When the personal computer revolution started, it was inevitable that the new, clunky technology being created would some day find its way outside the home. As electronic devices shrunk in size, their relative importance grew since they could now proliferate into all aspects of our lives.

Today, cities are exploring incorporating new technologies to make themselves “smarter” and more capable in responding to public challenges. Everyone wants their public officials to have all the information needed to make well-informed policy decisions but not so much information that it threatens civil liberties. These public officials are tasked with maintaining and improving their transportation management systems, utility monitoring and control, and increasing public safety while also improving emergency response.

To do this, cities are getting smarter. Smart cities are municipalities that are employing networked sensors and cameras to gather the data they need to improve everything from rush hour traffic to delivering electricity. These sensors and cameras are part of the internet of things (IoT) to give officials real-time information to make better informed decisions for transportation policy, utility management and public safety.

Current Efforts by Smart Cities

Cities across the United States and around the world are deploying new technologies to address contemporary issues like traffic signals that change based on current congestion, utility grids that rebalance load due to present demand, and cameras that can use predictive intelligence to identify public safety issues before someone gets hurt. Traffic signals that adapt to congestion patterns help improve their resident’s lives by reducing time spent sitting in traffic. This can also benefit urban residents by decreasing the amount of pollution from cars waiting for inefficient light signals to change. The goal here is to effectively distribute resources on where they are needed most at any given time and so cities are using IoT as their “eyes and ears” to help them understand their municipalities’ current needs.

Existing Framework

While cities try to find new solutions to age-old problems, they are operating under a patchwork of existing laws. The Fourth Amendment, Electronic Communications Protection Act and the California Consumer Privacy Act are part of a framework that place limits on cities looking to gather additional data, not to mention local and cybersecurity regulations. Taken together, these legal regimes offer, at best, little guidance on proper deployment and use of smart technology, or, at worst, conflicting obligations on municipalities trying to improve their citizens’ lives.

This is an inadequate system. As daily life becomes more complex and cities have a harder time addressing public needs, public officials run up against the limit that their current information and knowledge can provide. This means they need more information to make better choices. On the other hand, the integration of new sensors and cameras into public life creates unprecedented risks to civil liberties.

For example, New York City has repurposed old phone booths into public Wi-Fi hotspots. This benefits its citizens by giving everyone high-speed internet access, even those who may not be able to afford monthly internet plans. However, this potentially also allows the police to map a person’s movements throughout the day as they move from one hotspot to another if they can identify unique devices connecting to the hotspot and connect those devices with a person.

Key Smart Technologies and Their Risks

Cities can benefit enormously from deploying smart technology to alleviate public problems. But the data also comes with potential risks. London’s famous CCTV system was recently expanded to the London Underground where AI systems are now being used to help detect potential crimes, fare dodgers and when people fall onto the tracks. These scenarios can provide valuable insight in a world where it’s impossible to put a police officer at every turnstile and platform. However, they also risk ever-present tracking of citizens or police intervention in tame interactions because the AI improperly saw danger when there was none.

Beyond CCTV, the United Kingdom (U.K.) is also using live facial recognition (LFR) technology in public areas to find people wanted by the police. In March 2024, this led to the arrest of 17 people in South London for mostly minor offenses. Program critics decry the use of face-scanning technology as it will inevitably scan the faces of countless innocents who have done nothing wrong all in the name of catching mostly petty criminals.

Moreover, other cities are focusing on utility management, such as Amsterdam which uses smart energy meters to track household electricity use and Tokyo using AI to detect leaks in water pipes. These tools seem more innocuous than other technologies but the information they gather can tell you enormous amounts about when a person is home and even what types of devices they use just based on consumption.

Privacy Concerns

The omnipresent use of sensors and cameras in public areas can create a chilling-effect on their citizens. Given the basic notion that there is no privacy in public, privacy-minded citizens may self-isolate from certain public arenas out of a fear of surveillance. Where before, people could obtain anonymity in public by blending in with the crowd, the use of these new technologies risks being able to identify specific individuals no matter where they are.

Tracking an individual’s location can tell you a great deal about them. What inferences can we draw about a man who visits a community center every Wednesday that also hosts Wednesday night AA meetings? What do we know about a woman who visits her OBGYN every week over a one- or two-month period? Or what can we tell about a person who is in the same location every night from 8 p.m.-6 a.m. every day?

While cities can benefit from location data to understand movement patterns and resource deployment, there are certainly risks to individuals, as well.

The New Framework

As cities move into the “smart” era, key components need re-evaluation as public officials and citizens try to find a harmonious path that balances public policy concerns with privacy ones. Cities should ensure as they consider and implement new smart technologies to get buy-in from its citizens and establish a transparent process that alleviates privacy concerns.

This means that officials considering these smart technologies should put privacy at the forefront and not make it an afterthought. The focus should be “How do we integrate privacy from step one?” rather than creating the system then asking, “How do we deal with the privacy nuts?” (Including yours truly).

Coinciding with this is the principle of data minimization and purpose specification. What will this data be used for and what is the minimum amount of data needed to understand the problem? Officials should always be cognizant of how much data they need versus how much data they have. A proper balance will provide the precise amount needed to fulfill their policy goals and nothing more.

Additionally, these public systems should also be geared toward not being able to identify individuals by understanding their cities’ needs with anonymized or deidentified data. Understanding traffic patterns does not require knowing everyone’s license plates. And rebalancing electrical loads does not mean you need to get electricity use associated with a specific household. Implementing systems that understand people but not necessarily a person will go a long way to preserving privacy and meeting a city’s needs.

Finally, building on our existing privacy laws and updating older ones can ensure our traditional notions of privacy are a complement our technological innovation rather than a hindrance. Some recent laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act contemplate aspects of the smart city future and advancing the dual goals of privacy and public policy can be achieved within the proper legal paradigm.

Conclusion

In the end, data is a tool that can be wielded for good or for bad. As the amount of data increases, it is incumbent upon the public and legal profession to check potential misuse and abuse to supply its public officials with the information it needs to be effective policy makers. Principles like transparency, privacy by design, data minimization and purpose specification, along with anonymized and deidentified datasets can provide the right amount of information while also protecting against unreasonable intrusion in our lives. As lawyers and citizens, we should be mindful of our part in moving forward toward smarter cities in smarter ways.

Reprinted with permission from the February 27, 2025 issue of New Jersey Law Journal© 2025 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.