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.
> 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. :)
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 For example, the quote by the Queen's University professor is not accurate (or, charitably, outdated as of the time of publishing).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.
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?
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.
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.
> Last year, the firm's own privacy adviser Dr Ann Cavoukian resigned. "I imagined us creating a smart city of privacy, as opposed to a smart city of surveillance", she said bluntly in her resignation letter.
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".
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.
Surveillance already exists. Cameras and sensors are everywhere in any modern city.
Selling that data off to Google to do god knows what with it is the issue.
Ofcourse I live in a country with a reasonably well functioning government. They can run a smart city without whoring themselves out to Silicon Valley.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Because they should be a small fraction of your market. If they have outsides weight like this, then you’ve been constraining your housing for decades.
I'm not familiar with Toronto but foreign speculators are reportedly about 10% of real estate transactions in Vancouver. Just how much more housing were they supposed to have built?
> 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).
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:
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).
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.
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.
Tbf, the problem comes in when developers (or someone - developers are probably just the most visible) make a pile of cash for coming in, pushing renters out of a small numbed of relatively affordable units, ploping down a building with a large number of completely in affordable units, and causing a huge headache for everyone living in the area in the process.
I'm generally for development, but the way it's carried out in many cases tends to screw over existing residents while benefitting mostly just people-who-dont-live-there.
" 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."
Though I don't like the prospects of Google doing this, there are two issues with the comment:
- Google is probably 'doing the city a favour'. Google has a gadgillion dollars we've handed to them, and their de-facto cost of capital (internally at least) is very cheap. The project probably won't make them a dime, it's borderline one of those 'moonshot' things, a speculative project that they can maybe learn from, get some PR, a giant branding exercise. They could easily lose a lot of money. They are definitely not doing this is a regular 'real estate play'.
- Toronto 'desperately needs housing'? Then why is Toronto very aggressively bringing in 100K people per year into the city? That seems like a dumb thing to do with a 'lack of housing'? Housing prices are a function of market demand, interest rates, and distorted somewhat by small amounts of inelastic demand from elsewhere.
But your original comment i.e. disusland is apt: the land is very valuable. The city should ideally zone it for whatever purpose we think is best, and then sell it. Then it will very actively 'used' for the purposes in which we have zoned it, and we don't need to worry at all about managing it.
Surely there are some strategic things we could to, but again that has a lot to do with zoning: maybe we want a big park, maybe a huge shopping mall, maybe 10000 identical homes, maybe 10000 entirely unique homes, maybe giant factories, maybe tiny factories - we can mostly zone and regulate for what we want.
There are so many uninformed opinions here. The land is already being developed, it is well underway. There is substantial infrastructure, and decontamination projects ongoing for many years. Waterfront Toronto is a three level of government partnership (Federal, provincial and local) that plans the public spaces, roadways, transit and sells the land to developers to fund their activities (so yes, a lot of money). Sidewalk labs partnered with them to integrate smart city ideas, etc. The complexities of the situation are due to the fact that Sidewalk labs is really just the front end of many different companies that would provide the technology to make it happen.
Sorry, but for ostensibly 'so many uniformed opinions' - you have provided no facts at all to validate this position.
... and ironically your comment "Sidewalk labs partnered with them to integrate smart city ideas," is effectively not true, it's far beyond that.
"There is substantial infrastructure, and decontamination projects ongoing for many years" comment I think is possibly misrepresentative as well, it implies 'the work has started' - when really it hasn't - moreover, I did not indicate that 'nothing has been done'.
Again:
1) To the OP's point: this is a strategic, highly speculative project for Google, possibly not money making in the direct sense, and it's likely Toronto could come out ahead in some way (though I doubt it). Google is a massively cash flush entity, looking for ways to spend money.
2) Toronto doesn't have a desperate housing problem - it has a housing pricing problem. The Google project is not really relevant anyhow (it's small and will have less housing than zoning permits)
3) The city should zone and regulate the land for 'whatever purposes are suitable' and then that's mostly it, which is an opinion, but not exactly controversial as this is what most cities, including Toronto, do all of the time.
