"Sensors would track residents’ every movement...." That's all I need to know to turn me against this. Oh well, I suppose if I don't want my whereabouts to be tracked and sold to the highest bidder, I can just stay home for the rest of my life.
2
Google doesn't care about privacy concerns, nor did any of its subsidiaries. Let's be honest. They want our data because they make a fortune from it. I had no idea they were collecting my buying history through gmail until NYT wrote a story about it. Now I use proton mail. Google, Amazon and Facebook need to be broken up and the US pass a blanket consumer privacy law that says no company can sell your data without your implicit written consent. Without that, nothing will change.
1
Fight, fight, fight with all your might Toronto. Godspeed.
3
No tech company, no matter how valuable and powerful, should have free reign. This is includes Google and all the others.
21
It's great to see that for once the users have some way to influence, in advance, the deployment of innovations which have been imagined, designed and pushed by corporations.
We need to question the direction of social progress and whether all technological innovations are actually contributing to it. In a better world society would be included in the ideation process rather than being treated like mere recipient with limited voting rights expressed via their purchase decisions.
In a fast changing world we need a clearer and deeper vision of where we want to go (and not go), five, ten, fifty years from now.
I'm also hoping this can be a good case study for the incoming global wave of IoT enabled by the future 5G infrastructure. There is massive amount of private investment in that sector and 5G is often presented to the public as a natural and simple speed upgrade to the existing network without much debate about the societal impact of the dense and hyper-connected mesh of sensors and gadget that will inevitable come with it.
This story shows that nothing is inevitable if we are well informed and we remember that we have the right to collectively imagine own future rather than accept the one imposed on us. Convenience is never free.
21
@Ariadne Neither is food. Neither is medical treatment. Does the future you want to impose "collectively imagine" what starving, freezing people want? Or are we collateral?
2
It's interesting that, in response to the accusation that Sidewalk would sell people's offline data, the Sidewalk CEO says, "We have always said that there is no connection to Google" rather than "We have no intention of selling your data."
This clear, not-at-all-the-point non-response speaks volumes.
37
@Michael-in-Vegas Yes, it does. It says: "We have always said that there is no connection to Google". It says it right there. His is a quote, yours is an anonymous opinion. Why believe your opinion over theirs? What are you offering us, exactly?
2
"Several people, including Mr. Balsillie, rejected Sidewalk’s fundamental premise that algorithms, rather than politics, are the best way to design and run a city." That fundamental premise, that algorithms make better judgements than people and should therefore be deferred-to, is already way too accepted and widespread, primarily because creating and deploying algorithms is cheaper than paying people to make decisions. If unchecked we are definitely heading toward a dystopian future. I applaud the work of the opponents to this project.
49
@Ken Krigstein Yes, let's continue to leave all the following decisions in people's hands:
1. The distribution of wealth.
2. Whether to drink before driving.
3. How to cheat on taxes.
4. How to murder female family members.
5. Which white supremacists to join up with.
6. How to pick presidents.
7. How to bribe politicians.
8. Whether or not to let Walmart destroy small towns.
9. How to make fake news.
The primary purpose of an algorithm is to solve a multi-step computational problem with a reliable methodology. It isn't cheap at all. And it does solve all sorts of problems that humans can't fix. Computers don't drink and drive, they don't take bribes, and they at least attempt to solve problems. Humans are impulsive and selfish: why is trusting my life to you safer than trusting it to an algorithm? If you're going to complain that computers don't solve human problems well enough, you should be working really hard yourself to solve those problems better. Are you? Politics has had a long enough shot at solving big problems, and it hasn't done it yet. Step aside and let a professional do the job, if all you know how to do is stop thing.
6
Common sense regulations have saved Canada from the worst impact of global financial crisis. A partnership between government representatives of a cautious and moderate public and civic minded consultants with large, profiteering companies could bring additional employment and housing opportunities is a worthwhile effort.
Time for Google to "split the dif" between profit and civic duty if they want to participate in Canadian culture and lifestyle.
4
Toronto risks losing an incredible opportunity to showcase innovative and responsible urban development with sustainable attributes that will become a model for planning and development. Concerns about data and privacy are valid- but there are so many positive things about this plan that do not rely on data. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!
6
@Doug Moreland Thank you thank you thank you. A noble thinker emerges! I am depressed by the number of self-appointed do-gooders from the orbit of Mars and beyond telling the citizens of Ontario (I'm near the furthest edge of the Greater Toronto Area, but southern Ontario is Toronto turf) what is good for them. Most people wanted this development. It wasn't an invasion; they were invited. The opposition was loud, but they were in the verifiable minority, and they've won with lies and paranoia because they presented no facts. None. Not one. They have done a great wrong to the vulnerable here, who would have gotten housing, shelter, safe-injection sites, medical facilities, food service...it would have been great for "all of us", but middle-class freak-outs over the exposure of pornography habits has trumped the lives of the poorest and weakest yet again. I'm sick of the pride with which the "advocates for all of us" cloak themselves. They weren't working for the "us"; they were polishing their halos for the middle-class, pretending they were standing up to the "one-percent". "Us" had nothing to do with it. "Us" is not important compared to "our moral ideals". There is no "us".
