It was with interest that I read news of the fine imposed upon the City of Enschede in the Netherlands. In summary, it refers to a fine levied by the Dutch Data Protection Authority on the municipality, due to its use of WiFi sensors to measure the number of people in the city centre.

Colloquially termed WiFi MAC sniffing, the methodology involves detecting packets of data related to a specific device and registering them against a unique entity. Even though no clear personal data was collected, the fact that unique, pseudonymised information was obtained made tracking and identification possible. This in itself was deemed an offence and resulted in a €600,000 fine.

Our position

We believe MAC sniffing is not ethical, and we do not use it in any of our solutions - including the footfall monitoring devices we have deployed. Fundamentally we believe it is wrong and not in line with our tech for good philosophy. It opens the door for malpractice and invasion of privacy when there is no need. As the Dutch DPA ruled, even though the intent was not to track people, using such a system made it possible.

It is not for us to decide if we can collect identifiable data of those passing by - it is the right of the individual.

PIR technology: more accurate, more ethical

In the field of footfall monitoring, we utilise PIR (Passive InfraRed) technology, which not only avoids all collection of personal data, but is also more accurate.

WiFi sensing solutions rely upon a ratio of 1:1 (WiFi enabled device to person) to identify the number of people present in any given area. But this is rarely accurate - some days a person might be carrying two phones, an iPad, a smart watch and a laptop in sleep mode, registering as four or five people. At other times, they might have left everything at home. It's probably a rare occurrence to be carrying exactly one WiFi-enabled device when walking through a town centre.

By utilising PIR technology we are able to precisely measure the number of individuals that pass in and out of a specified zone without safety or privacy concerns.

The implications for UK councils

The implications of the ruling are significant, not only for the municipality of Enschede, but for organisations across Europe and beyond. We know that various UK councils are already utilising such technology, and they are going to have to swiftly consider the way forward - both from financial and PR perspectives.

Few UK authorities can cope with substantial fines, and with a test case now on the books - albeit overseas - it will not be long before further scrutiny is placed upon the use of such methods in the UK.

Building public trust in technology

Fundamentally we believe tech can be and is generally a positive influence on society, but there are exceptions. It is incumbent upon ethical suppliers of technological solutions - not just IoT - councils and other partners to guarantee the privacy of the public.

As an industry we need to respect individuals' rights and do all we can to protect our reputations - not only for our own good, but to allow the expanded utilisation of solutions that truly add value to society, save councils money and improve residents' lives.