Sidewalk Labs doc reveals early vision for tax powers, criminal justice (2019) | Hacker News Reader

Sidewalk Labs doc reveals early vision for tax powers, criminal justice (2019)

theglobeandmail.com

59 pointsanigbrowl55 comments

I took a cruise once. They took us to the beautiful Island of Roatan. As soon as you get off, you can take a motorized chair lift to their private beach. Over the dolphin experience, and a bay with spotted eagle rays. The beach, perfection. The sand, hand raked. Amazing beautiful place. With a beach bar, and sunny reggae music playing.

A place anyone could take a postcard quality photo for their instagram. Of course, almost unavoidably with cruise ship glistening in the sunshine in the background. Its at that moment, I realize I'm living a dream. A dream, dreamt up in some board room meeting for free advertising. Outside the carefully constructed boundaries of this corporate beach paradise, a country with one of the highest murder rates in the world. To this day, I have mixed feelings when I think of this place.

Them having a tourist economy is probably still better than the alternative. As long as you're mindful that you're in an experience that was crafted for you, I don't see a problem with it. Ignorance is not required or necessary to appreciate a paradise experience.

I very much doubt that money trickles down to the local community that needs it in any measurable way.

Trickle down economics doesn't work in Western Countries, in third world countries, this would be demonstrably worse.

You see the exact same in Fiji as I'm assuming you do in Honduras (I haven't been to Honduras) on cruises and holidays in the South Pacific around Australia.

Places like the Soloman Islands and other Melanesians & Polynesian Islands have it less so. Fiji was just... so much worse. Security outfits. 12 foot walls. Not being permitted to leave the hotel complex. The illusion you're sold is so much different to the one you see from the hotel. And the disparity between what you're purchasing and what the locals live I found I couldn't escape. I really couldn't or want to go to ever again. And if I do I want to make sure more of my money go to those that need it.

Mass tourism creates mostly shit jobs, and people have to commodify their cultural heritage to get them. Cruise ship companies and hospitality executives get rich, and the government might get lots of tax revenue. But we need to stop pretending like tourism is an unqualified positive for poor countries.

I’m from Honduras. It’s a dangerous place. Roatan is safer though. Foreign investment I suspect keeps it that way.

"Sidewalk will require tax and financing authority to finance and provide services, including the ability to impose, capture and reinvest property taxes,” the book said. The company would also create and control its own public services, including charter schools, special transit systems and a private road infrastructure. Sidewalk’s early data-driven vision also extended to public safety and criminal justice."

I think people have a good instinct for dystopian corporate futures, so I think this will be nixed.

The thing that I fear more, is that people have no concept how much culture is imbued in civilization and that it just can't be ordained like Walt Disney - other than in small parcels.

What will happen is that culture will be optimized for profit.

Much like boring processed food, which is scientifically geared to have the right mix of sugar and other flavours, and which all tastes kind of bland at the end of the day ... 'Google Life' would be like a jar of Salsa. If you've only ever had process/jarred salsa, you might think it's great - but if you've ever made salsa yourself (it's very easy) you know how great it is, and what it's supposed to taste like ... you can never go back.

North America is full of people who've only ever known the life of 'jarred salsa' and they keep thinking these schemes have value, it's sad really.

If this were an option to 'revitalise' an otherwise wiped out community that maybe temporarily needed some TLC ... then maybe. But in the long run? No thanks.

Are these ideas moving to NYC, adding to the Sidewalk/LinkNYC kiosk WiFi network?

https://theintercept.com/2020/05/08/andrew-cuomo-eric-schmid...

> The inspiration for these uncharacteristically good vibes was a video visit from former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who joined the governor’s briefing to announce that he will be heading up a blue-ribbon commission to reimagine New York state’s post-Covid reality, with an emphasis on permanently integrating technology into every aspect of civic life.

I think the key flaw in these types of efforts is they ignore the long term success of the democratic process. It feels like once they get a foothold through the existing government bodies, the goal is to largely replace them with their own vision. But how will the people in the community control their own destiny in the long term?

