Edit: Fix my autocorrect word choice.
Or just pass a law to force them to do it and not spend any money.
I'm not sure I buy that line of reasoning. I would rather just say that the government can't legally do this immoral thing, and prosecute the government actors involved if we catch them doing it.
I also do not think that violating (whether it be through amendments or other actions) the constitution's intent is inherently immoral, as the constitution has little, if any morality built into it.
Of course no elected officials are morally questionably in any way.
You have it backwards (and BTW NYC doesn't have and army nor secret courts).
Yes, the us gov sadly has secret courts and of course an army et al. But it's also subject to some constraints, such as the very one that gives rise to this blog post: government agencies typically have to announce their plans and have them open for discussion.
Does the process always work? Of course not! But it's a lot more transparent than how corporations can be. People are outraged by secret spying, secret torture etc. And why do governments do that stuff in secret? Because they know it will cause outrage. Some governments (e.g. DDR & Norks to name a few), do it overtly because the very knowledge of the spying is part of its value.
Whereas there are few tools to control the same actions by corporate entities.
I do expect an erosion of these secret programs over the next 20 years. However they may be overshadowed by corporate databases.
Our governments, being made of people, are hardly right all the time. But neither are our corporations (and they are indeed our corporations, regardless of capital structure because they are permitted to act in the public sphere) as they are also machines operated by people. A foolish knee-jerk reaction in favor of one over the other is intellectually stupid.
> You have it backwards
How do I enlist in Uber's army? How do I become a judge? How do I get a badge for Uber's police force? I'm quite apt with firearms knowladge and if they need an armorer they can give me a call.
Or Uber doesn't have an army so I don't think I have it backwards.
Once data is in the hands of NYC, it can be freely shared with the federal government.
I trust my city government far more than I trust Uber to protect my data.
- Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg
NY,NEW YORK,2320-01-074-7642,"TRUCK,ARMORED",1,Each,65070,2012-06-15
NY,NEW YORK,2350-01-069-6931,"CARRIER,107 MILLIMETER MORTAR",1,Each,205400,2012-06-15
Now, I'm not sure if that includes the actual mortar or just the vehical and I know a real airstrike and a mortar strike aren't exactly the same thing..... but it's close and definetly not settling.
The government cannot effectively regulate commerce, which is a core function of government, without access to relevant information.
The contempt for the law that Uber in particular exercises makes this need even more obvious. If the supposed move to robot cars is real and not just bullshit to scam investors, it becomes exponentially more important, as there will be no witnesses to whatever takes place.
> all kinds of unregulated purposes.
You make that sound so nefarious. "Unregulated purposes" like better routing and drop off points, and maybe some advertising?
What "regulated" purposes is the NYC government going to use this data for? Increasing the scope of their already massive surveillance mechanism?
Your argument of "at least we are not as bad as Uber" is just sick.