pp 1–9 | Cite as

#Purge: geovigilantism and geographic information ethics for connective action

  • Koshiro SuzukiEmail author


Recent technical progress of social networking tools and online mapping devices enabled citizens to send, share, and manipulate digital geographic information. However, it also enabled citizens to exercise the power of mapping without learning the respective codes of ethics. In this paper, the author describes a recent online-agitated riot that occurred in France, in 2018, to demonstrate how a single tweet could generate a massive riot. Applying the notion of geovigilantism and connective action, the author argues that the recent technical innovations in GeoIT are creating new ethical challenges. The author illustrates how the literature in the relevant fields has neglected the necessity of establishing geographic information ethics 2.0 in the current decade.


Geographic information ethics 2.0 Geovigilantism Connective action #Purge 



This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP17H00839 and JP19K21619. Some parts of this article are based on the following conference presentations conducted by the author: the 63rd Annual Conference of The Japanese Society for Ethics in 2012, the Kyoto Collegium for Bioethics in 2014, the conferences of the Association of Japanese Geographers in 2014 and 2015, and a keynote speech at Hokuriku Geo-Spatial Forum 2017, and GISTAM 2018.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There is no potential conflict of interest with the research.

Human participants

The research did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

Because the research did not involve human participants there was no need to obtain informed consent.


