ConsumerLab: Public safety goes personal - presentation

Public Safety goes personal

Ericsson ConsumerLab 2016

Ericsson Internal | 2016-06-29 |

To examine consumer attitudes,

expectations and perception on public

safety, from a ICT perspective

To understand the gap between

Consumers expectations and

government provided services.

To examine the balance in terms of

safety and privacy and the effect that ICT

solutions for Public Safety may haveOBJECTIVES


Scope

We consider in this context three ways for local authorities

to offer increased safety in the public space:

In this study we look into the topic of safety, meaning;

being in control and feeling protected from harm or other

non-desirable outcomes, like crime and accidents.

2

Information sharing Physical presence Surveillance

1


The engaged citizen

High expectations on city

authorities and public safety agencies1

Citizens are increasingly using the

internet for their own personal safety2

Closing gap between

personal and public safety3

4Pressure on city authorities

to engage in public safety


Methodology

IstanbulNew york

London

Stockholm

Dubai

Quantitative study:

Online survey.

Sample: 750 respondents in New York, London, Istanbul and Dubai, 500 respondents in Stockholm

This represents the view of 17 million consumers aged 15-65


Key findings

› Only one in three perceive

their city to be safe

› Dubai is the exception and

shows the opposite trend,

with two in three saying their

city is safe

Cities are not safe enough

› Three in four already use

emergency apps or functions

on their smartphones, and

many express a high interest

in using more security apps

› Citizens do not sit around

waiting for the city authorities.

Personal safety measures

include video monitoring of

the house and neighborhood

watch schemes

Citizens actively engage in personal safety


Key findings

› Half of the smartphone users

surveyed would like to see more

police and surveillance technology in

public places

› Smartphone users worry about who is

watching them. Only 15 percent have

no privacy concerns about

surveillance

Surveillance technology is welcome but not at the cost of privacy

› Around 40 percent feel safer when out

and about with a smartphone

› One in four think that having a

smartphone makes citizens less risk-

averse than they would be otherwise

The smartphone safety paradox


› A majority of people say that their city is, if

not safe, at least not dangerous

› Dubai is on one end where over 70 percent

say their city is safe and Istanbul in the other

end where only 14 percent think their city is

safe

› Even if the situation is not acute, people see

a room for improvement

Mixed feelings about safety in in the city

Dubai

Istanbul

London

New York

Stockholm

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Safe Neutral Not Safe Source: Ericsson ConsumerLab, Public Safety Goes Personal, 2016

Base: 3,500 smartphone users in Dubai, Istanbul, London, New York and Stockholm


› A strong negative trend in Istanbul due to

mayor terrorist attacks

› In Stockholm the city is perceived to be less

safe despite a fall in crime according to

Swedish National Council for Crime

Prevention, Swedish Crime Survey, 2015

› Dubai clearly stands out as a safer city

Safety – A positive and negative trend

Much safer now Neutral Much less safe now

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Dubai

Istanbul

London

New York

Stockholm

Source: Ericsson ConsumerLab, Public Safety Goes Personal, 2016



› Though many have experienced traffic

accidents, and it is the most common

amongst dangers, the fear of crime and

attacks is noticeably higher

› One reason may be that these events are

more out of the personal control, and thus

harder to prepare for or avoid

Perception versus realityPerception of where the dangers lay may not be the same thing as where the dangers really are

WHO 2014 states that the risk of traffic accidents in the

UAE is 5 times higher compared to Stockholm.

Dubai

Istanbul

London

New York

Stockholm

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Crime (robbery,

assault etc)

Traffic accidents

Terrorist attacks

Pollution

Natural Catastrophes

Other, Specify




0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

50,0%

60,0%

Currently do Never done butwould like to do






Collect information about others inyour neighborhood.

Video surveillance/monitoring ofyour house or garden

Video surveillance/monitoring ofyour street

Partake in neighborhood watches Partake in voluntarily city watches Partake in safety networks,getting alerts and aiding people in

need

Activating personal safetyToday, many citizens are taking the matter of personal safety into their own hands by using

internet-enabled services and tools and engaging with their social networks. Many more express

an interest in engaging.

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%




The use of smartphone apps to reduce the feeling of unsafetyInterest levels for the following smartphone apps and functions




Safety paradoxBeing less risk-averse and more adventurous thanks to the feeling of security a smartphone

brings, citizens may actually find themselves in more dangerous situations than they would otherwise.




Expectations on the cityPublic lighting and numbers of visible police are the top factors dictating how safe citizens feel in public places

Imp

act on feelin

g o

f safe

ty

Perceived Presence

Low

er

safe

ty

Hig

her

sa

fety

Lower Higher

Police

Lighting

Workers

MilitaryVolunteer

Watch groups Private Security guards

Other citizens

CCTV

ShopsNational authority

guards

Health or medical

Perceived presence and impact on feeling of safety and security elements in public spaces




› CCTV surveillance is approved in public

places if used for major threats to the safety

such as terrorism and crimes

› The support however plummets when it

comes to other type of usage

› Stockholm stands out as being the most

reluctant to use video monitoring footage

CCTV approved for major incidents

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Prevent terrorist attacks

Crime investigation

Crime prevention

Accident investigation

Accident prevention

Traffic monitoring

Survey an area in real time

Identify people using automatic facial recognition

Sharing with all authorities

Research on municipality development

Made public for anyone to access

Storing with no particular purpose

Building personal files on citizens

Sharing with private companies for marketing or

sales purposes




Uncertainty builds privacy concerns

only 15 percent say that they

not are concerned at all that

surveillance data is being used

to undermine their privacy

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%Personal

information

will be

made public

online

Footage will

be stored

without

citizens’

knowledge

Not

knowing

how

footage

will be

used

Data will be

used to

undermine

privacy

Not knowing

who is

watching

CCTV

footage may

be

falsely

incriminating

The

feeling of

being

watched

and

controlled




Innovating public safetyAmount of people that would be highly positive to these concepts.

Source: Ericsson Consumerlab Public safety goes personal, 2016

Base: Smartphone users New York, London, Stockholm, Istanbul, DubaiSource: Ericsson ConsumerLab, Public Safety Goes Personal, 2016



The joint road to public safety

By using information on

social networks for their

own safety, citizens also

contribute to the

safety of others

Citizens seeing the internet

as a means for personal

safety opens up routes

for interaction

with authorities Privacy concerns over

new security technology

mean authorities

need to become

more transparent




public safety goes personal

CITY

SECURITY TECHNOLOGY MAKES US MORE INFORMED AND ALLOW US TO

TAKE SMARTER DECISIONS. CONSUMERS EXPECT THE CITY TO PROVIDE

SMART SERVICES. TECHNOLOGY ENABLE THE SMART CITY.

SMART

TECHNOLOGY

PEOPLE

ConsumerLab: Public safety goes personal - presentation

Technology

Transcript of ConsumerLab: Public safety goes personal - presentation