By Carrie Storms

The 15-minute SMART city concept is gaining traction in Canada, with several cities like Edmonton, Alberta exploring its implementation as part of their efforts to create more livable, sustainable, and equitable communities where everything you need like entertainment, groceries, schools, work, banking, recreation, retail etc. is within 15 minutes walking distance of your home. Edmonton proposes that these initiatives can help to address many of the complex challenges facing urban areas today. By using data and technology to optimize urban systems, SMART cities, they say, can help to reduce traffic congestion, minimize energy consumption, and improve public safety, and improve resident’s overall quality of life, but at what cost?

I detect a political sleight-of-hand with city planners, the mayor, and politicians dancing around direct questions from those who oppose the 15-minute SMART city plan for Edmonton.

There are several privacy concerns regarding SMART cities, as they rely heavily on the collection, analysis, and use of data from various sources, including sensors, cameras, and other surveillance technologies. But I am getting ahead of myself here. I think it is best to first describe what SMART stands for. The term SMART is an acronym that stands for “Self-Monitoring Analysis and Reporting Technology”. So, what does that mean in the context of 15-minute SMART cities? SMART cities are being met with controversy and criticism, particularly around issues of privacy, surveillance, and control. SMART city technologies often rely on extensive data collection and analysis, which can raise questions about who has access to this data and how it is being used.

Many opponents are concerned that SMART cities could be used to enforce social and political control and suspend civil liberties, akin to what we have seen and experienced during the Covid lockdowns and restrictions. One major concern is the potential for mass surveillance of residents, as the collection of large amounts of personal data can be used to track individuals’ movements and behavior much like what the Public Health Agency of Canada did to 33 million Canadians via their cellphones with the assistance of TELUS Communications in 2021.

This can lead to a loss of privacy, the undermining of civil liberties, and government overreach. We only need to reflect on the past couple years to understand the opposition’s concern that the use of surveillance technologies in SMART cities could potentially be abused by governments or other entities to restrict the movement and activities of residents. The use of surveillance technologies has been criticized in other countries as contributing to the creation of “surveillance states” or “police states” where citizens are closely monitored and restricted in their actions. China is an excellent example of Edmontonian’s fears brought to life.

In China, the government implemented a social credit system that uses data from various sources, including surveillance cameras and social media, to assign citizens a score based on their behavior. This system has been criticized as a form of mass surveillance that is used to control and punish citizens who do not conform to government expectations. Once the infrastructure is in place, it becomes easy to abuse and misuse and given the revelation of China meddling in the last two Canadian elections, I dare say asking citizens to trust the government with such power and control over our communities, is a big ask.

Another concern is the security of the data collected, as it may be vulnerable to hacking or other cyber threats. This could lead to sensitive personal information being exposed or stolen, potentially putting individuals at risk. The use of data analytics and machine learning algorithms in SMART cities may also reinforce existing biases or perpetuate discrimination, as the algorithms may make decisions based on incomplete or biased data. Finally, there is a concern that the data collected may be used for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended, such as for targeted advertising or law enforcement purposes, without the explicit consent of residents. What is the city of Edmonton doing to prioritize privacy and security and ensure that residents are informed about how their data is being collected, used, and protected? What legal and ethical frameworks are in place to govern the use of data in SMART cities?

Given these controversies, the development of SMART cities must be approached with caution and careful consideration. While these initiatives hold promise for addressing some urban challenges, they come at a personal price and we must be vigilant in protecting the rights and interests of residents and citizens. If we cannot stop the transition to 15-minute cities, then we need the implementation of SMART cities to be guided by principles of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties.