mentalities in densely populated areas of Smart Cities. Therefore, military experts
state that “. . .the art of war must seek close interaction with the science of cities. . .”
(Evans 2016), encouraging military analysts to cooperate closely with urban specialists to curb armed violence and to limit deaths associated with an urbanizing
world in the near future (Evans 2016). These looming risks deriving from aggregation in urban areas is also taken into consideration by the Bundeswehr (German
Federal Army) on whose training areal urban area Schnöggersburg in SaxonyAnhalt, Germany, German soldiers are trained to take action in case of fights and
acts of terrorism in intercultural and interreligious urban density areas on German
ground (Sasse 2017; Süddeutsche 2016).
Once other Smart City risks affecting the social pillar of SD involve the use of
“robocops” and algorithms in the field of law enforcement. Although robots and AI
may support and facilitate police investigations to some extent, they cannot replace
humans (Weckbrodt 2018). The use of robots for the establishment of public order
and security as well as for law enforcement stays very controversial for legal and
ethical reasons, triggering violent discussions after a police robot killed a suspect
2 years ago in Dallas, USA (Thielman 2016). Cathy O’Neill, Harvard Ph.D. in
mathematics, warns that algorithms may be abused as “weapons of math destruction” by reinforcing discrimination, e.g., in law enforcement and court decisions and could even endanger democracy by targeted manipulation of elections
and political polls (O
0 Neill 2017). These illustrative examples show the potential
loss of social intelligence due to the high degree of digitalization and automation of
Smart Cities, highlighting “. . .that new technologies might repress the inductive and
deductive processes people use. . .” (Sennett 2012), turning the Smart City into “a
stupefying smart city” (Sennett 2012). Principally, the dependency on automation
may ultimately lead to a complete loss of common sense and involve the danger of
bringing citizens into line, posing a significant threat to individual freedom and
human rights as prerequisites for pluralistic democratic societies which are based on
the autonomy of mature citizens (Blogsmartcities 2014).
As the strategic use of Big Data is a crucial innovation factor generating higher
sales through new products and services, industrial espionage on a global scale will
abound (Završnik 2017). According to surveillance experts, “we are. . .in the ‘golden
age of surveillance’” (Timm 2016). Highly digitized Smart Cities greatly enhance
the risk of all kinds of espionage including economic, political, military, and private
espionage, or even joint spying activities of the state and Big Business applied in
Smart Cities which may threaten democracy (Conger 2018; Trentmann and Qinhuangdao 2015; Poole 2014). Leading experts in criminal justice decry secret
partnerships of federal and local enforcement officials with AT&T circumventing
the Fourth Amendment and also reveal that “. . .IBM and its so-called Smart Cities
programme spy on citizens in China as well as the USA. . .” (Hucklesby and
Lister 2018). A fully digitized Smart City, where all areas of life would be monitored
around the clock without anonymizing citizens’ data would ultimately result in total
civic supervision and a complete loss of privacy. Of particular concern is the fact that
authoritarian countries like China propagate Smart Cities (Trentmann and Qinhuangdao 2015). Total surveillance carries the risk of abuse by patronizing citizens
236
O. Schwarz-Herion
state that “. . .the art of war must seek close interaction with the science of cities. . .”
(Evans 2016), encouraging military analysts to cooperate closely with urban specialists to curb armed violence and to limit deaths associated with an urbanizing
world in the near future (Evans 2016). These looming risks deriving from aggregation in urban areas is also taken into consideration by the Bundeswehr (German
Federal Army) on whose training areal urban area Schnöggersburg in SaxonyAnhalt, Germany, German soldiers are trained to take action in case of fights and
acts of terrorism in intercultural and interreligious urban density areas on German
ground (Sasse 2017; Süddeutsche 2016).
Once other Smart City risks affecting the social pillar of SD involve the use of
“robocops” and algorithms in the field of law enforcement. Although robots and AI
may support and facilitate police investigations to some extent, they cannot replace
humans (Weckbrodt 2018). The use of robots for the establishment of public order
and security as well as for law enforcement stays very controversial for legal and
ethical reasons, triggering violent discussions after a police robot killed a suspect
2 years ago in Dallas, USA (Thielman 2016). Cathy O’Neill, Harvard Ph.D. in
mathematics, warns that algorithms may be abused as “weapons of math destruction” by reinforcing discrimination, e.g., in law enforcement and court decisions and could even endanger democracy by targeted manipulation of elections
and political polls (O
0 Neill 2017). These illustrative examples show the potential
loss of social intelligence due to the high degree of digitalization and automation of
Smart Cities, highlighting “. . .that new technologies might repress the inductive and
deductive processes people use. . .” (Sennett 2012), turning the Smart City into “a
stupefying smart city” (Sennett 2012). Principally, the dependency on automation
may ultimately lead to a complete loss of common sense and involve the danger of
bringing citizens into line, posing a significant threat to individual freedom and
human rights as prerequisites for pluralistic democratic societies which are based on
the autonomy of mature citizens (Blogsmartcities 2014).
As the strategic use of Big Data is a crucial innovation factor generating higher
sales through new products and services, industrial espionage on a global scale will
abound (Završnik 2017). According to surveillance experts, “we are. . .in the ‘golden
age of surveillance’” (Timm 2016). Highly digitized Smart Cities greatly enhance
the risk of all kinds of espionage including economic, political, military, and private
espionage, or even joint spying activities of the state and Big Business applied in
Smart Cities which may threaten democracy (Conger 2018; Trentmann and Qinhuangdao 2015; Poole 2014). Leading experts in criminal justice decry secret
partnerships of federal and local enforcement officials with AT&T circumventing
the Fourth Amendment and also reveal that “. . .IBM and its so-called Smart Cities
programme spy on citizens in China as well as the USA. . .” (Hucklesby and
Lister 2018). A fully digitized Smart City, where all areas of life would be monitored
around the clock without anonymizing citizens’ data would ultimately result in total
civic supervision and a complete loss of privacy. Of particular concern is the fact that
authoritarian countries like China propagate Smart Cities (Trentmann and Qinhuangdao 2015). Total surveillance carries the risk of abuse by patronizing citizens
236
O. Schwarz-Herion