Swiss smart cities promise efficiency – at the price of your data

Smart technologies rely on the collection and analysis of large volumes of data, including personal data, which is often handled in a way that lacks transparency for the general public. Keystone

Swiss cities aim to become “smarter”, more efficient and citizen-friendly. But they increasingly rely on personal data, loosely regulated AI technologies and private companies. Who really controls urban systems, and what safeguards exist for citizens?

Instant parking, public services at the click of a button, real-time traffic optimisation: Swiss cities are investing heavily in digital technologies to become more efficient and liveable. Zurich is widely seen as a model of urban innovation and one of the world’s most advanced smart citiesExternal link. “We want to be a sustainable city, a social city, and a less congested city,” says David Weber, head of Smart City Zurich.

But smart technologies rely on the collection and analysis of large volumes of data, including personal information, often managed in ways that are not transparent to citizens. Many of these systems also depend on solutions developed by private providers, including major international tech companies, especially for cloud infrastructure.

“Dependence on big tech companies is a reality in Zurich, as elsewhere. It’s something we are aware of and actively trying to reduce,” Weber says.

Less vigilance in high-trust societies

As digitalisation accelerates, it is becoming increasingly difficult for citizens to understand how much data is being collected about them and by whom. In democracies such as Switzerland, where trust in institutions is high, people tend to be less vigilant about data collection, according to Jasmin Dall’Agnola, a lecturer at the University of Zurich specialising in smart cities, surveillance and authoritarianism.

“In Switzerland, we still have this naivety of thinking that in a democratic society our data will not be used against us,” she says. Dall’Agnola points out that data held by US tech companies can be accessed by US authorities under the US CLOUD Act, even if it is stored in Switzerland. “Citizens may assume Swiss law protects their data, while in reality it can be accessed through a different legal system.”

With the growing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in public services, from policing to social welfare, it is even harder for people to understand how algorithm-based decisions are made and how to challenge them.

“The issue is no longer just who collects the data, but who controls the algorithms that AI relies on,” Dall’Agnola adds.

>> Why citizens and governments must remain vigilant in the face of private companies’ dominance of urban technologies. The opinion of Jasmin Dall’Agnola:

Cities as data factories

Switzerland’s economy is becoming increasingly data-driven: in 2024 more than 73 million digital devices were in circulation, an average of 8.5 per person, among the highest in the world. This generates vast flows of information, particularly in urban areas, driving the expansion of data centres.

Swiss cities are actively participating in this transformation. According to the Swiss Smart City SurveyExternal link, 124 cities have implemented “smart” projects, particularly in environmental sustainability, mobility and digital administration – all sectors that rely on large amounts of data, including potentially sensitive data such as GPS-based vehicle localisation.

Technologies such as cameras and road sensors already help improve traffic flow and safety for pedestrians and cyclists. But they can also evolve into more intrusive systems.

“It’s unsettling that the same technologies that locate a person and trigger a green light can be used for many other purposes,” says Fran Meissner, a researcher in urban social configurations at the University of Twente in the Netherlands.

She warns that the accumulation of data from such systems could make it possible to track and identify individuals based on their daily movements without their knowledge or consent. “The routes we take every day are so personal they can make us identifiable,” she says. She adds that a more serious concern arises when movement patterns are used by authorities to build AI-based risk profiles, for example when AI is integrated in surveillance camera (CCTV) systems.

Several Swiss cities are already deploying digital traffic management systems developed by private companies. Geneva, for instance, uses AI toolsExternal link that monitor pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles at intersections via cameras to reduce congestion. Zurich, meanwhile, is developing a virtual model or “digital twin” of the city’s urban traffic using large datasets to simulate and optimise circulation. According to the specialised outlet Inside ITExternal link, the system could eventually connect with private navigation platforms such as Google Maps, Waze or TomTom – raising questions about the potential integration of private mobility data into public infrastructure.

Technologies such as CCTV cameras and road sensors are already helping to improve traffic flow. But they could also develop into more intrusive systems. Keystone

Surveillance and profit

Urban surveillance is therefore not a distant scenario, even in democratic societies. “Smart city technologies are, by definition, based on surveillance, and that should always be a cause for concern wherever they are used,” says Barbara Jenkins, a professor of political economy at Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada.

These technologies also generate significant profits, Jenkins points out. Cities benefit by automating public services and building a high-tech reputation to attract investment. Companies profit from selling hardware and software – and from collecting valuable data.

“Companies in the AI sector benefit the most: not only do they sell their tools, but they also gain access to vast amounts of urban data to develop their algorithms,” she says.

A prominent example is the Sidewalk TorontoExternal link project by Sidewalk Labs, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. (Google’s parent company). The project aimed to build a highly digitised neighbourhood in Toronto, based on large-scale data collection and analysis. It was ultimately abandoned in 2020 after strong criticism from civil society and local authorities, who expressed concerned over data governance, privacy and Alphabet’s dominant role.

When power shifts from the state to companies

Such projects, Jenkins argues, can shift power from the state to private companies, particularly in weakly regulated environments.

“When oversight by city or regional authorities is minimal, companies are more than willing to step in with policies that serve their own interests,” she says.

In Toronto, Alphabet had sought to influence not only technological development but also regulatory frameworks in areas such as transport, housing and data governance as outlined in a 1,524-page planExternal link.

Without clear rules, questions arise as to who owns the data collected in public spaces – and whether companies can claim any rights over it.

“Why should private companies claim ownership of data generated from publicly funded spaces like streets and sidewalks?” Jenkins asks.

Only public authorities are responsible

In Switzerland, data protection is regulated at both the federal and cantonal levels. In canton Zurich, public authorities must assess privacy risks for every digital project. If risks are high – for example when using new technologies or systems affecting many people – prior review by the data protection authority is required.

However, Dominika Blonski, the canton data protection commissioner, acknowledges that the growing use of AI makes this assessment harder. “It’s difficult to understand how AI systems process data and make automated decisions,” she says, also pointing to the risk of unauthorised access by external providers.

At the same time, authorities are not required to inform citizens about smart city projects or private partners involved – even when personal data is used for profiling. Nor can the data protection authority directly sanction private providers.

“The public body remains responsible for data processing even when third parties are involved,” Blonski says.

Limited transparency

Switzerland remains highly attractive to tech companies. Zurich hosts numerous global players, including Google, Meta and Microsoft.

But Dirk Helbing, professor of computational social science at federal technology institute ETH Zurich, says their role in urban innovation remains opaque. “It’s unclear what products and services they develop here, or what role they play in the city’s digitalisation projects,” he says.

Zurich offers some transparency tools, such as open data platformsExternal link, a listExternal link of public surveillance cameras and a 3D modelExternal link of the city. It also runs a participatory platformExternal link where citizens can vote on local projects. But there is no comprehensive publicly available overview of the technologies and partners involved in smart city projects.

“Individual applications and software are managed in a decentralised way across the administration,” David Weber, head of Smart City Zurich, says via email.

Helbing thinks citizens should be better informed about how public money is spent, who benefits from it, and what companies do with the data that end up in their servers.

“There’s a clear gap between cities’ claims of being ‘smart’ and what the public knows,” he says. “Much more transparency is needed.”

Edited by Veronica DeVore/ts