10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17151
In the project “Surveillance in Urban Nightscapes”, surveillance practices during the night are investigated in Dutch city centers. Besides organizational surveillance technologies such as Cctv and bodycameras, bottom-up image technologies are invading this nightscape (Octv), in the form of mobile cameras. This shared footage affects both citizens who go for a night out – you never know when and where you might have been filmed – as well as organizational surveillance – the amount of sources for watching and reconstructing events that take place in the city centre increases. Theoretically, this can be seen as gradual change in the landscape of surveillance in (nightly) public spaces. This literature review tries to capture and combine different concepts from three disciplines: urban geography, surveillance and STS. The concluding remarks deal with key concepts derived from combinations of literature and tries to explain why and how a STS-informed analysis is necessary when investigating surveillance in urban nightscapes.
application/pdf
2038-3460
17151
2
en
Tjerk Timan
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
participatory surveillance
Surveillance in Urban Nightscapes. A STS-Informed Perspective
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
4
Scenarios
2014-01-04
2023-06-12
2014-01-04
2023-11-07
93-124
TS
Tjerk Timan
2013
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17151
93
Erasmus University of Rotterdam
2038-3460
2
participatory surveillance
en
124
Surveillance in Urban Nightscapes. A STS-Informed Perspective
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17151/16058
4
                                                                             Scenarios

Surveillance in Urban Nightscapes
A STS-Informed Perspective
	
  
Tjerk Timan
Erasmus University of Rotterdam
	
  
       Abstract In the project “Surveillance in Urban Nightscapes”, surveillance
       practices during the night are investigated in Dutch city centers. Besides or-
       ganizational surveillance technologies such as Cctv and bodycameras, bot-
       tom-up image technologies are invading this nightscape (Octv), in the form of
       mobile cameras. This shared footage affects both citizens who go for a night
       out – you never know when and where you might have been filmed - as well
       as organizational surveillance – the amount of sources for watching and re-
       constructing events that take place in the city centre increases. Theoretically,
       this can be seen as gradual change in the landscape of surveillance in (nightly)
       public spaces. This literature review tries to capture and combine different
       concepts from three disciplines: urban geography, surveillance and STS. The
       concluding remarks deal with key concepts derived from combinations of lit-
       erature and tries to explain why and how a STS-informed analysis is neces-
       sary when investigating surveillance in urban nightscapes.

       Keywords: Urban Nightscapes; Fear vs. Fantasy; Actor-network Theory;
       Panopticon; Participatory Surveillance.

       Corresponding author: Tjerk Timan, Media and Business Master, Erasmus
       University of Rotterdam – Email: mail@tjerktiman.nl




1. Introduction

    Surveillance is a current theme and locus of attention in Western soci-
eties. Accompanying this growing awareness, an increase in both number
and type of surveillance technologies can be witnessed. One reason for
this state of affairs lies in the assumption that any evidence of a positive
relation between surveillance technology and safety supports and encour-
ages the deployment of surveillance technologies in a society. This agenda
can be questioned, not only in terms of the necessity of developing tech-
nology for the sake of technology, but also in terms of the type of society
we want to live in: what is a desirable future when it comes to surveillance

TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
4 (2) pp. 93-124 - ISSN 2038-3460
www.tecnoscienza.net                              2013
	
  
94                                                           Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

technology in society?
    Combinations of new and existing surveillance technologies create
new aims in the world of surveillance, such as the creation of “blanket”
surveillance in public space, which means striving for a complete cover-
age of public space, or the ability to see everything all the time. Besides
the technological challenges this brings about (challenges of aligning
standards, formats, databases, code, storage times, hardware and so on),
the goal of creating a totally covering surveillance network generates new
problems in the boundary-negotiations of surveillance in public space.
E.g. the problem of losing control (or oversight) on what types of tech-
nology are actually “surveilling” and who or what is surveilling who or
what exactly. Combined with the emergence of more individualized in-
formation and communication technologies (ICT) in the same public
spaces where surveillance technologies are in place, boundaries and rela-
tions between the surveillor and the surveilled become blurry.
    By communicating to the public that one is being watched in city cen-
ters, and that the city upholds rules of conduct in certain areas, the public
who wants to do harm is warned while the public who is there to have fun
is reassured: it is a safe but exciting place. In the case of “old” surveil-
lance technology such a Closed-Circuit Television (Cctv), there exists a
sense of clear power relations that are at work: a government installs a
camera and citizens in public space are the subject of surveillance for that
camera. Cameras, as well as the surveillance signs, that can be encoun-
tered in public spaces communicate and inform on what is happening:
“you are a citizen and as such you are being watched”.
    However, when this gaze becomes decentralized and somehow ubiq-
uitous, as we can witness with emerging social and mobile media technol-
ogies, it becomes more difficult to understand who is watching who and
why: power relations and the boundaries of surveillance now have a mul-
tiplicity of negotiation-points in public space. This paper aims to under-
stand these negotiation-points theoretically by investigating how both
humans and technologies shape surveillance practices in Dutch nightlife
districts.


2 Nighttime Economies and Fear versus Fantasy

    One of the topics of interest in urban geography is the city as a unit of
analysis (see Ramadier 2004). Urban geography looks at how cities and
citizens within cities shape and constitute the notion of publicness, and
looks at how spaces become places and for whom. Variables that directly
spring to mind are that of place and time: who uses which part of the city
and at what time. Subsequently, one can think about different rhythms
within a city; where certain places are used differently over time (during a
day, a week or even during different seasons). The relevance of these no-
Timan                                                                            95
tions becomes clear when returning to the specific topic at hand: the
nighttime economy. Summarized by the Surveillance in Urban
Nightscapes team:

             In keeping with the shift toward consumption as the economic
        basis of cities, nightlife entertainment districts have come to play
        an increasingly important role in the fortunes of urban economies
        across Europe. For the most part these districts are located in city
        centers where bars, restaurants, discos, cinemas and clubs are spa-
        tially clustered. They often attract large numbers of nighttime visi-
        tors looking for fun, adventure and enjoyment. (van Liempt et al.
        2011)

    These districts (see fig. 1) are designated places of fun and attraction
and as such they are important for the development of a city, or a particu-
lar part of a city. Where historically these districts might have sprung up
“naturally”, or at least accidentally, urban governments and city planners
more and more try to steer and regulate the development of these dis-
tricts. The rationale behind this attempt to regulate is to create “better”
nighttime districts that are safe and attractive. The challenge for govern-
ments, city planners or architects is then to achieve this attractiveness for
as many different crowds as possible. This is described in urban geogra-
phy as “animation”:

            According to Montgomery (1995), the animation of city cen-
        ters can be stimulated by offering a varied diet of activities in pub-
        lic space. This is what is meant by the development of themed
        public space. The term “themed”, particularly in association with
        “fantasy”, bears connotations of theme parks. (van Melik et al.
        2007, 28)




                             Fig. 1 – Nightlife districts
96                                                                Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

    This animation of the city reflects in the emergence of top-down orga-
nized events where public spaces increasingly serve as venues for the arts
and culture, typically for performances, festivals, concerts, parades or
outdoor film shows. These developments appear to serve a common pur-
pose: to attract people with discretionary income to the city centre by
transforming it into a “Pleasure Dome” (Oosterman 1992). This purpose
is deemed beneficial for different stakeholders in the city. As described
by van Melik et al. (2007, 32), “investing in public space appears to be a
lucrative option, not only for the government but for the business com-
munity as well”.
    Punter (1990) observed a growing awareness among property devel-
opers and investors that it can be in their own interest to invest in the
quality of the public realm. Doing so would enhance both the value of the
scheme and its long- term potential. The focus on safe and entertaining
public spaces can thus partially be explained by the economic ambitions
of the local government and other actors involved in the development of
public space (see van Melik et al. 2007, 32). In other words, economic
gain turns out to be a driving force behind the aim to create safer nightlife
districts (Roberts and Eldridge 2009). The “trap” or the danger of over-
regulating and hosting such events is that indeed city centers becomes
subject of “disneyfication” (Warren 1994) where city centers become
predictable and similar.
    Another consequence of this gentrification, or even disneyfication, is
that the emphasis is put too strongly on turning cities, and nighttime dis-
tricts for that matter, into safe zones that attract similar audiences and
similar venues (the safety of offering a recognizable city centre). Ritzer
(1993) labelled this the “McDonaldisation of society”. Citizens and tour-
ists as visitors of these city centers, however, might also be looking for
something else than a safe and recognizable place to spend their time
(and money). Nye called this “risk-less risk” (Nye 1981), which means be-
ing able to be adventurous without really taking chances (see also Hanni-
gan 1998, 71). In other words, excitement and even fear might not only
be a side-effect of creating “safe and pleasant” nightlife districts, it might
also be something that is sought for. As put by Ellin (2001, 879): “by ex-
tension, it is not a question of good or bad, safety or danger, pleasure or
pain; there is fear but also fantasy, adventure and excitement”.
    This fear versus fantasy is a precarious balance, and one that is not
solely shaped or controllable by local governments, city planners and so
on. These citizens and visitors, the users of public space, also have a shap-
ing role. Or, to quote van Melik et al. (2007, 30):

