Introduction Back to contents 11 ‘Smart cities’ is a term used by governments and companies alike to describe the use of digital technologies to facilitate and purportedly enhance public service delivery.1 Initially coined as a marketing term by IBM in 2009 under its ‘smarter cities’ vision to enable cities to ‘lead the way into a prosperous and sustainable future’, smart cities are now also a policy objective in countries across the world.2 In 2018, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states launched the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) to encourage the integration of digital services in 26 cities towards the overarching goal of smart and sustainable urban development.3 As is typical in smart city narratives, the ASCN views technology as an enabler of progress and innovation that will eventually benefit individuals living in smart cities – the assumption is that greater data collection and installation of sensors will facilitate the seamless delivery of services and resource management across the realms of transport, sanitation, healthcare, governance, and more. While the promise of smart cities seems almost utopian on paper, several human rights challenges emerge from their design, development, and deployment. Various organisations, including ARTICLE 19, have warned against the uncritical adoption of emerging technology for solving complex social problems.4 IBM’s initial foray into smart cities included controversial projects in Davao city that may have facilitated horrific human rights violations.5 A 2019 study in Pune, a well-regarded smart city in India, has shown that while sanitation projects focusing on ‘smart toilets’ and ‘smart health’ may consider the needs of those who use the toilets, they fail to consider the impact on those who clean the toilets. Sanitation work is deeply stigmatised in India and typically forced onto people from lower castes, specifically Dalit women. The study has shown that smart projects do not consult these women at all during any phase of their design or development. As a result, such projects are exclusive from the outset, raising key questions around the extent to which these women may be surveilled during their work without their consent. Furthermore, the privatisation of such public functions dilute government accountability to sanitation workers more broadly, raising further questions around how these businesses could be held accountable