4 ms·

If you cut out the editorializing and just focus on the example presented, it seems totally reasonable: 1. As a private company, they don't believe they should

If you cut out the editorializing and just focus on the example presented, it seems totally reasonable: 1. As a private company, they don't believe they should be responsible with setting public policy. They want a separate board to be set up for that. 2. By default, everything should be private. 3. They're proposing that if an applicant has a compelling reason to access raw data, they need to have it approved by the governing board, and raw data is automatically destroyed after a short interval. They gave the example of video feeds, which are both common in public spaces and are not anonymous (even if you blur faces). If they're being thoughtful and responsible, they need some mechanism to handle desirable exceptions. This sounds like a proposal to do so. In the article, the person who resigned is presented as a respected expert on the subject. Maybe that person has more context that didn't make it into the article. But the facts presented - "group designing public space is proposing policy to handle aspects that can't easily be made anonymous" - don't warrant the clickbait title or the editorialization. Sounds like Sidewalk is doing it's diligence - thinking about the things a group designing a "city of the future" _should_ be thinking about.

msbarnett 8y ago
> In the article, the person who resigned is presented as a respected expert on the subject. Maybe that person has more context that didn't make it into the article. it’s not a context thing, it’s (as the article makes clear) a complete disagreement over your point #3. She does not believe the trust should be empowered to hold the de-anonymized raw data at all or grant acccess to it to any party at all, over concerns that it is both too valuable a hacking target and that companies will be incentivized to ask for as much data as they can get whether or not they “need” it. She has little faith in the ability of contracts to enforce data access and deletion policies on private companies (nor should she, in my opinion, as we’ve seen how little impact they had on restraining the (mis-)use of Facebook data)
- village-idiot 8y ago
  It's pretty much impossible to recall the raw data once it's out in the wild.
wpdev_63 8y ago
The problem with #3 is that they _already_ doing that with the fisa courts and it's a shit show. In our current system, they rubber stamp every warrant that is presented to the court with no oversight[0]. [0]:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/president-obama-called-fisa-court-transparent-despite-it-being-shrouded-secrecy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/president-obama-called...
- aroberge 8y ago
  Toronto, the city mentioned in the article, is in Canada. "Fisa courts" are a U.S. entity which has nothing to do with what is being done in Canada.
  - travelbuffoon 8y ago
    Until the data gets sent to US servers.
    - amphibian87 8y ago
      ^This. "5 eyes" Canada, US, UK, NZ, and AUS
      - 8note 8y ago
        and so even if the fisa courts said no, the data would still arrive
  - rickycook 8y ago
    well then ignore fisa courts because the US just does whatever the hell it wants with non-US citizens. that makes the point even more prescient
- api 8y ago
  Who wants to be the judge who didn't rubber stamp that one warrant that if executed would have stopped the next 9/11? There is no bureaucratic incentive to do anything but approve everything.
jammygit 8y ago
I'm not sure it always makes sense to evaluate company policy in the present tense. Sometimes its like they want to put their arm behind the couch to relax. Then they let their hand rest on your shoulder. Then it creeps down a little further. Do you have to wait for the hand to actually touch something sensitive to try to put a stop to it?
- brunoc 8y ago
  Ah yes, the slippery grope fallacy.
kartickv 8y ago
Exactly. If data is the currency of the future, and we're too conservative about permitting experiments, we'll lose out on a lot of innovation. What if a smart city encourages more walking? What if it has less pollution? What about all the people who die prematurely living in today's cities for these reasons? After experimenting, then we as a society can decide not to permit something, not before. As an analogy, what if burning fossil fuels were banned worldwide in 1900 because people were too conservative about pollution? We all agree that pollution is bad, but we should be willing to permit some amount of negative side effects if we want progress. Otherwise, we'd still be living in medieval times.
- 8bitsrule 8y ago
  If mind-probing is the currency of the future, and we're too conservative about permitting experiments, we'll lose out on a lot of innovation.
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    I mean, yes. You don't read Neuroscience I guess. Governments do the same with self driving cars, can allowing limited experiments so they can encourage scientific and economic innovation.

msbarnett 8y ago

> In the article, the person who resigned is presented as a respected expert on the subject. Maybe that person has more context that didn't make it into the article. it’s not a context thing, it’s (as the article makes clear) a complete disagreement over your point #3. She does not believe the trust should be empowered to hold the de-anonymized raw data at all or grant acccess to it to any party at all, over concerns that it is both too valuable a hacking target and that companies will be incentivized to ask for as much data as they can get whether or not they “need” it. She has little faith in the ability of contracts to enforce data access and deletion policies on private companies (nor should she, in my opinion, as we’ve seen how little impact they had on restraining the (mis-)use of Facebook data)

village-idiot 8y ago
It's pretty much impossible to recall the raw data once it's out in the wild.

wpdev_63 8y ago

The problem with #3 is that they _already_ doing that with the fisa courts and it's a shit show. In our current system, they rubber stamp every warrant that is presented to the court with no oversight[0]. [0]:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/president-obama-called-fisa-court-transparent-despite-it-being-shrouded-secrecy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/president-obama-called...

aroberge 8y ago
Toronto, the city mentioned in the article, is in Canada. "Fisa courts" are a U.S. entity which has nothing to do with what is being done in Canada.
- travelbuffoon 8y ago
  Until the data gets sent to US servers.
  - amphibian87 8y ago
    ^This. "5 eyes" Canada, US, UK, NZ, and AUS
    - 8note 8y ago
      and so even if the fisa courts said no, the data would still arrive
- rickycook 8y ago
  well then ignore fisa courts because the US just does whatever the hell it wants with non-US citizens. that makes the point even more prescient
api 8y ago
Who wants to be the judge who didn't rubber stamp that one warrant that if executed would have stopped the next 9/11? There is no bureaucratic incentive to do anything but approve everything.

jammygit 8y ago

I'm not sure it always makes sense to evaluate company policy in the present tense. Sometimes its like they want to put their arm behind the couch to relax. Then they let their hand rest on your shoulder. Then it creeps down a little further. Do you have to wait for the hand to actually touch something sensitive to try to put a stop to it?

brunoc 8y ago
Ah yes, the slippery grope fallacy.

kartickv 8y ago

Exactly. If data is the currency of the future, and we're too conservative about permitting experiments, we'll lose out on a lot of innovation. What if a smart city encourages more walking? What if it has less pollution? What about all the people who die prematurely living in today's cities for these reasons? After experimenting, then we as a society can decide not to permit something, not before. As an analogy, what if burning fossil fuels were banned worldwide in 1900 because people were too conservative about pollution? We all agree that pollution is bad, but we should be willing to permit some amount of negative side effects if we want progress. Otherwise, we'd still be living in medieval times.

8bitsrule 8y ago
If mind-probing is the currency of the future, and we're too conservative about permitting experiments, we'll lose out on a lot of innovation.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  I mean, yes. You don't read Neuroscience I guess. Governments do the same with self driving cars, can allowing limited experiments so they can encourage scientific and economic innovation.