Are We Overselling “Smart Cities”?
Headlines can’t get enough of smart cities, but are they worth the enormous trade-offs for our digital rights?
We’ve all seen the sleek and modern renderings of future “smart cities” adorning tech websites and magazine features. These images are architectural visions, made up of undulating skyscrapers, rooftop parks and self-driving cars running on trafficless roads. Sometimes there are even flying saucers, or giant drones, gliding through the clear, pollutant-free skies.
Headlines can’t seem to get enough of these “smart cities”. They are presented as the catch-all solution to the unsustainability of dense, smoggy urban centres, thanks to built-in digital technologies maximising the efficiency of everything from bins to streetlamps. But can so-called smart cities live up to the hype — especially given the enormous trade offs they present to our digital rights?
Cities are problematic. Inconceivable numbers of people across the world inhabit them: take São Paulo, Brazil, with its population of 21 million, or Delhi, India, with its 28 million.
Crowding is endemic, air pollution kills millions every year, and cities are, in turn, destroying the environment: urban areas consume two thirds of the world’s energy and generate over 70 per cent of global CO2 emissions.
Smart cities entail a multitude of what were, until recently, futuristic fantasies: self-driving cars, bins that can send emails, and even talking toasters
Regularly pitched as the answer to these intractable problems are “smart cities”. Smart cities entail a multitude of what were, until recently, futuristic fantasies: self-driving cars, bins that can send emails, and even talking toasters. The idea is that, through automation, we can make life more efficient, cutting back on energy waste — think motion-activated streetlights or smart gas meters in your home — and gathering greater insight into people’s behaviours in order to optimise society across the board.
But there are predictable dark sides to this vision. Many digital rights activists have dubbed smart cities “surveillance cities” due to the staggering amount of data collection they involve.
“When everything you do in an environment is collected, measured, and stored — what does that mean for your freedoms, personal expression, and sense of personal safety?” asks Tarun Wadhwa, author of Identified: The Digital Transformation of Who We Are.
“In Shenzen, for example, if a person jaywalks on certain streets they will be identified with facial recognition and then receive a ticket to their WeChat account and may also have their face shown on a billboard nearby,” says Wadhwa. “That seems like an extremely high price to pay in the form of social shaming and removing layers of our justice system in order to achieve a small gain, more orderly street passings.”
Who could get their hands on the data collected is also a critical issue.
Companies that place cameras and sensors on Wi-Fi kiosks, trash cans and streetlights will gain what had been unattainable insights about the behaviour of individuals
“The smart city is also a dream come true for companies eager to increase the scale and scope of data they collect about the public,” says Ben Green, author of The Smart Enough City.
“Companies that place cameras and sensors on Wi-Fi kiosks, trash cans and streetlights will gain what had been unattainable insights about the behaviour of individuals.”
Not only that, but the risks of cyberattacks and hacking are growing in tow with the expansion of these “smart” solutions.
A s for the rewards we expect to reap from smart cities: these are not shared equally across a society. As is often the case, it is marginalised groups that are most susceptible to the failures of supposedly “smart” technology.
“They [digital technologies] exacerbate the existing tensions and power structures in a powerful way — technology can automate oppression and encode the worst impulses or fears of a society,” explains Wadhwa.
As it stands, poor areas are already subject to greater surveillance than wealthier ones. This means that those who are already disadvantaged by our society are disproportionately bearing the burdens of this brave new world.
This means that those who are already disadvantaged by our society are disproportionately bearing the burdens of this brave new world
But even if we put aside the many — and serious — drawbacks of expanding surveillance infrastructure, data collection and algorithmic decision-making, can smart technologies achieve what we need them to do? Or is the truly “smart city” a mere pipe dream?
“Smart city efforts are never able to accomplish the lofty goals set out for them,” says Green. “The technology is almost always over-hyped and over-sold as being able to solve incredibly complex social and institutional challenges.”
As is typical when technology is marketed as a silver bullet to society’s problems, people repeatedly overlook technology’s many limitations. Green has witnessed this phenomenon firsthand. “As I worked on various efforts to use technology to improve urban policy and urban life, I found that the biggest challenges were political and institutional, rather than technological,” he says.
“Across policy areas ranging from mobility to civic engagement to policing, I saw how projects conceived of existing problems as technology problems, and in turn overemphasised the role of technology in producing social reform.”
As commentators have noted again and again, technology is simply no substitute for good governance. “Use technology where appropriate, but prioritise the social impacts of reform,” Green advises.
Despite the accompanying concerns, many decision-makers are powering full-steam ahead with developing “smarter” cities. For many local politicians, implementing a new smart technology is an automatic boost to their public image. So, as smart technologies infiltrate more and more of our daily lives, how can we prevent them from overstepping the line?
For many local politicians, implementing a new smart technology is an automatic boost to their public image
“Public resistance is the primary tool at our immediate disposal for combatting smart cities,” says Green. “These efforts have led to new laws that ban or oversee surveillance technologies as well as some projects being abandoned altogether.”
“We also need broader regulation to curb the power of tech companies and provide greater privacy protections.”
