Frankly … social
Lying, Falling, Staggering, Kicking

Maximilian Buddenbohm describes a square in a German city where all kinds of people spend their time. Why is this square “actually quite nice”? And what is about to happen there?

By Maximilian Buddenbohm

Not far from my apartment, there’s a square which people generally say is “actually quite nice”. There are reasons why they tend to add “actually”, and I’ll go into those in a minute, but first I’d like to illustrate the term “nice”. The square is fairly big for this city, and there are no cars parked on it, which is rare, and appreciated by everyone, at least unless they want to park a car there themselves. It has a few trees that provide welcome shade when it’s hot – also something you can’t take for granted. Two sides of the square are lined by attractive old Gründerzeit buildings, the others by austere, almost ugly structures from the post-war years and 1980s, a curious architectural period in Germany. So two sides are beautiful. You could say it’s a place where you can reflect, and look in the right direction. In the middle of the square is a large, tall fountain, which actually works. Water splashes down into a basin, and at the top you can see a magnificent statue of Hansa, who is supposed to symbolise the power of the former Hanseatic League. Admittedly, I had to look that up. A goddess invented solely for this city, a symbol of the city’s splendour, that’s the idea.

Actually quite nice

So it’s a nice square. Actually quite a nice square. It’s just the people here who are a nuisance. A lot of people hang out here, at all times of the day and night. And not everyone likes these people – some of them don’t even like themselves. You see all kinds of junkies and drunks. You see prostitutes male and female, probably some not here of their own free will. You see people you could class as being from different ethnic backgrounds – or you think you can – and not everyone likes that either. Some people immediately find them suspicious. They wonder what they’re they all up to, standing around in groups like that. If you watch long enough, you see people arguing, sometimes getting physical with each other. You see victims of various drugs who are just lying on the ground, you might see them dealing or passing around suspicious substances. The men loitering about on the square could play the bad guys in any film. So in a nutshell, you see one cliché after another. That’s one side of the story. That’s definitely one way you can see it, and indeed how many people see it. “Crime hotspot” is what the press and police reports call it.

On the other hand, you also see people there who don’t really know where else to go during the day. Or they go there because people they know hang out there. That’s the only reason. This is where they gather, where they have always gathered. Sitting on the fountain steps, drinking a can of beer, smoking, talking, waiting for whatever. There’s nothing wrong with that. They wait for another day to pass, for something to happen, for the season to change. Meanwhile, at restaurants and bars around the square, guests enjoy fine antipasti and an after-work drink or two at the end of the day. In their eyes, a routine that’s very different to drinking canned beer at the fountain 30 metres away. But defining the distinction would take time and effort. That’s a bigger job and not one we can do here.

In any case, the guests sit there in front of the restaurants and cafés and eat and drink. They look at the beautiful facades of the old buildings and the wino lying on the ground in front the fountain with piss-stained trousers. And probably they’re thinking: “It’s actually quite nice here”.

Problematic in parts

So some of the people here are considered problematic and need to be watched closely – from the perspective of the authorities, at least, but it’s also what many neighbours think. And on this square, which you might now be able to picture – after all, many, if not all cities have squares like this – something new is about to be introduced. In future, an AI-supported security camera will monitor the “atypical movement patterns” of people who are frequenting, or perhaps loitering on the square. I’d like to say it again: you cannot clearly distinguish between people who are lingering there, and those who are loitering in a suspicious manner. I walk across this square several times a day, it’s in my direct neighbourhood. I inevitably spend time there. If I stop for a moment, maybe to make a note of something, I’m one of many who are under constant surveillance.

In future, the new AI-supported cameras will not only continuously record all that’s going on in the square. Their software will also detect certain kinds of behaviour, such as “lying, falling, staggering, kicking, hitting, pushing, jostling, and also an aggressive or defensive body posture”. The technology then automatically sends an anonymous report to the nearby police station, converting images of people into stick figures. Or so the press claims. And then the police will check out what might be going on in the square once again, what the stick men or stick women are up to.

So I’d better not look too defensive, I think, when I cross this square. I’d better think about how defensively I’m acting or how defensive I might come across even before I go there. Best not to be blasé about how I look. I wonder if I could clearly distinguish between aggressive and defensive postures for a software programme. I’m doubtful. Could you? It’s worth thinking about. It’s an interesting question. I stand on the square and look around. In front of me, two people are wrestling with each other. For fun or in earnest, I can’t immediately tell. Two other people embrace passionately. Try distinguishing between the two for a moment if you want to express these actions in parameters! Tricky, very tricky.

Typical movement patterns

If you want to harm someone in future, it might be better to do it according to a “typical movement pattern” so that surveillance technology doesn’t immediately pick up on it. But typical of what exactly? Of average people with average plans in average places?

On what is actually a nice day, I imagine a storm brewing and the skies suddenly opening. People run for shelter. Five minutes later, a large squad of police officers arrives on the scene. They check IDs first, then take things from there. Or I imagine people slipping up on black ice ...

And the thing about staggering is that in future this will concern two people equally: the person who’s had too many after-office mojitos on the restaurant terrace, but also the one from the fountain who’s consumed three more cans of beer than usual. That’s two stick figures who can’t walk in a straight line, two police reports according to the algorithm.

The newspapers claim the technology doesn’t detect skin colour or faces. Surely they mean: it doesn’t initially assess skin colour or faces. It must recognise something, you would think. After all, we know it’s technically possible. It doesn’t take much imagination to realise that at some point there may even be black and white stick figures.

I suspect the technology – the hardware, software, connection to the police station, maintenance and updates – is not cheap. Everything is being done to enable police officers 500 metres away in the police station to see images on their screens. But why aren’t they patrolling the square in person? Why are there no officers out on the beat, as it used to be called? Wasn’t that a reliable practice?

But I’m probably only asking myself this because I’m slowly falling … staggering … out of touch with the times.