Opposition to Sidewalk Labs in Toronto • Hacker News Board

Re: Opposition to Sidewalk Labs in Toronto

#91

Post by hedora » Sun, May 19, 2019, 1:32 AM UTC

ilaksh wrote: post #4

To me the most of the ways that I can think of a city being smart are not related to surveillance. If there is some system that is supposed to benefit the public then its designs should be public and subject to public approval. What would be reasonable would be something like open source designs and protocols and maybe an electronic bidding system for projects. But it sounds like its one company embedding whatever sp…

Most smart city stuff is ridiculously unsexy, and also isn’t a privacy concern if you don’t allow the underlying databases to he released or joined together.

Here is an example that can drastically lower waste collection costs, and eventually track weekly trends in refuse generation (by putting a scale in the garbage truck), etc:

https://litumrfid.com/waste-management-rfid-system/

Providing such technologies to existing firms that periodically re-bid for government contracts with makes much, much more sense than handling a permanent monopoly over management of the entire city to a for-profit company that will design things to ensure they can never be replaced.

Re: Opposition to Sidewalk Labs in Toronto

#92

Post by Fricken » Sun, May 19, 2019, 1:34 AM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #87

Fricken wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will you no longer be able to pass through it recreationally after Google builds there? I was out this morning in Edmonton riding my bike through the urban blight and stopping to climb at my favorite buildering spots, on retaining walls and bridge abutments, sound barricades and shuttered buildings where no one will bother me, but I would much prefer it if that whole section of my city was actually a functional, aest…

Inquiring minds wonder which section?

Various spots along the Northeast LRT corridor, between 115 Ave and Station Point Park.

Re: Opposition to Sidewalk Labs in Toronto

#93

Post by hedora » Sun, May 19, 2019, 1:49 AM UTC

Fricken wrote: post #31

mabbo wrote: post #9

> Sidewalk Labs, a sister company to Google, had acquired disused land in Toronto, Canada for this bold urban experiment "Disused land" is a bit disingenuous. Toronto real estate prices are very high right now and this is waterfront property. It's former industrial land we're hoping to revitalize. As far as I can tell, Google isn't doing us a favor here. They're just another developer trying to make a bunch of money…

A study was done and they determined the main reason Nimbys are Nimbys is because they don't like the idea of developers making money by building things near them: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/09/what-if-nimbys-hate-d...

As is commonly the case with Citylab, this article is drawing conclusions that don’t follow from the evidence. Toward the bottom, it points this out:

> But the study wasn’t entirely conclusive, Monkkonen says. By making the development frame about the process as a whole—the question posed to respondents suggests that the city gave the developer a special permit to build at a higher density than usual—they’ve partly conflated a distrust in government with a distrust in development.

It is not surprising if you tell people the local government is letting one developer ignore the rules, and that the developer will make a pile of cash because of it, that people get suspicious.

The reason is that real estate developers routinely openly bribe government officials, ruin existing communities, break community development promises, make tons of money, and are never punished.

The president and his immediate family are high profile examples of this, but this has happened multiple times in every area I’ve ever lived in (in multiple states).

Re: Opposition to Sidewalk Labs in Toronto

#94

Post by sunir » Sun, May 19, 2019, 2:04 AM UTC

wmil wrote: post #52

sunir wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely bad argument. All neighbourhoods, houses, even cottage docks are controlled through planning in Ontario. Sensible people recognize that the city will continue to exist hundreds of years into the future. We do not let any crazy person build whatever comes into their minds because failures end up being a problem for neighbours and the government ultimately to fix, which means other taxpayers. If we…

That's not actually true. Docks are controlled because they may interfere with navigable waterways. But you can build any house you want on unincorporated land (no municipality).

In Ontario all buildings must adhere to the Ontario Building Code. No exceptions.

This is Canada. There are no municipalities in the Constitution. There is no land that is not controlled by the government.

Docks are also regulated because of their ecological impact and safety.

I was kind of shocked by your comment so I googled to make sure. Here is an article saying the same things.

https://cottagelife.com/realestate/inspections-in-unincorpor...

Re: Opposition to Sidewalk Labs in Toronto

#95

Post by lostconfused » Sun, May 19, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

Endy wrote: post #11

ilaksh wrote: post #4

To me the most of the ways that I can think of a city being smart are not related to surveillance. If there is some system that is supposed to benefit the public then its designs should be public and subject to public approval. What would be reasonable would be something like open source designs and protocols and maybe an electronic bidding system for projects. But it sounds like its one company embedding whatever sp…

There is no difference between those last two things. Every time someone talks about a Smart City, I keep thinking back to the horrifying Secret Project video from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri - "The Self-Aware Colony". That's what I fear life will be like in a "Smart City".

We Must Dissent

Re: Opposition to Sidewalk Labs in Toronto

#96

Post by wmil » Sun, May 19, 2019, 2:37 AM UTC

baudehlo wrote: post #79

AzzieElbab wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this Alphabet's fault?

It’s not, but Google/A came in with great fanfare and seemed to get more leeway than other constructions do due to their name and their sci fi promises. But it’s important for people outside of Toronto to understand that this isn’t what most people would call “downtown” either. It’s in one of the least accessible parts of the city, that for that reason has historically only been used by industry. Transit is improving…

The lack of transit is bit of a misdirection. It's very easy to run bus routes once there is an residential population. Setting up transit in advance doesn't make much sense.

Also it's been primarily used by industry because it was zoned as industry, because industry needed access to the docs for shipping.

Look, It's a 15 minute bike ride to union station. You can walk to the financial district. People will buy whatever units they build there.

Re: Opposition to Sidewalk Labs in Toronto

#97

Post by Redoubts » Sun, May 19, 2019, 2:56 AM UTC

breitling wrote: post #70

Element_ wrote: post #69

Aside from the privacy concerns, condos in this area are currently selling for $1000+/sqft. All renderings I have viewed from Google's proposal show some assortment of low rise buildings. You will need to be a multimillionaire to live in a low rise style building if the units are sold at market rates. That type of development doesn't represent the interest of the majority of the citizens (the avg salary in the city i…

Absolutely. One of the reasons the real estate prices are so detached from local salaries is that there is a lot of suspected money laundering and Chinese speculators buying up properties and leaving them empty.

Honestly, if outside speculators can wreck your housing prices, then your local government ducked up zoning and development laws really badly.

Re: Opposition to Sidewalk Labs in Toronto

#98

Post by Barrin92 » Sun, May 19, 2019, 3:46 AM UTC

rory096 wrote: post #27

60654 wrote: post #10

The opposition to this is not just from the privacy perspective, there's also the issue of data ownership, and giving all this data away to Google for free. And once it's owned, both cities and citizens lose all control and oversight - you can't get yourself removed from the dataset, impose restrictions on how this personal data will be used, etc. There are some good quotes in this older Reuters story ( https://www.r…

This article has poor fact-checking. For example, the quote by the Queen's University professor is not accurate (or, charitably, outdated as of the time of publishing). >The proposal amounts to “permanent surveillance” and “massive data scraping” under the guise of fighting climate change, he said. >“They are conducting an experiment in real time, in the real world: the privatization of our cities on a large scale. T…

Didn't they already break this promise when they absorbed NHS data from deepmind back into Google, only two years after suggesting that Google would never obtain them?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/14/google-be...

In other words, do we have any assurances that these third parties can't be restructured with a sleight-of-hand?

Re: Opposition to Sidewalk Labs in Toronto

#99

Post by ip26 » Sun, May 19, 2019, 4:04 AM UTC

Redoubts wrote: post #97

breitling wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. One of the reasons the real estate prices are so detached from local salaries is that there is a lot of suspected money laundering and Chinese speculators buying up properties and leaving them empty.

Honestly, if outside speculators can wreck your housing prices, then your local government ducked up zoning and development laws really badly.

How do you figure? A blind flood of money breaks most markets.

Re: Opposition to Sidewalk Labs in Toronto

#100

Post by ip26 » Sun, May 19, 2019, 4:07 AM UTC

tedivm wrote: post #68

mabbo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really fascinating. I'm not bothered by developers making money. They're a very important part of the housing system. But what does bother me is when you have buildings poorly constructed, made to be cheap to build but expensive to maintain. Most of the condos along the waterfront meet that criteria. Even my own building, which on the whole is pretty well built, has to undergo a huge renovation to each unit be…

PVC is extremely common for plumbing and should not, by it self, cause any issues. Copper pipes are very expensive and leak copper into the water, which can have some negative affects on health. The middle school I went to actually had to bring in bottled water because the copper quantity in the water was too high. Copper pipes are also much louder.

First of all PVC can't be used on the drinking side, only drain. Second of all, not all types of plastic used in plumbing have stood the test of time.