5
So much of this noise is meaningless. Haven't you noticed yet the people who constantly stir up paranoid resentment against Google are silent on government information gathering? These "privacy advocates" never consult the people they're "advocating for". They just put on the loud-pants and announce that they're protesting on my behalf. I don't care about their privacy issues. The "advocates" live in a privileged bubble, and don't seem to want that privilege extended further. Their "ethics and morals" issues are empty: they never say exactly what the problem with Google's information gathering is. "They'll use it against you" is the only reason we get for any of this. Why would they use it against you? They want your money, not your subservience. It's the government that wants your subservience; business just wants your loyalty, and they pay a lot to get it. It's not the moral high-ground they defend; it's their own self-aggrandizing selfie-driven politics they're shouting about, not mine, or the poor, or the disabled, or the unemployable, or the women who want to walk safely at night, or the people who are terrified that vulnerable children can't be tracked in a city of almost 7.5 million people, or the people who wish they knew who the hit-and-run driver was who killed their kid. Any of you privacy prophets ever think about that, all the good you're putting a stop to, supposedly on behalf of people who want it and need it and DON'T AGREE WITH YOU?
2
Alphabet, Google, now Sidewalk all have the same basic business model--selling personal data for money. That is why use of Google is free to end users--the company makes billions off users' personal data--users who cannot "opt out" of Google's data collection scheme--only cancel Google.
The second part oh Alphabet's, and subsidiary's, business plan is to avoid paying taxes on the billions they make selling data. While each end user's data brings earnings to this monolith, it fights, worldwide, to dodge paying up. Sidewalk was even asking Canada for tax breaks to pay for the waterfront spyware development.
They are simple thieves, refusing their services to end usrrs who don't want their privacy violated (they won't even accept subscriptions that guarantee no sale of that user's information).
Then they turn around and steal from governments, refusing to pay taxes.
All the while, human privacy is sacrificed and data buyers are unknown. This presents a security threat.
Coumtries knows how much tax Alphabet/Google owes in each one. Tax evasion is a crime.
So is espionage and manipulative propaganda, which data harvesters and sellers are likely supporting.
4
Alphabet, Google, now Sidewalk all have the same basic business model--selling personal data for money. That is why use of Google is free to end users--the company makes billions off users' personal data--users cannot "opt out" of Google's data collection scheme--only cancel Google.
The second part of Alphabet's, and subsidiary's, business plan is to avoid paying taxes on the billions they make selling data. While each end user's data brings earnings to this monolith, it fights, worldwide, to dodge paying up. Sidewalk was even asking Canada for tax breaks to pay for the waterfront spyware development.
They are simple thieves, refusing their services to end users who don't want their privacy violated (they won't even accept paid subscriptions that guarantee no sale of that user's information).
Then they turn around and steal from governments, refusing to pay taxes.
All the while, human privacy is sacrificed and data buyers are unknown. This presents a security threat.
Countries knows how much tax Alphabet/Google owes in each one. Tax evasion is a crime.
So is espionage and manipulative propaganda, which data harvesters and sellers are likely supporting.
1
Classic resistance to change! In that regard, any reason will do as long as it sounds threatening enough. In the meantime, life goes on but without the much needed change that brought about the idea in the first place.
2
@jpduffy3
"In the meantime, life goes on but without the much needed change that brought about the idea in the first place."
Needed by whom? Were all proposed changes really "much needed"? If they are really so much needed why is the community resisting to them? Which "idea" are you referring to and how much came from the population rather than businesses and local government?
Let's be clear about it the Alphabet group is the largest advertising company in the world. This is their core business and they made it successful, in great part, by collecting personal and behavioural data. The background and expertise of their staff and directors is predominantly in computer science, search engine, web advertising and management. Not in urban planning. Just because one company has amassed a very large amount of profit (partly due to near-monopolistic strategies) and power doesn't mean we have to let them blindly control more and more of our life.
If one day you lose access to years of messages from your Gmail account, your site mysteriously drops from Google search ranking or your private documents accidentally leaked from their cloud storage, there will be nobody to protect you. Is that the kind of customer service you'd like Alphabet to also apply to domestic and urban planning?
Some progress is necessary but after the many excesses and abuses from the past 15 years it is important to seriously question the "solutionist" philosophy (see Evgeny Morozov theory on this).
