There's a big difference in the attitude of the society that builds these things vs. not, which is what I'm trying to describe. I'm aware that Google can create

There's a big difference in the attitude of the society that builds these things vs. not, which is what I'm trying to describe. I'm aware that Google can create technical solutions that help protect privacy, that's not the point. That's what everyone says about OK Google and Alexa, but it is clearly not really true. These devices malfunction, frequently, with scary results. I'm not ready to trust Google, or anyone, especially when they are so vague on all the topics, with such an incredible opportunity at city-owned-level surveillance, regardless of what technical safeguards they plan for it. > Is Google going to record thousands of hours of sidewalk microphone recordings and store them somewhere? Seems far more likely they're just going to stream a "Currently it's 60dB at this intersection"; meets their requirements with minimal bandwidth and infrastructure. It "seems" to you that Google will actively choose to not record data that would be considered invasive. That's not good enough, though. First, it doesn't seem that way to me at all, I completely disagree with how much data I would expect Google to collect in this situation, and I completely disagree that a dB reading at a lat,lng point will be sufficient for Google's algorithms to do their required work. Again, the main point I'm trying to bring is not the technical issues, but the societal ones. It is too much surveillance issued directly to a company with no regard for discussing the issues openly. It's just not right.