Smart City as Safe City: From False Social Promises to True Surveillance and Discrimination

ABSTRACT Dubai, Singapore, Sydney, Amsterdam, Barcelona, and Toronto all exemplify the trend of developing into §§§§smart cities§§§§ - urban areas that leverage information and communication technologies to improve quality of life and promote sustainable development. While definitions vary, smart cities are generally seen as combining technological, human, and institutional dimensions to address urban challenges through innovation, efficiency, and citizen participation. However, after an initial wave of enthusiasm in the early 2010s, interest in smart city projects has waned due to high costs, limited effectiveness, and implementation difficulties, often falling short of citizens’ expectations. As a result, many initiatives have been scaled back or abandoned. Meanwhile, surveillance and security technologies have become the dominant - though narrower - application of smart city tools, shifting the focus toward “safe cities” and prompting critical reflections on the social impacts of such technologies, particularly on vulnerable populations.

KEYWORDS Smart city, safe city - AI and surveillance - Surveillance in public space - Women and Surveillance

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction. – 2. Paradigm Shift: from the Concept of Smart City to Safe City. – 2.1. Smart Cities as Data Cities and Infrastructure Cities. – 2.2. Smart city as Surveillance City. – 2.3. Inherent Potential of Surveillance. – 2.4. Safe City as Smart City: Marketing for a Better Social Acceptability. – 3. Impact on Citizens: A Need for Transparency and Inclusivity of the “Smart Safe City”. – 3.1. Impact on Citizens: Challenges to Democracy and Human Rights. – 3.2. A Need for More Policies, Transparency and Inclusivity. – 3.3. Impact on Women: Gendering the Smart city. – 4. Conclusion: Lessons Learned.