           Public spaces are not solely the products of planners and ar-
       chitects but are, as sociologist Henri Lefebvre (1990) argued, pro-
       duced by and within a society. Other sociologists, from Weber to
       Giddens, also believed that cities, and thus urban life, can only be
       understood in relation to the wider societal context.
Timan                                                                        97
    As argued here, the city is also shaped by others than planners and ar-
chitects. For instance, the visitors of nighttime districts, who are also un-
der influence of this wider societal context; or the type of international
audience (the metropolitan - the globetrotter - the “young urban profes-
sional”) that Western cities try to attract is becoming a large factor in the
shaping of cities. This group reflects a homogeneous lifestyle and a set of
norms and values that might prove to comprise more similarities in be-
tween cities than for instance, in between nationalities.
    Maybe even more important to look into are the ways and methods in
which this group is attracted and is attracting; their shaping role has be-
come highly ICT dependent. With the emergence of (mobile) ICTs, every
city and every activity has to be digitally present in order to attract atten-
tion, or to get noticed. This digitization of the city is in itself a very broad
phenomenon, worthy of research in multiple disciplines (see Schwanen et
al. 2008; Nagenborg et al. 2010). In light of city branding and tourism,
urban geographers state:
    With the expansion of Ict, it has become much easier to choose
among the activities on offer. Online tourist information and announce-
ments of forthcoming events can easily be found on the Internet. As per-
sonal mobility increases, even distant events come within reach. Further-
more, individualization has made life a “do-it-yourself’ package” (van
Melik et al. 2007, 7).
    Where there indeed is “an app for everything” in current city centers,
and both the elements of fear and fantasy are mediated through ICTs
(safety apps, event apps, location-based services, and so on), emerging
ICTs as a part of the city have become a unit of analysis.


3. The Concept of Nightscapes and Rhythms

     So far, different stakeholders have been mentioned that, in some form,
play a role in constituting the city at night. The assemblage of (amongst
others) visitors, facilities and surveillance can be seen as a landscape.
Chatterton and Hollands (2003) have combined these factors to coin a
“nightscape”, by which they mean the urban landscape at night. They de-
scribe this term as “socially constructed geographies of commercial night-
life activities”.
     Within a city center, there can be multiple nightscapes. Although the-
se places tend to look more alike, as described earlier, still each
nightscape is unique, due to aspects such as a specific setup of a city cen-
ter, specific demographics in that city or sub-center of a city, and differ-
ence in local policy surrounding nighttime districts. These, and more, el-
ements create specific rhythms of activities in these nightscapes. Drawing
on a description by Schwanen et al. (2012), time-geography and notions
of rhythm have been on the agenda since the 1970s:
98                                                             Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

          since the introduction of time- geography to the Anglophone
       world geographers have had a conceptual apparatus to think
       about rhythms (Crang 2001). Nonetheless, Parks and Thrift’s
       (1979; 1980) chronogeography – directly inspired by time-
       geography – offered the first comprehensive treatment of rhyth-
       micity in human geography. (Schwanen et al. 2012, 5)

    Many approaches of dealing with time and rhythm have been devel-
oped in the field of urban geography. A first and obvious difference is
that of day and night. Distinctions of time-spaces are made in urban ge-
ography where the urban night offers a “more intense emotional experi-
ences and provides more opportunities for transgressive and anti-social
behaviour, including public drunkenness and alcohol-related violence”
(van Aalst et al. 2009, 3) compared to the daytime situation. The night al-
lows for – and triggers – different behaviours in public space than the
daytime.
    Although this might seem obvious, the point here is that this changes
the atmosphere and the “stage” in which things take place drastically (see
fig. 2). Other rhythmic influences, or “pacemakers” in the nighttime
economy can be found in factual aspects (opening and closing times,
transportation facilities, the presence of a cash machine). In urban geog-
raphy, empirical works has been done in this field:




                   Fig. 2 – Excesses in nightly public space
Timan                                                                            99
   As described by Schwanen et al. (2012, 7):

            Roberts and Turner’s (2005) descriptive study of Old Cromp-
        ton Street in Soho, London, indicates that a nightlife district is in-
        deed a polyrhythmic ensemble in which pedestrian activity, traffic,
        noise levels, instances of antisocial behaviour, and opening hours
        of facilities fluctuate and interact over a 24 hour period. Their
        work suggests that the opening times and availability of different
        nightlife facilities – bars, clubs, pavement cafés, etc – act as pace-
        makers for the number of visitors that can be observed on the
        street.

    Besides these hard facts, there are also more ‘soft’ aspects that might
have an influence on rhythms in the night, although these are hard to
measure (reputation of a place, hype, “what friends do”, accidental pass-
ing). Also notions of fear and un-safety can influence visitors to stay away,
or visit a certain place. Paraphrasing Schwanen, several studies (Bromley
et al. 2003; Schwanen et al. 2008) indicate that perceptions of crime, dis-
orderliness, and un-safety increase over the course of the night and are
among the factors which keep people from participating in the nighttime
economy in the later hours (Schwanen et al. 2012, 8).
     In conclusion, it can be stated that rhythms of a nighttime economy
change over the course of a night and that this changing is instigated by
both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ facts, or instances.


4. Participation in the Nightscape

    As described in the introduction, the sense, or understanding, of pub-
lic space and publicness is at stake in these nightscapes. During these dif-
ferent rhythms of visitors in nightscapes, different ideas of what public-
ness means, and what is accepted behaviour, are negotiated. Where there
exists an assumption that public space is accessible and open to anyone,
this can be questioned by looking at the playing out of surveillance and
publicness and the way this shapes a safe place for one, and a dangerous
place for another at the same time. Or, as phrased in the original research
proposal of the Surveillance in Urban Nightscapes project, “if forms of
inequality and exclusion exist here, questions can be raised about the na-
ture of public spaces and local public policies regarding such spaces at
nighttime” (Schwanen et al., 2012, 2069).
    The question addressed here is if exclusion takes place in the
nightscape. A reference is also made to local policies that have a shaping
role on this inequality. However, it is not only policy and people that
shape inequality. As mentioned earlier, in the nightscape, surveillance
technologies also play a role. Where theoretical notions and concepts of
surveillance will be discussed later on, here I want to point out that the
100                                                               Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

physical setup of the nightscape, but also different technological devices
in that nightscape, can have an influence on who is participating in the
nightscape and when.
    Technologies and physical infrastructures are important means to
serve the goal of creating “safer” (but not necessarily more equal)
nightscapes. In putting these surveillance-means into practice via differ-
ent channels, forms of exclusion might emerge:

           One consequence of the increased importance of the nighttime
      economy and the pervasive culture of fear surrounding nightlife
      districts has been the intensification of surveillance: police agents,
      private security firms and technologically advanced Cctv (Closed
      Circuit Television) systems aim to reduce crime and make visitors’
      experience of the nightlife area as pleasant as possible. The ra-
      tionale underpinning this approach is that new visitors may be at-
      tracted to nightlife areas if they are safer and more secure. Howev-
      er, the implementation of enhanced security measures for the ben-
      efit of some visitors may entail the exclusion of other groups, who
      may be singled out by surveillance agents as constituting a poten-
      tial risk on the basis of their race/ethnicity, dress, comportment,
      etc. These issues raise questions about the effects of surveillance
      practices on the public character of public spaces. (van Liempt et
      al. 2011)

    Although this quote describes the issues of nightscapes and notions of
publicness poignantly, these “enhanced security measures” are (as of yet)
not defined. Where to find these places or touch-points where this nego-
tiation and possible exclusion of the public takes place? One would ex-
pect that during busy times and in busy areas, experiences of fear in the
public space would be less:

          Underlying the earlier mentioned “animation” approach is an
      assumption that crowded places are safer. Concentrations of peo-
      ple will presumably make it more likely for offenders to be seen
      and apprehended or even prevented from committing a crime.
      Now that mobile phones with cameras are ubiquitous, people will
      be more likely to participate in surveillance. (van Melik et al. 2007,
      4)

   Referring to the question of means, these authors point to an interest-
ing observation; that people more and more carry a mobile phone, often
equipped with one or multiple cameras. When local governments try to
regulate these spaces and make them safer, there is the implicit or some-
times very explicit danger of promoting certain individuals or groups
while excluding others (see Lyon 2003; Helms et al. 2007).
   However, as earlier mentioned, it is not only local policy and govern-
ment-owned means such as Cctv cameras that determine and shape the
nightscape. Where we have already established that visitors have a large
Timan                                                                           101
role in defining the public in public space, this visitor also has access to
means that can have an influence on that nightscapes (see Hardey 2007).
These means, such as a mobile phone equipped with a camera, might not
have been developed as a means for safety or surveillance as such, but
does hold with it the potential to be used for these purposes in the
nightscape. In how far both these government-owned “official” means
and the potential means of visitors have an actual influence on the
rhythms and behaviours of visitors, is an empirical question. Schwanen
states:

            A strong visible presence of well-equipped surveillance agents
        may draw some people into the nighttime economy yet trigger
        suspicion in and deter others [...] The rhythmic presence of police
        officers, for instance, may reflect the anticipation, on the basis of
        past experiences, of undesired events and risks involving certain
        (types of) visitors at particular times and places during the night.
        (Schwanen et al. 2012, 8)

     The suggestion made here is, based on past experiences with a certain
rhythmicity in the nightscape, that presence of surveillance agents indeed
already have a (strong) influence of who visits the nightscape and at what
time.
     Where this is a human agent, means such as Cctv cameras, and maybe
more importantly, signs stating that Cctv cameras are present, as non-
human agents also have an influence on visitors. Where the effect of Cctv
presence is as of yet a point of (academic) debate (see Norris and Arm-
strong 1999; Hempel and Töpfer 2002), the challenge here is to look at
the entire network of human- and non-human agents in the nightscape; to
the entire landscape of surveillance.
     To summarize, urban geography has introduced relevant concepts to
analyse surveillance in urban nightscapes. First of all, this discipline
points to the city, and especially city centers, as potentially rich research
sites. Processes of gentrification and McDonaldisation lead to an increase
in similarity of city centers. This leads to recognizable and controllable
spaces, where surveillance is one of the means of control and regulation.
     However, via the concept of rhythms, urban geography also shows
that these places are under constant negotiation and flux. Where during
the day a city centre might be aimed at shopping, the same district at-
tracts restaurant public in the evening and clubbers in the night. Together
with the different rhythmicalities of facilities during a day and a night, the
message is that these places are never the same and never homogeneous;
it is a constantly changing landscape.
     The introduction of the dichotomy of fear versus fantasy shows the
tension in these spaces at night; they have to be attractive yet safe in order
to become a “thriving” nighttime economy for different stakeholders.
One way of doing so is via surveillance and regulation.
     The nighttime economy is made up of a complex network, dubbed a
102                                                             Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

“nightscape”, a term referring to the urban landscape at night. The con-
cept of the nightscape is used here to point out not only to human factors
in nighttime economies, but also at technological means such as Cctv or
mobile phones as shaping factors of urban landscapes at night. Scholars
in Urban Geography as an academic discipline look at experiences in the
nightscape of different groups of citizens and surveillance professionals.
Surveillance studies can complement this view, because it is specifically
focused on questions of surveillance and power relations in society.


5. The Panopticon as a Model for Thinking About Surveil-
   lance

    Probably the most famous example – and model – to think about sur-
veillance is the Panopticon (see fig. 3). Originally, it is a design for a pris-
on, thought up by Jeremy Bentham. In short, the idea is to create the ul-
timate prison, where all cells are placed in a circle. All cells face each oth-
er, where the only visible blockade are the bars of the prison cell. In the
middle of this circle of cells, there is a watchtower. The watcher in this
tower can see every prisoner, at all times. This watchtower was to be built
in such a way that the prisoners cannot see in which direction, or at what
times the watcher is watching. Bentham’s idea was that, because of this
setup, prisoners would be under constant surveillance; because they can-
not know when they are watched, they will have to assume that they are
watched all the time (or take the chance). Besides this practical aspect,
the main consequence of such a prison is that the prisoners “will stop
wanting to do wrong” (Dorrestijn 2012, 30).




                 Fig. 3 – A prison based on the Panopticon design
Timan                                                                    103
    Taking this prison as a diagram, Foucault projected this notion on
other parts of society in analyzing power-relations and models of govern-
ing (Foucault 1975). When everybody is constantly watched, an internali-
zation of control, of morals and values, will take place. Based on historical
research, Foucault coined this type of society the disciplinary, or disci-
pline society, where (in Western societies), we have seen a development
to technocratic approaches to governing. Foucault’s study on power con-
sisted of formal and evident institutions, where the Panopticon was in-
troduced as an “ideal” system to internalize the power struggle from insti-
tution to the individual.
    Another French thinker responded to Foucault, stating that the object
of study in “current” society (the 1980s) begged for a different analysis,
where the routes, or “touch-points” of power between institutions and
individuals are not so clear-cut anymore. Deleuze and Guattari in their
publication Milles Plateaux (1987), made the observation that Foucauldi-
an institutions no longer existed, at least not in the form as described by
Foucault.
    In comparing Foucault’s and Deleuze’s objects of study and “spaces”
for study, one can state that they are closed (Foucault) versus open
(Deleuze) spaces, leading to respectively a controlled and a disciplined
society. Foucault used enclosed spaces as space of study, like the factory,
the prison, or the hospital, where the object of study was the individual:
the body. In order to make bodies docile, the use of surveillance (the
Panopticon) internalizes power-struggles and the will to “do good”.
Through control at a distance and technologies of power, a chain of be-
haviour emerges: bodies (and minds) reform through daily regimes that
are instigated by the ones in power.
    With Deleuze, the object of study alters, due to the fact that society
has altered: he introduces the dividual (Deleuze 1992). Where society is
becoming fragmented, so does the individual; the panopticon becomes
blurry and the individual is split up into pieces, where the “new” power
of consumerism is demanding all kinds and types of attention from the
citizen/consumer. In a Deleuzian society, it is not about making bodies
docile anymore, but about moulding the consumer (who consists of a real
body and a data-body, where the latter becomes more important). Where
Foucault would talk about the shift in power from “taking life or let live”
towards an administration of life (bio-power) “to foster or disallow life”,
Deleuze states that power has taken another shift, towards access.
    Subsequently, Deleuzian places of study would be airports, borders:
access points. The notion of the dividual and the turn to access points as
object of study mark the point of a post-Foucauldian direction, and to a
certain extent the beginning of “surveillance studies”. Surveillance studies
in a post-Foucauldian fashion thus emphasize the importance of looking
not into the top-down institutions who are “disciplining” the visitors of
these nightscapes, but rather look at interaction, or touch points of power
and surveillance in that nightscape, that take place between humans and
104                                                         Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

technologies. The Deleuzian notion of the dividual allows us to look at
individuals not as complete or uniform beings, rather as entities that have
potentially many roles, or forms in that nightscape.


6. What Is There After Foucault? Questions in Surveillance
Studies

    Attempts have been made in surveillance studies to get away from the
panopticon model. The idea of internalization of control via one-
directional top-down technologies of surveillance did not seem to fit con-
temporary societies anymore, mainly because Foucault did not, and could
not, include electronic layers of surveillance.
    However, as David Lyon, a leading author in this field, describes in
the book Theorizing Surveillance (2006, 4): “we cannot evade some inter-
action with the Panopticon, either historically, or in today’s analyses of
surveillance”. This, he claims, is due to the ever-growing presence of
“watching and being watched” via all kinds of new technologies or para-
digms. Where the idea of the panopticon and the goals of creating docile
bodies has spread from the prison to, for instance, the workplace and the
government for reasons of productivity and efficiency managing, it also
travelled to “softer” forms of entertainment and marketing. Via forms of
voluntarily being watched in reality shows or YouTube, to be watched
becomes a threshold, an advantage (a YouTube adagio of the more views
the better). Lyon coins this “panopticommidy” (Lyon 2007), Whitaker
the “participatory panopticon” (Whitaker 1999).
    However inviting these notions may sound, they still lie within the
framework of the panopticon and the power struggles between watcher
and watched. Lyon states that we do not have to dismiss the idea of the
panopticon, but that there are other sources of theory to be found. This
can help in creating more balanced, and more informed analyses of cur-
rent surveillance practices (or to reframe phenomena in society into theo-
ries of surveillance).
    The problem with most panopticon-based analyses is that of Modern-
ism and the dichotomy between nature and society, between humans and
things. This splitting up of subject and object creates abstract entities or
categories (institutions, the government), that hold the Power and exer-
cise it upon the Subjects in Society. This perspective ignores any form of
situatedness, context, or technology, for that matter.
    On the contrary, Latour points out that we do not need to attach our
explanations to either Object or Subject/Society. They are both part of
the same central starting point: the collective that produces things and
humans. Maybe there is more to things-in-themselves than we now give
them credit for. On the other hand, the collectives we move ourselves in
are maybe more interesting than the humans-amongst-themselves led us
Timan                                                                   105
to expect (Latour 1992).
    If we look at humans and objects together as a collective, maybe that
does tell another tale. The dimensions of these collectives make sure that
new hybrids keep popping up: an increasing number of objects needs an
increasing number of subjects. The nice aspects of science and technology
are that they multiply the non-humans enrolled in the manufacturing of
collectives and they make the community that we form with these beings
a more intimate one. So in order for these collectives to endure, a differ-
ent role is given to the hybrid, the quasi-object and the human; one that is
not so distinct, but much more networked than thought before (Latour
1992).
    Not that technologies of surveillance are not questioned or discussed,
however, often this happens in such a way that a) technology is black-
boxed (“the Internet” or “ID cards”) without examining the inner work-
ings and the “back-end” of these technologies, and b) user-technology re-
lations and questions of remediation (Bolter and Grusin 2000) between
user and technology are often neglected.




           Fig. 4 – CCTV camera sign in Arnhem, The Netherlands
106                                                                Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

    Scholars such as Dubbeld (2005) and Ball and Webster (2003) or
Taekke (2011) have recently taken up these challenges within surveillance
studies by drawing on Sts and media studies, respectively. Both these
fields can help when looking into networks of surveillance in urban
nightscapes, where more and more relations between surveillor – be it or-
ganisational surveillance (see Smith 2002; Taekke 2011) or another visitor
– the surveilled visitor, and technologies emerge (f.i. mobile phones, ur-
ban screens, or ID cards).
    These interactions between humans and technology are crucial in sur-
veillance studies because it is in these interactions, rather than – for in-
stance – only in regulation, that questions of power and government be-
come crystallized. Rules and regulations in public space do play an im-
portant role in shaping the public nightscape, but I argue here that tech-
nologies of surveillance should be seen as forms or extensions of these
rules and regulations as exemplified in the signs referring to the presence
of Cctv cameras in public space (see fig. 4). Negotiations and adjustments
on how to act (e.g. what is the “right” behaviour) in public space are
more and more mediated by technologies, therefore the interactions be-
tween surveillance technologies and its users (police officers, visitors,
bouncers) should be examined more closely.


7. The Surveillant Assemblage
    Before examining what is negotiated and how in public space, some
framing needs to be done as to how to approach this research without
taking a normative stance that was often to be found in Foucault-based
analyses. One way of doing this is to take a step back and look at cases of
surveillance in a situated and contextual way. Haggerty and Ericson pro-
vide a heuristic tool here by drawing on Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of
an assemblage. By this they mean that:
           This assemblage operates by abstracting human bodies from
       their territorial settings and separating them into a series of dis-
       crete flows. These flows are then reassembled into distinct “data
       doubles” which can be scrutinized and targeted for intervention.
       In the process, we are witnessing a rhizomatic levelling of the hier-
       archy of surveillance, such that groups which were previously ex-
       empt from routine surveillance are now increasingly being moni-
       tored. (Haggerty and Ericson 2000, 2)
    Moving away from Foucault’s pre-given entities of those surveilling
and the subjects of surveillance, these authors point out to a more recent
development in (Western) societies, where we can see a quantitative turn
towards citizens, or those being surveilled. The result is that parts of soci-
ety that were not monitored before, now (can) become scrutiny of surveil-
lance. Once your name, address, occupation or other types of information
Timan                                                                     107
are electronically stored, your records can travel. These flows of infor-
mation are the “things” to be watched and the more spread your data is,
in the more flows you are represented in.
    Resonating with Deleuze’s dividual and the notion of the data-double
(Los 2006, 77) as a unit of analysis, this perspective also changes the way
we have to look at governmentality and power relations. It is not the indi-
vidual that needs to become visible and controlled, rather it is the data he
or she represents that become the point-of-passage in forms of govern-
ment (voting, travelling, securing, housing, etc.). The kind of data you
represent has to match with a certain query in a database that respectively
says “oke”, or not. These databases form a rich source for potential sur-
veillance (also dubbed dataveillance), especially when it becomes possible
to connect different sources (or “flows”) of data. Lyon calls these data-
bases “leaky containers” (Lyon 2007).
     New questions then emerge for surveillance studies because more and
more responsibilities and decisions are moving towards databases and al-
gorithms (think of automatic face-recognition or the automatic keyword
analysis of Twitter-messages) , even to such an extent that surveillance
agents base their decisions on what a database query returns. This decou-
pling of the individual and the data he or she represents implies also a
new mode of thinking about public space and what a control-society, or a
discipline society is, or even if these are the right terms to start with. For
instance, who is accountable for making and sharing footage? And how
complete is the user-generated footage or data collected?
    Based on the notion of “databased society”, Galloway, a new-media
scholar, looks at protocol as the new means, or form, of power. With the
birth of Internet and its (short) history, forms of power, of freedom and
control, need re-visioning. In doing so, Galloway (2004) implicitly states
that we are still in a Deleuzian control society, be it that the actors within
this society may differ from earlier viewpoints. A periodization map is
given (see fig. 5). Galloway claims here that the manager of control socie-
ty, the distributed society, is protocol. This protocol can be found in
computer algorithms and languages such as Html that decide whether a
Website works or not, for instance. This protocol is not a normative
agency; it is just there, once programmed by somebody and currently the
responsibility of no one in particular.
    Where Galloway continues by linking protocol to all sorts of new
forms of government and bio-power (by linking protocol to Dna), the rel-
evance here is the resonation of the notion of protocol with the context of
surveillance practices, which are often (as we will see further on) highly
protocolled environments, where human and machine have to operate in
a rigid and strict setting. Responding on this rather dystopian view on the
power of protocol and the non-role of humans, Chun (2006), a media and
surveillance scholar, argues that indeed (computer) code as a language
gains more influence, but she states that we will keep having a role in cre-
ating machines and their languages in the future. Her investigation into
108                                                         Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

fibre optics shows different views on what the Internet has been through-
out its short history and what myths were created around it. Trying to
understand the linkage between freedom and democracy to control, often
this relation is constructed via techno-deterministic explanations. Look-
ing at the technology and its effects within a (Western contemporary)
democracy, people do not have a voice as individual, but are becoming
abstractions, where the individual is disembodied and turned into a statis-
tic of the crowd.




                            Fig. 5 – Power-diagram


    Chun goes on demonstrating that the Internet does not, through its
town halls or chat rooms or through its disembodiment, enable publicity
as imagined by the Enlightenment nor do its protocols make its networks
transparent. It does threaten a publicity that, as it makes irrelevant the
distinction between public and private, enables something like democracy
- an ideological polarization around control and freedom.
     Summing up, the argument is about how the Internet and surround-
ing discourses are a reflection on our vulnerabilities. Chun is warning for
both utopian and dystopian ideas (extreme perspectives might harm or
affect democracy). The image of an Internet has changed since 9/11 at-
tacks on the US, where this happy place, this space for sharing ideas and
knowledge, has made way for an extreme paranoia, due to the melting of
security with freedom (Chun 2006, 15).


8. 9/11 and New Places of Surveillance

    The role of the Internet and new media on society, then, has been
acknowledged and researched by both new media and surveillance schol-
ars, who argue that the ways in which we govern “life” in our societies has
rigorously changed since this new technology.
    However, questions of legitimacy and the ever-growing monitoring on
the Web have not been addressed yet. Indeed, as Chun has pointed out,
the rapid growth of Deleuzian points of surveillance has spread widely af-
Timan                                                                    109
ter 9/11. Bigo (2006) has coined the notion of the BANopticon, in an at-
tempt to conceptualize this event and what it did to notions of control,
freedom and security. He points out that a series of events, of which the
9/11 attacks are the most prominent, have declared a “state of unease”,
and an American-imposed idea of global “in- security” (Bigo 2006, 49).
This leads to rhetoric of “better safe than sorry” under which an increase
of surveillance measures could take place. Also, this rhetoric paved the
way for experimentation with new surveillance technologies, such as
body-scanners in UK airports, and the accelerated introduction of the bi-
ometric passport and experiments with motion-tracking at Schiphol Air-
port, for instance (see van der Ploeg 2003, 2005).
    Most of these measures could indeed be witnessed in Deleuzian places
of access, such as airports and border controls. In how far this effect
trickled down into daily life of our public space, is a question still unan-
swerable. What it did evoke was a renewed interest in the role of surveil-
lance in social sorting (see Lyon 2003). The fear of the other and the dif-
ficulty for security services and politicians to distinguish them (Bigo 2006,
55) became pressing matters.
    A question that rises then is to what extent this renewed focus on “the
other” and processes of social sorting can be found in public nightscapes
in the Netherlands. Is 9/11 still resonating in policy and practice, or have
we fallen back into the old patterns of social sorting via surveillance tech-
nologies? And if indeed something has changed, how and where can we
see this taking place?
    A comment here is that in all the above, both in surveillance and new
media theories on existing and emerging technologies, agency is placed
with the technology, still dismissing parts of the lessons drawn from Sts.
Technology never acts alone, and technology never comes “out of the
blue”: it too is developed by people with values, morals and ideas, and
these values may partially be inscribed in the machine.
    Moreover, when analysing processes of social sorting or exclusion, it
can prove insightful to look into forms of resistance against, via or with
(surveillance) technology. In using these technologies, as an end-user, or
as an implicated actor (Clarke and Montini 1993), there is still room for
negotiation and resistance: for “anti-programs” in use. The need to look
into actual use becomes thus even more pressing, because it is during use
that forms of resistance or anti-programs can be found.
     Another challenge when looking into surveillance technologies is to
remain as objective as possible and to not render all forms of surveillance
technology as invasive and bad a priori. Are there accounts of positive or
empowering aspects of visibility and surveillance to be found in surveil-
lance technologies?
110                                                                    Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

9. Empowering Perspectives and the Concept of Participa-
tory Surveillance

    One concept, and one author in particular, divert from the solely neg-
ative views and connotations on surveillance. Continuing on the topic of
new media and surveillance, Albrechtslund argues that since the emer-
gence of ubiquitous computing the panopticon should be reconsidered:

           The entertaining side of surveillance is a phenomenon worth
       studying in itself, and we expect that this type of study will con-
       tribute to an understanding of the multi-faceted nature of surveil-
       lance. (Albrechtslund and Dubbeld 2002, 3)

    Rather than a place where one looks at many, several new media fol-
low a logic of “many follow many”, where visibility is often deliberately
chosen. Mann et al. (2002) have coined this “sousveillance”, where every-
body is watching everybody. Albrechtslund looks at how surveillance is
often used as a design principle in, for instance, online games and sports-
tracking services. This dwells on the idea that surveillance as a design-
principle is used in many contemporary games and installations. Besides a
fun aspect, these games can also inform us about how a (part of) society
reflects on notions of surveillance.
    Going further, Albrechtslund coins the term “participatory surveil-
lance”. Many online environments, especially social-network-sites, serve
as interesting places to study, since many beliefs, ideas and opinions are
shared here. Boyd (2011) and Ellison (2007) even state that social net-
working sites are dominating online activities today. Where I have strong
oppositions to this statement, for now it suffices to state that these places
are indeed new arenas for surveillance. However, taking the perspective
of the user, this is not necessarily a negative thing. As Albrechtslund
states:

            Characteristic of online social networking is the sharing of ac-
       tivities, preferences, beliefs, etc. to socialize. I argue that this prac-
       tice of self-surveillance cannot be adequately described within the
       framework of a hierarchical understanding of surveillance. Rather,
       online social networking seems to introduce a participatory ap-
       proach to surveillance, which can empower – and not necessarily
       violate – the user. (Albrechtslund 2008, Introduction)

    Participating via, for instance, sharing, responding or liking engages
users into these platforms, where the idea of being seen and being “fol-
lowed” is a precondition rather than a setback. The added value of this
approach is a user-centered perspective on surveillance. Together with
boyd (2011), this turn makes possible another type of analysis of surveil-
lance, where tracing users’ steps and activities reveals another experience
of surveillance and visibility. On the question why this visibility is so im-
Timan                                                                          111
portant to these users, Koskela (2004) for instance, pointed out that exhi-
bitionism such as shown on social networks sites, or Tv shows, can work
empowering. By throwing everything into public arenas, this “visibility
becomes a tool of power that can be used to rebel against the shame asso-
ciated with not being private about certain things. Thus, exhibitionism is
liberating, because it represents a refusal to be humble” (Koskela 2004,
210).
    The focus in many of these practices is not on knowing who actually is
watching, since many online audiences are anonymous. Rather, it is the
act of sharing, of “self-broadcasting” that creates the possibility for others
in the network to see, read and respond to self-made content. However, if
there is no audience, there probably will be silence: sharing is something
social. In terms of thinking about surveillance, this implies that from this
perspective, users of social network sites want to be watched; it can be
empowering (see also Shilton 2010). On the act of sharing, Albrechtslund
states:

             Accordingly, the role of sharing should not be underestimated,
        as the personal information people share – profiles, activities, be-
        liefs, whereabouts, status, preferences, etc. – represent a level of
        communication that neither has to be told, nor has to be asked for.
        It is just “out there”, untold and unasked, but something that is
        part of the socializing in mediated publics. (Albrechtslund 2008)

    Here, an important point is made, namely that this sharing is an act
that does not necessarily lead to a pre-thought consequence or reaction. It
is “just out there”, where every self- posted media outlet on a social net-
work site will probably have a temporal aspect and will linger for a while
before being forgotten. Places such as Facebook did introduce a timeline
to make history-browsing possible. This makes surveillance stretchable
over time (e.g. it adds a temporal aspect to these mediated publics).
    Although the concept of participatory surveillance is valuable, a cri-
tique on boyd and Albrechtslund here is that their location of analysis
remains within the digital realm and that these realms are not completely
public. They too can be seen as walled gardens (Bortoli et al. 2009), that
create a “participation divide” (Hargittai and Walejko 2008); only those
who have the means to be inside the walls of social network sites can ac-
tually participate in these realms. I agree with boyd that these places do
pose new questions for surveillance and identities. However, it is when
these mediated publics start interfering with physical and real publics,
that the consequences of social media sites become visible.
    In his book Social media as surveillance, Trottier (2012) looks into
these situations, by looking at the microcosmos of a university campus
under the influence of Facebook. Where at first this is an empowering
tool for students, campus security starts using the medium as well, there-
by linking a “safe” place for students into a tool for surveillance and con-
112                                                          Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

trol over student-behaviour. This example shows that online participation
is not necessarily empowering when the actions of sharing something
have a direct consequence for one’s direct physical living space. When
pointing out to privacy issues, the usual response is that “you chose to be
on Facebook, so you could have known”. This type of “publicness-by-
default” can be framed as nudge politics (Thaler and Sunstein 2008),
where one is part of a system, or of a set of choices, unless the participant
or user actively opts out. It can be questioned if this is really the respon-
sibility of the end-user of for instance Facebook, or whether that part of
this responsibility lies in how the software is designed and presents the
user with choices.
    Although both surveillance studies and urban geography acknowledge
the role of Cctv, mobile phones and social media as a part of public
nighttime experiences, the heuristic tools used in this scholarship tend to
consider technological artefacts as black-boxed. A deep analysis of the
nightscapes should be able to look at how surveillance technologies exert
agency. The question of how both humans and technologies shape sur-
veillance practices demands to also look into surveillance technologies. In
order to include these technologies and the networks of surveillance
technologies into my analysis, a turn is made to Science and Technology
Studies.


10. Science and Technology Studies: Accounting for Things

    STS looks at how new facts and innovations come into being, how
they are framed and consequently how they alter existing views and prac-
tices in society. This latter notion is relevant because it points out that
new technologies are never entering society blank or objective and that
once they are here, they are therefore not neutral (Irwin and Wynne
2004). For instance, the introduction of a body-worn police camera
changes the way of working for a police-officer; it might also change the
way nightscape visitors think about cameras, or the legitimacy of filming
in public space.
    By only looking at the interaction between humans and the social (as
often done in the disciplines such as urban geography and amongst poli-
cymakers), the material world and the influence of things, in all kinds of
processes and events, is dismissed (as being “merely” soulless objects).
However, recalling the questions of publicness as stated in the introduc-
tion as well as the notions of public nightscapes as posed by urban geog-
raphy, the objects in this public space then are not just soulless objects,
but rather, they can be active in shaping these nightscapes.
    As in the example of the police-worn body camera, often technologies
introduced in these nightscapes are contested; questions of surveillance,
privacy and data protection, for example, make these technologies in
Timan                                                                          113
public spaces highly political. In that sense, the non-neutrality of technol-
ogy as pointed out in STS becomes even more apparent in this context
(see Radder 1998 on the politics of STS). Connecting politics in and of
public space to artifacts or objects is not uncontested. An example worth
noting that surrounds the issue of politics and objects is that of Winner’s
bridge. The case is that a bridge in lower Manhattan is seemingly de-
signed is such a way that public buses cannot pass. The road that surpass-
es the bridge lead to a beach. By designing the bridge in this manner, only
private cars could reach the beach, thus excluding the public that was
dependent on transport by bus. This evokes social exclusion (see Winner
1980).
     Another author that contributed in a more fundamental manner to
this issue is Latour. He argues that perhaps we need a shift towards the
politics of things in order to re-map politics. This can be achieved via the
introduction of Dingpolitik (as opposed to Realpolitik), combined with a
set of experiments to research the following question: “what would ob-
ject-oriented democracy look like?” (Latour 2005). He states that objects
trigger the connections of public issues: “Each object gathers around it-
self a different assembly of relevant parties” (Latour 2005), and triggers
discussion. All these objects, with their issues, are binding us into a “pub-
lic space”. Where this has up to now never been looked into as being po-
litical, objects are.
     Latour continues by strongly criticizing political philosophy due to its
“strong object-avoidance tendency”. While always describing the how,
and the procedures around the issue, when it comes down to what the is-
sue is, political philosophy has remained silent throughout history about
things. Within the res publica, the only focus until now has been on the
procedures, not on the things that allow for politics, the “matters that
matter” (Latour 2005).
     Latour continues by arguing that there is a need to investigate how
and through what medium the matters of concern are discussed. How are
all involved parties, people and things assembled? While one might claim
that the actors in this setting are the human beings organizing this assem-
bly, Latour claims that the influence of things have an even role in creat-
ing this assembly. However, this brings in another problem:

            to assemble is one thing; to represent to the eyes and ears of
        those assembled what is at stake is another. An object-oriented
        democracy should be concerned as much by the procedure to de-
        tect the relevant parties as to the methods to bring into the centre
        of debate the proof of what it is to be debated (Latour 2005, 8)

    He also points out how the Ding has been around for centuries, refer-
ring to “thingmen” dating back from old northern peoples. It has always
been things that brought people together, because things divide. There-
fore it is time to go back to things.
114                                                          Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

