Interesting. Increased security, faster response times, and public image at such a cheap rate is probably a no-brainer for large tech companies like Facebook.
I feel like we're going to see more private funding for public positions in the (perhaps distant) future, but I suppose the obvious question is: at what point does private funding of public officials become theoretically troublesome? Some would call this the start to an unsettling change.
It's been obvious for a while now that we're living in a dystopian cyberpunk future, it just snuck up on us:
* Killer drones. Ubiquitous surveillance by both government & business.
* Bad data that destroys one's ability to travel, get credit, find work, or avoid being thrown into jail out of nowhere.
* More and more armed citizens shooting each other over minor things.
* Flash mobs for every purpose under the sun.
* Samizdata.
* Manipulating the cops into raiding innocent targets while using software to conceal your identity. Absolute and complete lack of airships.
* Corporate domination of the political process with unlimited donations.
* Massive and growing wealth inequality.
* Political campaigns severally wounded by software failures.
* "You're not the customer, you're the product."
* DDOS for commercial advantage.
* Arresting people as "terrorists" to seize embarrassing stolen information.
* International treaties negotiated at the behest of corporations as backdoors to subverting the legislative process.
* No-recruit agreements for the rank & file combined with vicious competition for the top talent. People carrying half their life in portable computer devices.
* Ransomware in a myriad of forms.
* Vast government computer intrusion programs.
* Criminalization of access and dissemination of public information. Criminalization of downloading too much from something you've got access rights to. Criminalization of downloading from open directories with no warnings on them.
* New diseases, rising seas, freakish weather.
* A resurgent, militaristic Russia invading various countries.
* A resurgent, militaristic USA invading various countries.
Admittedly the cyberware is a bit slow in coming, AI is still the same 10 years off as always, self-driving cars are barely at the testing stage, sub-orbital planes are a pipe dream, and nobod thinks the Net looks like brightly colored blocks, but it's still unsettlingly close.
I should have phrased that more clearly. The cyberpunk thing is that we've got more aggressively open carrying and more dramaticly stupid shooting incidents like the string in Florida, very much the way a lot of cyberpunk has the trope of heavily armed idiots opening fire at the slightest excuse. We have nothing like cyberpunk levels of violence and as you point out it's mostly getting better, but we do have more incidents that'd fit nicely in a book than we used to and we have more people displaying weapons. I'm thinking about the little color bits thrown into cyberpunk to clue the audience in and things like the Zimmerman, Dunn, and Reeves cases fit in perfectly with that (modulo actual human tragedy).
If they want to make a donation to the city with a stipulation that it goes towards a new officer being hired that's fine. It becomes unsettling if they begin being able to dictate what that public official is supposed to do
It's a very fuzzy line though. One moment they can be making regular donations to the city, and at another moment they can say "oh you know those donations we've been making, we'd probably have to stop because we can't afford them anymore... Unless of course law X gets passed, wink wink"
Or even more subtly, "You know that cop whose salary we are basically paying? We were just thinking, it would be really nice if he did X more often and Y less often. Don't you agree?"
Some lines are being blurred here, and perhaps it's troubling in the abstract, but it's too early to tell. For now, it seems more like a donation and less like a buyout.
If we want to call attention to something very troubling in the here and now, we should look at the for-profit prison industry. That's a whole different ball of wax.
We name stadiums after corporations (by selling the naming rights).
I'm sure we'll soon be naming mayorships, as occupants of governments from the smallest city to the federal government continue to be elected by cutting budgets and then cry because there's no money to provide basic services.
They'll be called smart public-private partnerships.
I feel like we're going to see more private funding for public positions in the (perhaps distant) future, but I suppose the obvious question is: at what point does private funding of public officials become theoretically troublesome? Some would call this the start to an unsettling change.