The document summarizes the civic engagement process for the Array of Things project in Chicago. It describes how public feedback was gathered through an online policy co-creation platform called MyMadison.io, online forms, and public meetings. The engagement methods aimed to build awareness of the project, address community needs, and gather input on draft governance and privacy policies. Lessons learned included the challenges of informing and engaging communities at the same time, balancing technical transparency with accessibility, and using multiple feedback collection tools to accommodate different participation preferences.
1.
Array of Things Civic
Engagement Report
A Summary of Public Feedback & the Civic Engagement Process
August 2016
Prepared by the Smart Chicago Collaborative for the residents of Chicago, the City of Chicago,
and the operators of the Array of Things: Urban Center for Computation and Data , a research
initiative of the Computation Institute at the University of Chicago and Argonne National
Laboratory .
Denise Linn, Program Analyst
Glynis Startz, Harvard Ash Center Summer Fellow
10.
Members of our documenter program also recorded proceedings through photography, notes,
and social media, all of which can be found on the Smart Chicago website. Here is a blog post
centralizing documentation from the June 14th Public Meeting at Lozano Library and here is a
blog post centralizing documentation from the June 22nd Public meeting at Harold Washington
Library.
Summary of Public Feedback
An inventory of feedback can be found on Madison and on this spreadsheet. Responses to that
feedback can be found on this website authored by the operators of Array of Things. This
feedback helped shape the final version of the Array of Things Governance & Privacy Policies.
Here are the stats about participation & policy feedback:
● About 40 residents attended the 6/14 public meeting at Lozano Library in Pilsen
● About 40 residents attended the 6/22 public meeting at Harold Washington Library in the
Loop
● Here is a breakdown of the public feedback received:
○ 36 questions, comments or annotations from 7 unique account holders originally
collected from MyMadison.io
○ 21 questions, comments or annotations recorded from the 6.14 Array of Things
Public Meeting (later placed on the MyMadison.io page)
○ 14 questions, comments or annotations recorded from the 6.22 Array of Things
Public Meeting (later placed on the MyMadison.io page)
○ 9 Wufoo online form submissions (later placed on the MyMadison.io page) — 6
from individuals and 3 from groups (see below)
Among the feedback collected, three groups or institutions submitted collective, multipart
comments on the policies:
● a group from the Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security 2016 (SOUPS 2016)
including Lorrie Faith Cranor of Carnegie Mellon University, Alain Forget of Google, 1
Patrick Gage Kelley of the University of New Mexico, and Jen King of UC Berkeley
● the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF), a Washington, DC based think tank that seeks to
advance responsible data practices.
● the FAiR Coalition, a coalition of community organizations dedicated to the equitable
distribution of O’Hare and Midway Traffic
1
The comment clarified that Lorrie Cranor is currently on leave from Carnegie Mellon University, serving as
Chief Technologist at the US Federal Trade Commission. Comments were her own views and do not
necessarily represent the views of the Commission or any Commissioner
9
13.
On a related note, commenters recommended that the privacy policy include a clear process for
when residents believe their personally identifiable information has been publically shared
accidently and would like it removed. There were also questions about the purpose and public
value of collecting images and data as set up by the Array of Things project.
On data sharing & accessibility
Commenters asked for more information about the Array of Things sensor data that would
become public. They were interested in exactly how open the data would be and what the data
would look like once posted on sources like the Chicago Data Portal. Commenters also sought
more information about potential third party researchers who would have access to raw,
calibration data — who they might be and the systems of accountability that would govern their
work.
Several commenters inquired about how data collected from Array of Things sensors would
interact with Chicago’s law enforcement and other third parties. Three commenters specifically
brought up warrants. There was interest as to what extent any PII collected would be subject to
Freedom of Information Act disclosure requests. Commenters were also interested in law
enforcement use cases as they relate to future iterations of the Array of Things sensors.
On public notice & community engagement
Commenters supported civic outreach efforts and recommended more and continued work on
that front. Commenters identified the selection of future sensor node locations as an opportunity
to involve residents and community organizations in the Array of Things project. There were
several questions about how and if residents could be involved in selecting or informing sensor
node placement. Now the Array of Things operators’ new online form asks for resident ideas
and suggestions for node locations.
In general, commenters expressed interest in more ways of engaging with or learning about
Array of Things. Aside from collecting resident feedback on the project and the project policies,
commenters recommended that everyday “notice” be prioritized for affected Chicago residents.
Commenters recommended that Array of Things Operators clarify when residents will be alerted
in a variety of ways (including methods friendly to lowtech or lowliteracy residents) when they
are in range of a node or in a node area. Methods recommended include plainlanguage signs,
short links, or QR codes.
