What killed Quayside, Sidewalk Labs’ ambitious smart city in Toronto? • Hacker News Board

Re: What killed Quayside, Sidewalk Labs’ ambitious smart city in Toronto?

#51

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

hbosch wrote: post #25

xnx wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing would be much better if we could get it to follow anything like the technology price value trend. Housing today is barely better in terms of quality or value from 50 years ago. To expect housing to improve as fast as handheld devices is unrealistic, but I think they should be improving at around the same rate as cars.

>Housing would be much better if we could get it to follow anything like the technology price value trend. Do you think people would be willing to buy a house for cheap with the trade off being that Google and Facebook get to collect data on everything you did inside the house, and then got to display ads inside the house?

Wasn't there an original Twilight Zone episode about this? Also the more recent short story Unauthorized Bread

Re: What killed Quayside, Sidewalk Labs’ ambitious smart city in Toronto?

#52

Post by jeffbee » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 6:35 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #49

jeffbee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All NIMBY power derives from the fact that authority is vested exclusively in the people who already live somewhere, and none is given over to people who could live there, or would like to, if policies could be changed. The only thing that has eroded NIMBY power in California in my lifetime has been state laws, and only very recently, and only just barely.

authority is vested exclusively in the people who already live somewhere Isn't that the definition of democracy? Why should I be able to take what someone else has just because I want it?

Interesting framing, because the history of anti-development is using government powers to take away private property rights. As an example I own an empty lot that is zoned for, say, up to four unit apartment building and then the voters all decide to reduce my zoning such that I can only build 1 house. This is a taking, right? That's NIMBYs taking what I have because they want something else.

Another example is a bunch of old ladies get together and have my house designated as a "historically significant" structure, thereby robbing me of my ability to build anything else, or even repaint the window sashes. You wouldn't believe that in Berkeley, California, this is perfectly legal without the agreement of the owner, right? In fact it's legal to do this without even _notifying_ the owner.

Finally, there's a pretty strong moral and ethical argument to be made that if I'm born and raised in a town and I live there my whole life but due to a housing crisis I am forced to move elsewhere, I should have had some input into the government of the original place. We shouldn't be saying that we divest our children in favor of their parents, just because they are the incumbents. That's just wrong.

Re: What killed Quayside, Sidewalk Labs’ ambitious smart city in Toronto?

#53

Post by jszymborski » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

wendyshu wrote: post #31

Well, NIMBYism + privacy paranoia. Torontonians who were never going to live there, hadn't attended the open houses, and weren't willing to even try it as a small-scale experiment apparently had veto power over what Sidewalk could do with their own property.

Privacy paranoia? Under what pretense should Canadians presume Google a good faith actor? Their business model has been to incrementally make the web their walled-garden fiefdom.

Why shouldn't we think that their Toronto project was anything less but an attempt to expand their iron grip into the physical world?

Ceding that much power, to a foreign entity no less, is a question of sovereignty.

Re: What killed Quayside, Sidewalk Labs’ ambitious smart city in Toronto?

#54

Post by vorpalhex » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #11

chomp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the "smart" part of it - if it's smart in the sense that it was properly planned around something other than the automobile, then sure, I think you can get a lot of people on board. All the stuff in your comment sounds great. The problem is when you start adding cameras and electronics. It's obvious Sidewalk Labs is just an arm of the Google data collection funnel. I don't want any part of that in my l…

I think the cameras and electronics are great. A good way to reduce crime as opposed to adding more police. It's worked well in London to the best of my knowledge and I think we could use more of that in general. What I object to is Google being the one entrusted with this data, with no oversight, and cross-referencing it with all the other data they have on me.

I'm having difficulty finding the article, but there was a news story that the single most data request from the London Crime cameras being.. flat managers requesting footage of people who didn't clean up after their dogs.

Cameras don't prevent crime. They may shift crime (if you have cameras and your neighbor doesn't, guess whose house is going to get burgled first?) and they may make crime easier to prosecute after, but they do not stop crime in any meaningful way.

And more than likely, the people who are spending a lot of money to buy and monitor those cameras don't really care about the shoplifters and graffiti artists - those crimes don't cost very much of society and stopping them is a low priority. Serious crimes like murders and home invasions are.. actually pretty rare and cameras generally don't catch them.

If you're spending millions to install cameras, record them constantly, and store all that footage in a way that's searchable.. it has nothing to do with crime. It has everything to do with monitoring your population.

Edit:

Found it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7469369.stm

Re: What killed Quayside, Sidewalk Labs’ ambitious smart city in Toronto?