To your points:
A) Google is not gong to 'integrate smart city ideas' - they want to be considerably more than that, they want to effectively be a municipal of entity: they'll plan, subcontract, 'micro zone' etc.. Their plans go far beyond just tech, or just communications, just consultation
- even into the realm of construction materials, architecture, sub-planning, even taxation! See the leaked data [1].
I actually would agree if Google were involved only to 'help with some IT/tech issues' or even 'advising' on developing some aspects of information etc. but this goes way beyond that.
B) The 'Sidewalks Labs' relevant work has not been planned or started, of course some municipal infrastructural activities that have been going on for some time, but that's a general activity. 'Decontamination' is obviously something that would have to be done irrespective of whatever they built (i.e. shops, factories, parks etc.)
Sidewalks Labs hasn't yet even proposed a detailed curriculum of what's going to happen, it's not fair to indicate that 'work has been ongoing for some time' even though some basic municipal activity has been.
> Then why is Toronto very aggressively bringing in 100K people per year into the city
Toronto doesn't choose who comes here. It's not stealing people from around the world and forcing them to come, nor does it try to stop anyone from migrating. Toronto is just a great city and the world wants to live here. We're the most multicultural city on the planet for that reason. We're something special, and I live here in part because I celebrate that special quality.
Second, and more importantly, as you said the price of housing is a function of supply and demand. With rising demand, supply side must keep up to prevent housing prices from looking like Vancouver or San Francisco.
Where we do agree is in what should be done: zone for tall buildings and dense land use, auction the land, build as much as we can as quickly as we can.
Pick any specific measurable metric for what "multicultural" means and Toronto usually comes out on top, or in the top 3. There have been some studies done on the subject. Even just googling "Most multicultural city" will usually give you back Toronto or a top 5 list that includes it.
1) Your point on source of population growth is not true.
Toronto knows how many people come there as a function of overall migration and is a very active participant in migration policy.
Moving 100K people / year into Toronto is part of the plan.
On a national level, we plan for this, knowing very well how many are going to Toronto.
2) Toronto does not grow 'because it's a great city'. It's only 'great' relative to the options of most of it's poor migrants from Philippines, China, India etc.. Having a 'decent government with basic laws' is not 'great', it's just 'normal'.
(Edit: I grew up in Toronto hence my strong opinion, and wasn't able to put it in perspective until I lived abroad in many places)
Ironically, for all of it's 'multiculturalism', Toronto is actually a very bland, uninspiring, nondescript place where nothing really happens. It's mostly American big box retail, foreign cars, nondescript architecture. Toronto has tons of Starbucks', Tim Horton's.
It actually 'has everything' (i.e. the Opera House, decent public transport, major sports teams) - all the checkmarks, but nothing stands out on a world class scale. Toronto is a grand exercise is 'basic civic function' but almost nothing more than that.
To given an example - Toronto doesn't even have a single Michelin starred restaurant. Not one. Ever. Chicago has about 20. Seoul has about 20. Not that Chicago and Seoul are 'better overall' - but they have enough identity, character, soul, character, productivity (i.e. money) to do notable things.
Can you name a single product or service designed in Toronto that anyone, anywhere else is the world can name? Or uses? Can you name a really important international company HQ'd in Toronto?
Admittedly, being able to incorporate a lot of people very fairly from around the world and get them education, jobs, integrate them fairly well - is in fact something 'notable' for which Canada/Toronto doesn't get enough credit. We should be proud of that. But beyond secular civic issues - Toronto is a 'non place'. This is why people that have established roots in more aspirational places are not flocking to Toronto.
People 'flee' to Toronto to escape crappy conditions.
People from Kyoto, Stockholm and Zurich are not thinking 'oh, we really need to move to Toronto, they have so many Starbucks'. They're not coming.
3) "Where we do agree is in what should be done: zone for tall buildings and dense land use"
I don't really agree at all. I say cut the number of people coming to the city substantially (i.e. normalize the rate of immigration) which would entail obviously a national strategy, and also put some special conditions on foreign speculation.
After the last 20 years of re-construction, Toronto already has enough density.
I don't see any point at all in growing into a massive, vertical city with tons of traffic and density is positive in any way, for anyone frankly.
