[norea-armozel]

I can see why no one would like this sort of regulatory scheme as it would put everyone's relevant data in the open. Everyone would be able to look at it whether you're the affected company or not. Effectively, it gives more data to competitors to figure out where a market is being underserved or underdeveloped which would mean existing firms would have to deal with potential losses of economic profit. Honestly, I prefer this approach despite being an anti-capitalist. This approach could be part of the solution to cure the inequities of capitalism.

[cdubzzz]

Hm, why would that be necessary? Are there reasons such an ideal wouldn't just create one-to-one channels with individual companies providing data directly to regulators? Perhaps this article oversimplifies, it's not something I've ever thought about.

[ascribd]

The city argument is they need the data for several purposes, for example aggregate information for demand projections (Uber's own data shows it slows down Manhattan traffic 9 percent) as well as entity-specific information to track compliance with applicable laws and licensing (criminal record, etc.).

Airbnb and Uber are correct when they say they need to keep some information confidential. Cities have terrible records when it comes to this. Indeed, if you look across the pond to the UK, where the HMRC is building the next Big Brother all in the name of tax collection, one can only shudder when looking at their track record of securing large quantities of data.

[hkmurakami]

Seems like this would quickly drive profits to zero.