  1. Arikawa, M., Tsuruoka, K. I., Fujita, H., & Ome, A. (2007). Place-tagged podcasts with synchronized maps on mobile media players. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 34(4), 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, M. P. (2002). Geographic information technologies and their potentially erosive effects on personal privacy. Studies in the Social Sciences, 27(1), 19–28.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapin, M., Lamb, Z., & Threlkeld, B. (2005). Mapping indigenous lands. Annual Review Anthropology, 34, 619–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chatterjee, L., & Chakraborty, S. (2018). Twitter permanently bans Alex Jones, website Infowars. Retrieved July 09, 2019.
  6. Child Rights International Network. (2018). Minimum ages of criminal responsibility around the world. Retrieved November 18, 2018.
  7. Conger, K., & Nicas, J. (2018). Twitter bars Alex Jones and Infowars, citing harassing messages. Retrieved July 09, 2018.
  8. Crampton, J. W. (1995). The ethics of GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 22(1), 84–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crampton, J. W. (2003). Cartographic rationality and the politics of geosurveillance and security. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 30(2), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dennis, K. (2008). Keeping a close watch—The rise of self-surveillance and the threat of digital exposure. The Sociological Review, 56(3), 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dobson, J. E., & Fisher, P. F. (2003). Geoslavery. Technology and Society Magazine, 22(1), 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dobson, J. E., & Fisher, P. F. (2007). The Panopticon’s changing geography. Geographical Review, 97(3), 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DW. (2016). Some 150 arrests at French labor reform protests. Retrieved November 10, 2018.
  14. Fox, J., Suryanata, K., Hershock, P., & Pramono, A. H. (2008). Mapping boundaries shifting power: The socio-ethical dimensions of participatory mapping. In M. K. Goodman, M. T. Boykoff, & K. T. Evered (Eds.), Contentious geographies: Environmental knowledge, meaning, scale (pp. 203–217). Hampshire: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  15. Gannes, L. (2012). Fast-growing photo-messaging app Snapchat launches on Android. Retrieved November 16, 2018.
  16. Gartner, G., Bennett, D. A., & Morita, T. (2007). Towards ubiquitous cartography. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 34(4), 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glaser, A. (2018). Trolls are still tweeting Christine Blasey Ford’s address, and Twitter hasn’t stopped it. Retrieved July 09, 2019.
  18. Goss, J. (1995). Marketing the new marketing: The strategic discourse of geodemographic information systems. In J. Pickles (Ed.), Ground truth: The social implications of geographic information systems (pp. 130–170). London: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  19. Herold, D. K. (2008). Development of a civic society online? Internet vigilantism and state control in Chinese cyberspace. Asia Journal of Global Studies, 2(1), 26–37.Google Scholar
  20. ITV News. (2017). Riot officers injured after petrol bombs thrown in Paris clashes. Retrieved November 10, 2018.
  21. Kawaguchi, Y., & Kawaguchi, K. (2012). What does Google Street View bring about? Privacy, discomfort and the problem of paradoxical others. Contemporary and Applied Philosophy, 4, 19–34.Google Scholar
  22. Kingsbury, P., & Jones, J. P., III. (2009). Walter Benjamin’s Dionysian adventures on Google Earth. Geoforum, 40(4), 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klinkenberg, B. (2007). Geospatial technologies and the geographies of hope and fear. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(2), 350–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koskela, H. (2002). ‘Cam Era’—the contemporary urban Panopticon. Surveillance & Society, 1(3), 292–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kovacs, E., & Schramm, O. (2003). U.S. Patent No. 6,542,819. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.Google Scholar
  26. La Chaîne Info. (2018). Violences lors de la nuit d’Halloween: Incidents à Lyon et dans l’Essonne, Castaner dénonce des faits “Scandaleux”. Retrieved November 17, 2018.
  27. Le Figaro. (2018). « Purge » contre les policiers: Plusieurs incidents en Essonne et à Lyon. Retrieved November 17, 2018.
  28. Le Progrès. (2018). Echauffourées d’Halloween: Un bilan de 13 interpellations et 29 voitures brûlées dans le Rhône. Retrieved November 16, 2018.
  29. Longhurst, R. (2013). Using Skype to mother: Bodies, emotions, visuality, and screens. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 31(4), 664–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manion, M., & Goodrum, A. (2000). Terrorism or civil disobedience: Toward a hacktivist ethic. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 30(2), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Merkado, Y. (2018). VIDÉOS: Lampadaire tronçonné, attaques contre des passants et contre la police pendant « La Purge » d’Halloween. Retrieved November 11, 2018.
  32. Norheim-Hagtun, I., & Meier, P. (2010). Crowdsourcing for crisis mapping in Haiti. Innovations, 5(4), 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peruso, N. L. (1995). Whose woods are these? Counter-mapping forest territories in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Antipode, 27(4), 383–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pickard, S., & Bessant, J. (2018). France’s #Nuit debout social movement: Young people rising up and moral emotions. Societies, 8(4), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pickles, J. (1999). Arguments, debates, and dialogues: The GIS-social theory debate and the concern for alternatives. In P. Longley, M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire, & D. W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical information systems: Principles and technical issues (Vol. 1, pp. 49–60). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Propen, A. D. (2005). Critical GPS: Toward a new politics of location. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 4(1), 131–144.Google Scholar
  37. Public Sénat (2018). “Purge” contre les policiers: “Une mobilisation renforcée” pour Halloween. Retrieved November 17, 2018.
  38. Radil, S. M., & Anderson, M. B. (2018). Rethinking PGIS: Participatory or (post) political GIS? Progress in Human Geography, 43(2), 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rambaldi, G., Chambers, R., McCall, M., & Fox, J. (2006). Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners, facilitators, technology intermediaries and researchers. Participatory Learning and Action, 54(1), 106–113.Google Scholar
  40. Romo, V. (2019). Sandy Hook victim’s father wins defamation suit; Alex Jones sanctioned. Retrieved July 09, 2019.
  41. Rose, M., & Lagrange, C. (2018). French police arrest over 100 after Halloween ‘Purge’ night riots. Retrieved November 16, 2018.
  42. Rose-Redwood, R. S. (2006). Governmentality, geography, and the geo-coded world. Progress in Human Geography, 30(4), 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sarkar, M. G. R. (2015). Impact of Whatsapp messenger on the university level students: A sociological study. International Journal of Natural and Social Science, 2(4), 118–125.Google Scholar
  44. Schmidt, M., & Weiser, P. (2012). Web mapping services: Development and trends. In M. Peterson (Ed.), Online maps with APIs and WebServices (pp. 13–21). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schoffstall, C. L., & Cohen, R. (2011). Cyber aggression: The relation between online offenders and offline social competence. Social Development, 20(3), 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schuurman, N. (2000). Trouble in the heartland: GIS and its critics in the 1990s. Progress in Human Geography, 24(4), 569–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seidl, D. E., Paulus, G., Jankowski, P., & Regenfelder, M. (2015). Spatial obfuscation methods for privacy protection of household-level data. Applied Geography, 63, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seto, T. (2011). Spatiotemporal transition of volunteered geographic information as a response to crisis: A case study of the crisis mapping project at the time of Great East Japan Earthquake. In Papers and proceedings of the geographic information systems association (Vol. 20, B-2-4).Google Scholar
  49. Shilton, K. (2009). Four billion little brothers?: Privacy, mobile phones, and ubiquitous data collection. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Suzuki, K. (2018). A newly emerging ethical problem in PGIS—Ubiquitous atoque absconditus and casual offenders for pleasure. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on geographical information systems theory, applications and management (pp. 22–27).Google Scholar
  54. Suzuki, K. (2019a). Caveat emptor: A new form of participatory mapping and its ethical implication on PGIS. In Proceedings in cartography and GIScience of the international cartographic association (Vol. 2, No. 126). Retrieved July 11, 2019.
  55. Suzuki, K. (2019b). The emergence of geovigilantes and geographic information ethics in the Web 2.0 era. In L. Ragia, C. Grueau & R. Laurini (Eds.), Geographicinformation systems theory, applications and management: CCIS1061 (pp. 55–72). Swizerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swanlund, D., & Schuurman, N. (2018a). Second generation biometrics and the future of geosurveillance: A minority report on FAST. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 17(4), 920–938.Google Scholar
  57. Swanlund, D., & Schuurman, N. (2018b). Resisting geosurveillance: A survey of tactics and strategies for spatial privacy. Progress in Human Geography, 43(4), 596–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Trottier, D. (2017). Digital vigilantism as weaponisation of visibility. Philosophy & Technology, 30(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tulley, C. (2011). IText reconfigured: The rise of the podcast. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 25(3), 256–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vegh, S. (2003). Classifying forms of online activism: The case of cyberprotests against the World Bank. In M. McCaughey & A. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice (pp. 71–95). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Vlavo, F. (2012). ‘Click Here to Protest’ Electronic civil disobedience and the imaginaire of virtual activism. In H. Breslow & A. Mousoutzanis (Eds.), Cybercultures: Mediations of community, culture, politics (pp. 125–148). Amsterdam: Rodopi Press.Google Scholar
  62. Whitaker, R. (1999). The end of privacy: How total surveillance is becoming a reality. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Ybarra, M. L. (2008). Online “predators” and their victims: Myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 63(2), 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wright, D. J., Goodchild, M. F., & Proctor, J. D. (1997). GIS: Tool or science? Demystifying the persistent ambiguity of GIS as “Tool” versus “Science”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87(2), 346–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. YC. (2018). « Purge » : Violents incidents au centre-ville de Lyon et dans plusieurs communes voisines. Retrieved November 18, 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of ToyamaToyamaJapan

Personalised recommendations