I have a feeling that their foolish desire to go for a panoption will be what kills future potential good ideas like say having automated systems to provide road traffic maps to both navigation apps and perhaps everyday postings. Because they think first how to exploit and how to actually serve as a complete afterthought while working on marketing.

Really I can see smart systems doing potential for good but they would have to follow a few rules. - Don't gather what data you don't need not just because 'it might be useful'. There is literally no /good/ use for such needlessly personalized data, only evil. - Don't gather or control what you can't secure. - If you must gather data from everyone make it transparent to all both in that 'yes this is being gathered' and 'everyone can see the listings'.

There would be far less objection to say roads that just mapped the traffic level and displayed it on maps and forwarded it to mapping services along with train delays and other things. A smart transit system could improve traffic routing wonderfully going ahead and telling people to take the other highway because there is a backup ahead or advertising the fact that the subway/municipal rail has a far faster arrival time for <district> and plenty of available parking right now.

You don't need to track every damn car by the license plate.

> Don't gather what data you don't need not just because 'it might be useful'. There is literally no /good/ use for such needlessly personalized data, only evil.

This is some of the most egregious hyperbole I've ever heard. Why do you think people collect data they don't need at the time? Obviously because it's useful later for things you can't imagine at the time.

So, you claim that the only possible future uses are evil. Which makes you what, able to see the future? You can enumerate unknowns, like the Oracle at Delphi?

I am speaking of public usage of data - there is a significant difference between a nosy neighbor noting your coming and going and the government doing so.

One is an annoyance and the other is a very abusable tool. Selective enforcement is a well known tool of power mongers. Point out malfeasance and get hit by harassment by rules ignored by and for everyone else.

If a nanite system could help detect high blood pressure oh and it can also cause a stroke by accident or at the push of a button it is not a good system. Just using other methods to get data would be far better. That is how it has no good use - any benefits could be obtained by a far less dangerous way.

>The city’s goal: To be what it calls a living lab.

Sure reminds me of Foucault:

>But the Panopticon was also a laboratory; it could be used as a machine to carry out experiments, to alter behaviour, to train or correct individuals. To experiment with medicines and monitor their effects. To try out different punishments on prisoners, according to their crimes and character, and to seek the most effective ones.

We already know that a panopticon is ok with voters. Cars drive around with prominent labels visible at all times. People walk around with tracking devices. Etc. Nobody complains.

There’s lots of things people didn’t care about in the past but care about now.

In my country roads get maintained and fixed. Its not perfect (never settle) but potholes? You can search for weeks and you won't find them.