Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

onezero.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

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

#101

Post by an_opabinia »

marcinzm wrote: post #61
an_opabinia wrote: post #13

> transforming what had previously been an area east of downtown Toronto characterized by desolate parking lots and the graffiti-strewn foundations of demolished buildings Guess Toronto got its crap back. > Affordable housing was a top concern among Toronto residents before the pandemic, and in the economic fallout it will only grow as a priority, she said, as an example. It’s ironic. At least in technology, the way…

Ads don't lower prices, they shift when you pay the price and potentially who pays the price. If they didn't then no one would pay for them as they wouldn't give a return on investment. You don't pay $1 for the app but instead you pay $100 for a brand name blender.

I’m confident that brand name blenders are the cheapest they have ever been, in the history of the world. There’s just no evidence that actually substantiates what you’re saying, and it’s exactly the sort of intellectual dishonesty I am talking about.

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

#102

Post by mokarma »

boarnoah wrote: post #71

I'm not quite sure how this is portrayed as NIMBYism. As a Toronto resident there was more than enough news about how well reasoned arguments from Privacy experts weren't addressed very well by Sidewalk labs. It isn't a very trivial thing when high profile people like Ann Cavoukian resigns from the project. Portraying it as a case of NIMBYism gone too far is just revisionist history.

> well reasoned arguments from Privacy experts weren't addressed very well

How does one become a Privacy expert? What qualifications are needed?

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

#103

Post by marcinzm »

an_opabinia wrote: post #101
marcinzm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads don't lower prices, they shift when you pay the price and potentially who pays the price. If they didn't then no one would pay for them as they wouldn't give a return on investment. You don't pay $1 for the app but instead you pay $100 for a brand name blender.

I’m confident that brand name blenders are the cheapest they have ever been, in the history of the world. There’s just no evidence that actually substantiates what you’re saying, and it’s exactly the sort of intellectual dishonesty I am talking about.

That's to separate things that clearly are driven by different reasons:

* Do ads make products they appear cheaper? If so do they make other things more expensive.

* Are products not paid for by ads cheaper due to automation, etc.? If so could they be even cheaper if not for ads?

I would say munging them together is intellectual dishonesty.

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

#104

Post by wendyshu »

sebastien_bois wrote: post #96
wendyshu wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

AFAIK it wasn't going to be a condo-like development, with restricted access to residents-only, so anyone could walk within the Sidewalk area, and potentially be tracked, willingly or not.

They've said they won't do that, they could do that already, the benefit outweighs the cost...

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

#105

Post by 52-6F-62 »

wendyshu wrote: post #92
52-6F-62 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first sentence is exactly what I was speaking to. As for the rest, I'm not much of a gambler. Alphabet's current policies on data collection are typically opt-out, so I didn't hold out much hope when I largely saw a lot of hand-waving surrounding data policies until the project was pressed by the public about it. That cost me a lot of confidence the project. And I come from the place of following the project eag…

If they wanted to do mass device fingerprinting (minimally, de-identified by default, not shared, etc.) they could do that already without a smart city so that's completely orthogonal.

It's not orthogonal. They were looking to create an entire region of the city where they would operate a dragnet.

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

#106

Post by boarnoah »

mokarma wrote: post #102
boarnoah wrote: post #71

I'm not quite sure how this is portrayed as NIMBYism. As a Toronto resident there was more than enough news about how well reasoned arguments from Privacy experts weren't addressed very well by Sidewalk labs. It isn't a very trivial thing when high profile people like Ann Cavoukian resigns from the project. Portraying it as a case of NIMBYism gone too far is just revisionist history.

> well reasoned arguments from Privacy experts weren't addressed very well How does one become a Privacy expert? What qualifications are needed?

Basing this off a few very interesting people I've interacted with in the Information Security field wrt Healthcare) as coop student then some contract work.

Usually they tended to be either Law or Infosec folks who ended up in roles where they did consulting or setting up policies for companies. Then with experience becoming SMEs with regards to Privacy and either operating as independent consultants or working with governments/companies as Privacy officers/commissioners etc...

As far as I know most of them didn't have much in common as far as certs or specific educational background it was mostly a mix of similar work experiences as well as being in the same conference circuits.

Someone with more experience should probably address this :)

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

#107

Post by wendyshu »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #105
wendyshu wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they wanted to do mass device fingerprinting (minimally, de-identified by default, not shared, etc.) they could do that already without a smart city so that's completely orthogonal.

It's not orthogonal. They were looking to create an entire region of the city where they would operate a dragnet.

I just said why it's orthogonal. I don't see a counterargument here.

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

#108

Post by slashdev »

vorpalhex wrote: post #54
eloff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I did some research, because I had trouble believing that the cameras don't deter crime. They do deter some kinds of crime (e.g. theft in the areas with the cameras) but not violent crime.

I'm really quite surprised, you'd imagine having a bigger chance of getting caught would make people stop and think.

Probably the reason is, as you say, that those types of crime take place where the cameras mostly aren't, like indoors.

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

#109

Post by 52-6F-62 »

wendyshu wrote: post #107
52-6F-62 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not orthogonal. They were looking to create an entire region of the city where they would operate a dragnet.

I just said why it's orthogonal. I don't see a counterargument here.

There is no counter argument. It's just a fact. They don't currently operate a dragnet. Barrier for entry for setting up physical sensors in a currently functioning urban setting is high which is why they were looking to build their own neighbourhood from scratch.

I'm not getting into any arguments today.

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

#110

Post by wendyshu »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #109
wendyshu wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just said why it's orthogonal. I don't see a counterargument here.

There is no counter argument. It's just a fact. They don't currently operate a dragnet. Barrier for entry for setting up physical sensors in a currently functioning urban setting is high which is why they were looking to build their own neighbourhood from scratch. I'm not getting into any arguments today.

Actually they were already collecting data and people easily set up outdoor sensors all the time. But maybe there'd be more incentive to collect within a smart city project.
Post reply on HN