This paper aims to provide an overview of surveillance theories and concepts that can help to understand and debate surveillance in its many forms. As scholars from an increasingly wide range of disciplines are discussing surveillance, this literature review can offer much-needed common ground for the debate. We structure surveillance theory in three roughly chronological/thematic phases. The first two conceptualise surveillance through comprehensive theoretical frameworks which are elaborated in the third phase. The first phase, featuring Bentham and Foucault, offers architectural (...) theories of surveillance, where surveillance is often physical and spatial, involving centralised mechanisms of watching over subjects. Panoptic structures function as architectures of power, not only directly but also through disciplining of the watched subjects. The second phase offers infrastructural theories of surveillance, where surveillance is networked and relies primarily on digital rather than physical technologies. It involves distributed forms of watching over people, with increasing distance to the watched and often dealing with data doubles rather than physical persons. Deleuze, Haggerty and Ericson, and Zuboff develop different theoretical frameworks than panopticism to conceptualise the power play involved in networked surveillance. The third phase of scholarship refines, combines or extends the main conceptual frameworks developed earlier. Surveillance theory branches out to conceptualise surveillance through concepts such as dataveillance, access control, social sorting, peer-to-peer surveillance and resistance. With the datafication of society, surveillance combines the physical with the digital, government with corporate surveillance and top-down with self-surveillance. (shrink)

Historically, the dynamic between philosophy of artificial intelligence and its practical application has been essential for the development of both, and thus the encounter between theory of AI and architectural/urban theory should be a site of considerable productivity. However, in many ways, it is not. This is due to two primary factors, one arising from each side of this encounter. First, legacies of overly-anthropomorphic models of AI permeate design discourses, where issues of how well AI can be constrained to social (...) issues of philosophy of mind exclude more foundational and cross-cultural questions about artificial intelligence as material process in the physical world that could inform new philosophical insights. Concurrently, the mobilization of investment in “Smart Cities” discourses dominates the space of application of AI at urban scale in ways that prematurely fixes solutions in the skeuomorphic image of architectural and urban conventions. To break this impasse, we held a series of think-tanks, workshops, and design charettes that brought together leading figures in philosophy of artificial intelligence, urban design, and commercial AI platforms. The goal was to re-think from first principles how alternative philosophical models of AI as a distributed, discontinuous, landscape-scale technology in a direct encounter with the applications in contexts of ecological sensing, automation’s impact on urban form, and issues of algorithmic governance. The design brief for this research establishes a generative framework for conceiving how embedded machine sensing and intelligence is already changing urban form and could change it in the future. The framework focuses on issues of urban zoning and architectural programming, data modeling and governance, platform cognition and design, and how these inform shifts in dynamics of public and private institutions. (shrink)