Governance seems to be an afterthought.

You have to give up a little control, but everyone benefits. Alphabet wouldn't exist without the system that gave rise to it, why kill the golden goose?

Totally agree. But a generation or two of vilifying governments has eroded any respect for how amazing our government is and all it does right. I will also say it’s easy to forget how the right to have a say through democratic accountability shapes policy and culture. People love to think of companies as more innovative than government but that’s often because they aren’t accountable to as many constituents so they can act according to more narrow incentives.

The key difference between companies and government is the latter still is a monopoly, even if you get a vote to choose which monopoly takes control. Companies can innovate and provide alternatives for me without them having to become the market leader first. People have proposed ideas for competing governments operating in the same region in this way. Basically you could opt out of the Google services and use the Apple services instead. Or maybe go with the scrappy GNU open-source services.

Government is not a monopoly. There are many governments. Besides sovereign countries there are regional and local divisions. Often also branches with separate powers. While not quite the same competition as companies there is certainly competition and checks and balances such that typical monopoly analysis is not really suitable.

Of course, for the majority of people, moving country is generally impossible. Borders are a thing.

That kind of alternatives help some. But then by that logic, nothing is a monopoly. Your local utility is considered a protected monopoly according to the law, even if they don't also control prices across the border in some other country. Governments explicitly claim the right to exclude "competitors" from whatever they do choose to define as their jurisdiction. If a state and federal govt disagree (e.g. drug laws) that just means you must adhere to the worst of both alternatives to avoid penalties.

This is exactly wrong. In political theory, the defining characteristic of a government is that it has a monopoly on the use of force (and accordingly on anything over which it exercises that force).

But there isn’t one government in most of America. Federal, state, and local governments have overlapping jurisdiction. There are entire bodies of law devoted to resolving this competition. And this competition between agencies changes the law and internal culture of law enforcement organizations. You don’t think the local sheriff will think twice about over stepping if the FBI takes their cases or punished them for over reach?

An abstract principle in political theory for the sake of debate isn’t an infallible axiom. Yes the sovereign, as in all the units of government taken as a whole have exclusive rights to violent force, but in practice, most sovereigns subdivide that right in competing bodies to create checks and balances and place the nexus of decision making in the right sphere of influence (some problems need to be addressed at the local level like waste water management, others at the federal level like interstate commerce).

I honestly don't understand what your point is. Whatever government we're talking about has, by definition, a monopoly on the use of force. It's real. It wasn't pulled out of an abstract principle hat by political scientists. Different governments may divvy up or squabble over the scope of their respective monopolies, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China.

How can you say there is a monopoly when two organizations have overlapping power over a subject? How can you say there is a monopoly when you could be in county prison, state prison, or federal prison? Those are competing forces subject to different constituencies.

My point quite simply is the false dichotomy that is presented that companies are fundamentally better and more innovative because they alone are subject to competition is a false dichotomy. Governments are less affected by competition but it does exist through intergovernmental divisions of power and overlapping jurisdiction. Governments also have a monopoly on granting the right to operate a business. They can and do limit ability to operate (try to be a lawyer with out government regulated credentials). So you’re basically saying when government confers this right to operate on a C Corp that is competition but when it confers the right to a sherif and police force and immigration agency to detain people that’s not competition. Agencies absolutely complete for resources, public praise, and employee recruitment; and they worry that their effectiveness and policies will harm them just the same.

Further, this false dichotomy is used to distract from the real important insight that government is uniquely positioned to address problems no company or market force could address. One, of many clear examples is the longer time horizon and risk taking the government can take for basic research. Companies have been able to innovate on top of many government funded projects like the internet, gps, interstate highways, self driving cars (remember those crazy darpa funded competitions with $5M prize for a team that got a Humvee to drive its self in the desert?). No company could invest for decades at network scale like governments can and yet we applaud their innovative ability and demonize governments by ignoring the foundation it provides for innovation in the first place.

