The Toronto project drew intense media scrutiny, inspired a bestselling book and informed a Harvard Business School case study. Yet the big questions raised, about the privacy tradeoffs of the digitally connected city, seemed to go quiet as soon as one of the world’s largest companies ceased to raise them so publicly.
This is unfortunate because the underlying questions about how city leaders should balance the benefits and risks of digital transformation have not gone away since the fall of the Toronto project. If anything, the landscape has only gotten more complex, dispersed and high-stakes.
There are now more digitally enabled services producing more usable information than ever. New mobility services, connected vehicles and on-demand deliveries track the movements of people and goods across cities. An explosion of video cameras, license plate readers, drones and biometric tools monitor public spaces and promise better safety and enforcement. Sensor networks optimize services by capturing endless data streams on peoples’ health, energy use, parking and more.
The benefits of all this innovation are real. Consumers get more and better choices, convenience, safety and savings. Local governments get better services, delivered more efficiently for residents.
But the privacy risks have grown bigger, too. For example, granular data allows your Uber driver to find you, but it also leaves a trail of your comings and goings. While it’s common for services to anonymize this data they report to cities, it’s also possible to combine other data sources to “re-identify” individuals — the more precise the data is, the bigger the risk. And the explosion of generative AI only makes it easier to scan and manipulate vast amounts of this information.
While I believe the tradeoffs involved are more positive than negative, there are a few things that city leaders — as permitters, regulators, purchasers and users of technology — need to keep in mind as they try to keep up with this fast-changing field.
First, city officials must get smarter about evolving technologies’ benefits and risks. It’s critical to have knowledgeable staff or trusted advisers who understand industry innovations in the ways data is being captured, used and shared. It’s also important to regularly audit the different municipal technology touchpoints and continually evaluate the tradeoffs. Staff training must address the reality that many municipal workers are already using AI tools and emphasize safe and secure experimentation. Meanwhile, assigning responsibilities to people in each agency that impacts AI usage, such as a chief data officer, procurement official or legal adviser, can help cities keep up with the cutting edge.
Second, municipal leaders need to set clear policies for external partners. While policies that control usage, privacy and fairness are still necessary when cities build tech in-house, it’s even more important when a mix of public and private players is involved. Clear rules are needed about what regulated parties like ride-sharing services or contracted parties like trash haulers must submit to regulators and in what form. Officials should set clear rules about what data is being collected wherever a third party receives a franchise to use a public easement or when tech projects involve developing real estate, as Sidewalk intended to do in Toronto. Guidelines should include parameters relating to anonymity, retention, commercialization and data ownership.
Finally, transparency is a must. Rules around data collection and use need to be published on cities’ websites and updated regularly. Some cities have tried going a step further by, for example, offering pedestrians QR codes they can scan to learn more about how a video camera above them is being used. Whether in real life or online, however, notions of “informed consent” are insufficient because the privacy tradeoffs are unclear to people. After all, less than 1 in 10 people read disclosures or privacy policies before clicking “agree.” Municipalities must be active negotiators on the terms and conditions that affect their residents, whether riding in a rideshare or walking down the street.
While the press and the general public quickly moved on from what critics viewed as Sidewalk Labs’ failure in Toronto, the real failure was thinking that was the end of the story. When it comes to balancing technology’s benefits and risks in urban environments, the story is just getting started, and local leaders need to keep up with it.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
Related Articles
