1.
  19. Koh, Y., Mohan, A., Wang, G., Xu, H., Malik, A., Lu, Y. H., & Ebert, D. S. (2016, May). Improve safety using public network cameras. In Technologies for Homeland Security (HST), 2016 IEEE Symposium on (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
  20. La Vigne, N. G., Lowry, S. S., Markman, J. A., & Dwyer, A. M. (2011). Evaluating the use of public surveillance cameras for crime control and prevention. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.
  21. Leonhardt, S. (2006). Personal Healthcare Devices. In S. Mukherjee, R. M. Aarts, R. Roovers, F. Widdershoven, & M. Ouwerkerk (Eds.), AmIware Hardware Technology Drivers of Ambient Intelligence, pp. 349- 370. Springer Netherlands.
  22. Luce, R. D., Tukey, J. W., 1964. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 1- 27.
  23. Memon, M., Wagner, S. R., Pedersen, C. F., Beevi, F. H. A., & Hansen, F. O., 2014. Ambient assisted living healthcare frameworks, platforms, standards, and quality attributes. Sensors, 14(3), 4312-4341.
  24. Orme, B. K., 2010. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research, 77- 89.
  25. Patton, J. W., 2000. Protecting privacy in public? Surveillance technologies and the value of public places. Ethics and Information Technology, 2(3), 181-187. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010057606781.
  26. Rao, V. R., 2014. Theory and Design of Conjoint Studies (Ratings Based Methods). In Applied Conjoint Analysis, pp. 37-78. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  27. Rogers, E., 2003. Diffusion of innovations. (5th ed.). New York: NY Free Press.
  28. Rubenstein, L. Z., 2006. Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention. Age and Ageing, 35(suppl 2), 37-41.
  29. Sawtooth Software. (2009). The CBC/HB System for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation Version 5.0 Technical Paper. 2015, from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/ products/advanced-analytical-tools/cbc-hierarchicalbayes-module/167-support/technical-papers/sawtoothsoftware-products/128-cbc-hb-technical-paper-2009.
  30. Schwartz, A., 2012. Chicago's Video Surveillance Cameras: A Pervasive and Poorly Regulated Threat to Our Privacy. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 11, 9.
  31. Slobogin, C., 2003. Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places And The Right to Anonymity (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 364600). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
  32. SMRT, 2016. SMRT - Sawtooth Software Market Simulator. Sequim, WA, USA: Software Software Inc.
  33. Solanas, A., Patsakis, C., Conti, M., Vlachos, I. S., Ramos, V., Falcone, F., 2014. Smart health: a context-aware health paradigm within smart cities. IEEE Communications Magazine, 52(8), 74-81.
  34. SSI Web, 2016. SSI Web Sawtooth Software. Software for online conjoint survey developement. Sequim, WA, USA: Software Software Inc.
  35. Surette, R., 2005. The thinking eye: Pros and cons of second generation CCTV surveillance systems. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 28(1), 152-173. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13639510510581039.
  36. van Heek, J., Arning, K., & Ziefle, M., 2015. Safety and Privacy Perceptions in Public Spaces: An Empirical Study on User Requirements for City Mobility. In R. Giaffreda, D. Cagánová, Y. Li, R. Riggio, & A. Voisard (Eds.), Internet of Things. IoT Infrastructures, pp. 97-103. Springer International Publishing.
  37. Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., 2004. Surveillance for Crime Prevention in Public Space: Results and Policy Choices in Britain and America. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(3), 497-526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.tb00058.x.
  38. Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P., 2009. Making Public Places Safer: Surveillance and Crime Prevention. Oxford University Press.
  39. Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., Taheri, S. A., 2015. Effectiveness and social costs of public area surveillance for crime prevention. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11, 111-130.
  40. Wilkowska, W., Ziefle, M., 2012. Privacy and data security in E-health: Requirements from the user's perspective. Health Informatics Journal, 18(3), 191-201.
  41. Yu, M., Rhuma, A., Naqvi, S. M., Wang, L., Chambers, J., 2012. A posture recognition-based fall detection system for monitoring an elderly person in a smart home environment. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 16(6), 1274-1286.
  42. Ziefle, M., Schneider, C., Vallée, D., Schnettler, A., Krempels, K.-H., Jarke, M., 2014. Urban future Outline-A Roadmap on Research for Livable Cities. Smart Cities, 9.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

van Heek J., Arning K. and Ziefle M. (2017). Where, Wherefore, and How? - Contrasting Two Surveillance Contexts According to Acceptance . In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems - Volume 1: SMARTGREENS, ISBN 978-989-758-241-7, pages 87-98. DOI: 10.5220/0006362400870098

in Bibtex Style

author={Julia van Heek and Katrin Arning and Martina Ziefle},
title={Where, Wherefore, and How? - Contrasting Two Surveillance Contexts According to Acceptance},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems - Volume 1: SMARTGREENS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems - Volume 1: SMARTGREENS,
TI - Where, Wherefore, and How? - Contrasting Two Surveillance Contexts According to Acceptance
SN - 978-989-758-241-7
AU - van Heek J.
AU - Arning K.
AU - Ziefle M.
PY - 2017
SP - 87
EP - 98
DO - 10.5220/0006362400870098