Silicon Valley itself only exists because nasa brought a ton of scientists to the Bay Area and a critical mass of tech oriented families happened to be in an area. Well guess what their kids ended up being hacker friends in garages building products.

Oh and by the way “all the tea in China” is an Interesting quote given that the British East India company, a literal private corporation, was granted a monopoly on the use of force and acted as a quasi government all while being an extremely “innovative” (And horribly brutal/evil company)

The fact that government agencies compete in some senses has nothing to do with the fact that governments have monopolies on the use of force.

> How can you say there is a monopoly when two organizations have overlapping power over a subject?

The two entities collectively constitute the government which has a monopoly on legitimate use of force. You draw a boundary around the legitimate use of force, and whatever is inside the boundary is the government, no matter how many formal entities it presents as or what they are called (or how many entities exist outside the boundary and purport to be the government.)

The supremacy clause of the constitution says that the federal government wins all conflicts with lower governments. The 10th amendment states powers not explicitly granted (i.e. claimed) in the constitution for the federal government are reserved for the states or people. There is not actual competition in the system, even if it is complex and messy in implementation.

Corporations are normally fundamentally autocratic institutions from top to bottom (your boss has absolute say, and if you oppose it, you are liable to be fired on the spot).

Its extremely concerning how many people just accept this as some fundamental fact of life.

All sidewalk labs is, is an extension of that principle onto general government.

Fascism.

This is a totally ignored point. Thank you for pointing it out. Why libertarianism would prefer private dictators to democracy, even if it’s a monopoly, in the pursuit of individual liberty is strange.

I think I found an appropriate song for this article

"Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-r-V0uK4u0

Or they could issue their own currency and we could all sing Johnny Cash

Except sidewalk labs is dead now.

More concerning is their asking for police powers and the ability to use the surveillance data they collect for sentencing:

> The book mentions both the data-collection opportunities for police forces (Sidewalk notes it would ask for local policing powers similar to those granted to universities) and the possibility of “an alternative approach to jail,” using data from so-called “root-cause assessment tools.” This would guide officials in determining a response when someone is arrested, such as sending someone to a substance abuse centre.

It depends on the local laws. Some states in the US give university police the same powers invested in "real" police officers, but many limit enforcement to ticketing, monitoring, and/or detainment until the "real" police arrive. I don't know what the local law is in Toronto, but this seems relevant.

Using data-driven approaches to assess "root causes" and improve the (flawed) court system and the (flawed) justice system sounds like a good idea. Sending someone to a substance abuse center (or other rehabilitative vector) instead of jail sounds like a massive improvement over the typical one-size-fits-all jail "solution" to crime.

Traditionally, laws are made through the political process, like this the public gets input and oversight (at least in theory). To hand these power over to a corporation whose only purpose it money-making and whose duties are to the shareholders and thinking that that's a good idea is worrying.

In the US, public universities often have their own police departments with sworn peace officers who are as real as any other police. Private schools only have security guards and call in local police for anything important.

In what sense are police at private schools not actual police? Every private school I have been involved with has their own uniformed police agency, literally calling itself "police". They just limit the things they focus on. Here's an example for Yale police:

"The Yale Police Department is a fully sworn police agency that receives its police powers through the City of New Haven. Created in 1894, it was the first campus-based police department in the country, and has continued to serve as a model for other campus police operations. The police force currently has about 55 officers represented by the YPBA and about 15 supervisory officers. "

https://provost.yale.edu/title-ix/faq/why-aren-t-all-cases-s...

I was unaware of the Yale situation. That's rather rare among private schools.

This would be a chance for Google Corporate HR to force their version of cultural values on you. Any deviance from the Google Corporate Values Policy would be a crime, of course.

Project was canceled last week.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN22J2FN

Most New Yorkers have no idea that LinkNYC is a Google project that's meant to track them without ever even connecting to the "free" wifi. I'd be willing to bet most people don't even know that those things have cameras on them.

Maybe an underappreciated benefit on the normalization of face mask wearing is that it stops unwanted or unknown attempts at facial recognition.

I doubt that they use face recognition for tracking, instead they can just log MAC addresses of mobile phones that come within range.

Here's an example of a company selling this: https://www.skyhook.com/blog/nuts-and-bolts-of-location-inte...

Why not both? Google collects as much data as it can in pretty much every other context.

Unfortunately, this is now being worked on.

https://www.abacusnews.com/tech/wearing-mask-wont-stop-facia...

I ask this every time this comes up, and have yet to get an answer: in what way are "property taxes" for residents of a development not just "condo fees"?

I have to be missing _something_

Condo fees go to a small body controlled by people who pay the tax. Property taxes go to a very much larger body which includes all sorts of people who, for whatever reason, don't necessarily pay the tax directly.

That inclusivity on the basis of legal status, citizenship rather than asset ownership/wealth, is the difference between civil government and a private club requiring buy-in. The requirement to own property in order to participate in government was abandoned long ago, with good cause. That system was horrible.

I just want to say that this is extremely eloquent and well-written. I aspire to write like this. I also agree with you.

Thank you for the thoughtful answer! I'm not sure I understand. I have a friend renting a condo from its owners, which I gather isn't an unheard-of occurrence. Given that she's not paying the "property taxes" (HOA fees) and not a member of the direct democracy "government" (the HOA), is she any different from someone living in this development who rents from an owner?

They pay the HOA, it's just built into their rent. Most property owners and landlords don't tend to overlook stuff like that.

Yes, I know. That's the case for my friend, and I don't think anyone would suggest that her situation is horribly undemocratic. The parent comment's claim, as I understood it, is that this is horribly undemocratic because my renter friend is not directly a member of and represented by the HOA, as those rights are proxied through her landlord. My point is that I don't see how that differs from this proposed development: either you own, and are represented by the HOA-equivalent, or you rent, and are in the same position as any renter of a condo.

It sounds like they would suggest your friend's situation is horribly undemocratic.

Sure, but that brings me back to my original question: people's reaction to "Google wants to charge property taxes" has been nowhere near their reaction to "condominiums exist". I'm hoping to get an answer to my question that isn't simply "people are stupid and react based on buzzwords instead of a basic understanding of what they're talking about".

Your friend's HOA represents her landlord and neighbors. Their interests overlap. She could know many of them. Sidewalk Labs would exercise much more power over many more people on behalf of Alphabet shareholders.

Your friend could escape the HOA by moving across the street when her lease ends. Her landlord would have to sell the condo. Opting out of Sidewalk Labs would mean moving out of the district and maybe getting a new job.

> Opting out of Sidewalk Labs would mean moving out of the district and maybe getting a new job

Ah interesting, so your interpretation of sandworm's point _is_ explicitly saying that condominiums become abusive above a certain area/size. Thank you, this is a novel point that I hadn't yet heard.

That being said, the ambitious version of this development (before the reduction in land made available to them) is 1.5 sq mi. This means that you can pretty easily do the equivalent of "moving across the street": if I'm doing my math right, someone living in the most suboptimal possible dead-center of the community will have a minimum of a staggering....0.7 miles added to their commute.

This seems a whole lot closer to my friend's situation than paying property taxes to live in a city does.

Delta City! For our children. Brought to you by Omni Consumer Product.

Title edited slightly for length

Everything becomes surveillance at some point.

> Everything becomes surveillance at some point.

I offer that the challenge isn't surveillance but disproportional surveillance. That is, the harms that follow modern data collection occur because that data is locked away from you and me. Presently, power from data is reserved for those already in power. This allows them to leverage our data against all of us, w/o meaningful consequences.

If we want responsible data use, I believe the surest way to achieve that is thru equal access by default. In that scenario, those in power are far more motivated to desire safeguards for everyone - instead of the perverse incentives that we all enjoy today.

Imo very similar to a panopticon.

It’s equal. Google gets to know where you’ve been, and you also get to know where you’ve been. /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com