Smart Cities as Surveillance Theatre

Abstract

In this opinion piece, we challenge the dominating view that surveillance in smart cities is driven by surveillance capitalism alone. Whilst this literature unpicks important factors and trends, we argue that a focus on surveillance capitalism as a sole driver risks ignoring the more intricate realities of surveillance assemblages. They are often propelled by many different desires and power relations (Haggerty and Ericson 2000). We argue for a more nuanced analysis of the drivers instead, taking into account practices in other countries beyond the United States and the United Kingdom. We argue that much of the existent research skews the picture due to inherent bias, and seldom observed drivers are revealed when smart city developments in different countries such as Belgium and Brazil are considered. We suggest that what we call “surveillance theatre,” the performative uses of surveillance that characterize security discourses, is an overlooked yet important driver of smart city development. Such a driver is particularly evident when it comes to security discourses.

The effect of the pandemic on European narratives on smart cities and surveillance

“…Similarly, the crucial argument for fast-tracking smart solutions relates to the need for securing the competitiveness of the EU in the global technological rivalry rather than increasing citizens’ well-being or safeguarding the democratic transparency of the introduced innovations. This exemplifies Melgaço and Van Brakel’s (2021) concept of smart cities as surveillance theatres in which power relations play an important role.…”

“… Jirón et al (2021) point out that smart-city transitions often focus on creating the narrative of vaguely defined future benefits instead of quick fixes to the existing issues. For example, Melgaço and Van Brakel (2021) compare investment in mass surveillance to a theatre in which politicians play the role of crime fighters, while not being exactly interested in the effects of implemented solutions.…”

“…The critics point out that the urban smartness trend can easily lead to technocracy, making our cities more efficient and modern but less liveable, at least for those digitally excluded (Norris 2001;Dean 2017). For example, Melgaço and van Brakel (2021) compare investment in mass surveillance to a theatre in which politicians just play the role of crime fighters, while not being exactly interested in the effects of implemented solutions. Moreover, Jirón et al (2021) suggest that sometimes smart city transitions take the form of creating the narrative of possible vaguely defined future benefits instead of promised quick fixes to the existing issues.…”

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).…”