Digital Rights: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Political Science
Contributor:
Igor Calzada

Digital rights are fundamental rights in the digital age related to privacy protection in smart cities. In this vein, it has encouraged the United Nations to take an advocacy role regarding the ‘right to have digital rights’ and create the Hub for Human Rights and Digital Technology: ‘Together, as we seek to recover from the pandemic, we must learn to better curtail harmful use of digital technology and better unleash its power as a democratising force and an enabler’.

  • digital rights
  • smart cities
  • people-centered smart cities
  • social innovation
  • institutional innovation
  • technological innovation
  • COVID-19
  • policy experimentation
  • action research
  • online research

1. Introduction: ‘The Right to Have Digital Rights’

COVID-19 has hit citizens dramatically, not only creating a general risk-driven environment encompassing a wide array of economic vulnerabilities but also exposing people to pervasive digital risks, such as biosurveillance, misinformation, and e-democracy algorithmic threats [1][2][3]. Furthermore, it has inevitably raised the need to resiliently and techno-politically respond to threats that hyper-connected and highly viralised societies produce [4]. Consequently, over the course of the pandemic, a debate has emerged in several global People-Centered Smart Cities [5][6][7][8][9] regarding the appropriate techno-political response when governments use disease surveillance technologies to tackle the spread of COVID-19 [10][11][12][13][14][15], pointing out the dichotomy between state-Leviathan cybercontrol and civil liberties [16][17][18].
In many ways, the pandemic, has unprecedentedly brought into sharp relief digital rights issues on which several agents had been working for years in cities worldwide [5][19][20][21]. Thus, the digital rights’ claim could be directly seen as a social innovation that is evolving towards an institutional innovation [22][23][24]. The digital rights’ claim, articulated via city networks, is currently offering new modes of urban governance for policy experimentation in city administrations worldwide [6][7][8][25]. As such, these kinds of digital rights-driven projects based on policy experimentations attempt to subvert the ongoing urban politics and governmentality that lack sustainability, with traditional siloed city administrations remaining a central obstacle to sustainable urban development and people-centered smart cities [26].
In 1949, Hannah Arendt [27] wrote a phrase that has gradually become one of her most quoted and often interpreted: ‘the right to have rights.’ The phrase summed up her scepticism about the concept of human rights—those rights that, in theory, belong to every person by virtue of existence [28][27][29][30][31][32]. According to Arendt, the only way for these rights to be guaranteed was being not only a person but also a citizen [33]. This quotation may resemble the current post-COVID-19 algorithmic times, when, in the age of digitisation and datafication, dealing responsibly with citizens’ rights and data poses a dilemma: on the one hand, there is the tangible added value of processing citizens’ personal data by private sector organisations, but on the other hand, there is the claim that individuals should retain control over these data and consequently derived civilian rights [34][35][36][37][38]. Amid surveillance capitalism and beyond a human rights-based approach of Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance [39][40], state-based dataveillance mechanisms like biometrics [41], vaccine passports [42][43][44][45], biobanks, and the Internet within the context of citizenship inevitably force us to reclaim ‘the right to have digital rights’ [45][46][47][48][49].
Calls for the protection of citizens’ digital rights have resulted in countless reports, manifestos, organisations, projects, and political declarations in different regional, national, supranational, and global contexts [5][19][50][51][52][53]. Citizens have traditionally reasserted their positions in relation to the state by claiming human and civil rights and making rights claims. However, the triangle between the state, the market, and the citizenry requires careful balance to protect civic digital rights and liberties and to enable participation and active citizenship [54][55].
The globally widespread phenomenon of the algorithmic disruption has led to new consequences—such as hyper-targeting through data analytics, facial recognition, and individual profiling—received by many as threats and resulting in not-so-desirable outcomes, such as massive manipulation and control via a surveillance capitalism push in the United States (US) [56][57] and the ‘Social Credit System’ in China [58][59][60]. In contrast, these techno-political concerns raised a debate in Europe that crystallised into the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in May 2018. The emergence of the algorithmic disruption has spurred a call to action for cities in the European Union (EU), establishing the need to map out the techno-political debate on ‘datafication’ or ‘dataism’ [1][61][62]. Moreover, the disruption has also highlighted the potential requirements for establishing regulatory frameworks to protect digital rights from social innovation and institutional innovation. Such policy experimentation frameworks for urban governance cover demands for privacy, ownership [63], trust, access, ethics, AI transparency [64], algorithmic automatisation [65], and, ultimately, democratic accountability [66].
