La privacidad en las ciudades inteligentes

Ruben Enrique Rodriguez Samudio


El concepto original de la privacidad como derecho, introducido a finales del siglo XIX, hacia énfasis en el derecho del individuo en no ser molestado. Desde entonces, cada nuevo desarrollo tecnológico ha contribuido a un cambio fundamental en el concepto de la privacidad. El uso de tecnologías digitales se tradujo en  nacimiento de la idea de control de datos. La introducción de tecnologías de la información a nivel de uso doméstico, como lo son tecnologías del internet de las cosas, aunados a nuevos sistemas de procesamiento de datos mediante algoritmos de macro datos y computación en la nube suponen un cambio de paradigma en la sociedad moderna. Las ciudades inteligentes en donde los servicios públicos y privados hacen uso de la información personal de los ciudadanos, hacen necesario nuevamente un replanteamiento del concepto de privacidad. 

Privacy in Smart cities

The original concept of privacy as a right, introduced during the late 19th
century, was centered on the right to be left alone. Since then, each new
technological development has contributed to a fundamental change in
the concept of privacy. The use of digital technologies brought forth the
concept of data control. The introduction of information technologies at
domestic level, such as the Internet of Things, paired with new data processing methods via algorithms using Big Data or Cloud Computing entail a paradigm shift in modern society. Smart Cities, where public and private services make use of their citizens´ personal information, require a new approach to the concept of privacy.

Keywords: Privacy, Smart Cities, Internet of Things, Big Data, Cloud Computing.


Palabras clave

Privacidad, Ciudades Inteligentes, Internet de las Cosas, Macro Datos, Computación en la Nube.

Texto completo:



ABC news. (2018). Leave no dark corner. Recuperado el 11 de septiembre de 2019,



Balkin, J. M. (2017). The three laws of robotics in the age of Big Data. Ohio State Law

Journal, 78(5), 1217-1241.

Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big Data´s disparate impact. California Law Review,

, 671-732.

Boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2011). Six provocations for Big Data. A Decade in Internet

Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society. Retrieved from

Campbell, C. (2019). How China is using “Social Credit Scores” to reward and punish

Its citizens. Recuperado el 11 de septiembre de 2019, de https://time.


CISCO. (2016). Internet of Things. Recuperado el 5 de septiembre de 2019, de cisco.



Cohen, J. E. (2013). What privacy is for. Harvard Law review, 126, 1904-1933.

CRS. (2019). Internet of Things: an Introduction. Congreso de los Estados Unidos,

Congressional Research Service. Recuperado el 11 de septiembre de 2019, de

Cugurullo, F. (2018). The origin of the Smart City imaginary: from the dawn of modernity

to the eclipse of reason. In C. Lindner, & M. Meissner (Eds.), The Routledge

Companion to Urban Imaginaries. Londres: Routledge;.

Determan, L. (2018). No one owns data. Hastings Law Journal, 70, 1-44.

Dimitrov, D. V. (2016). Medical Internet of Things and Big Data in healthcare. Healthcare

Informatics Research, 22(3), 156-163.

EC. (s.f.). Smart cities: Cities using technological solutions to improve the management

and efficiency of the urban environment. EC. Recuperado el 26 de agosto de 2019,



Edwards, L. (2016). Privacy, security and data protection in smart cities: a critical EU

law perspective. European Data Protection Law Review(2), 28-58.

Eipstein, R. (1994). The legal regulation of genetic discrimination: old responsed to

new techonology. Boston Universtity Law Review, 74(1), 1-23.

EotP. (2016). Big Data: a report on algorithmic systems, opportunity, and civil rights. Executive

Office of the President, Washington. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.


Ericsson. (n.d.). The connected future. Retrieved septiembre 5, 2019, from https://

Fosch Villarongaa, E., Kiesebergb, P., & Li, T. (2018). Humans forget, machines remember:

artificial intelligence and the right to be forgotten. Computer Law &

Security Review, 34, 304-313.

FTC. (2015). Internet of Things privacy & security concerns in a connected world. Federal

Trade Commission. Retrieved 8 26, 2019, from



Gomer, R., Schraefel, M., & Gerding, E. (2014). Consenting agents: semi-autonomous

interactions for ubiquitous consent. UbiComp’14: How Do You Solve a Problem like

Consent?, (pp. 653-658). Seattle.