#55

Post by jgalt212 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

Guidii wrote: post #24

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My big problem from the beginning was that the money flow made no sense. Why should Toronto be paying for a Google experiment? Google benefitted far more than any other party involved, and that felt slimy.

Did money flow from the city to Alphabet? My understanding was that it was hugely in the opposite direction, with sidewalk investing alphabet money into the project.

right because with Google, the customer is the product.

Re: What killed Quayside, Sidewalk Labs’ ambitious smart city in Toronto?

#56

Post by wendyshu » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

jszymborski wrote: post #53

wendyshu wrote: post #31

Well, NIMBYism + privacy paranoia. Torontonians who were never going to live there, hadn't attended the open houses, and weren't willing to even try it as a small-scale experiment apparently had veto power over what Sidewalk could do with their own property.

Privacy paranoia? Under what pretense should Canadians presume Google a good faith actor? Their business model has been to incrementally make the web their walled-garden fiefdom. Why shouldn't we think that their Toronto project was anything less but an attempt to expand their iron grip into the physical world? Ceding that much power, to a foreign entity no less, is a question of sovereignty.

Privacy is very important to some people, but I don't think it's a good argument against the project. Their collection and use of data would have been under great scrutiny. And if you don't like it, just don't move there. It was a small experiment not a takeover of the city.

Re: What killed Quayside, Sidewalk Labs’ ambitious smart city in Toronto?

#57

Post by asdff » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #41

dsl wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the residents, people that have to deal with its consequences and for whom the benefits were vaguely defined, opposed it. When I lived in San Francisco proper this was the same reason I didn't have high speed fiber. NIMBYs didn't want a little green can out front of their houses. Sometimes progress has to be made despite the residents so they can ultimately reap the benefits.

All NIMBY power derives from the fact that authority is vested exclusively in the people who already live somewhere, and none is given over to people who could live there, or would like to, if policies could be changed. The only thing that has eroded NIMBY power in California in my lifetime has been state laws, and only very recently, and only just barely.

NIMBY power is vested in those who vote. As long as its mostly older white homeowners voting in local elections, that will continue to be the only demographic local politicians cater to, without fail. If you want to fight NIMBYism, fight to make it easier for renters to be educated about local issues and vote in local elections. There really is no other way.

Re: What killed Quayside, Sidewalk Labs’ ambitious smart city in Toronto?

#58

Post by rcpt » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #49

jeffbee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All NIMBY power derives from the fact that authority is vested exclusively in the people who already live somewhere, and none is given over to people who could live there, or would like to, if policies could be changed. The only thing that has eroded NIMBY power in California in my lifetime has been state laws, and only very recently, and only just barely.

authority is vested exclusively in the people who already live somewhere Isn't that the definition of democracy? Why should I be able to take what someone else has just because I want it?

Direct democracy yes. But direct democracy is a horrible way to govern (think: Prop 13) and something the US explicitly avoided at the national level

> Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

> [...]

> [A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

- James Madison Federalist Paper 10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Re: What killed Quayside, Sidewalk Labs’ ambitious smart city in Toronto?

#59

Post by canistr » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

As a Torontonian, the problem with it has always been with both the data sovereignty and overall control by a non-Canadian entity. The problem of technology, foreign control, and what we give up is especially acute when someone like Jim Balsillie points it out in the wake of technological blowups like RIM and Nortel.

I especially didn't like the fact that the Sidewalk Labs employees were primarily New York-based with very little understanding or familiarity with the nuances of our city/province/country. Why are you remotely experimenting with our city instead of sending your teams here to develop it? Wouldn't familiarity with the surrounding neighbourhoods be an important factor in how you make a deep impact into the local environment?

Doctoroff managed to not address any of Balsillie's primary concerns. And I imagine most Americans are wilfully blind of the local issues when they come here. (Just look at how ownership of sports teams like the Montreal Expos turned out).

Re: What killed Quayside, Sidewalk Labs’ ambitious smart city in Toronto?

#60

Post by marcinzm » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 7:21 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #45

theandrewbailey wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Google hates passwords, I can't imagine that they would support plain old metal keys for doors. Neither can I imagine how unlocking a Google door wouldn't involve an arbitrarily closable Google account. Other incidents have shown that once your Google account is closed, Google won't talk to you.

"Google must operate based on the stereotype I have of them in my head"

As the relationship advice goes "when someone shows you who they are believe them." Plenty documented examples of Googling acting in the stated way across various products. No reason to assume they won't act the same in this case sooner or latter.