Alongside the algorithmic disruptive phenomena, data technologies alter not only the corpus of citizens’ rights but also the way in which cities conceive and deliver public policy and services to protect these rights [67]. This digital transformation pervasively encompasses all angles of policy experimentation in city administrations: the provision of services, the assignment of resources, the approach to solving social problems, and even the complex decision-making process are increasingly shifting to software algorithms and evolving toward considering citizens as merely data-providers rather than decision-makers [63][68]. This transformational process, stemming from a ‘black-boxed’ algorithmic momentum, is often perceived as a mechanism that increases the efficiency of existing approaches or as simply a process of policy adjustment [69]. However, further policy experimentation and advocacy stemming from social innovation and institutional innovation seem to be necessary in light of the current demands from city administrations worldwide (Figure 1).
Sustainability 13 11438 g001
Figure 1. Social, institutional, and technological innovations: Policy experimentations to explore understanding and prioritisation of digital rights.
A direct outcome of this policy advocacy was the Declaration of the Cities’ Coalition for Digital Rights [70] manifesto, which was translated into data policy by building networked data infrastructures and institutions alongside policy recommendations for ‘people-centered smart cities’ [71]. The Cities’ Coalition for Digital Rights (CCDR), an international alliance of global, people-centered smart cities, was formed in 2018 by the Barcelona, Amsterdam, and New York City (NYC) city councils to promote citizens’ digital rights on a global scale. This broad movement has gradually expanded under the leadership of Barcelona, Amsterdam, and NYC [72]. Today, the movement comprises an additional 46 cities—including Athens, Balikesir, Berlin, Bordeaux, Bratislava, Cluj-Napoca, Dublin, Glasgow, Grenoble, Helsinki, La Coruña, Leeds, Leipzig, Liverpool, London, Lyon, Milan, Moscow, Munich, Nice, Porto, Rennes Metropole, Roma, Stockholm, Tirana, Turin, Utrecht, Vienna, and Zaragoza in Europe; Amman in the Middle East; and Atlanta, Austin, Cary, Chicago, Guadalajara, Kansas City, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Montreal, Philadelphia, Portland, San Antonio, San José, Sao Paulo, and Toronto in the Americas; and Sydney in Australia.

2. The Right to Have Digital Rights in Smart Cities

Over the last decade, the increasing propagation of sensors and data collection machines in so-called ‘smart cities’ by both the public and the private sector has created democratic challenges around AI, surveillance capitalism, and protecting citizens’ digital rights to privacy and ownership [4][68][73][74][75]. The demise of democracy is clearly already one of the largest policy challenges in the post-COVID-19 hyperconnected and highly viralised societies for global ‘people-centered smart cities’ [76]. There is no question that the political and regulatory choices related to digital technologies in the so-called smart cities raise a variety of human rights concerns, ranging from freedom of expression to access, privacy, and other political and ethical questions. Invasions of privacy, increasing dataveillance, and digital-by-default commercial and civic transactions are clearly eroding the democratic sphere by undermining citizens’ perception of their digital rights [77].
Against this backdrop, the concept of the smart city, having been highly contested from a critical academic standpoint stemming from social innovation [78][79][80] was recently reframed and coined by the UN-Habitat program as ‘people-centered smart cities’ [4][6][8]. The new categorisation creates not only an urban paradigm for the Global North but also for the Global South by decolonising the urban standpoint [81][82][83]. The use of the term ‘people-centered smart cities’ supports UN-Habitat’s endeavour to back (among other city networks) the CCDR global cities, thus shaping a digital future that puts people first and helps bridge the social, digital, and data divide [7][43]. UN-Habitat’s ‘people-centered smart cities’ definition—clearly resonating with social innovation—highlights the fact that smart cities should serve the people and improve living conditions for all. Far from being bypassed, the key aspect of this definition is the acknowledgement that national governments are overwhelmed by the complexity of digital policies, while municipalities rarely have the in-house skills to create ‘people-centered smart city’ projects or to execute holistic impact assessments on the agreements they sign with private companies. For UN-Habitat, digital rights are intrinsically in the core of ‘people-centered smart cities’ insofar as cities are in a privileged position to strategise institutional innovation and deploy digital rights-related aspects among their fellow citizens.