5
@Ariadne Google is not a government. They are not bound by law or custom to provide infinite free-service to you or us. You don't have to use them, and you have to pay them if you do: we pay for a free service by letting them count things about us. I'm fine with that. I don't care if you aren't: they're a private business, and you don't have to be a customer. They do not owe you. Search rankings are not a human right; pay up or go elsewhere. Your problem is not my problem, and your solution hurts me far more than it helps you. Google is amongst the biggest companies on Earth; they can hire people. Their urban planning may have over-reached, but "...blindly control our lives"? Who is "our"? Am I a blind slave? How is my life "controlled"? What are you talking about? Why does it matter? Why are the allegations always so vague, and supported by the rhetoric of paranoia? Let me explain from right here that many of the proposed changes certainly are needed, desperately. The benefit to the poor and exposed was huge, and you just kick them to the curb with heroic dogma. Everybody was consulted, and that includes street people; who have any of the anti-Google people contacted? When did they walk the street? It's easy to take potshots at a big company, but Google does far more for the vulnerable than the paranoid prophets and da gummint do. "Solutionist philosophy"? Really? People are dying on the street, and you're quoting some Russian guy? Get a priority, and talk to a human.
1
I envy the citizens of Toronto and their good common sense.
Here in the US, Google and other personal data pirates need to be reined in, regulated and taxed.
5
@Bill That's not why you should envy them. It wasn't "good common sense" that did it. It was selfie-politics, and it was not about ordinary citizens. Yes, Google needs to be regulated, but calling them "pirates" does not excuse the ignorance and heroic poses of our "protectors". You "rein them in", and you put a kink in the world economy and education and medical communications and my rare personal finances, and you do so at no discernable benefit to yourself, and at the cost of suffering unalleviated that you can see from space. I have no idea what you think forbidding Google from doing what it does best is smart, when their competition in the information-gathering field is the Chinese and Russian intelligence communities. I feel far more comfortable knowing that Google knows what my underwear preferences are, than knowing that every moment of my life is under surveillance by people who kill their enemies with permits.
1
Sidewalk Labs swept into Toronto with a suitcase full of promised futuristic baubles about the "city of tomorrow". Apparently, the citizens of one of the most modern and well functioning mass urban areas on the continent were supposed to be awestruck by...heated sidewalks that melt snow...robotic garbage pick up...6 story timber buildings that saves the environment...and a suspicious bunch of data gathering surveillance systems. Toronto has indicated that a 12 acre Disneyland, courtesy of Google, is not a priority. The city is growing by 100,000 people a year, manages the growth successfully, and maintains a vibrant governance culture of discussion and people-made decisions.
6
Truth is Google is coming to steal your digital workers. Instead of Toronto, Canada having great startups they want to get those cheap Canadian workers working for them; and they dont even have to pay for healthcare. Don't let Google steal your talent Canada. Don't let Google steal your resources. This is theft pure and simple.
4
With China's surveillance and restriction of Uyghurs, it's no wonder we are suspicious.
5
When the only person you can find to support you is Richard Florida ....I figured he was too busy back-peddling his "creative class" fiasco but money is money.
Nobody in Toronto wanted this and frankly citizens are moving in the opposite direction wanting more direct say in how the city is run.
9
Now let's make the same progress against Google itself! I only use Gmail at work, because they've suckered my employer. Any chance I get, however, I hammer the dangers of Google into coworkers who have some pull ... Sometimes I believe I may be making progress. We'll see, won't work if I don't try anyway.
4
@__ Good luck with your future headaches. You'll have a lot of them, unless you can find a softer brick wall to bash your head against than "the future". I doubt in the end that you'll influence anyone to stop using Google. It would be like advising people to stop watching tv...stay tuned for further developments. I hope breathing air never bothers you this way, because you'll probably suffocate and die, and no one will agree with that, either, plus, they're be sad. I like Google. I like Microsoft. They're generous; don't contradict me because I've been a beneficiary of both of them, and I'm too disabled to work. I consciously attempt to influence people to use Google and Microsoft, buy stuff from Amazon, watch movies on Netflix, burn Apple products in a churchyard, bore themselves to tears on Facebook, record their boring lives on Twitter and so on, and I bet I have more success countering your position than you'll ever overcome. You don't fight city hall if you don't like it; you do have reasons not to like city hall, I agree, but you don't fight it. You co opt it. You buy in with political capital. You influence. You spy. You research. You go over city hall's head. Fighting city hall the way you do...there will be more people fighting against you when you finally give up than there were when you started. Stop fighting. Start winning. You'd be surprised what asking favours can do from the people you cast as enemies. I know.
From a Torontonian and Canadian...Jim Balsillie is a hack...a big talker...yes he did well with RIM...however he has been unable for the most part to turn that into any big successes since...see tried to move NHL's Penguins to Hamilton...so I'm not convinced his opinion isn't backed by some interest group that would like to see the project fail...Did Sidewalk Labs overreach?...I think it's evident they did...however there are many folks in Toronto who are very interested in this project and seeing it go forward.
