When cameras with image recognition are deployed, for example, in parking scan cars or scanning bicycles, this often makes a process more efficient. But specific data or statistics about these savings are not available to residents or visitors. Why not? Could radical openness also advance the debate about the use of this technology and lead to new insights among the public?
Now that parking enforcement is being carried out by a parking scanner car instead of an enforcement officer on the street, there's no one around to ask questions. The enforcement officer is currently in the office, at the computer. In between, he has to wait long periods until new photos of a potential illegal parker appear. Can the enforcement officer answer questions at the same time? Could we set up a helpdesk for people with pressing questions?
People often think they're being filmed when they see cameras. Sometimes they wave at them. Usually, photos are taken as soon as an object is recognized. So no video clips are saved, and no one is watching live. To make this clear, you can make it visible when a photo is being taken. For example, with a light or an opening aperture. It's important that the "signal" is clearly visible in daylight, or in the case of a parking scanner, on a passing object.
Street cameras often point in one direction, but that's not the case on a parking scanner car. They're even a bit hidden. The camera box on the car becomes a kind of "all-seeing eye": but that's of course not the case. Could we communicate its operation better by adjusting the shape of the camera box?
Various tools and discussion formats are available for consultation evenings about physical changes in the city. For example, consider a scale model that everyone can walk around to assess the plan's impact. Such formats don't exist for digital changes in the city, even though these types of plans can also have an impact on public space. Can you create a digital scale model for participatory meetings about (invisible) technology in the city?
Municipal technology projects are often only released to the public once they are completely finished. That is logical; you don't want to make a blunder. But there's also value in presenting an unfinished product to the public. By presenting a mock-up as early as possible, you can learn how people see the product and what they think it does. You can then adjust the design accordingly. A conversation on the street can also provide you with new perspectives: for example, does it also work well for the elderly? Or for people in wheelchairs?
Coalition agreements, policy documents, and implementation agendas often describe ambitions and public values that apply to the use of technology in the city. During a participatory meeting, you ask for feedback from residents. It would be helpful if residents clearly identified these democratically agreed-upon values, so that it is clear how the proposal should be assessed. The value cards are a useful tool for this.
In a digital system like the parking scanner car, every exception must be coded. For some exceptions, this isn't a problem because they occur frequently. Consider, for example, people who park and only pay 5 minutes later. Such an exception is built into the algorithm. But there are also exceptional situations in which you receive a fine, while most people actually think it is unnecessary. In these situations, you could say: the human touch is missing. We organized a quiz, where a group of people votes on the justification of a fine. Could such a human feedback loop also become part of the digitized process?