Recently, a range of literature about digital rights has appeared in different disciplinary perspectives [33][35][37][40][47][55][77][84] alongside a large corpus encompassing high-profile reports, institutional declarations in different supranational [52], national, regional, and global contexts as well as empirical datasets such as atlases [85] and rankings [86]. On the one hand, for several authors, algorithmic disruption has raised the question of how citizenship can be redefined through the incorporation of new digital rights related to the status of a citizen in cyberspace—access, openness, net-neutrality, digital privacy, data encryption, protection and control, digital/data/technological sovereignty [71][81][87]. On the other hand, the authors of recent declarations include not only civil society organizations but also various coalitions of states, international organisations, industry actors—framing digital rights in terms of corporate social responsibility—as well as city coalitions such as the one examined in this entry: The Cities’ Coalition for Digital Rights (CCDR).
Digital rights have been rather present in academic debates over the last years particularly under the banner of ‘Digital Rights Management’ understood as a systematic approach to copyright protection for digital media [88]. This approach focuses on a set of access control technologies for restricting the use of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works. More recently, though, the digital rights have been understood in a complementary fashion as follows: Pangrazio and Sefton-Green argued that ‘digital rights are human and legal rights that allow citizens to access, use, create, and publish digital content on devices such as computers and mobile phones, as well as in virtual spaces and communities’ [77] (p. 19). Currently, digital rights are not only a set of rights in and of themselves but are also related to other human rights, particularly freedom of expression and the right to privacy in online and digital environments [89]. In practical terms, human rights can be thought of as protection against standard threats—such as oppression, deprivation, and violence—that jeopardize human interests very much related to the notion of alienation and data justice [40][81][89].
Complementing the previous approaches, according to Daskal [90] (p. 241), ‘civil society organisations have been advocating digital rights aiming to construct the social-political-cultural identity of a generation who are knowledgeable, politically active, and aware of their rights in the digital age.’ Daskal concluded that civil society organisations attempt through advocation of digital rights to (i) deliver accurate technological and political information, (ii) propel citizens towards participation, and (iii) sell merchandise to citizens.
Timelier though, is Kitchin’s [18] suggestion that in the early response to COVID-19, there was no sufficient consideration of the consequences for civil liberties, biopolitics, or surveillance capitalism, whether the supposed benefits outweighed any commensurate negative side effects, or whether public health ambitions could be realised while protecting civil liberties.
Inevitably, in the aftermath of COVID-19, and even in a resilient quick reaction to an emergency, the response given by CCDR people-centered smart cities shows how relevant it has become for policymakers to elucidate how data are collected, by whom, for what purpose, and how they are accessed, shared, and re-used [91]. CCDR cities including Amsterdam (implementing ‘Unlock Amsterdam’ to check on which tech could be used to ease the lockdown process), Barcelona (opting for the extension of Telecare for elderly people living alone), Helsinki (emphasising the need to have the right data on health, social life, and the economy), NYC (distributing tablets to vulnerable and disconnected communities), and San Antonio (developing an open data hub for citizens and interested stakeholders to access updated statistical information on COVID-19 on a daily basis) are just a few examples to show the importance of claiming digital rights in pandemic times.
Digital rights capture the techno-political tension among ‘subjects of rights, objectives, constraints, and governance framework’ [37] (p. 312). Thus, beyond their status as existing legal obligations, digital rights can be articulated through a variety of political issues and employed by different actors for different purposes. As such, from a critical standpoint, remarkably, Karppinen and Puukko [37] criticise those current debates for failing to acknowledge that rights are not simply rules and defences against power: rights claims might often emerge from civil society, but they can also be used as vehicles of power, and structures of governance. Furthermore, these authors consider that concept of digital rights itself ‘remains vague and malleable’ [37] (p. 309). Nonetheless, in line with the examination of the CCDR city cases in this article from the social and institutional innovation perspective, they also argue that ‘actors that take part in these initiatives and processes all contribute to a discursive exchange where the principles are crystallised and perhaps eventually institutionalised’ [37] (p. 324), as is clearly the case with the CCDR.
