Smart Cities as “Big Brother Only to the Masses”: The Limits of Personal Privacy and Personal Surveillance

Abstract

Smart city projects in Europe and North America are employing a novel approach to data analysis that processes hardly any or no personal data at all. As such, these projects—at least, for the most part—escape the scope of (European) data protection law. The idea behind this new approach to smartness can be condensed in the statement: “smart cities are only Big Brother to the masses.” In other words, if the data collected within smart city projects do not identify any individuals, then there are no issues with privacy and data protection law. This problematic assumption relies on two reductive understandings of key notions in this context: that of “personal privacy” and “personal surveillance.” In this contribution, I focus on the latter and call for a broader understanding of surveillance as a set of diverse modes of social control by privacy law scholars. After all, in order to reveal the underlying dynamics of power and how these might lead to surveillance abuse—even, or especially, when surveillance is based on the processing of seemingly non-personal data—concrete surveillance practices and their logics need to be examined. For this purpose, I take the example of the Stratumseind Living Lab in the Netherlands and examine it through the lens of Foucault’s notion of security. This examination leads to two valuable insights for privacy and data protection law scholars. First of all, it strengthens the argument of contemporary group privacy scholars that a narrow focus on individual privacy and surveillance is inadequate and that the regulatory framework needs to be adapted. The second insight raises another broad issue: smart cities, which function according to the securitizing logic of surveillance, such as the Stratumseind Living Lab, are transforming public spaces into consumption spaces. Yet, the protection of privacy in public can and should serve to protect key aspects of public space—political participation and sociability—as well.

Algorithm, Aphorism, and Alternatives

“…For instance, substantial evidence has been proffered showing how survey analysis and search engine optimizations disproportionately targets different individuals and groups ostensibly automating racial and economic inequality under the guise of the neutral ubiquity of algorithmic processes (Eubanks, 2018;Krupiy, 2015;Noble, 2018;O'Neil, 2016). Additionally, the advent of "smart cities" wherein the infrastructure has been transformed into a monitoring device creates "surveillance cities" transforming public living spaces into spaces of consumption (Galic, 2022;McLoed Rogers, 2021;Melgaco & van Brakel, 2021;Wood, 2015).…”

Smart cities and cumulative effects on fundamental rights

“…When projects process personal data, there is an encroachment on the right to data protection (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, 2021). When local authorities or private entities track individuals in city spaces, they interfere with their right to privacy (Galič, 2019). Biased data and algorithms pose risks for discrimination (Cofone, 2019;Zuiderveen Borgesius, 2020).…”

“…The interface of pervasive digital technologies, urban spaces and local governance that is unique to the smart city context may particularly affect spatially grounded and socio-economic rights. The former denotes rights whose enjoyment is closely linked to the use of public space, such as freedom of assembly and association, freedom of expression, freedom of movement and action in city spaces (Koops & Galič, 2017), which can be compromised by projects tracking or nudging citizens as they go about their daily lives in cities (Galič, 2019). The latter call us to think of local authorities' important role in realising socio-economic rights by providing public services linked to education, housing, health and other forms of social welfare.…”

Introduction: Privacy Studies, Surveillance Law

“…Third, Maša Galič (2022) concretizes much of the shortcomings also underscored by Austin and Susser by focusing on so-called "smart cities." Galič notes that such cities-urban areas where data is collected through public-private partnerships from myriad sources, including individuals and their devices, and then used to govern resources and space-are often defended as legitimate because they, purportedly, do not identify individuals.…”