“Smart cities and the politics of urban data,” Smart Urbanism: Utopian Vision or False Dawn
To be smart that is to act with wisdom one requires knowledge, which is dependent on information, which is extracted from data.
Where data itself is a process of constraints and choices, and cannot be seen as neutral but as situated, contingent, relational and framed, the process of data analysis is much more complex.
Q) The relationship of smartness, wisdom, knowledge, information and data is a complex process. The transition of data to wisdom to smartness is not a straightforward mathematical computation and thus it is crucial to understand, who are the entities that process this data to transition it from information to knowledge? What are the parameters that define this transition? What is the framework for the same and who controls, monitors, participates or contributes to the functioning mechanisms of this framework?
Panoptic surveillance, predictive profiling, and social sorting.
The fear is that, far from being a liberatory and empowering development, smart cities may lead to highly controlling and unequal societies in which the rights of privacy, confidentiality, freedom of expression and life chances are restricted.
Q) If this happens to be a right speculation for the smart city vision, it is important to understand the role of citizens in this scenario. Will this shift be so subtle leaving citizens unable to realize it or will it be imposed in a sudden explicit format? Will there be a resistance from the citizens or will it leave them unable to identify the transition until it becomes unavoidable to reject?
Facts are produced, not simply measured.
Q) The context in which big data is collected, analyzed and presented defines the decision-making. Who are the power structures that define this process of gathering data, marking for data analysis and the format for data presentation? What would be the new strategies crafted around these facts? What form of governance will it give rise to?