11. Actor-Network Theory and the Concept of Script

    The perspective of tracing the networks of humans and objects has
become an important topic of research in STS over the past decade. Es-
pecially in the actor-network theory (ANT) approach it is stressed that if
actors and circulation are followed, rather than pre-positioned roles or
topologies of the social or the technical, new insights can be gained on
how realities are shaped.
    Where ANT is faithful to ethno-methods (Latour 1999), it is a way for
social science to learn from the actors involved. By studying both human
and non-human actors and their constant constitution of temporal hy-
brids with specific roles and actions, the subject of study can be described
in terms of networks. Specifically mentioning that the term network here
stems from pre- Internet notions, a network can be explained as trails or
paths between different nodes in a network, whereby information, or that
to-be-transferred alters through every node. These translations happen
because every node in a network mediates information, e.g. receives, in-
terprets, and sends. This mediation makes the notion of a network “pre-
Internet”, precisely because it alters information (rather than information
being identically accessible with every mouse-click). The nodes that alter
can be human, or non-human; either way they are actors and actants in
this network. When engaging upon such a research trail, often we will
find interaction between humans and non-humans, both actively mediat-
ing. A method for describing these interactions and how these mediations
are shaped, can be found in the concept of “script”.
    The notion of script can be explained as a way to describe these inter-
actions in terms of a film or theatre script: artifacts have certain actions
inscribed in them, that tell users how to act with it. The added value of
this approach is that it allows for reflection on artifacts and users beyond
the functional (Verbeek 2006). This opens up space for moral reflections
on user-artifacts and their inscriptions of artifacts. One could reason that
an artifact is made my humans, and as such, the developer of this artifact
is somehow inscribing his or her morality into the artifact.
    Latour describes this inscription process in terms of delegation: de-
signers delegate specific responsibilities to artifacts. When using these ar-
tifacts, end users are influenced by these inscriptions in their actions. In
other words, these artifacts alter user-behaviour (see Oudshoorn and
Pinch 2003; Neven 2010; Tromp et al. 2011).
    If we return to ANT, this would mean that in the mediation process of
information flowing from one node of the network to another, the medi-
ating actor is also being altered in a way. The consequences for the net-
work are that nodes of the network are never constant; they are left in a
different state each and every time mediation takes place. Taking a closer
look at these nodes, then, can inform the researcher of what and how the
nodes change as a result of mediation.
Timan                                                                   115
    Latour terms these nodes hybrid collectives: a set of human and non-
human actors in a certain place and a certain time that create a unique set
of values or possibilities. These hybrid collectives keep popping up due to
a more widespread saturation of non-humans (things) that we have to in-
teract with. The added value of naming these hybrid collectives is that it
allows for thinking about human-thing-relations, diverting and ignoring
the ever-existing subject-object dichotomy. Via these hybrid collectives,
alternative forms emerge, that allow for new social reflections of certain
phenomena.
    Can we understand surveillance practices mediated by Cctv or by a
mobile camera via the concept of these hybrid collectives? For instance,
the nightscape visitor that walks around with a mobile camera can be
seen as such a hybrid; due to the combination of human and mobile
phone camera, new action possibilities occur (such as sharing the pictures
of a night out with friends). Such descriptions of different distinguishable
hybrid collectives can serve the purpose of mapping these action possibil-
ities: what kind of actions take place in that nightscape that became pos-
sibilities due to this particular hybrid collective?
    An Ant analysis can reveal different collectives and their shaping role,
their agency, in the nightscape. This agency can be explained as how the-
se hybrid collectives act, and how responsibilities are delegated between
humans and technology within these hybrid collectives (see Akrich 1992)
However, a challenge when thinking about hybrids in relation to surveil-
lance- related technology is that these technologies might affect people
beyond the direct end-user of an Ict. In short, the context and thereby the
multiplicity of use have to be taken into account. What is meant here is
that, for example, the end user of a Cctv camera is the Cctv operator in a
distant room. The visitor of the nightscape that alters his or her behaviour
due to the Cctv camera that is in place, is in a way also a “user” of this
system. Clarke (1998, 267) has introduced the notion of “implicated ac-
tor” to address these types of use of a technology. Oudshoorn has pro-
posed the notion of “multiple users” to address the problem of incorpo-
rating more that only the user and the designer in analysing new (ICT)
technologies, but rather to look at “the distribution of power among the
multiple actors involved in socio-technical networks” (Oudshoorn and
Pinch 2003, 7) as an empirical question.
    From STS we know that technologies are never neutral. Moreover,
Latour explains us that artifacts have a role in negotiations, in politics.
This becomes relevant when looking at surveillance technology, since the-
se technologies themselves are often introduced as politicized artifacts.
    Furthermore, another insight drawn from STS that serves a purpose in
analyzing surveillance in public spaces is the notion of networks. When
investigating existing or emerging technologies, the networks of devel-
opment and use, but also the networks of other technologies that sur-
round the technology-under-investigation, play a role in the shaping of
that technology in society.
116                                                          Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

    On the question about how to research emerging surveillance tech-
nologies, STS can provide a perspective on how user practices and exist-
ing networks of human and non-human actors are affected by the new
technology. Concepts of script and delegation of responsibilities between
human and technology are central here. New technology-user configura-
tions can be called hybrid collectives and can be found in, for instance, a
visitor of the nightscape who is using a mobile phone camera, or a police
officer who is using a bodycamera.
    Besides being single user-technology configurations, the use of these
technologies in public space also affect others. When it comes to visual
technologies in relations to surveillance, it can be stated that these hy-
brids are not only new watchers, they are also being watched. Where the
act of filming might constitute an active role for watchers in shaping sur-
veillance, they might at the same time be subject of a Cctv camera, or an-
other visitor using a mobile phone camera. The roles of these hybrids
then are multiple: they can be seen as both users and implicated actors of
surveillance technologies. These technologies have a strong normative as-
pect, because (we assume) that they do articulate and mediate processes
of exclusion and social sorting in public space.


12. Discussion

12.1. Surveillance Studies Still Black-box Technology by Follow-
ing Technological Trends

    In surveillance studies, technology evidently plays a crucial role. In
order to govern a society, some form or method is needed for communi-
cation between government and the governed, however this relation is
shaped (mutual, equal, hierarchical, rhyzomatic, and so on). Agreements
have to be mediated in some form or another. Foucault uses different his-
torical examples such as dealing with the plague, where the local govern-
ing actor in that situation had to rely on a wall to separate the sick from
the healthy. (Foucault 2003).
    Foucault does dives into the technology as an actor in his analysis (in a
much more elaborate way than I am displaying here), however, in con-
temporary surveillance studies, as stated earlier, technology is often taken
for granted as a shaping influence, or it is at least black-boxed. Drawing
on the terminology that stems from Sts, black-boxing in this case means
that technology is discussed as a “box”, not questioning the networks this
technology act in, nor the inscribed values, meanings and intended goals
of the technology.
    A common reason for black-boxing is the assumption that what tech-
nology does, or how it works, is static and common knowledge. In sur-
veillance studies, however, where questions of power are often played out
Timan                                                                    117
via contemporary technologies in society (see Lyon 2003 on new technol-
ogies and social sorting; Elmer 2003 on new media and the panopticon;
Koskela 2004 on high-tech surveillance means), it would seem obvious
that the key to understanding current surveillance practices is to investi-
gate these technologies in their detailed forms of agency.
    Another aspect is that these technologies need to be looked at in con-
text. For instance Facebook is crucially different from Myspace, a mobile
phone camera serves other logics than that of a bodycamera. Ant can
prove insightful when investigating local networks of humans and things
in public nightscapes. This also entails turning to a myriad of users of
surveillance (related) technologies in nightly public space.


12.2. Surveillance Studies, Users and Post-Deleuzian Theory

     Another issue that pops up when drawing on Surveillance Studies, is
the little attention for users. As stated earlier, some authors such as boyd
and Albrechtslund have taken a user-perspective in their analysis of sur-
veillance. However, I argue that taking the perspective of end-users of
surveillance technology is not enough; drawing on (Sts-informed) users
studies could help expand the analysis of surveillance technology by look-
ing into how users and technology have a mutually shaping role.
     When it comes to questions of governance and how public spaces are
shaped by debates or controversies, a trend in many disciplines such as
surveillance studies and media studies is to go into quantitative analysis
and “big data” in order to find insights by processing large datasets.
Large datasets, however, cannot capture the granularity and resolution of-
ten required when it comes to a situated and contextualized analysis of a
surveillant assemblage. To give an example, it would be possible to meas-
ure how many “tweets” were sent on a Friday evening in the centre of
Rotterdam between 22:00 and 06:00. Then we could even show the peaks
and gaps and thereby conclude that around 00:30 there was something
happening in the nightscape because there was a peak in tweets. Without
turning this into a methodological debate, it becomes clear that when we
want to know how Twitter influences the nightscape, it might provide
more fruitful to follow a couple of Twitter users who go out in a large city
and see how, when and why they actually use Twitter when going out and
if they relate this to any practices of surveillance or feelings of safety.
     In this paper I tried to literally ground surveillance studies by taking
the latter approach: following actors and actants in the nightscape. Look-
ing at qualitative, ethnomethod-informed and small-sampled accounts of
what actually takes place in the nightscape could prove to be more useful
when the goal is about reflecting on local stories and contexts of surveil-
lance.
118                                                          Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

12.3. Surveillance Studies Speak in Messy Metaphors

    A definition of “surveillance technology” is hard to provide, and has
often changed over time. Most analyses of surveillance societies and their
accompanying technologies (or vice versa) start with the example of Jer-
emy Bentham’s prison-design: the Panopticon (Bentham 1791; Foucault
1975).
    The panopticon is used by Foucault not only as an example but rather
as a metaphor to explain other developments in society. As discussed
above this metaphor seems to have lost its relevance in explaining and
understanding current changes in surveillance. A more recent metaphor
introduced in surveillance studies is the data double (Los 2006; Lyon
2007), a term that points towards the (digital) databased identity of citi-
zens (Whitson and Haggerty 2008).
    Where the database is not particularly new, since the digitization of
records it has expanded enormously. This resulted in a “double” identity
of citizens in the digital realm. This metaphor of the data double invigor-
ates and resonates in recent analyses of security, privacy and society.
Here, the data double is clearly linked to online – or digital – existence in
relation to its physical counterpart, and the tension between the two. In
light of surveillance, issues of representation and access control arise,
where mutual proof is constantly needed to confirm a real person’s identi-
ty with its data double (think of biometric passports, public transport
cards, social media logins and passwords and so on). However, records
on citizens are far from new, and in that respect, the data-double has
been around since the introduction of the first record-keeping of citizens,
or archive (see Foucault 1970; Star 1999). In that sense, the notion of the
data double remains vague.
    The point here is that rather than referring to messy metaphors when
it comes to surveillance technologies, it might prove more fruitful to look
into the implications of surveillance technologies in urban nightscapes
and the different actors who exercise power upon subjects via certain
(surveillance) technologies (see Hier 2002; Jespersen et al. 2007). Unlike
current trends in surveillance studies to look into big data, another angle
could be to take a contextual, user- and technology- oriented approach in
analysing surveillant assemblages.
    If indeed society has become more complex and more technologically
mediated via Icts, the concept of the surveillant assemblage provides a
fruitful heuristic tool to explain how practices and places of surveillance
are not singular or uni-directional. Instead, the complex networks of sur-
veillance actors has to be taken into account. Where this resonates with
Sts and Ant, a difference with surveillance studies can be found in norma-
tivity: surveillance technologies explicitly deal with (the negotiation of)
power-relations in society.
    Besides critical stances on post 9/11-spreading of surveillance means
in society, Albrechtslund’s notion of participatory surveillance also sheds
Timan                                                                    119
light on the positive aspects of surveillance in society. The concept of par-
ticipation and sharing is especially relevant because these are actions with
technology that also emerge in the micro-site of the Dutch surveillance
nightscapes and as such might be a driving force of alteration of the land-
scape of surveillance in public spaces. My contribution to studies of sur-
veillance in urban nightscapes lies in the turn towards use practices of
emerging surveillance technology to see how these power relations of sur-
veillance are negotiated (Albrechtslund 2005) between nightscape visi-
tors, police officers, mobile phones and Cctv cameras.


13. Conclusions

    In order to understand changes in surveillance practices in urban
nightscapes, I have approached this nightscape theoretically as a place
where surveillance, safety and the concept of public space are under con-
stant negotiations between humans and technologies. Hereby my specific
interest lies in how landscapes of surveillance are changing due to emerg-
ing technologies.
    City centers at night (nighttime economies) are places where fear and
fantasy come together in an explicit manner. Dubbed “nightscapes”, the-
se landscapes at night are contested, thus providing an interesting site for
research. These nightscapes are places where surveillance is fore-fronted
as a means to create safe and pleasant public spaces. Rather than looking
at a-priori roles or actors that are responsible for this safety through sur-
veillance, I have turned to surveillance practices in order to see how sur-
veillance in urban nightscapes is shaped, thereby realizing that this
nightscape is constantly changing due to rhythmical changes of humans
and technologies present in these spaces.
    Inspired by Deleuze, I have conceptualized differences in surveillance
of urban nightscapes in terms of differences in local surveillant assem-
blages. Following insights of STS and notions of the politics of things as
explained by Latour, this article suggests looking into how norms and
values are inscribed in these technologies by developers or designers.
    In parallel, a turn to user practices is needed in order to see how sur-
veillance crystallizes via practices of the interactions between human and
technology. Incorporating both humans and technology in the analysis, I
propose to use Ant and the notion of hybrid collectives to allow the re-
searcher to look at how responsibilities are distributed between humans
and technologies in surveillance practices. New hybrid collectives such as
the mobile phone-citizen hybrid and the police-worn bodycamera hybrid
might challenge or alter existing surveillance practices in nightscapes.
    The users of emerging technologies such as mobile ICTs not only
form new hybrids, they are active users that have a shaping role on the
surveillance landscape and they are also implicated actors of other tech-
120                                                                 Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

nologies. Becoming both watcher and watched, active user and implicat-
ed actor, their roles in the nightscape are hybrid and multiple. Linking
these insights to post-Foucauldian theories of surveillance, it becomes
possible to see what kinds or types of surveillance are expressed in these
practices.
     Finally, via the notion of participatory surveillance, both negative and
positive sides of these new hybrids can be explained. Moving from an an-
alytic stance towards an interventionist one, the former steps allow for
grounded speculation on futures of surveillance in nightscapes. By analyz-
ing emerging surveillance technologies, questions of good surveillance
could be addressed, as well.


References

van Aalst, I., Schwanen, T., Oudshoorn, N.E.J. and Dijst, M. (2009) Application
   to MVI program, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
   (NWO), 1-17.
van Aalst, I. and van Liempt, I. (2012) Urban Surveillance and the Struggle be-
   tween Safe and Exciting Nightlife Districts, in “Surveillance & Society”, 9 (3),
   pp. 280-292.
Akrich, M. (1992) The de-scription of technological objects, in W.E. Bijker and J.
   Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society, Cambridge, MA, The MIT
   Press, pp. 205-224.
Albrechtslund, A. and Dubbeld, L. (2002) The Plays and Arts of Surveillance:
   Studying Surveillance as Entertainment, in “Surveillance & Society”, 3 (2/3),
   pp. 216-221.
Albrechtslund, A. (2008) Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance,
   in “First Monday”, 13 (3). Retrieved from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/
   cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2142/1949.
Ball, K. and Webster, F. (2003) The Intensification of Surveillance: Crime, Terror-
    ism and Warfare in the Information Era, London, Pluto Press.
Bentham, J. (1791) Panopticon or the Inspection House (Vol. 2), Dublin, Thomas
   Byrne.
Bigo, D. (2006) Security, exception, ban and surveillance, in D. Lyon (ed.), Theoriz-
   ing Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond, Cullompton, Willan Publishing.
Bolter, J.D. and Grusin, R. (2000) Remediation: Understanding New Media, Cam-
    bridge, MIT Press.
Bortoli, S., Palpanas, T. and Bouquet, P. (2009) Pulling down the walled garden:
   towards a paradigm for decentralized social network management, in “Proceed-
   ings of Iadis Multi conference On Computer Science And Information Sys-
   tems. Web Based Communities 2009”, Algarve, Portugal, p. 35-42.
Timan                                                                           121
Boyd, D. (2011) Dear Voyeur, Meet Flâneur... Sincerely, Social Media, in “Surveil-
   lance & Society”, 8 (4), pp. 505-507.
Bromley, R.D.F., Tallon, A.R. and Thomas, C.J. (2003) Disaggregating the Space-
   Time Layers of City-centre Activities and Their Users, in “Journal of Environ-
   ment and Planning A”, 35 (10), pp. 1831-1851.
Chatterton, P. and Hollands, R. (2003) Urban Nightscapes: Youth Cultures, Pleas-
   ure Spaces and Corporate Power, London, Routledge.
Chun, W.H.K. (2006) Control and freedom: Power and Paranoia in the Age of Fi-
   bre Optics, Cambridge, MIT Press.
Clarke, A.E. and Montini, T. (1993) The Many Faces of RU 486: Tales of Situated
    Knowledges and Technological Contestations, in “Science, Technology & Hu-
    man Values”, 18 (1), pp. 42-78.
Crang, M. (2001) Rhythms of the City: Temporalised Space and Motion, in J. May
   and N. Thrift (eds.), TimeSpace: Geographies of Temporality, London,
   Routledge, pp. 187-207.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1980) Mille Plateaux, Paris, Editions de Minuit.
   Engl. trans. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Vol. 2), Min-
   neapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 1987.
Deleuze, G. (1992) Postscript on the Societies of Control, in “October”, 59, pp. 3-
   7.
Dorrestijn, S. (2012) The Design of Our Own Lives: Technical Mediation and Sub-
   jectivation after Foucault, PhD Thesis, Universiteit Twente.
Dubbeld, L. (2005) The Role of Technology in Shaping CCTV Surveillance Practic-
  es, in “Information, Communication & Society”, 8 (1), pp. 84-100.
Ellin, N. (2001) Thresholds of Fear: Embracing the Urban Shadow, in “Urban
    Studies”, 38 (5-6), pp. 869-83.
Ellison, N. (2007) Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship, in
    “Journal of Computer Mediated Communication”, 13 (1), pp. 210-230.
Elmer, G. (2003) A Diagram of Panoptic Surveillance, in “New Media & Society”,
   5 (2), pp. 231-247.
Foucault, M. (1970) The Archaeology of Knowledge, New York, Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1975) Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison, Paris, Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (2003) Abnormal: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1974-1975 (Vol.
   2), New York, Picador.
Galloway, A.R. (2004) Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization, Cam-
   bridge, MA, MIT Press.
Haggerty, K.D. and Ericson, R.V. (2000) The Surveillant Assemblage, in “The
   British Journal of Sociology”, 51 (4), pp. 605-622.
Hannigan, J. (1998) Fantasy City. Pleasure and Profit in the Postmodern Metropo-
   lis, New York, Routledge.
122                                                                  Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

Hardey, M. (2007) The City in the Age of Web 2.0: A New Synergistic Relationship
   between Place and People, in “Information, Communication & Society”, 10
   (6), pp. 867-884.
Hargittai, E. and Walejko, G. (2008) The Participation Divide: Content Creation
   and Sharing in the Digital Age, in “Information, Communication & Society”,
   11 (2), pp. 239-256.
Helms, G., Atkinson, R. and MacLeod, G. (2007) Securing the City: Urban Re-
   naissance, Policing and Social Regulation, in “European Urban and Regional
   Studies”, 14 (4), pp. 267-276.
Hempel, L. and Töpfer, E. (2002) On the threshold to Urban Panopticon: Analys-
  ing the Employment of CCTV in European Cities and Assessing its Social and
  Political Impacts, Research report of the project Urbaneye, Berlin, Centre for
  Technology and Society, Technical University Berlin.
Hier, S.P. (2002) Probing the Surveillant Assemblage: On the Dialectics of Surveil-
   lance Practices as Processes of Social Control, in “Surveillance & Society”, 1 (3),
   pp. 399-411.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (2004) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruc-
    tion of Science and Technology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Jespersen, J. L., Albrechtslund, A. and Øhrstrøm, P. (2007) Surveillance, Persua-
    sion, and Panopticon, in Y. De Kort (ed.) Persuasive, pp. 109-120.
Koskela, H. (2004) Webcams, TV shows and mobile phones: Empowering exhibi-
   tionism, in “Surveillance & Society”, 2 (2/3), pp. 199-215.
Latour, B. (1992) Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mun-
   dane Artifacts, in W.E. Bijker and J. Law (eds.), Shaping Technology/ Building
   Society, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.
Latour, B. (1999) On recalling ANT, in J. Law and J. Hassard, (eds.), Actor Net-
   work Theory and After, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 15-25.
Latour, B. (2005) From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik, in B. Latour and P. Weibel
   (eds.), Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, Karlsruhe, Zentrum
   fur Kunst und Medientechnologie, pp. 14-44.
Lefebvre, H. (2004) Rhythmanalysis: Space, time and everyday life, London, Con-
   tinuum International Publishing Group.
van Liempt, I., van Aalst, I., Brands, J., Timan, T. and Schwanen, T. (2011) Sur-
   veillance in Urban Nightscapes, in “Derive”, 44. Retrieved from
   http://www.derive.at/index.php?p_case=2&id_cont=1013&issue_No=44
Los, M. (2006) Looking into the future: Surveillance, globalization and the totalitar-
   ian potential, in D. Lyon, (ed.) Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and
   Beyond, Uffculme, Willan Publishing, pp. 69-94.
Lyon, D. (2003) Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Digital Discrimi-
   nation, London, Routledge.
Lyon, D. (2006) Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond, Uffculme,
Timan                                                                             123
    Willan Publishing.
Lyon, D. (2007) Surveillance, Security and Social Sorting: Emerging Research Prior-
   ities, in “International Criminal Justice Review”, 17 (3), pp. 161-170.
Mann, S., Nolan, J. and Wellman, B. (2002) Sousveillance: Inventing and Using
  Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection in Surveillance Environments,
  in “Surveillance & Society”, 1 (3), pp. 331-355.
van Melik, R., van Aalst, I. and van Weesep, J. (2007) Fear and Fantasy in the Pub-
    lic Domain: The Development of Secured and Themed Urban Space, in “Journal
    of Urban Design”, 12 (1), pp. 25-42.
Montgomery, J. (1995) Editorial: Urban Vitality and the Culture of Cities, in
  “Planning Practice & Research”, 10 (2), pp. 101-110.
Nagenborg, M., Albrechtslund, A., Klamt, M., Wood, D., Capurro, R., Britz, J.
   and Nakada, M. (2010) On ‘ICT and the city’, in “International Review of In-
   formation Ethics”, 12, pp. 2-5.
Neven, L. (2010) ‘But Obviously not for Me’: Robots, Laboratories and the Defiant
   Identity of Elder Test Users, in “Sociology of Health & Illness”, 32 (2), pp.
   335-347.
Norris, C. and Armstrong, G. (1999) The Maximum Surveillance Society: The Rise
   of CCTV, Oxford and New York, Berg.
Nye, R.B. (1981) Eight Ways of Looking at an Amusement Park, in “The Journal
   of Popular Culture”, 15 (1), pp. 63-75.
Oosterman, J. (1992) Welcome to the Pleasure Dome: Play and Entertainment in
   Urban Public Space: The Example of the Sidewalk Café, in “Built Environ-
   ment”, 18 (2), pp. 155-164.
Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. (eds.) (2003) How Users Matter: The Co-
  Construction of Users and Technology, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.
Parkes, D. and Thrift, N. (1980) Times, Spaces and Places: A Chronogeographic
   Perspective, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.
van der Ploeg, I. (2003) Biometrics and Privacy: A Note on the Politics of Theoriz-
   ing Technology, in “Information, Communication & Society”, 6 (1), pp. 85-
   104.
van der Ploeg, I. (2005) Biometric Identification Technologies: Ethical Implications
   of the Informatization of the Body, in “BITE Policy Papers”, 1.
Punter, J.V. (1990) The Privatisation of the Public Realm, in “Planning Practice
   and Research”, 5 (3), pp. 9-16.
Radder, H. (1998) The Politics of STS, in “Social Studies of Science”, 28 (2), pp.
   325-331.
Ramadier, T. (2004) Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: the case of urban studies,
   in “Futures”, 36 (4), pp. 423-439.
Ritzer, G. (1993) The McDonaldisation of Society, Thousand Oaks, CA, Pine
124                                                               Tecnoscienza - 4 (2)

      Forge Press.
Roberts, M. and Eldridge, A. (2009) Planning the Night-time City, London,
   Routledge.
Schwanen, T., Dijst, M. and Kwan, M.P. (2008) ICTs and the Decoupling of Eve-
   ryday Activities, Space and Time, in “Journal of Economic and Social Geogra-
   phy”, 99, pp. 519-527.
Schwanen, T., van Aalst, I., Brands, J., Timan, T. (2012) Rhythms of the Night:
   Spatiotemporal Inequalities in the Nighttime Economy, in “Environment and
   Planning A”, 44 (9), pp. 2064-2085.
Shilton, K. (2010) Participatory Sensing: Building Empowering Surveillance, in
    “Surveillance & Society”, 8 (2), pp. 131-150.
Smith, G.J. (2002) Behind the Screens: Examining Constructions of Deviance and
   Informal Practices Among CCTV Control Room Operators in the UK, in “Sur-
   veillance & Society”, 2 (2/3), pp. 376-395.
Star, S.L. (1999) The Ethnography of Infrastructure, in “American Behavioural
    Scientist”, 43 (3), pp. 377-391.
Tække, J. (2011) Digital Panopticism and organizational power, in “Surveillance &
   Society”, 8 (4), pp. 441-454.
Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health,
   Wealth, and Happiness, New Heaven, CT, Yale University Press.
Tromp, N., Hekkert, P., Verbeek, P.P. (2011) Design for Socially Responsible Be-
   havior: A Classification of Influence Based on Intended User Experience, in
   “Design Issues”, 27 (3), pp. 3-19.
Trottier, D. (2012) Social Media as Surveillance, Farnham, Ashgate.
Urry, J. (2001) The sociology of space and place, in J.R. Blau (ed.), The Blackwell
   Companion to Sociology, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 3-15.
Verbeek, P.P. (2006) Materializing Morality: Design Ethics and Technological Me-
   diation, in “Science, Technology, & Human Values”, 31 (3), pp. 361-380.
Warren, S. (1994) Disneyfication of the Metropolis: Popular Resistance in Seattle,
  in “Journal of Urban Affairs”, 16 (2), pp. 89-107.
Whitaker, R. (1999) The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance is Becoming a Re-
  ality, New York , The New Press.
Whitson, J. R. and Haggerty, K. D. (2008) Identity Theft and the Care of the Vir-
  tual Self, in “Economy and Society”, 37 (4), pp. 572-594.
Winner, L. (1980) Do Artifacts Have Politics?, in “Daedalus”, 109 (1), pp. 121-
   136.
