In one prominent international ranking of how well municipalities have developed themselves into smart cities, Taipei is positioned in eighth place, while in another it is 26th. One survey gives Taipei its highest score for environmental policies, and another considers it one of its lowest.
　　聞名國際的全球智慧城市排名，是都市發展成為智慧城市的程度指標。其中一項排名顯示台北市排名全球第8，但在另一個不同的排名中卻是第26名。更有調查報告指出台北市的環境政策是最好的，而卻也有其他報告認為台北市的環境政策是最糟糕的。

　　The discrepancy reflects the arbitrary nature of these indices and the imprecision with which the term “smart city” tends to be discussed. Debates about communities have been turned into a technological competition, mostly concerned with products best able to extract value on the margins of society.
　　種種差異顯示數據反覆無常，也以及“智慧城市”一詞在討論中的不精確性。國際上的討論已逐漸演變成科技競爭，爭辯的內容幾乎都著重在如何從社會邊緣獲取價值。

　　Focusing exclusively on technology may cause structural urban problems to be ignored and lead to inequitable development. As Taiwan accelerates its path to digitize previously analogue infrastructure, experts see long-term, interdepartmental planning as the only way to ensure that technology is working to benefit its citizens.
　　只注重科技的話，可能會導致都市的結構性問題受到忽視，從而使都市發展不均衡。隨著台灣加速推行先前類比基礎設施數位化，專家們認為跨部門的長期規劃是確保科技造福市民的唯一途徑。

　　At its core, a city is two things: values and engineering. Values are the principles inhabitants choose to structure their life around. Engineering is the glue that enables those principles to be achieved. In a city that serves its citizens’ needs, infrastructure embodies these principles. But if technology is not properly anchored in what is important to residents of the city, the potential impact could be negative.
　　都市最重要的兩項東西是價值觀和工程建設——價值觀是居民形塑生活所選擇的理念，而工程建設則是實現這些理念的基石。都市若要滿足市民的這些需求，便需要仰賴基礎建設。然而，如果科技無法因應市民的主要需求，就會造成潛在的負面影響。

　　Calling the term “smart city” an “abstraction and obfuscation,” Jordan Kostelac, property technology director for JLL in Hong Kong, asks: “How could you be rising on a smart city index when the basic human needs are not being filled and vice versa?”
　　香港仲量聯行房地產技術總監Jordan Kostelac表示「智慧城市」一詞「既抽象又模糊」，他問道：「當人類的基本需求沒有得到滿足，智慧城市指數怎麼可能會上升呢？反之亦然。」

　　“We should be asking if the tech is just a veneer or is it actually being used to better serve the constituent needs of your residents,” Kostelac continues. “That’s where ‘smart’ gets confused with technology for technology’s sake.” “Smart” is now being used to describe virtually every city service, yet usually denotes little more than a given service being connected to the internet, run remotely, or becoming partly automated.
　　Kostelac繼續說道：「我們應該思考科技是否只是個幌子，或是在使用上可以真正滿足都市居民需求。」「智慧」一詞用途五花八門，幾乎所有城市服務都可見其蹤影，但通常指的僅僅就是能上網、遠端操控或部分自動化的服務機台。

　　A much clearer distinction is needed between technology that marginally improves urban services and one that fundamentally changes the fabric of urban life. Consider the difference between projects that merely make traffic lights more responsive and those that develop autonomous public transportation to make road-centric design obsolete. Or the difference between firms that simply help construction companies source material faster and those that are creating completely new, sustainable materials to build with. One kind of digitization brings marginal efficiency. The other involves progress toward an overarching goal.
　　我們需要更明確地區分哪些科技僅略微改善城市服務，以及哪些能從根本上改變都市生活結構，例如有些都更項目就只是提升交通號誌的性能，但研發自駕公共交通技術卻有機會將紅綠燈送進博物館，抑或是有些業者只是單純地替建設公司更快取得所需原料，有些卻可以為公司製造出全新的永續材料。數位化可以只是促進邊際效益，也可以代表朝著一個重大目標前進。

　　Unfortunately, all urban digitization projects have been lumped under a single category, making it nearly impossible to distinguish their usefulness to society and long-term prospects. Tech companies are incentivized to inflate how revolutionary their tech is, the venture capitalists promote this characterization to boost valuations, and the public rarely has the chance to examine the details. No one has the chance to ask why their city is spending tens of millions of dollars upgrading the light posts around the neighborhood with wi-fi. Value-extracting services have become conflated with value-creating services.
　　令人遺憾的是，所有城市數位化項目都歸在同一個類別裡，幾乎沒辦法區分它們對社會的實用性和長期前景。現行風險資本家多半促使科技公司誇大自己的革命性，以便擴大資產，而很少有機會為民眾所監督——沒有人知道為什麼自己的城市要花費數千萬元用Wi-Fi升級路燈。可見價值獲取已與價值創造混為一談。

　　This raises the question of what kind of value is created and for whom. For example, a technology that feeds all internet traffic directly into the local police station may bring more problems than solutions. The same is true of a system that allows property owners to evict their residents at will.
　　現在問題來了：應該要為誰創造什麼樣的價值？舉例來說，有個技術能讓所有網路流量數據直接匯入地方派出所，顯然弊大於利，而這就跟允許房東隨意驅逐房客的制度一樣行不通。

　　Sean Moss-Pultz, CEO of Taipei-based blockchain company Bitmark, expresses a commonplace concern: “How do we make sure cities don’t become advanced infrastructure for surveillance?” Although the threat of mass-scale surveillance is well founded, the cult of privacy has just as much potential to threaten a community. Fear of data tracking played significantly into the rapid spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. Perhaps there should be less concern about whether data is collected, and more about how it is collected, by whom, and for what purpose. Is my data being used to protect those in power or hold them accountable? Is it helping to keep my neighbors healthy or to arrest them?
　　台北區塊鏈新創公司Bitmark執行長Sean Moss-Pultz備感擔憂，說道：「我們要如何確保城市不是為了監視才發展基礎設施？」雖然現在大規模監視的威脅性是有根據的，但對隱私的過度強調也會阻礙城市發展。新冠肺炎（COVID-19）在美國擴散迅速，與人們對個資追蹤的恐懼息息相關。也許我們應該關注的不是有沒有人去收集我們的個資，而是這些資料的收集方式、來源和目的——我的個資是用來袒護當權者的，還是是為了讓他們負擔政治責任用的？是用來保障我的鄰居安全，還是逮補他們呢？

　　“Technology itself is neutral – politics imbues it with purpose,” Moss-Pultz points out. “The problem is that there is a point of no return. If you don’t focus on values, discuss limits, and create transparency around technology early on, it will become too late.”
　　Moss-Pultz表示：「科技本身是中立的——是政治賦予了它目的。問題是時間不多了，再不重視價值、瞭解限制和提升科技透明度，就來不及了。」

　　Global “smart city” indices seem focused on whether a city is becoming more “efficient” through technology, often failing to scrutinize what that efficiency means. The goal of urban planning should not be to implement the same off-the-shelf technical improvements in every part of the world; it should be to give citizens the ability to craft communities that suit them. It is the only way to make sure we have cities that are diverse, unique, and resilient, rather than simply “smart.”
　　全球「智慧城市」指數關注的似乎是城市是否利用科技提高「效率」，但往往沒有仔細審視這種效率意味著什麼。都市規劃不應該以千篇一律的技術升級為目標，而應當讓市民有能力打造適合自己的居住環境，唯有這樣才能夠確保城市的多樣性、獨特性和彈性，而不是只是空有「智慧」。