I kinda get what's happening. The Reuters article distills over 12-16 months of civic debate and consultations into one small article that entirely misrepresents what Sidewalk Labs is trying to do.
Google wanted a way to see what people are doing on a macro-and-micro city level - like being able to apply Google Analytics on a real-life basis.
So they started discussions with Toronto to plan a kind of smart city. These discussions have been going on in the background for about a year, with media blitz, public discussions, etc and that's what the last sentence in the Reuters article is about: " Toronto City Councillor Paula Fletcher expressed concerns about the proposal.
“I was terribly shocked because this was not within the scope of the project. I think it’s a big credibility problem for everybody.”
The article is deliberately hiding critical parts of the project that has been front and center in Toronto civics debate - indeed, the scope of the project (the new Google office, the data collection, etc) has been on vice motherboard, major tech media, and has been on hacker news multiple times. Mostly centered around the Google/Alphabet/Sidewalk Lab's vision of what a "smart city" within the city of Toronto would look like.
You are missing huge pieces of the puzzle, entirely the goal of what they wanted to do, and various posters have been linking facts about the project, and not just the misrepresentations stated in the Reuters article.
in the article
" The Quayside project will span 12 acres of Toronto and, while still in the consulting stages, is shaping up to be a sensor-laden information smorgasbord for Sidewalk Labs and any other company collecting data in the area. "
....
"a member of a municipal advisory panel on data usage resigned from her position over data collection and transparency concerns with the project."
Her resignation letter is linked and it contains real information - first hand primary source information. There are also city council meeting minutes talking specifically about Sidewalk Lab's very explicitly stated data collection goals if that's not enough "sourcing" for you.
Are you arguing purely because you think Google is never doing nothing wrong and that all residents of Toronto are kidding when they say they know what's going to happen in their city? Do you live in Toronto and do you have a vested interested in how the city operates? To be upfront, I live in Toronto, and bike through the Port Lands on a weekly basis.
I'm trying to find some common ground here but it appears you have not done any research on this project but are speaking only in general terms. I have not spoken ill about google except in specifics about what they actually want to do with this city experiment, and all you've stated are handwaving without any references.
