Can we negotiate? Trust and the rule of law in the smart city paradigm

References

• Baier, A. 1986. “Trust and Antitrust.” Ethics 96 (2): 231–260. doi: 10.1086/292745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, U. 1992a. “From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure and Ecological Enlightenment.” Theory, Culture & Society 9 (1): 97–123. doi: 10.1177/026327692009001006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, U. 1992b. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Berntzen, L., and M. R. Johannessen. 2016. “The Role of Citizen Participation in Municipal Smart City Projects: Lessons Learned from Norway.” In Smarter as the New Urban Agenda: A Comprehensive View of the 21st Century City, edited by T. A. P. J. Ramon Gil-Garcia and Taewoo Nam, 299–314. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Bijker, W. 1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs. Towards a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bingham, T. 2011. The Rule of Law. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Calzada, I. 2018. “Citizens from Data Providers to Decision-Makers? The Case Study of Barcelona.” Sustainability 10 (9): 3252. doi:10.3390/su10093252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canon, G. 2018. City of Surveillance’: Privacy Expert Quits Toronto’s Smart-City Project. The Guardian.
   Google Scholar
• Cardullo, P., and Rob Kitchin. 2018. “Being a ‘Citizen’ in the Smart City: Up and Down the Scaffold of Smart Citizen Participation in Dublin, Ireland.” GeoJournal, 1–13. doi:10.1007/s10708-018-9845-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, M., M. Roberts, and J. Walton. 2011. “IT Outsourcing in the Public Sector: Experiences form Local Government.” The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation 14 (2): 193–203.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, F. D. 1985. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, F. D. 1993. “User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts.” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 38 (3): 475–487. doi:10.1006/imms.1993.1022.
   Google Scholar
• Desmarais, A. 2018. Lobby Wrap: Sidewalk Labs Wants Help after Public Criticism. November 5. https://ipolitics.ca/2018/11/05/lobby-wrap-sidewalk-labs-wants-help-after-public-criticism/.
   Google Scholar
• de Waal, M., and M. Dignum. 2017. “The Citizen in the Smart City. How the Smart City Could Transform Citizenship.” it-Information Technology 59 (6): 263–273. doi: 10.1515/itit-2017-0012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, L. 2016. “Privacy, Security and Data Protection in Smart Cities: A Critical EU Law Perspective.” European Data Protection Law Review 2: 28. doi: 10.21552/EDPL/2016/1/6
   Google Scholar
• Garland, D. 2001. The Culture of Control. Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press in association with Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity, Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haggart, B., and Z. Spicer. 2018. What Quayside Has Taught Us About Smart Cities and Data Governance. The Conversation.
   Google Scholar
• Haggart, B., and N. Tusikov. 2018. Quayside Toronto Project Proves That Smart City Talks Must Be Transparent. The Conversation.
   Google Scholar
• Halperin, D. M. 1990. One Hundred Years of Homosexuality. And Other Eassays on Greeck Love: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hardin, R. 2006. Trust. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, D. 2003. “The Right to the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27 (4): 939–941. doi: 10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heezen, M., D. Louwerse, and E. Riedstra. 2018. Smart City? Graag. Maar dan wel met bewuste burgers! Retrieved from Den Hague.
   Google Scholar
• Hildebrandt, M. 2013. The Rule of Law in Cyberspace. Nijmegen: Nijmegen University.
   Google Scholar
• Hildebrandt, M. 2015. “The Public(s) Onlife. A Call for Legal Protection by Design.” In The Onlife Manifesto. Being Human in a Hyperconnected Era, edited by L. Floridi, 181–194. Charm: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hobbes, T. 2002. Leviathan, edited by A. P. Martinich. Ontario: Broadview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hollands, R. G. 2015. “Critical Interventions Into the Corporate Smart City.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 8 (1): 61–77. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsu011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, I., and J. Earle. 2013. “Prediction, Preemption, Presumption: How Big Data Threatens Big Picture Privacy.” Stanford Law Review Online 66: 65.
   Google Scholar
• Keymolen, E. 2016a. Trust on the Line. A Philosophical Exploration of Trust in the Networked Era. Wolf Legal Publisher: Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Keymolen, E. 2016b. “A Utopian Belief in big Data.” In Mind You. The Art of Ethics in the Information Society, edited by L. Janssens, 67–77. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kiran, A. H., and P.-P. Verbeek. 2010. “Trusting Our Selves to Technology.” Knowledge, Technology & Policy 23 (3-4): 409–427. doi: 10.1007/s12130-010-9123-7
   Google Scholar
• Kitchin, R. 2014. “Thinking Critically About and Researching Algorithms.” The Programmable City Working Paper 5: 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Kitchin, R. 2016. “The Ethics of Smart Cities and Urban Science.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 374 (2083): 20160115. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0115
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koppenjan, J. F., and B. Enserink. 2009. “Public–Private Partnerships in Urban Infrastructures: Reconciling Private Sector Participation and Sustainability.” Public Administration Review 69 (2): 284–296. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01974.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krivý, M. 2018. “Towards a Critique of Cybernetic Urbanism: The Smart City and the Society of Control.” Planning Theory 17 (1): 8–30. doi: 10.1177/1473095216645631
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahav, G., and V. Guiraudon. 2000. “Comparative Perspectives on Border Control: Away From the Border and Outside the State.” In The Wall Around the West. State Borders and Immigration Controls in North America and Europe, 55–77. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Leenes, R. E. 2011. “Framing Techno-Regulation: an Exploration of State and Non-State Regulation by Technology.” Legisprudence 5 (2): 143–169. doi: 10.5235/175214611797885675
   Google Scholar
• Lefebvre, H. 1968. Le Droit à la Ville, Suivi de Espace et Politique. Paris: Editions Anthropos.
   Google Scholar
• Legros, C. 2018. La CNIL défavorable à l’utilisation de l’application de sécurité Reporty à Nice. Le Monde, March 22. https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2018/03/22/la-cnil-defavorable-a-l-utilisation-de-l-application-de-securite-reporty-a-nice_5274783_4408996.html.
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and Power. Two Works by Niklas Luhmann. Translated by H. Davis. New York: John Wiley & sons Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Lyon, D. 2015. Surveillance After Snowden. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, S. 2004. Sousveillance’ Inverse Surveillance in Multimedia Imaging.
   Google Scholar
• Manville, P. B. 1990. The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Athens. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Margier, A., and L. Melgaço. 2016. “Whose Right to the City?” Urban Environment 10: 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer-Schönberger, V., and K. Cukier. 2013. Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Michel, H. 2006. “La gestion de la relation au citoyen: vers de nouveaux modes de relation entre gouvernement et citoyen?” Politiques et Management Public 24 (4): 91–110. doi: 10.3406/pomap.2006.2348
   Google Scholar
• Möllering, G. 2001. “The Nature of Trust: From Georg Simmel to a Theory of Expectation, Interpretation and Suspension.” Sociology 35 (2): 403–420. doi: 10.1177/S0038038501000190
   Google Scholar
• Möllering, G. 2006. Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Muzaffar, S. 2018. My Full Resignation Letter from Waterfront Toronto’s Digital Strategy Advisory Panel. Medium.
   Google Scholar
• Nagenborg, M. 2018. “Urban Robotics and Responsible Urban Innovation.” Ethics and Information Technology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10676-018-9446-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niaros, V. 2015. “Introducing a Taxonomy of the “Smart City”: Towards a Commons-Oriented Approach?” tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 14 (1): 51–61.
   Google Scholar
• Nickel, P. J. 2015. Design for the Value of Trust. Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains, 551–567.
   Google Scholar
• Park, R. E. 1967. On Social Control and Collective Behavior: Selected Papers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paroutis, S., M. Bennett, and L. Heracleous. 2014. “A Strategic View on Smart City Technology: The Case of IBM Smarter Cities During a Recession.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 89: 262–272. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peck, J., N. Theodore, and N. Brenner. 2013. “Neoliberal Urbanism Redux?” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37 (3): 1091–1099. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry, Walter L., Brian McInnis, Carter C. Price, Susan C. Smith, and J. S. Hollywood. 2013. Predictive Policing. The Role of Crime Forecasting in Law Enforcement Operations. Santa Monica. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR200/RR233/RAND_RR233.sum.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Pitt, J. C. 2010. “It’s Not About Technology.” Knowledge, Technology & Policy 23: 445–454. doi: 10.1007/s12130-010-9125-5
   Google Scholar
• Prins, C., D. Broeders, H. Griffioen, A.-G. Keizer, and E. Keymolen. 2011. iGovernment. Amsterdam: AUP.
   Google Scholar
• Ranchordás, S. 2018. “Citizens as Consumers in the Data Economy: The Case of Smart Cities.” Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 7 (4): 154–161.
   Google Scholar
• Riesenberg, P. N. 1994. Citizenship in the Western Tradition: Plato to Rousseau. Chapel Hill: Univ of North Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sadowski, J., and F. A. Pasquale. 2015. The Spectrum of Control: A Social Theory of the Smart City.
   Google Scholar
• Schinkel, W. 2008. “Van surveillance naar zelfveillance. De nieuwe technologieën van zelfcontrole.” In In de greep van de technologie, edited by M. H. Van den Berg, M. Ham, and C. Prins, 20–45. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J. 1998. Seeing Like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, A. J., and M. Storper. 2015. “The Nature of Cities: the Scope and Limits of Urban Theory.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39 (1): 1–15. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seligman, A. B. 1997. The Problem of Trust. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sennett, R. 1977. Fall of Public Man. London: Pinguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, J. 2013. “Trust.” In Oxford Bibliographies in Philosophy, edited by D. Pritchard, 1–10. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, T. W. 2012. “What is Trust?” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93: 550–569. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2012.01438.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamanaha, B. Z. 2007. A Concise Guide to the Rule of Law. Paper presented at the FLORENCE WORKSHOP ON THE RULE OF LAW.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, L., C. Richter, S. Jameson, and C. Perez de Pulgar. 2016. Customers, Users or Citizens? Inclusion, Spatial Data and Governance in the Smart City. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2792565 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2792565.
   Google Scholar
• Tenney, M., and R. Sieber. 2016. “Data-Driven Participation: Algorithms, Cities, Citizens, and Corporate Control.” Urban Planning 1 (2): 101–113. doi: 10.17645/up.v1i2.645
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torpey, J. 2000. The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship, and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2018. 2018 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects. https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html.
   Google Scholar
• van den Berg, B., and E. Keymolen. 2017. “Regulating Security on the Internet: Control Versus Trust.” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 31 (2): 188–205. doi:10.1080/13600869.2017.1298504.
   Google Scholar
• Vanolo, A. 2014. “Smartmentality: The Smart City as Disciplinary Strategy.” Urban Studies 51 (5): 883–898. doi: 10.1177/0042098013494427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viitanen, J., and R. Kingston. 2014. “Smart Cities and Green Growth: Outsourcing Democratic and Environmental Resilience to the Global Technology Sector.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 46 (4): 803–819. doi: 10.1068/a46242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiig, A. 2018. “Secure the City, Revitalize the Zone: Smart Urbanization in Camden, New Jersey.” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 36 (3): 403–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wylie, B. 2018. Sidewalk Toronto: Democratic Deception, Smart City Doublespeak, and the Long Game. Medium.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar