5 ms·

I came here to say something similar. I've seen many people using them all hours of the day & night. People are watching music videos, charging their phone, get

I came here to say something similar. I've seen many people using them all hours of the day & night. People are watching music videos, charging their phone, getting directions, and surfing the internet. The people using them are often those that don't have the luxury (necessity?) of walking around with a nice smart phone and a big data plan. Do they have ads on them? Of course. So do the bus shelters which are funded using a similar public/private partnership. If you are worried about the data collection, don't use them or the wifi provided by them. But you are basically saying you trust Verizon/AT&T/T-Mobile/Sprint with your data more than you trust Sidewalk Labs/Google. Is that an informed tradeoff?

smpetrey 10y ago
On the streets and subways? Hell yeah it would be worth it. If I had to choose who gets my data I think I take Google over an A Mobile ISP like At&t or Verizon
- Vexs 10y ago
  This is my little deal with the devil, I know that google has loads of my data, but I know they'll do something to keep it in house, instead of selling it off to whoever. It's more profitable for google not to sell your data because they already have the largest ad provider out there.
walterbell 10y ago
Google's business model is based on selling user-generated data to advertisers, unlike telcos who sell network data to you. See Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff's video on Surveillance Capitalism, https://vimeo.com/110222526 https://vimeo.com/110222526 NYC has the leverage to negotiate better financial terms for capturing the value of city residents data. The money generated from harvesting city resident behavior can then be invested into city infrastructure and services for residents. Data and networks are here to stay. What is open for negotiation is the split of revenue between city residents and vendors. For example, kiosks could be funded as neutral infrastructure that could be shared by competing vendors. A city itself is "shared infrastructure".
- blfr 10y ago
  Google's business model is based on selling user-generated data to advertisers, unlike telcos who sell network data to you. Come on. Telcos are just not competent enough to do what Google do. It's not like they're morally opposed to it or wouldn't try. Remember Verizon injecting headers into their users' http traffic to track them for advertisers? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh
  - walterbell 10y ago
    Surveillance incompetence is a feature, not a bug, in a neutral network provider. Edit: the onus is on the city to negotiate better terms with the network provider. The city would have a better negotiating position if there were multiple vendors (including telcos) competing for the network/data business. Once better terms are in the contract, security researchers can help ensure compliance.
    - blfr 10y ago
      No, it isn't. That just means they will spill your data to some random 17yr old who figures out how to increment a parameter in the URL or something.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Google's business model is based on selling user-generated data to advertisers, unlike telcos who sell network data to you. Sure, because the telcos have no interest in tracking their customers for profit[1]? As long as it's profitable and legal, any public company will eventually sell metadata regarding you. Since the data is profitable, if we want to protect ourselves from this that leaves us with making it illegal to collect and share, either through contract or by law. 1: http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/7/11173010/verizon-supercookie-fine-1-3-million-fcc http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/7/11173010/verizon-supercooki...
- morgante 10y ago
  > Google's business model is based on selling user-generated data to advertisers, unlike telcos who sell network data to you. Really? Where? I have worked on some large marketing projects. We'd love to be able to buy user data from Google. This facile argument is really getting old. When you get a free newspaper, does that mean you're getting "sold?"

smpetrey 10y ago

On the streets and subways? Hell yeah it would be worth it. If I had to choose who gets my data I think I take Google over an A Mobile ISP like At&t or Verizon

Vexs 10y ago
This is my little deal with the devil, I know that google has loads of my data, but I know they'll do something to keep it in house, instead of selling it off to whoever. It's more profitable for google not to sell your data because they already have the largest ad provider out there.

walterbell 10y ago

Google's business model is based on selling user-generated data to advertisers, unlike telcos who sell network data to you. See Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff's video on Surveillance Capitalism, https://vimeo.com/110222526 https://vimeo.com/110222526 NYC has the leverage to negotiate better financial terms for capturing the value of city residents data. The money generated from harvesting city resident behavior can then be invested into city infrastructure and services for residents. Data and networks are here to stay. What is open for negotiation is the split of revenue between city residents and vendors. For example, kiosks could be funded as neutral infrastructure that could be shared by competing vendors. A city itself is "shared infrastructure".

blfr 10y ago
Google's business model is based on selling user-generated data to advertisers, unlike telcos who sell network data to you. Come on. Telcos are just not competent enough to do what Google do. It's not like they're morally opposed to it or wouldn't try. Remember Verizon injecting headers into their users' http traffic to track them for advertisers? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh
- walterbell 10y ago
  Surveillance incompetence is a feature, not a bug, in a neutral network provider. Edit: the onus is on the city to negotiate better terms with the network provider. The city would have a better negotiating position if there were multiple vendors (including telcos) competing for the network/data business. Once better terms are in the contract, security researchers can help ensure compliance.
  - blfr 10y ago
    No, it isn't. That just means they will spill your data to some random 17yr old who figures out how to increment a parameter in the URL or something.
kbenson 10y ago
> Google's business model is based on selling user-generated data to advertisers, unlike telcos who sell network data to you. Sure, because the telcos have no interest in tracking their customers for profit[1]? As long as it's profitable and legal, any public company will eventually sell metadata regarding you. Since the data is profitable, if we want to protect ourselves from this that leaves us with making it illegal to collect and share, either through contract or by law. 1: http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/7/11173010/verizon-supercookie-fine-1-3-million-fcc http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/7/11173010/verizon-supercooki...
morgante 10y ago
> Google's business model is based on selling user-generated data to advertisers, unlike telcos who sell network data to you. Really? Where? I have worked on some large marketing projects. We'd love to be able to buy user data from Google. This facile argument is really getting old. When you get a free newspaper, does that mean you're getting "sold?"