12
15.
Lessons for Future Engagement Efforts with Urban
Sensors & the Internet of Things
Smart Chicago has extracted several lessons that will inform our future engagement
approaches with “smart city” projects. We hope these lessons also be useful and relevant to
organizations in other cities undertaking similar technology engagement work, especially as
they relate to privacy and governance.
Informing & engaging at the same time is a challenge
The public meetings were structured in such a way so attendees did not have to have any
technical knowledge or project background to attend. Still, soliciting feedback from residents
inperson was a challenge when there was so much background information to get through first.
When residents aren’t familiar with a project, it follows that the quality or amount of sincere
feedback on that project would be naturally limited. In their blog post reflecting on the June 22nd
Public Meeting, the OpenGov Foundation made a similar observation of this challenge:
The concepts behind AoT, it is safe to say, rest on rather advanced, cuttingedge
technical knowledge. It took a full 70 minutes of the 90 minute session for the
presenters to simply explain AoT. And of the remaining 20 minutes, all but five were
devoted to basic questions.
The lesson for other cities or projects to glean from this challenge would be to undergo a wider
awareness campaign to inform residents of the who, what, where, when, and why of the project
before asking residents to react to that project.
There is a trade-off between technical transparency and accessibility
Though several Array of Things policy commenters recommended less technical language,
others also called for more technical detail for the sake of transparency. For future IoT project
and engagement efforts, this tradeoff should be taken note of and balanced.
The lesson for other cities or projects would be to communicate not only the content of their
policies, but also communicate more about the design of the policy — for instance, why it was
chosen to be a certain length, what regulations or principles informed its structure, and why
certain information is left out or placed in another document. Another potential approach would
be to, as some commenters suggested, layer the public policies; publish a transparent, technical
policy, but also a supplementary that piece with a glossary or summary points. In short, it might
14
16.
be wise to create documentation that is accessible along with documentation that is thorough,
but not attempt to accomplish both goals at once.
It’s just as important to communicate what the sensors can’t do
The recurring questions about law enforcement scenarios, cell phone companies, and sound
recordings during the public comment period for the Array of Things governance and privacy
policies show that more explicit, public descriptions of what the sensors can’t measure was
needed.
There were several comments that showed the need for this clarity. For example, commenters
asked about functions that sensors didn’t have — capturing video and cellphone information, for
instance. Charlie Catlett of UrbanCCD and Brenna Berman of the City of Chicago clarified
during the June 22, 2016 public meeting that Array of Things sensors are not capable of
interacting with a cell phones. The public meetings and online literature on Array of Things
clarifies that, while data on sound levels is collection, actual sound is not recorded. The
concerns expressed during the public comment period revealed a project messaging and
communication issue that can be fixed in the future.
Be tool agnostic when it comes to public feedback collection
Smart Chicago used three feedback loops to collect public feedback on this project: Madison,
online forms, and public meetings. Given complications surrounding digital skills, Internet
access, desires for anonymity, communication preferences, and varied desires of involvement, it
was beneficial to preserve a variety of engagement modes. Meeting residents where they are is
an important priority — one we’re sure we can improve on in the future.
Our recommendation for other cities or organizations undertaking smart city or IoT engagement
work would to be flexible and tool agnostic. Though the subject at hand is technology, the
modes of engagement should not always be technical. In a smart city, there can still be room for
lowtech outreach and engagement methods like flyering and personal outreach.
15
18.
● Here are the final Array of Things Governance & Privacy Policies
● Here is the event flyer for the 6.14 Public Meeting at Lozano Library
● Here is the event flyer for the 6.22 Public Meeting at Harold Washington Library
● Here are the slides presented by Charlie Catlett of UrbanCCD at the events
● Here are the slides presented by Brenna Berman, CIO for the City of Chicago at the
6.22.16 Public Meeting
● Pictures from the 6.14 Public meeting can be found in this Flickr album
● Pictures from the 6.22 Public meeting can be found in this Flickr album
● The 6.14 Public Meeting was catered by Taquería Sabor y Sazón
● The 6.22 Public Meeting was catered by Corner Bakery
● Here is the Meeting Agenda for the 6.14 Public Meeting
● Here is the Meeting Agenda for the 6.22 Public Meeting
● Here is a link to the Array of Things Governance & Privacy Policy
● Here is a handout created by Smart Chicago and distributed at both Public Meetings:
“How to Provide Feedback on the Array of Things Governance & Privacy Policy”
● A Storify of the 6.14 Public Meeting
● A Storify of the 6.22 Public Meeting
● A map of the proposed locations for sensor nodes
17