Visit us at:
Smart cities promise efficiency, sustainability, and an unprecedented level of connectivity.
However, its growth has given rise to a disturbing paradox: the more technology is implemented to improve urban life, the more vulnerable citizens become to surveillance, data theft and the misuse of their information.
The mirage of technological efficiency
By: Gabriel E. Levy B.
Cities have been laboratories of innovation since their origin.
In classical Greece, the agora served as a space for the exchange of ideas, while in the Renaissance, the streets of Florence became nodes of commerce and culture.
Today, metropolises are moving towards total digitalization with sensor systems, surveillance cameras, 5G networks and predictive algorithms that monitor everything from traffic to consumption patterns.
The concept of the smart city began to take shape in the 1990s, when large tech corporations, such as IBM and Cisco, saw urbanization as fertile ground for data integration.
In 2008, IBM launched its “Smarter Cities” initiative, promoting the use of Big Data to optimize urban services.
Subsequently, governments around the world adopted this model, from Singapore to Barcelona, promoting projects that use artificial intelligence and data analytics to improve mobility, security and resource management.
However, this development has generated a new kind of concern: who controls this data? For what purposes are they used? What are the limits of state and corporate surveillance? As the philosopher Byung-Chul Han warns, contemporary society has moved from a model of discipline to one of absolute transparency, where citizens, without realizing it, offer their information in exchange for comfort and efficiency.
Cities that police: the fine line between security and control
The development of smart cities has been accompanied by a boom in the use of mass surveillance technologies.
In China, the social credit system, based on the collection and analysis of citizen data, has generated a global debate about the limits of state control. The streets of Beijing and Shanghai are equipped with facial recognition cameras capable of identifying individuals in a matter of seconds, while in cities such as London and New York, the use of similar technologies has been justified as a tool to fight crime.
The problem is that these technologies not only collect data on illicit activities, but also on daily habits, consumption preferences, and interpersonal relationships. According to Shoshana Zuboff, author of The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, data is not just records of reality, but has become a commodity exploited by companies and governments for commercial and political purposes.
This model of data mining, Zuboff argues, poses a risk to individual autonomy and democracy itself.
In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed the existence of PRISM, a global surveillance program run by the NSA, which collected information from millions of citizens without their consent.
While these government spying programs sparked global outrage, little has changed since then. Today, smart cities have multiplied the amount of data available for analysis, often without clear regulations on its storage and use.
The regulatory dilemma: who protects the digital citizen?
Despite the exponential growth of Big Data in urban environments, legislation on its use remains diffuse and uneven in the world. The European Union has taken the lead with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which obliges companies and governments to guarantee the right of citizens to control their personal information. However, in other regions, such as Latin America and Asia, regulation is progressing more slowly, allowing private companies and governments to accumulate data without effective oversight mechanisms.
A clear example of this lack of regulation is the case of Sidewalk Labs, a Google subsidiary that in 2017 proposed turning a Toronto district into a smart city based on the massive collection of urban data.
The project was canceled in 2020 after a wave of criticism for the lack of transparency in the handling of citizens’ information.
The case reflected fears that tech companies will act as parallel states, managing urban infrastructure without clear accountability.
The lack of unified regulations leaves citizens in a situation of vulnerability. While technological advances offer improvements in transportation, health, and safety, they also open the door to abuses of power.
Philosopher Judith Butler warns that control of information is not just a matter of privacy, but of political power: those who own the data have the ability to influence public narratives, decision-making, and social behavior.
Examples of smart cities and their challenges
The case of Singapore is emblematic. Considered one of the most advanced cities in terms of urban technology, its government has implemented a comprehensive surveillance system with sensors that monitor air quality, traffic, and citizen behavior.
While this infrastructure has allowed for efficient management of resources, it has also generated criticism for the high level of state control over the population.
Another interesting case is that of Barcelona, which has adopted a more focused approach on data sovereignty.
Through the DECODE project, the city has developed an infrastructure that allows citizens to decide what information they share and with whom. This initiative seeks to balance technological efficiency with the right to privacy, offering an alternative model to centralized data control.
On the other hand, in cities like San Francisco, the use of facial recognition in public spaces was banned in 2019 due to civil rights concerns.
This move reflects the growing awareness of the dangers of uncontrolled surveillance, in a context where data has become a more valuable asset than oil.
In conclusion
Smart cities represent the future of urban life, but they also pose profound dilemmas about privacy and control of information. The protection of Big Data is not only a technological issue, but an ethical and regulatory challenge that requires a balance between innovation and fundamental rights.
In a world where data is power, the key question remains: who has the right to decide on our information?
