KEST GAK and Some LinkNYC Ramblings

KEST GAK stickers are found virtually everywhere, it seems, in the five boroughs and probably beyond. I appreciated the relatively subtle placement of this one on a LinkNYC kiosks. Evidently the folks behind this graffiti campaign are not too worried about the kiosks’ alleged surveillance capabilities, or the possibility that one of the 3 cameras could catch them in the act of defacing these kiosks.

That possibility also did not seem to concern the LinkNYC brick thrower whose destruction of some 40 advertising screens captured the imagination of the anti-Link crowd a couple of years ago. The individual, caught on video multiple times, did some prison time for that rampage but you still see occasional instances of smashed-up advertising and tablet screens, leaving this observer to ask if the same perp isn’t at it again, just on a smaller scale.

IS LINKNYC REALLY WATCHING OVER YOU?

It is said, by those who should know, that the surveillance cameras above the advertising screens are not activated unless there is some kind of known security or crime concern. In the case of the brick thrower the cameras were said to have been activated only after discovery of several smashed screens. I don’t know if I believe all that but the official policy is said to be that the cameras are only used when necessary and that continuous recording typically does not take place.

It would be interesting, then, to get details on the times LinkNYC responded to court orders or subpoenæ requesting video content. According to the LinkNYC Transparency Report for 2019 there was one instance in which a request for video content was honored. Might that one instance have involved the brick thrower?

The Transparency Report for 2020 reports 3 instances in which video content was turned over to law enforcement. No details of these requests are made public but if the stated policy of not using the kiosk cameras to record continuously is true then CityBridge and the legal authority that made the request must have arranged to monitor specific locations. The public would have no way to know if a LinkNYC kiosk is recording them.

CityBridge did not provide video content for any requests in 2017 or 2018.

I tend toward indifference on the matter of being recorded by something like LinkNYC. At any given moment, on any public street, one may have dozens of recording devices scooping up their every move. I would think most citizens inclined to think about such matters consider such surveillance a fact of life.

But among many fears expressed by privacy advocates is one that sees LinkNYC, which makes all its coin from display advertising, finding ways to target individuals with advertisements based on facial recognition. and internet search history That’s… kind of crazy, and simply not the way “targeted” advertising works in the DOOH space.

When CityBridge talks about targeting ads they might mean showing beer and hard alcohol ads between 4pm and 6pm, the end of many people’s workday when chances are they sure could use a drink. Or if a major film was being released they might show ads for that movie including where to find the nearest theater showing it.

The idea that you might search the internet for tennis shoes and then start seeing ads for tennis shoes on LinkNYC screens is absurd enough that I would love to see it happen.

50-FOOT TALL LINKS?

The future of LinkNYC seems as uncertain now as at any time in the program’s existence. Hearings set for some time next year will determine if CityBridge will be allowed to provision future kiosks with 5G antennæ reaching something like 50 feet into the air. No design for this has been made public but the increase in height would only be for the antenna, not the already sizable advertising screens.

With the targeted quantity of LinkNYC kiosks scaled back drastically from as many as 10,000 to a mere 4,000 I find it hard to see the point of this. The City itself has in mind a far more comprehensive deployment of thousands upon thousands of 5G antennæ atop curbside streetlights, bringing ultra-fast connectivity to virtually all points in New York. In that context who but CityBridge and its 5G contractor benefits from deploying a few thousand 5G-enabled kiosks?

WHITHER THE ADVERTISING-FREE LINKNYC KIOSK?

One of many enduring mysteries of the LinkNYC rollout has been the absence of advertising-free kiosks. These slimmed-down units were supposed to go up in residential areas, providing free WiFi and tablet features in areas where display advertising is not allowed. Those advertising-free kiosks were supposed to look like this, in an image removed from the Link.NYC website soon after the program launched in 2016.

References to this “Non-Advertising New Form Factor Structure” continue to appear in DoITT’s rules and requirements for LinkNYC despite the fact that not a single such kiosk has been deployed or even prototyped. The quick disappearance of this image from the Link.NYC website so soon after the program went live suggests the advertising-free kiosks’ inclusion in the RFPs and other documents were deliberate lies told to get the monopoly franchise approved. I don’t think there was never any genuine intention of building or deploying these things.

LINKNYC IS A FAILURE. WHAT NEXT?

It is no secret that the program has been labeled a failure. But in my opinion Thomas DiNapoli’s scathing review of LinkNYC did not go far enough, or provide enough detail. Not mentioned is the fact that phone calls from LinkNYC connect, on average, only about ½ the time. This creates obvious public safety issues when no other options for making a phone call are at hand. Even when the phone connects call quality ranges from passable to garbage, depending on the location. Any amount of street noise can drown out the sound coming from the loudspeaker.

I also find no reference to the Link’s performance in successfully connecting to 911.

DiNapoli’s report does not address the absence of non-advertising kiosks, a key part of the original RFP and CityBridge’s success in being awarded its monopoly franchise. That monopoly franchise extends to outdoor public telephones, making it impossible for independent payphone service providers to set up more reliable alternatives to Links or CityBridge’s remaining pay telephones. In fact, I do not believe a single one of CityBridge’s remaining payphones are functional. In a non-monopoly scenario a player like NewTel or PTS  could move in to fill the public communication gaps left by CityBridge’s negligence.

I also suspect no testing was done with respect to the social service resources allegedly provided through findhelp.org (formerly Aunt Bertha). Findhelp.org is itself a fine product but a healthy percentage of the website resources it connects to are blocked by LinkNYC.

The report reveals that CityBridge should have been on the hook for $2.6 million in liquidated damages for failure to activate hundreds of kiosks in the timeframe stipulated in the franchise agreement. Those penalties were never imposed. Why?

I could go on but I know, it’s boring. It just puzzles me to no end how this consortium continues to fail up, getting one sweetheart deal after another.