Then we can talk to Google about some things for which they have great expertise: information management and connectivity (i.e. not building neighbourhoods), and hopefully do it in a way that respects people's privacy.
> To given an example - Toronto doesn't even have a single Michelin starred restaurant. Not one. Ever. Chicago has about 20. Seoul has about 20. Not that Chicago and Seoul are 'better overall' - but they have enough identity, character, soul, character, productivity (i.e. money) to do notable things.
For anyone curious, this is because Michelin doesn't publish a restaurant guide for Canada. No restaurant in Canada has a Michelin star.
> I don't see any point at all in growing into a massive, vertical city with tons of traffic and density is positive in any way, for anyone frankly.
You need a certain density of people to support a unique local arts & culture. The more people you have supporting amenities, the more you can support.
Any city that depends heavily on cars for transportation has a natural limit on the number of people that can support an amenity, because transportation costs (like traffic) rise non-linearly with population.
So IMO "world-class" and car-centric transportation infrastructure are incompatible.
Great post other than your comment about Michelin star restaurants. To the best of my knowledge Michelin only reviews selected cities and Toronto isn't on that list (perhaps for a reason). So even the best restaurants there are ineligible until Michelin wants to include the city / area.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
You can probably find it in some '60s future somewhere. Why would you build a perfectly fine tunnel and use that for irregular traffic, when you can hide the traffic and have the street for mixed use [-1]? We have had trash chutes [0] and AVAC [1] for centuries in Sweden (not always connected unfortunately). My local garbage truck have one of those robotic arms, and I don't live anywhere fancy. So I can't say I get it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...).
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.
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
None of them are happening. What is happening is a vague statement that left a void where futurists like yourself have filled in with hype fueled imaginings of their own.
The basic economics deny all 3 of your suggestions. The TTC doesn’t have smart buses. Garbage collection is regulated through citywide contracts to private collectors who are not going to waste their own margin on off schedule collection. Same with parking, which is run through a city agency Green P that would have to adapt its systems for one neighbourhood?
While all are theoretically possible it would require a lot more economic infrastructure than one corporate neighbourhood.
So set your expectations to more mundane levels. Public wifi and surveillance cameras like in Beijing.
I don't think you need smart buses to be able to add/remove capacity to a route as it fills.
the data collection/aggregation/analysis sound like the fast part of getting a bus to a route, even if it's bus drivers calling in to report a busy route. the slow part would be getting the bus to the route
It's about solving some of the problems that block those things from happening. It doesn't even matter that we aren't ready to roll-out yet. It's whether you can enable informed policy.
The basic economics will change in time and there's no reason to wait for the planets to align to do some things. That's how you win. When the time is ripe, you've already solved the other problems.
This is the Newton. The iPad will come.
Honestly, I've had fewer greater compliments than "hype-filled futurist". Our fevered dreams will one day be reality.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah. Toronto waterfront project dates back to city's bid for 2008 olimpics. As far as I can tell, all that city managed to build is a small university campus
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.
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.
Google's plan really isn't that crazy. If all the weird things they want to do didn't work out, you'd be left with a fairly conventional neighbourhood in keeping with progressive low-car urban design principles.
It's not like Google has carte blanche to do whatever they want, they've been in ongoing consultation with city planners from the start.
Torontonians never went there because it was an industrial wasteland. But it's being re-zoned, and Toronto waterfront is quite possibly the most desired real-estate in the entire country outside Vancouver.
>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.
Ridiculous. In what modern world is this actually possible? Certainly not Canada (nor the U.S. to the best of my knowledge).
Yes, it's ridiculous and it shouldn't be. I'd love to live in a place where there are people and services, but no cars. Such a place does not (to my knowledge) exist in North America. We can't even have one place like that. It's gotta be the same shit everywhere.
It's the public waterfront and one of the busiest recreation trails in the city pass through it, so actually it really does matter.
Google, rather Sidewalk labs, screwed up royally, but what they learned is invaluable. No idea if this particular project can be salvaged, but anyone wanting to build a smart city should study the lessons.
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, aestheticly appealing and economically productive neighbourhood.
There are some good quotes in this older Reuters story (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-cities-privacy-fea...):
> 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. :)