Probably the more comprehensive contribution to the contextualisation of digital rights was made by Isin and Ruppert [84]. For them, five digital rights have emerged in cyberspace so far: (i) expression, (ii) access, (iii) privacy, (iv) openness, and (v) innovation. Their position stems from Arendt’s [27] understanding of rights in legal and not performative terms, which essentially means that there can be no human digital rights without citizenship rights: either human digital rights are the rights of those who have no digital rights or the rights of those who already have digital rights, being citizens. Thus, Isin and Ruppert [84] define a comprehensive list and definitions of five digital rights: (i) expression as blocking censorship of Internet; (ii) access as promoting universal access to fast and affordable networks; (iii) openness as keeping the Internet an open network where everyone is free to connect, communicate, write, read, watch, speak, listen, learn, create, and innovate; (iv) innovation as protecting the freedom to innovate and create without permission; and (v) privacy as protecting privacy and defending people’s ability to control how their data and devices are used.
Several key references on smart cities have been explicitly cited so far [92][93][94], Table 1 depicts several taxonomies about digital rights: first, the taxonomy by Isin and Ruppert [84].
Table 1. Digital rights’ taxonomies.
DIGITAL RIGHTS’ TAXONOMIES
Being Digital Citizens
[84]		 Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet
[82]		 Smart City Citizenship
[4]		 CCDR
[72]
  • Expression
  • Access
  • Openess
  • Innovation
  • Privacy
  • Right to access to the Internet (choice, inclusion, neutrality, and equality)
  • Right to nondiscrimination in Internet access, use, and governance
  • Right to liberty and security on the Internet (protection)
  • Right to development through the Internet (sustainability and development)
  • Freedom of expression and information on the Internet (freedom to protest, right to information, freedom from censorship, and freedom from hate speech)
  • Freedom of religión and belief on the Internet
  • Freedom of online assembly and association
  • Right to privacy on the Internet (anonymity, freedom from surveillance, and freedom from defamation)
  • Right to digital data protection (protection of personal data, use of personal data, and obligations of data collectors)
  • Right to education on and about the Internet
  • Right to culture and access to knowledge on the Internet
  • Rights of children and the Internet
  • Rights of people with disabilities and the Internet
  • Right to work and the Internet
  • Right to online participation in public affairs
  • Rights to consumer protection on the Internet
  • Right to health and social services on the Internet
  • Right to legal remedy and fair trial for actions involving the Internet
  • Right to appropriate social and internatioanl order for the Internet (governance, multilingualism, and pluralism)
  • Right to be forgotten on the Internet
  • Right to be unplugged
  • Right to one’s own digital legacy
  • Right to protect one’s personal integrity from technology
  • Right to freedom of speech on the Internet
  • Right to one’s own digital identity
  • Right to the transparent and responsible usage of algorithms
  • Right to have a last human oversight in expert-based decision-making processes
  • Right to have equal opportunity in the digital economy
  • Right to consumer rights in e-commerce
  • Right to hold intellectual property on the Internet
  • Right to universal access to the Internet
  • Right to impartiality on the Internet
  • Right to a secure Internet
  • Right to universal and equal access to the internet, and digital literacy
  • Right to privacy, data protection, and security
  • Right to transparency, accountability, and non-discrimination of data, content and algorithms
  • Right to participatory democracy, diversity, and inclusion
  • Right to open and ethical digital service standards

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su132011438

References

  1. Craglia, M.; Scholten, H.; Micheli, M.; Hradec, J.; Calzada, I.; Luitjens, S.; Ponti, M.; Boter, J. Digitranscope: The Governance of Digitally-Transformed Society; EUR 30590 EN; JRC 123362; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021; ISBN 978-92-76-30229-2. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/digitranscope-governance-digitally-transformed-society (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  2. Gekker, A.; Hind, S. Infrastructural surveillance. New Media Soc. 2019, 22, 1414–1436.
  3. Lightfoot, G.; Wisniewski, T.P. Information asymmetry and power in a surveillance society. Inf. Organ. 2014, 24, 214–235.
  4. Calzada, I. Smart City Citizenship; Elsevier Science Publishing Co Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021.
  5. Digital Rights Watch. State of Digital Rights Report. 2021. Available online: https://digitalrightswatch.org.au/2021/02/05/the-state-of-digital-rights-report-a-2020-retrospective/ (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  6. Calzada, I. People-Centered Smart Cities; UN-Habitat: New York, NY, USA, 2021; Forthcoming.