ISO. (octubre de 2014). Recuperado el 11 de septiembre de 2019, de ISO: https://

Kitchin, R. (2015). The promise and perils of Smart Cities. Recuperado el 15 de septiembre

de 2019, de SCL:


Kobie, N. (2019). The complicated truth about China’s social credit system. Recuperado

el 11 de septiembre de 2019, de WIRED:


Kostka, G. (2019). China’s social credit systems and public opinion: explaining high

levels of approval. New Media & Society, 21(7), 1565-1593.

Luger, E., & Rodden, T. (2013). An informed view on consent for UbiComp. Proceedings

UbiComp ‘13 , Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on Pervasive

and ubiquitous computing, (pp. 529-538). Nueva York.

Ma, A. (2018). China has started ranking citizens with a creepy ‘social credit’ system — here’s

what you can do wrong, and the embarrassing, demeaning ways they can punish you. Recuperado

el 15 de septiembre de 2019, de Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.



Ma, A. (2019). China reportedly made an app to show people if they’re standing near

someone in debt — a new part of its intrusive ‘social credit’ policy. Retrieved septiembre

, 2019, from Business Insider:


Mehmood, R., Bhaduri, B., Katib, I., & Chlamtac, I. (Eds.). (2018). Smart Societies, Infrastructure,

Technologies and Applications: First International Conference, SCITA

, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, November 27–29, 2017, Proceedings. Springer.

Mell, P. (1996). Seeking shade in a land of perpetual sunlight: privacy as proeprty in

the electronic wilderness. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 11, 1-92.

Microsoft. (2017). An introduction to Cloud Computing for legal and compliance professionals.

Retrieved from Microsoft:



Nimmer, M. B. (1954). The right of publicity. Law and Contemporary Problems(19), 203-223.

Nippon. (2019). Japan enacts bill to ban drone flights over olympic venues. Recuperado el

de septiembre de 2019, de



NIST. (2018). Cloud Computing. Retrieved septiembre 5, 2019, from National Institute

of Standards and Technology:

Noto La Diega, G., & Walden, i. (2016). Contracting for the ‘Internet of. Queen Mary

University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 219/2016.

Öman, S. (2004). Implementing data protection in law. Scandinavian Studies in

Law(47), 389-403.

Peppet, S. R. (2014). Regulating the internet of things: first steps towards managing

discrimination, privacy, security & consent. Texas Law Review, 85-176.

Reinsch, W. A. (2018, Marzo 9). A Data Localization Free-for-All? Retrieved from Center

for Strategic & International Studies:


Sadowski, J., & Bendor, R. (2019). Selling Smartness:Corporate Narratives and the

Smart City as a Sociotechnical Imaginary. Science, Technology, & Human Values,

(3), 540-563.

Salter, J. (2019). Office 365 declared illegal in German schools due to privacy risks.

Recuperado el 15 de septiembre de 2019, de Arstechnica: https://arstechnica.



Science and Technology Policy. Council for Science, Technology and Innovation. (n.d.).

Cabinet Office. Retrieved from Society 5.0:


Solove, D. J. (2008). Understanding Privacy. Harvard University Press.

Solove, D. J. (2013). Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma. Harvard

Law Review(156), 1880-1903.

The Guardian. (2018). Imprisoned by algorithms: the dark side of California ending cash

bail. Recuperado el 15 de septiembre de 2019, de The Guardian: https://www.


The Week. (2015). Google Glass ‘dead’ as search giant shelves production. Recuperado

el 15 de septiembre de 2019, de



Tiwary, T. (2019). Google Glass, long shelved for consumers, upgrades enterprise version.

Retrieved septiembre 15, 2019, from https://www.techcircle.



U.S. Department of Health, Education & Wellfare. (1973). Record computers and the

rights of citizens. U.S. Department of Health, Education & Wellfare. Recuperado

el 11 de septiembre de 2019, de


Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). Right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 5(5), 193-220.

Washington Post. (2018). California abolished money bail. Here’s why bail opponents aren’t

happy. Retrieved septiembre 15, 2019, from Washington Post: https://www.


Whitman, J. Q. (2004). The two western cultures of privacy: dignity versus liberty. The

Yale Law Journal, 113, 1151-1221.

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.

Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional.

Revista CES Derecho
Universidad CES - Facultad de Derecho
ISSN 2145-7719

Calle 10A No. 22 - 04 Tel: 444 05 55, Ext. 1366 - 1360 
Fax: (57-4) 3113578
Correo electrónico:
Medellín – Colombia