Abstract
The rapid expansion of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies has fundamentally transformed how communities manage urban spaces and respond to crises. My technical project and my Science, Technology, and Society (STS) research paper both examine the deployment of these sensor networks under the banner of public safety. However, they approach this sociotechnical landscape from different angles. My technical project aims to address a critical global inequity by developing an open-source, low-cost (sub-$100) flood monitoring node, enabling under-developed and developing nations to implement disaster prediction systems. Conversely, my STS paper uses the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework to critique how high-budget, proprietary IoT networks in "smart cities", such as Flock safety cameras and Palantir analytics, frequently devolve into unregulated mass surveillance tools. Together, these two projects demonstrate that while IoT networks possess immense potential to protect human life, they must be intentionally designed to democratize safety without sacrificing citizen privacy.
Both works explore the ethical dilemma between data collection for public safety, and the looming threat of function creep. As explored in the STS paper, when powerful social groups like state governments and private corporations align, surveillance infrastructure originally justified by safety or national security is often expanded into a permanent, invasive tracking grid. The mass collection of individualized, geo-tagged "big data" strips citizens of their anonymity. This critique directly informs the design philosophy of my technical project. While a network of flood sensors might seem benign compared to automated license plate readers, widespread environmental IoT networks still generate continuous data streams that, if poorly managed, could inadvertently reveal behavioral patterns or expose communities to cyberattacks. To prevent the type of function creep warned about in the STS research, the technical project emphasizes "privacy by design."
Furthermore, both papers address the sociotechnical implications of infrastructure costs and power dynamics. My STS paper focuses on the immense corporate infrastructure underlying modern smart cities. Because these proprietary datasets are often shielded from public scrutiny, citizens, the stakeholders with the least power but the most at risk, are left vulnerable to corporate exploitation and a loss of civil liberties. The technical project offers a direct counter-narrative to this corporate monopolization. Commercial IoT flood sensors routinely costs more than most government can afford to spend, creating an infrastructure gap where proactive disaster resilience is a reserved for wealthy municipalities. By utilizing a low-power microcontroller and an open-source architecture, the technical project drastically lowers the financial barrier to entry. This shifts early-warning networks from being exclusive, corporate-controlled commodities into accessible public goods.
Ultimately, the connection between these two projects lies in the ethical application of technology. The STS paper serves as a cautionary analysis, showing that technological innovation without rigorous social oversight often harms the very public it claims to protect. The technical project represents a practical application of these lessons. It proves that equitable public safety does not require communities to surrender their data sovereignty to tech giants. By intentionally designing an IoT system that is affordable, open-source, and strictly limited to environmental data, we can empower underdeveloped communities to protect themselves from catastrophic natural disasters without trapping them in the invasive surveillance grids of the modern smart city.