  7. UN-Habitat. Digital Cities Toolkit: Policy Toolkit for People-Centred Smart Cities. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/digitalcitiestoolkit/# (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  8. UN-Habitat. People-Centered Smart Cities; UN-Habitat: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
  9. United Nations. Extreme Poverty and Human Rights; UN: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
  10. Bigo, D.; Isin, E.; Ruppert, E. Data Politics; Routledge: London, UK, 2019.
  11. The British Academy. The COVID Decade: Understanding the Long-Term Societal Impacts of COVID-19; The British Academy: London, UK, 2021.
  12. Csernatoni, R. New states of emergency: Normalizing techno-surveillance in the time of COVID-19. Glob. Aff. 2020, 6, 301.
  13. Haug, N. Deducing which pandemic policies work best. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020, 4, 1303–1312.
  14. Lupton, D.; Michael, M. Depends on who’s got the data: Public understandings of personal digital dataveillance. Surveill. Soc. 2017, 15, 254–268.
  15. Maxmen, A. Surveillance Science. Nature 2019, 569, 614–617.
  16. Ada Lovelace Institute. What Place Should COVID-19 Vaccines Passports Have in Society? Ada Lovelace Institute: London, UK, 2021.
  17. CDEI (Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation). COVID-19 Repository & Public Attitudes; CDEI: London, UK, 2021.
  18. Kitchin, R. Civil liberties or public health, or civil liberties and public health? Using surveillance technologies to tackle the spread of COVID-19. Space Polity 2020, 24, 362–381.
  19. Digital Rights Archive. Available online: www.digitalrightsarchive.net (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  20. CCDR (Cities’ Coalition for Digital Rights). City Examples of Digital Rights in Times of COVID-19. Available online: https://citiesfordigitalrights.org/city-examples-digital-rights-times-covid-19 (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  21. CDR (Centre for Digital Rights). Available online: www.centrefordigitalrights.org (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  22. Angelidou, M.; Psaltoglou, A. An empirical investigation of social innovation initiatives for sustainable urban development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 33, 113–125.
  23. BEPA Bureau of European Policy Advisers. Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2010.
  24. Edwards-Schachter, M.; Wallace, M.L. ‘Shaken, but not stirred’: Sixty years of defining social innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 119, 64–79.
  25. Manzini, E. Making things happen: Social innovation and design. Des. Issues 2014, 30, 57–66.
  26. Mieg, H.A.; Töpfer, K. (Eds.) Institutional and Social Innovation for Sustainable Urban Development; Earthscan: London, UK, 2013.
  27. Arendt, H. The rights of man: What are they? Mod. Rev. 1949, 3, 4–37.
  28. United Nations. Hub for Human Rights and Digital Technology. Available online: https://www.digitalhub.ohchr.org/ (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  29. Bernstein, R.J. Why Read Hannah Arendt Now? Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018.
  30. Debarbieux, B. Hannah Arendt’s spatial thinking: An introduction. Territ. Politics Gov. 2017, 5, 351–367.
  31. DeGooyer, S.; Hunt, A.; Maxwell, L.; Moyn, S. The Right to Have Rights; Verso: London, UK, 2018.
  32. Desforges, L.; Jones, R.; Woods, M. New geographies of citizenship. Citizsh. Stud. 2005, 9, 439–451.
  33. Nyers, P. The accidental citizen: Acts of sovereignty and (un)making citizenship. Econ. Soc. 2006, 35, 22–41.
  34. Calzada, I. Technological sovereignty: Protecting citizens’ digital rights in the AI-driven and post-GDPR algorithmic and city-regional European realm. Reg. Ezine 2019, 4.
  35. Hintz, A.; Dencik, L.; Wahl-Jorgensen, K. Digital citizenship and surveillance society. Int. J. Commun. 2017, 11, 731–739.
  36. Hummel, P.; Braun, M.; Tretter, M.; Dabrock, P. Data sovereignty: A review. Big Data Soc. 2021, 8, 8.
  37. Karppinen, K.; Puukko, O. Four discourses of digital rights: Promises and problems of rights-based politics. J. Inf. Policy 2020, 10, 304–328.
  38. Kitchin, R. Data Lives: How Data Are Made and Shape Our World; Policy Press: London, UK, 2020.
  39. Smuha, N.A. Beyond a human rights-based approach to AI governance: Promise, pitfalls, plea. Philos. Technol. 2020, 1–4.
  40. Taylor, L. What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally. Big Data Soc. 2017, 4, 2053951717736335.
  41. Ada Lovelace Institute. The Citizens’ Biometrics Council: Recommendations and Findings of a Public Deliberation on Biometrics Technology, Policy, and Governance; Ada Lovelace Institute: London, UK, 2021.
  42. Ada Lovelace Institute. Checkpoints for Vaccine Passports: Requirements for Governments and Developers; Ada Lovelace Institute: London, UK, 2020.
  43. Ada Lovelace Institute. Data Divide: Public Attitudes to Tacking Social and Health Inequalities in the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond; Ada Lovelace Institute: London, UK, 2021.
  44. Burki, T. Equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 33–34.
  45. Katz, I.T.; Weintraub, R.; Bekker, L.-G.; Brandt, A.-M. From vaccine nationalism to vaccine equity—Finding a path forward. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 1281–1283.
  46. Barbera, F.; Jones, I.R. The Foundational Economy and Citizenship: Comparative Perspectives on Civil Repair; Bristol University Press: Bristol, UK, 2020.
  47. Forestal, J. Constructing digital democracies: Facebook, Arendt, and the politics of design. Political Stud. 2020, 69, 26–44.
  48. Goggin, G.; Vromen, A.; Weatherall, K.; Fiona, M.; Lucy, S. Data and digital rights: Recent Australian developments. Internet Policy Rev. 2019, 8, 1–19.
  49. Nguyen, J. Identity, rights and surveillance in an era of transforming citizenship. Citizsh. Stud. 2018, 22, 86–93.
  50. Barlow, J.P. A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Available online: http://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  51. Amnesty International & Access Now. The Toronto Declaration. Available online: https://www.torontodeclaration.org (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  52. CFDREU (Charter of Fundamental Digital Rights of the European Union). Available online: https://digitalcharta.eu/wp-counten/uploads/DigitalCharter-English-2019-Final.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  53. MFTSDRC (Manifesto in Favour of Technological Sovereignty and Digital Rights for Cities). Available online: https://www.barcelona.cat/digitalstandards/manifesto/0.2/ (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  54. Breuer, J.; Pierson, J. The right to the city and data protection for developing citizen-centric digital cities. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2021, 24, 797–812.
  55. Hintz, A.; Dencik, J.; Wahl-Jorgensen, K. Digital Citizenship in a Datafied Society; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019.
  56. Cheney-Lippold, J. A new algorithmic identity: Soft biopolitics and the modulation of control. Theory Cult. Soc. 2011, 28, 164–181.
  57. Zuboff, S. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power; Profile: London, UK, 2019.
  58. Ahmed, S. Personal risk and algorithmic opacity: An investigation of user-identified concerns in the construction of the social credit system. In Proceedings of the Working Paper Presented at Freie Universität Berlin, Workshop on Digital Transformation in China—Recent Trends and Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 19 January 2018.
  59. Aho, B.; Duffield, R. Beyond surveillance capitalism: Privacy, regulation and big data in Europe and China. Econ. Soc. 2020, 49, 187–212.
  60. Kostka, G. China’s social credit systems and public opinion: Explaining high levels of approval. New Media Soc. 2019, 21, 1565–1593.
  61. Calzada, I. Deciphering smart city citizenship: The techno-politics of data and urban co-operative platforms. Rev. Int. De Estud. Vascos RIEV 2018, 63, 42–81.
  62. Gawer, A.; Srnicek, N. Online Platforms: Economic and Societal Effects; EPRS European Parliamentary Research Service: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
  63. Calzada, I. (Smart) citizens from data providers to decision-makers? The case study of Barcelona. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3252.
  64. Brunswicker, S.; Priego, L.P.; Almirall, E. Transparency in policy making: A complexity view. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019, 36, 571–591.
  65. Digital Future Society. Governing Algorithms: Perils and Powers of AI in the Public Sector; Digital Future Society: Barcelona, Spain, 2021.
  66. Wong, P.-H. Democratizing algorithmic fairness. Philos. Technol. 2019, 33, 225–244.
  67. Vesnic-Alujevic, L.; Stoermer, E.; Rudkin, J.; Scapolo, F.; Kimbell, L. The Future of Government 2030+: A Citizen-Centric Perspective on New Government Models; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019.
  68. Lodato, T.; French, E.; Clark, J. Open government data in the smart city: Interoperability, urban knowledge, and linking legacy systems. J. Urban Aff. 2021, 43, 586–600.
  69. Hand, D.J. Dark Data; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2020.
  70. CCDR (Cities’ Coalition for Digital Rights). Declaration of Cities’ Coalition for Digital Rights. Available online: https://citiesfordigitalrights.org/ (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  71. Calzada, I.; Almirall, E. Data ecosystems for protecting European citizens’ digital rights. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 2020, 14, 133–147.
  72. CCDR (Cities’ Coalition for Digital Rights). Strategy 2020: Action Plan and Roadmap; Barcelona City Council: Barcelona, Spain, 2019.
  73. Desouza, K.C.; Kapucu, N.; Wu, J. Special Issue: Smart governance in the contemporary era. J. Urban Aff. 2021, 43, 503.
  74. Hu, Q.; Zheng, Y. Smart city initiatives: A comparative study of American and Chinese cities. J. Urban Aff. 2021, 43, 504–525.
  75. Löfgren, K.; Webster, C.-W.-R. The value of Big Data in government: The case of ‘smart cities’. Big Data Soc. 2020, 7, 1–14.
  76. Seubert, S.; Helm, P. Normative paradoxes of privacy. Surveill. Soc. 2020, 18, 185–198. Available online: https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/13356/9300 (accessed on 11 October 2021).
  77. Pangrazio, L.; Sefton-Green, J. Digital rights, digital citizenship and digital literacy: What’s the difference? J. New Approaches Educ. Res. 2021, 10, 15–27.
  78. Calzada, I.; Cobo, C. Unplugging: Deconstructing the smart city. J. Urban Technol. 2015, 22, 23–43.
  79. Hollands, R.G. Will the real smart city please stand up? City 2008, 12, 303–320.
  80. Costales, E. Identifying sources of innovation: Building a conceptual framework of the Smart City through a social innovation perspective. Cities 2021, 103459, in press.
  81. Calzada, I. Data co-operatives through data sovereignty. Smart Cities 2021, 4, 1158–1172.
  82. IRPC (Internet Rights & Principles Coalition). The Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet (United Nations Internet Governance Forum, IGF). Available online: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj06ZfHpsrzAhUHAcAKHcp1CzsQFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohchr.org%2FDocuments%2FIssues%2FOpinion%2FCommunications%2FInternetPrinciplesAndRightsCoalition.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0I7jqOXkjxCO46_6ydTxc2 (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  83. Pentland, A.; Hardjono, T. Data Cooperatives: Building the New Economy; MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020.
  84. Isin, E.; Ruppert, E. Being Digital Citizens; Rowman & Littlefield: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
  85. EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) Atlas of Surveillance. Available online: https://atlasofsurveillance.org/atlas (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  86. RDR (Ranking Digital Rights). Ranking Digital Rights. Available online: https://rankingdigitalrights.org/ (accessed on 8 August 2021).
  87. Floridi, L. The fight for digital sovereignty: What it is, and why it matters, especially for the EU. Philos. Technol. 2020, 33, 369–378.
  88. Postigo, H. Digital Rights Movement; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012.
  89. Mathiesen, K. Human rights for the digital age. J. Mass Media Ethics 2014, 29, 2–18.
  90. Daskal, E. Let’s be careful out there…: How digital rights advocates educate citizens in the digital age. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2018, 21, 241–256.
  91. Kummitha, R.K.R.; Crutzen, N. Smart cities and the citizen-driven internet of things: A qualitative inquiry into an emerging smart city. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 140, 44–53.
  92. Willis, K.S.; Aurigi, A. The Routledge Companion to Smart Cities; Routledge: London, UK, 2020.
  93. Albino, V.; Berardi, U.; Dangelico, R.M. Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 2015, 22, 3–21.
  94. Kitchin, R. Afterword: Decentering the smart city. In Equality in the City: Imaginaries of the Smart Future; Flynn, S., Ed.; Intellect: Bristol, UK, 2021.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback