n exploring the role of technology within human society, Mosco (2019) acknowledges that while ‘optimistic scholars stress the instrumental role of ICT in the process of social development… pessimistic scholars emphasise the emergence and constant expansion of the digital divide’. The scope of increasingly convergent technologies is allowing cities to generate sophisticated systems which are responsive to the lives of citizens (Glover, 2019), it is highly evident that the freedom of movement and space can also be limited within smart cities. Sadowski (2017) demonstrates this effectively through anecdotal evidence of his own, having been locked out of his apartment. While the notion of key cards and fobs can create a sense of safety and security in the limited access it grants those who do not inhabit the space, a tool of which can be applied in a variety of contexts, frustration and vulnerability is caused when systems fail. In referencing Deleuze (1992), he comments on the ‘barrier’ established due to the fact that the relevant systems were unable to operate as intended. Although seemingly insignificant within the larger scale smart city, this incident hints toward the imbalances that can begin to grow for a variety of reasons. Generally, these imbalances can be seen to be created through existing imbalances within social structures and the influence of hegemonic groups, whereby marginalised groups are not provided sufficient opportunities to engage or participate. In exploring the role of sensors within smart cities, Enlund et al. (2022) state that in order to overcome certain risks such as this, where technology ‘instil[s] feelings of command and control [by] turning citizens into ‘databodies in codespace’’ (Enlund et al., 2022), considerable thought must be taken to account for multiple variations. At the heart of this, primary consideration should factor in the way in which spaces are lived. With this in mind, they can ‘create opportunities for sensors to become mediators of needs and wants between different groups of citizens’ (Enlund et al., 2022), actively accounting for occasions where technology fails and seeking to prevent the rise of barriers.

Mosco, V. (2019) The Smart City in a Digital World. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/9781787691353.

Glover, F. (2019) ‘The Smart City: Seoul, South Korea, [The Compass], 10 April 2019. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3csz41r (Accessed: 21 February, 2023)

Sadowski, J (2017) ‘Access denied: Snapshots of exclusion and enforcement in the smart city’ in Shaw, J and Graham, M. ed. Our Digital rights to the city, pp 6-11. Meatspace Press

Enlund, D. et al. (2022) “The role of sensors in the production of Smart City Spaces,” Big Data & Society, 9(2), p. 205395172211102. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221110218.