What’s not to like about a smart city? In the municipal context, “smart” implies efficient, convenient, responsive and seamlessly coordinated. Some even dare to hope a smarter city and its magical efficiencies would deliver long-term financial savings and lower taxes. Enthusiasm about these potential benefits is strong enough that, as recently as the spring of 2015, almost three-quarters of GTA residents preferred local government investment in smart city technology over traditional infrastructure.
Since that time, however, many residents’ calculus has changed. For one thing, traditional infrastructure seems to be a more urgent priority as our existing equipment heaves under a growing population – and as the battering effects of climate change loom. As for smart city technology, residents have cooled on the prospect as their concerns about data privacy have deepened.
The smart city debate has been particularly intense in the City of Toronto, where the tri-government agency Waterfront Toronto is in negotiations with Sidewalk Labs, a Google sister company, about the prospect of designing and implementing a “smart” neighbourhood on Toronto’s eastern waterfront. This futuristic neighbourhood would be equipped with a variety of sensors and cutting-edge digital equipment to ease movement, troubleshoot problems, and support planning and operations. Local politicians, interest groups and privacy experts have voiced concerns about the lack of clarity around how data collected through the neighbourhood’s smart technologies will be protected. Most recently, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner has criticized the project’s proposed data management framework for lacking necessary assurances.
