Principle 2. Develop an Effective System for Monitoring to be Carried Out by the Community.

Ostrom’s original principle: Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.

Effective monitoring is crucial to holding decision-makers accountable, and helps to determine when or what intervention might be necessary in the case of a violation.

Monitoring is usually conducted by a mix of NGOs, watchdog groups, media outlets, independent oversight bodies, and industry standard working groups. These actors can track specific projects, actors, types of technologies, or specific civil-liberties issues, conducting investigations and providing reports. Effective monitoring can lead to tangible data governance improvements. For example, Seattle passed its 2017 Surveillance Ordinance in response to strong negative public reaction following the police department’s secret acquisition of a surveillance drone and mesh network. The city became aware of this purchase only after NGOs and the media reported on it.

Transparency and reporting are key preconditions for effective monitoring. To that end, smart city projects must be clear about where their technology is deployed and how they aim to use the collected data. Data management policies, privacy policies, and operational protocols must be available to stakeholders, in a language and format they understand. All policies must also be tangible and specific. For instance, privacy policies often use vague language, and might mention sharing data “to improve services,” but do not disclose what data is shared, how, and with who.

A written policy that spells out monitoring responsibilities can create more accountability for the project. Chicago’s Array of Things website maintains a map of sensor deployment, a list of sensor types, and an operating policy. These resources allow civil society to track sensor locations, potential risks or opportunities, and possible policy violations.

Projects should also publish post-deployment reports summarizing the data collection, use, and sharing. Reporting could take different forms; for example open-data portals, which allow for the bulk download of collected, cleaned, and anonymized data. New York, Louisville, and Seattle maintain city-level data portals, while Chicago’s Array of Things maintains a project-level portal. However, these efforts only share what data is collected, and are silent about how the data is used or shared.

Contracts with third party vendors often impose additional barriers on transparency and reporting requirements. For example, Sidewalk Toronto created a Digital Strategy Advisory Panel, but mandated that they sign aggressive and overreaching confidentiality agreements. Non-disclosure agreements are also used by vendors to prevent local authorities from sharing basic information about their products. In response, the City of Oakland passed the 2018 Oakland Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance, which expressly prohibits city agencies from entering into confidentiality agreements that conflict with the laws transparency-reporting requirements.

Vigorous and thoughtful oversight depends on a healthy ecosystem of both watchful actors and responsive authorities. Governments can facilitate through financial resources or access to information. Cities can also react more quickly to findings or controversies, such as through creation of positions or offices to draft new protocols. Publicly, cities should build stronger relationships and work more closely with nonprofits and community leaders in order to be aware of emerging issues.

Finally, cities can encourage monitoring by residents through interactive portals. For example, Flint, Michigan’s Planning and Development Department created the Flint Property Portal in 2017, an online interface where residents can easily collect and report data about blighted properties. Crowd-sourced data allows city officials to better allocate resources for blighted and vacant properties, and also encourages citizens to improve and maintain their properties. Similar initiatives could be applied to the monitoring of smart city technologies, such as the location of sensors or facial recognition software around a city.