To what extent do we want to be filmed, followed and possibly identified as we tour our cities? What are we willing to give up in the name of safety and also of good management of the flows of residents and tourists?
In China these questions have been answered with a mass surveillance system through which citizens are identifiable at any time when they are in public spaces. And with us? The New York Times published a long report from Venice in which he states (complaint?) that “tourists would be tracked at any moment to restore the city its ancient charm”. a system, announced a year ago, through which all the data of the cities, including those of the surveillance cameras and telephone cells, arrive in real time in a single control room of the Local police. In this way, “with the help of a pool of experts who guarantee privacy – it was said at the launch – it is possible to optimize public services”.
The mayor Brugnaro is very proud of the thing, which he defines as “a flagship”. The New York Times however claims that of any person “the system is able to record age, sex, country of origin and previous location”. There is no name, but very little is missing. This obviously makes sense in Venice to avoid the city being overwhelmed by mass tourism, but some object that in this way “the whole city is treated as if it were a museum”.
And in fact there is talk of putting entrance turnstiles, a solution that the Minister of Culture has defined “too invasive”. Some will argue that already now we leave endless digital traces that do not end up in the police computers but in those of the telephone companies. But I have the impression that the Venezia model will be discussed again soon.
.