6
This is truly the arrival of the dystopian world of George Orwell's "1984", or Hitler's Germany. We must not only reject projects like Sidewalk, but also reduce tech's influence over our cyber lives. For instance, I will never walk into an Amazon Go store, and I hope they're a failure. The real world is run by messy humans, and that's just the way it has to be. The tyranny of the algorithm designers must be rejected.
6
Sidewalk Labs has already taken over New York City. Those ubiquitous Link NYC terminals already dot most streets and have been harvesting video and wifi data for years. (check out the cameras on top of each) For some reason New Yorkers do not seem to care as much about their privacy.
The only one to raise concerns when they installed the kiosks was the ACLU, and their primary concern was the sharing of the data with NYC's law enforcement. No concerns were raised about data monopolies or consumer privacy.
9
we do not want more surveillance in our city
16
One might point out Google put Mr. Balsillie's RIM out of business.
7
Nope. That was Apple. Google was a Johnny come lately hanger on, and pretty unsuccessful at it; though Android was a worldwide success, ironically none of Google's own of phones succeeded commercially. Like other tech behemoths (Microsoft) they just don't know how to do consumer products in the cut throat world competition that is cell phones. They did have the money to finance it though, from the profitable part of their business they know how to run.
3
@Josh One might point out thats its not.
3
@Josh With C$ 800 million in the bank and an extensive record of philanthropy in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, I don't think Mr. Balsillie is feeling particularly poor these days.
2
Doctoroff tried to force the Olympics on NYC immediately after 9/11.
And here he is in Toronto. Still trying to take from the public for his own benefit.
By the way, algorithms reflect coder choices, inherently political and best suited to an explicitly political process, or else they are random, which is even scarier.
11
"After admitting that it had underestimated privacy worries with its original plan . . . "
What a laugh. Google, from day one, has consistently underestimated privacy worries. And it powered on anyway, sucking up all the information it could gather on every human on earth then used it (or sold it to entities who used it) to gaslight each and everyone of us.
Google and Facebook. They should both disappear from the face of the earth.
25
There is no shortage of capable property developers or ample capital looking to develop Toronto's underutilized lands. Period.
It defies logic that The-Powers-That-Be decided to make a Faustian bargain with a foreign business which has no background in development or city building, and whose modus operandi is overreach and data curation. Balsillie isn't wrong about Google.
26
People are up in arms about this but we are all giving away personal info all the time - using cell phones, apps, social media, credit cards, etc.
This project sounds like a great way to advance urban life with a real world test lab.
6
@FFNY There's a big difference between 'giving' and 'taking'...as the kerffufle over Cambraidge Analytica clearly demonstrates.
Many innovative proposals were put forth over the years by domestic developers to do creative and *suitable* buildings for the site, only to be rebuffed.
And then Sidewalk comes along to promise Munchausen Digital Deluxe unbound, and Waterfront Toronto grovels in excitement...until digesting the details.
11
@ssaines
What I am saying is that people living in the waterfront toronto would presumably have given consent to this data collection.
for some thing, like location tracking, I feel uncomfortale.
For other things, such as how much water I am using, my home energy consumption, I am willing to trade that off for a possible improvement.
1
@ssaines You won the interwebs today with your last paragraph -- superb! accurate! and poetic!
1
The biggest problem is that Google (or Alphabet, or Sidewalk Labs) has no plans for public accountability via democratic style elections or transparency. Why should they trust a private corporation to run their lives with no reassurance that public benefit is their number one priority?
17
Google's plan sounds good to me. The advantages seem to outweigh any downside. A lot of places would love to have this. Reminds me of the recent story about Brooklyn rejecting an Amazon warehouse. Fine. They'll just go somewhere else.
5
@Mike
Just wondering, where exactly do you think they'll find another 800 acre plot of land with at least 12 acres on the shoreline, in a first-class, major city?
9
@Mike How would you influence the direction that Sidewalk Labs decides to take things? How would you vote yea or nay on their decisions, which can influence many lives without their knowing? How would you hold them accountable to the public?
A democratic society requires these things to be laid out clearly, unless we fall victim to corporate monarchism.
9
Who says it has to be a “first-class” city? Who says it needs 800 acres? I read what Sidewalk Labs proposed, and if they brought it to Kansas City’s river front, I’d be thrilled. Cities that are booming may think they can develop and build as before. So pick a city that needs some help. They are out there. Maybe it’s in the U.S. or maybe it’s overseas. The concepts that Sidewalk Labs has been putting forward will travel. Can you think of cities that are struggling and could use a shot in the arm? I can.
2