The transformation of cities no longer depends only on asphalt or cement, but on the data that circulates in the invisible networks that connect citizens, governments and machines.
In this new urban scenario, digital identity becomes the master key to accessing services, rights and collective decisions.
But at what price is this key delivered? Security, privacy and citizen control are the new fields of dispute in smart metropolises.
«The city is not a problem, but a solution» — Jaime Lerner
By: Gabriel E. Levy B.
When Brazilian urban planner Jaime Lerner claimed that the city is a solution, he did not imagine that, decades later, that solution would be encoded in algorithms.
The emergence of digital identity as the operational basis of smart cities marks a turning point in the way citizens interact with their environment and with the institutions that govern them.
From the first e-Government systems implemented in Estonia in the early 2000s to the current digital governance platforms in cities such as Barcelona or Singapore, the management of personal data has become a new terrain of innovation and, at the same time, of risk.
The ability to access public services, vote online, or pay taxes through a unique digital identity is a game-changer in the urban game.
Authors such as David Lyon, a specialist in surveillance studies, warn that this new digital model entails a «normalization of surveillance» in the name of efficiency.
According to Lyon, digital identity not only simplifies processes, but also allows the constant tracking of citizens’ daily activities, often without their full consent or understanding of their implications.
«We are data before citizens» — Evgeny Morozov
The digitalisation of identity is not an isolated phenomenon, but part of a structural mutation of the city model.
The concept of the «smart city» has expanded globally as a promise of efficiency, sustainability and modernization.
But behind this optimistic narrative, there is an uncomfortable question: who controls the data?
In this context, technologies such as blockchain and the Internet of Things (IoT) are presented as guarantors of security and transparency.
Blockchain, by decentralizing information, promises that no one can alter identity records without leaving a trace.
For its part, the IoT connects sensors and urban devices in real time, facilitating the traceability of services and resources.
However, these technological tools can also lead to new forms of control if they are not accompanied by solid regulatory frameworks and citizen audit mechanisms.
Sociologist Shoshana Zuboff, in her book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, argues that personal data are no longer simple by-products of our digital interactions, but the main input of an economic model based on the prediction and modification of human behavior.
In a smart city, where every action can be connected to a database, digital identity not only enables rights, but can also condition freedoms.
For this reason, the implementation of digital identities must be accompanied by an ethical pact between citizens, governments and technology companies.
It’s not just about protecting data, it’s about ensuring that technology doesn’t substitute for human judgment or erode individual autonomy.
«To govern is to share the code» — César Hidalgo
One of the most frequent arguments in favour of digital identity is its ability to promote a more participatory citizenry.
With tools such as digital passports, online voting platforms and electronic participatory budgets, the possibility of a direct, continuous and decentralized democracy opens up.
In cities like Helsinki, citizens can influence municipal decisions through apps that allow them to vote for neighborhood projects.
In Taiwan, the vTaiwan platform facilitates citizen debate on laws and public policies, integrating diverse opinions through deliberative digital systems. These models seek to break with citizen passivity and promote active participation in urban life.
But digital inclusion is not automatic.
According to data from the World Bank, more than 30% of the urban population in middle-income countries does not have constant access to the internet or smart devices.
This means that, in many cities, digital identity can become a new form of exclusion for those who do not have access or sufficient digital skills.
Therefore, the real challenge of digital identity in smart cities lies not only in its technological implementation, but in its inclusive design.
Digital literacy, the availability of public connectivity infrastructures and universal accessibility are basic conditions for this identity not to be a privilege, but a right.
«Technology is not neutral» — Langdon Winner
Several cities around the world are already experimenting with advanced digital identity systems.
In Estonia, every citizen has had a digital ID for more than a decade, which allows them to sign contracts and vote in national elections.
The Estonian model is frequently cited as a reference, not only for its effectiveness, but also for the framework of transparency and citizen control that accompanies it.
Citizens can know who is accessing their data, and they have the right to deny that access.
In Barcelona, the Decidim project seeks to democratise urban decision-making through an open-source digital platform where citizens can propose, debate and vote on public policies.
This model not only digitizes participation, but frames it in an ethical ecosystem where data belongs to citizens, not corporations.
In contrast, in cities such as Shenzhen, in China, the use of digital identities is linked to social credit systems that can limit rights and benefits based on behaviors considered inappropriate.
In this case, technology works as a mechanism of control rather than citizen empowerment.
These examples show that digital identity is neither good nor bad in itself, but that its impact depends on the governance model that frames it.
The same tool that promotes participation and inclusion in one city, in another can consolidate forms of surveillance and discrimination.
In conclusion, digital identity is emerging as a key piece in the architecture of the cities of the future.
Its implementation can enable a new era of efficiency, transparency, and citizen participation.
But it also involves concrete risks in terms of privacy, exclusion and surveillance.
For this reason, more than a technical innovation, digital identity is a field of political and ethical dispute that will define the type of city in which we want to live.
The challenge is not to digitise citizens, but to humanise the digital.
References:
- Lyon, David. Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Polity Press, 2007.
- Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs, 2019.
- Hidalgo, César. Why Information Grows: The Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economies. Basic Books, 2015.
- Morozov, Evgeny. To Save Everything, Click Here. PublicAffairs, 2013.
- Winner, Langdon. The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. University of Chicago Press, 1986.