
Opposition to Sidewalk Labs in Toronto - onemoresoop
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47815344
======
60654
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.reuters.com/article/us-canada-cities-privacy-
fea...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-cities-privacy-
feature/green-paradise-or-data-stealing-dystopia-toronto-smart-city-sparks-
debate-idUSKBN1QS25E)):

> 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. They will have intellectual property rights over all of
> this (data).”

> “We live in a system that values property rights,” Orasch told the Thomson
> Reuters Foundation. “In that system, data is a valuable asset for an
> individual to have.”

And the developer asking for investment money and a cut of property taxes, on
top of gathering all this private data and owning it forever without
oversight, is just icing on the cake. :)

~~~
rory096
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University professor is not accurate (or, charitably, outdated as of the time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. They will have intellectual
property rights over all of this (data).”

In October 2018 Sidewalk proposed a third party "Civic Data Trust" that would
own and maintain the data. Its blog post on the subject reiterates
_repeatedly_ that the data cannot and should not be owned by Sidewalk:

>No one has a right to own information collected from Quayside’s physical
environment — including Sidewalk Labs. Instead, this “urban data” should be
under the control of an independent Civic Data Trust.

>No one should own urban data — it should be made freely and publicly
available.

>We believe all data needs protection, but the extent to which urban data
specifically may be collected in Quayside is what’s new and different here.
Existing laws on urban data do not address ownership. And urban data is only
regulated when it contains personally identifiable information. Even then,
these rules are often not followed in the public realm. We seek to build on
them.

[https://www.sidewalklabs.com/blog/an-update-on-data-
governan...](https://www.sidewalklabs.com/blog/an-update-on-data-governance-
for-sidewalk-toronto/)

~~~
hedora
Presumably, if the Civic Data Trust proposal was more than a shell game,
Sidewalk Lab’s privacy chief wouldn’t have said they were building a
surveillance system in the resignation letter.

~~~
rory096
I don't see how a civic data trust is mutually exclusive with a surveillance
state — it just provides common ownership and open access to the surveillance
data. It seems Cavoukian's dispute centered on the lack of a requirement for
third-party (non-Alphabet) data providers to anonymize data at the source.

------
ilaksh
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 spy-tech they want and
controlling everything over a large area behind closed doors.

I actually am really looking forward to smart cities. But smart as in high
tech and advanced, not smart as in monopolistic surveillance dystopia.

~~~
njepa
I think surveillance could be part of a smart city. But for that to be smart
it would have to solve the inherent problems with surveillance. An actual
smart city project would proudly announce what it did to solve these
challenges.

I don't see anything on their website that does this, rather it talks about
how developers can enjoy access to ubiquitous connectivity [0]. This is in
stark contrast to other successful initiatives like Vision Zero that started
with trying to define the fundamental problems.

[0] [https://sidewalktoronto.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/Sidewa...](https://sidewalktoronto.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/Sidewalk-Labs-Approach-to-Privacy.pdf) [1]
[https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-
publications/papers...](https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-
publications/papers/visionzero)

~~~
luckylion
> solve the inherent problems with surveillance

Which problems?

~~~
njepa
A simple search can summarize better than I can. There are many sources,
including papers and books, for this.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_issues_in_smart_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_issues_in_smart_cities)

~~~
luckylion
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought there were problems to be solved _in_
surveillance, not _with_ surveillance. I didn't know that wasn't considered
the main drive behind smart cities by everybody.

------
Element_
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 is ~45k USD). The city should only be
approving 100+ story structures in the downtown core until there is enough
supply to meet demand and bring RE prices down to reflect local salaries.

~~~
breitling
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.

~~~
AzzieElbab
How is this Alphabet's fault?

~~~
baudehlo
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 there, but it’s not somewhere I’d want
to live. So maybe low rise is all that can be sold there? I don’t know but
there are other high rises going up now in that area. How are their sales?

~~~
wmil
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.

------
mabbo
> 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 off of our huge need for additional
housing. They choose to make this money via surveillance and advertising, and
increasing demand by promising some neat tech benefits.

But if they weren't here, that land would still be developed. Probably sooner.
(And probably by a developer making money by cutting every corner in the
build).

~~~
Fricken
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...](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/09/what-if-nimbys-hate-
developers-more-than-housing/570169/)

~~~
mabbo
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 because the developer used plastic piping
instead of copper and it's failing. The developer saved a few bucks, and I'm
paying for it years later.

I'm a YIMBY- so long as the developer isn't cutting corners.

~~~
tedivm
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.

~~~
ip26
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.

------
martincmartin
It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor
more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new
order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the
old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the
new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind
who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience
of it.

\-- Nicolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527)

~~~
Apocryphon
There is really very little of Machiavelli's one can accept or use in the
contemporary world. \- Henry Kissinger

~~~
martincmartin
Well, that quote is really very little of Machiavelli. ;)

------
v7p1Qbt1im
Could it be possible that Sidewalk could make money off this project and still
advance city building significantly for the first time in forever? Would you
rather see the the project go to another boring developer without vision?
Another darb apartment park.

There is not even an actual complete proposal yet. And still, there is FUD
coming in from all sides. I for one would like to see cities made for
pedestrians with smart waste disposal and more interesting architecture than
glass blocks.

------
PorterDuff
I think that Google should build company housing at their main facilities,
give their people somewhere to live, and watch them 24/7 like lab rats.

You could accomplish an interesting experiment plus deal with the problem of
giving new hires a place to live.

~~~
hammock
That works if the only places you visit are work and home.

~~~
matz1
Living in company housing means I can't visit anywhere else?

~~~
hammock
No, wanting to surveil someone 24/7 when you only have sensors at home and
work means they can't visit anywhere else.

~~~
matz1
okay but how does it prevent them to visit anywhere else ?

~~~
hammock
That was my point.

------
notatoad
I actually hope this project goes through, just because if it's google doing
it everybody will be watching closely and there might actually be some privacy
regulations that come out of it. The data they'll want to collect is valuable,
and sooner or later somebody is going to try to collect it.

Kicking google out of the city doesn't change that, it just means somebody
you're less likely to suspect and more likely to sell raw data to the highest
bidder will come in in their place.

------
njepa
It looks like every (mostly useless) waterfront, science city or business park
I have ever been to. Is there something new here, or is it like with many
things these days that people's perception have diverged from reality?

~~~
notatoad
the most innovative thing i've seen talked about is an a hidden utility
corridor running to all the buildings for trash pickup. Which can't actually
be an original idea, can it?

~~~
underdown
In a sense isn't that what every alleyway in the world is?

~~~
notatoad
only in the sense that ignores all the ways it's different to an alley.

------
alexashka
I really wish there was a middle-way between 'let them do whatever they want'
and 'let's protest and raise hysteria'.

Let's look at Downtown Toronto development over the past 10 years -
condominiums built on every square inch of land that could be bought? In large
part owned by people who don't plan to stay there long or even owned by a
third party and rented out?

Ok, so that's what's been happening. What can Google possibly do, that is
worse?

They're planning to try new things - go ahead and discuss the details you are
not happy with. Just be aware of the alternative - cheap 30-40 story
condominiums with 500 sq foot units, built to make a quick buck.

~~~
wolco
Collect privacy related data.

------
overkill28
Putting aside privacy for a moment, does anyone know what they're actually
building? As far as I know they've sold the city on a bunch of vague "smart
tech" promises without any concrete details.

I have no idea what Sidewalk Labs business plan is, but it seems like a
traditional business executive (Dan Doctoroff) is trying to use Google's brand
to get access to cities so he can build large developments without actually
knowing anything about technology.

~~~
sunir
Because it has been a smokescreen and a chaotic mess, there is no trustworthy
source of information of what the plan is or the agenda. For that reason alone
it should be axed.

------
droithomme
Interesting they were hoping to collect property taxes and other fees.

If Google wants to have a private company run utopian town to run experiments
in, they should do like Disney did in Florida. Buy some swamp land, develop
it, incorporate it privately, and have absolute control. This plan in Toronto
seems to be corporate colonization of a public city, through stealth.

~~~
MDWolinski
Except, of course, Google doesn't want that because much like 95% of their
projects, they'll abandon it within 5 years anyways. Google wants the rewards,
but not the risks, which with this project, they'll give the city to deal with
after they lose interest in the project.

------
Waterluvian
Canada is like this little brother always in America's big shadow. One thing
we don't talk about as much is how we have this recurring fear that big
American corporations think, "oh this won't fly in the U.S. but just use
Canada. They're simple and slow and will tolerate it."

I guess put simply, the little brother is worried he'll get exploited. It's
partly why the fight for NAFTA and tariffs got so bitter.

------
collective-intl
I'm truly saddened to see the reaction people are having to Sidewalk Labs'
project. The current feeling in the air is to distrust and hate any project
touched by a large tech company and be suspicious of any amount of data
collected.

The environment today is such that both journalists and readers just want to
pile on and make their points speaking out against privacy intrusions and the
greed of big companies.

No one's bothered to understand the actual proposals of Sidewalk Labs and give
them a fair chance.

For example, in contrast to what this article says, Sidewalk Labs would not
own and profit from resident's data -- instead they are trying to be as
careful as possible and leaving it to an independent organization
([https://www.sidewalklabs.com/blog/an-update-on-data-
governan...](https://www.sidewalklabs.com/blog/an-update-on-data-governance-
for-sidewalk-toronto/)).

Many cool ideas comprise Sidewalk Labs' vision, from the layout of a walkable
community to convenient autonomous transport to pushing the leading edge of
power conservation, waste management, and other eco-friendly tech.

In the age of dysfunctional cities like San Francisco, I had hope that a
project bringing together a broad array of talented experts with real
technical competence and letting them envision a model for cities of the
future was a winning combination with huge potential for humanity.

Tragically, it has been doomed by the caprice of political fashion.

~~~
TAForObvReasons
Google Fiber in Louisville is a great case study. Google thought there was a
business wherein they could cheaply provide connectivity to users. Then there
were problems, like exposed lines, and it became clear that fixing those
problems would cost money. In that moment, they abruptly decided to bail,
essentially leaving the city with the burden of fixing the mess Google created
and leaving the early customers who committed to multi-year contracts only a
few months to switch providers.

Politicians have to think longer term than what the current players in tech
have demonstrated. This is 100% a self-created problem

------
sonnyblarney
"a smart city built from the internet up "

I really don't understand the appeal of statement.

~~~
pxue
where every sidewalk garbage-bin will have its own instagram fan page!

~~~
alxmdev
And record who throws what out, and issue ads or fines accordingly! So much
room for innovation.

------
netwanderer3
More and more people will just move away from city once these tech are
deployed on a bigger scale. Life is too short to be subjected to this type of
bullshit.

------
wendyshu
Needless to say, Sidewalk Labs has not angered "Toronto", it has angered
activists who don't live in the neighborhood and never will but apparently
have veto power over what goes on there.

~~~
dade_
I do live here, not an activist, and Sidewalk lab can take a long walk off my
short pier. They have a lot of work to do to repair/rebuild their reputation.

~~~
wendyshu
You live on Sidewalk Labs' property?

------
Fricken
People are very superstitious, and quite hysterical. Google isn't building a
city, they're building a neighbourhood in one small section of Toronto that
most Torontonians never went to anyhow, and are under no obligation to go to
after it has been rebuilt.

Postwar Urban development is fucking monotonous and largely the same
everywhere. We should experiment and try different things. If you don't like
it, fine. Get together with a few thousand like-minded people and build your
own neighbourhood, the way you like it.

~~~
sunir
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 don’t like it, we follow the law and complain to the planning committee.
Like normal people. I don’t really get your position.

~~~
wmil
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).

~~~
sunir
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...](https://cottagelife.com/realestate/inspections-in-
unincorporated-townships/)

