Advocates for smart cities promise a future in which urban areas become more efficient, sustainable, and livable by integrating technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), and data analytics into urban infrastructure. These advances aim to streamline operations, from traffic management to energy metering, making daily life smoother and more environmentally friendly. Yet beneath these promises lurks the potential for a dystopian nightmare.
At the core of a smart city lies a network of interconnected devices that continuously collect and share data. Sensors embedded in streetlights, public transportation, waste bins, and even wearable devices gather vast amounts of information about citizens’ activities, movements, and behaviors. This data is then analyzed in real time to optimize city operations, improve services, and predict trends.
For example, traffic management systems can monitor vehicle flow to adjust signal patterns in real time, while environmental sensors track air quality providing up-to-date information. In theory, these innovations yield more efficient cities where resources are better allocated, and services are more accessible. However, the sheer volume of personal data generated in these environments raises significant concerns.
One immediate issue is the extent of surveillance inherent in smart cities. Technologies such as facial recognition, smart cameras, and location tracking are increasingly deployed in public spaces to monitor security threats, traffic violations, and criminal activity. While often touted as tools to enhance safety, these tools also enable pervasive monitoring of individuals, prompting critics to denounce them as a breach of privacy. The ability to track every movement and identify individuals in real time poses profound ethical questions.
Data ownership and control also lie at the heart of privacy concerns in smart cities. As citizens navigate these environments, they inevitably generate data that could reveal intimate details about their behavior, habits, and preferences. Yet it remains unclear who owns this data, how it is used, and who has access to it.
In many cases, data collected by smart city surveillance systems are stored and processed by private companies. The lack of transparency about how these companies use the data — whether for commercial purposes or other ends — can foster distrust. Moreover, these corporations may share the data with governments or third-party organizations, often without the explicit consent of individuals.
higher error rates for people of color, while predictive policing algorithms have been criticized for reinforcing racial biases.
Regulating smart city technologies poses another major challenge. As smart cities evolve, many existing laws and regulations struggle to keep pace with technological advancements. Without clear guidelines, data privacy protections remain inadequate. Currently, no global standard exists for regulating privacy in smart cities.
Real-World Examples: Dangers of Smart City Tools
While these concerns may be largely theoretical in the United States, China’s use of such technologies exemplifies how digital surveillance can be misused at the expense of its citizens.
China has been a police state for decades; however, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under President Xi Jinping tightened its grip with surveillance technologies following the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre and again after the 2008 Beijing Olympics. As reported by the New York Times, China operates as a “digital totalitarian state” using surveillance technology to more effectively enforce its social credit system.
Accordingly, China has built a network of dystopian smart cities that rely on widespread use of facial recognition technology, nationwide CCTV coverage, and censorship both online and offline. The system tracks everything from political affiliations and debt payments to jaywalking. The CCP uses smart technologies to
“…help police grab the identities of people as they walk down the street, find out who they are meeting with and identify who does and doesn’t belong to the Communist Party.”
“Each person’s data forms a trail,” said Agnes Ouyang (a Chinese citizen who was ticketed for jaywalking), “It can be used by the government and it can be used by bosses at the big companies to track us. Our lives are worth about as much as dirt.”
In Xinjiang, a region “home to many predominantly Muslim ethnic groups… police have blanketed the region in cameras, phone trackers and sensor-studded checkpoints,” according to the Times.
During the pandemic, the CCP’s use of smart technology became a shackle, a digital cuff enabling the collection of biometric data. Xi’s system functioned as a “traffic light system: red for no-go zones or to indicate an individual does not have permission to move. Green meant you were free to move about based on whether you have been tested, or whether you knew the right authorities.”
International NGOs Operating in the U.S. Promote Smart Cities
In the United States, progressive NGOs play a pivotal role in advancing the smart-city agenda, framing it as a solution to the climate crisis. Organizations such as Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) and the C40 Climate Leadership Group are leading advocates for these technologies. Both receive government funding, with ICLEI reportedly depending on taxpayer dollars for a significant portion of its budget.
Established in 1990 under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), ICLEI has collaborated closely with the UN to promote smart city development. ICLEI co-organized the 2025 Kaohsiung Smart City Summit to showcase innovative urban solutions. ICLEI also advanced policies aligned with Agenda 21, a non-binding UN framework from 1992 focused on sustainable development.
A notable example of ICLEI’s influence is its appointment of Hoboken, New Jersey, Mayor Ravi Bhalla to its USA Board of Directors in 2023, citing his role in ensuring “that local climate initiatives have transformative effects on a national and global scale.” During a 2023 UN meeting, Bhalla stated that he views his community “through the lens of resilience and environmental justice.” But what does this vision of “transformation” mean in practice, particularly when weighed against constitutional principles such as individual liberty and privacy?
Similarly, C40, a global network of nearly 100 mayors from major cities, includes 14 U.S. cities. Supported by a mix of taxpayer money and private donors, such as Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Open Society Foundations, C40 drives climate-focused urban policies. In 2019, it partnered with Smart Cities New York to explore how advanced technology can foster climate-friendly practices. In New York City, C40’s Private Building Efficiency Network employs smart metering and automation to curb energy use. Could such systems, however, be repurposed to restrict utilities — say, cutting off power — as a penalty for political dissent or non-compliance with state directives? Likewise, C40’s transportation initiatives in Los Angeles use real-time data to optimize public transit. What prevents authorities from leveraging this data to control where citizens go and when?
While these climate-driven initiatives are touted as solutions to environmental challenges, they increasingly blur the line between sustainability and surveillance. Smart systems could potentially be used to punish individuals for behaviors deemed undesirable. What begins as an eco-friendly, efficiency-driven program could eventually evolve into a tool for monitoring and control, as demonstrated in China.
Image: Pixabay
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.