This paper discusses ELSA (Ethical, Legal, and Social Aspects of technology) as an emerging methodology for transdisciplinary AI research, characterized by anticipatory technology assessment through close collaboration with diverse (societal) stakeholders. We offer a methodological reflection based on a 1,5 year-long case study on public safety and AI in Lombardijen, a neighbourhood in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, where we engaged residents as citizen stakeholders. Lombardijen is paradoxically under-resourced, meaning historically neglected and stigmatized as a ‘problem district’, yet over-researched, i.e. scrutinized by countless researchers who engage in what has been called ‘drive-by’ research – driving by, extracting data, and disappearing, often without benefits for the community. The community’s ensuing alienation from governmental and academic institutions means that citizens’ valuable contextual knowledge is often overlooked in public deliberation on AI. This raises our research question: How can citizens in low-trust neighbourhoods be meaningfully and reciprocally engaged in transdisciplinary AI research, and what does an ELSA approach offer in this regard? The paper details our experiences in Lombardijen respectively from ethical, legal, social, and technological perspectives. We candidly discuss our learnings, (modest) successes and limitations, ultimately emphasizing the importance of situated responsibility as a precondition for transdisciplinary AI research.

Over the past 15 years, the number of demonstrations worldwide has more than tripled. Policing tactics have undergone equal transformation, with a growing reliance on technology in protest policing which has now entered the latest stage with the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI). An expanding body of research has begun to shed light on the “chilling” effects of such surveillance technologies, which may deter activists from exercising their fundamental rights to protest due to fears of potential repercussions that may follow. Intersectional analyses have however remained limited. This article seeks to fill this gap by examining the 2023 Extinction Rebellion protests in The Hague, Netherlands, using an intersectional methodology that considers interplay of social categories and power systems, to provide a deeper insight into how these dynamics may shape individuals’ vulnerabilities (or resilience) to technologies at protests. The findings reveal that the chilling effect of surveillance is not a uniform phenomenon; rather, it is a consequence of pre-existing social inequalities and power dynamics that shape individuals’ experiences – long before the question of a “chilling effect” even arises. This perspective challenges a purely legalistic understanding of surveillance-related chilling effects, which oversimplifies and homogenizes AI experiences. This calls for greater attention to identity factors, the (lack of) capital tied to these identities and the power systems at play in protest policing, and recommends practice to further the conversation on ethical implications of technology and AI at protests in a holistic manner, emphasizing both social and epistemic inclusion.

Recent years have witnessed an intensifying debate on the deployment of emerging surveillance technologies in protests. Often discussed in terms of “chilling effects”—where activists self-censor due to fear of surveillance repercussions—there's limited research on its effects on both activists and law enforcement. This study explores the technologization of protest policing, moving beyond the oversimplified cat-and-mouse game analogy, to examine its effects on surveillance experiences in more nuanced ways. By analyzing observations and interview data from 2023 road blockades by Extinction Rebellion in The Hague, Netherlands, this paper highlights the intricate consequences of surveillance technologies for both sides. Moving beyond the narrow legal interpretation of “chilling effects,” it uncovers two further socio-psychological sub-manifestations, showing how both groups adapt through hyper-transparency (extreme openness) and hyper-alertness (extreme caution). The study demonstrates how these experiences can be self-reinforcing, where reciprocal suspicion might contribute to a cycle of mutual distrust beyond protest contexts, but also introduces new forms of resilience. This cycle, despite lacking clear causality, bears important implications for society at large. Pervasive suspicion erodes institutional trust among activists and threatens the traditionally communicative and de-escalation-focused approach of Dutch law enforcement. Overall, this extended impact indicates that the technologization of protest policing has resulted in a hybridization of screens and streets, causing its human impacts to stretch beyond the specific times and places of demonstrations. Protest policing now encompasses a multifaceted spectrum of surveillance experiences, affecting a plethora of public values, beyond the right to protest alone.

This article explores children’s detention on immigration or national security grounds as affected by European states’ contemporary security rationale neglecting children’s rights. Attention is given to how non-custodial solutions and child-centred strategies could avoid the systemic deprivation of liberty for these reasons. In acknowledging the range of contemporary threats against the right to liberty and security of children, it is crucial to investigate the link between detention and security narratives, as children – a particularly vulnerable group – are affected disproportionately. The focus is placed on the situations in The Netherlands, France, Greece, Ireland and Cyprus. Concluding remarks are based on the case studies and the regional perspective taken beyond these cases, to draw arguments for law and policy changes at both levels. Key words: children’s rights; migration; national security; repatriation; detention; security rationale