Slashdot Mirror


Will 'Smart Cities' Violate Our Privacy? (computerworld.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Computerworld's article on the implications of New York City's plan to blanket the city with "smart" kiosks offering ultrafast Wi-Fi. The existence of smart-city implementations like Intersection's LinkNYC means that New Yorkers won't actually need mobile contracts anymore. Most who would otherwise pay for them will no doubt continue to do so for the convenience. But those who could not afford a phone contract in the past will have ubiquitous fast connectivity in the future. This strongly erodes the digital divide within smart cities. A 2015 study conducted by New York City found that more than a quarter of city households had no internet connectivity at home, and more than half a million people didn't own their own computer...

Over the next 15 years, the city will go through the other two phases, where sensor data will be processed by artificial intelligence to gain unprecedented insights about traffic, environment and human behavior and eventually use it to intelligently re-direct traffic and shape other city functions... And as autonomous cars gradually roll out, New York will be well positioned to be one of the first cities to legalize them, because they'll be safer thanks to 5G, sensors and data from all those kiosks.

Intersection, a Google-backed startup, has already installed 1,000 of the kiosks in New York, and is planning to install 7,000 more. The sides of the kiosk have screens which show alerts and other public information -- as well as advertisements, which cover all the costs of the installations and even bring extra money into the city coffers.

New York's move "puts pressure on other U.S. cities to follow suit," the article also points out, adding that privacy policies "are negotiated agreements between the company and the city. So if a city wants to use those cameras and sensors for surveillance, it can."

1 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Re: LOL by cyber-vandal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He is the only presidential candidate in the last 25 years to talk about the damage done to people's lives by globalisation and talk about reversing it.

    If your life had been wrecked by transfer of jobs abroad, you'd probably feel a bit differently. Shouting "stupid" at these people might make you feel good but trying to understand them would be a better use of your time. It didn't help that the wife of the architect of their misery was the other candidate.

    The trouble with the left these days is that the compassion for everyone in need has been replaced by virtue signalling on Twitter and judging everyone's needs by their physical characteristics. White = privilege even if you can barely afford to eat and so is it any wonder that poor white people don't buy into that political philosophy. Ask yourself why your message is so unpopular that people were willing to vote in great numbers for the most unsuitable candidate in history.