Tag Archives: England

Williams City Council votes to install “smart meters.”

Posted on by

Square-No-SM-240WILLIAMS—At the May 23rd meeting of the city council, the Williams City Council voted to allow APS to install “automatic meters,” also called “smart meters,” in place of traditional electric meters.

According to the minutes of the meeting [PDF] on the city web site, none of the council members addressed the Fourth Amendment concerns that have been raised throughout the country concerning these smart meters. Recently there have been concerns raised about illnesses from these meters because of the electromagnetic radiation they emit.

Joe Carter of APS noted in the meeting that the advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) has become industry standard and that APS began installing these meters throughout their service area in 2006. Installing the meters would “bring Williams up to date.”

Installation of these meters will take three- to four-weeks after the approval by the council. Customers would be notified by mail and door hangers and the meters would be installed up to three-days later.

Carter responded to a question on reading the meters from Councilman Heimenz by explaining that it is done by radio and cell phone technology. Heimenz did not ask, nor did Carter explain, concerns about hacking into these meters by others with cell phone technology. In England, where people pay for the meters and television, this is a growing concern.

These meters can be used to determine what appliances you have and how they are used. Even what types of DVDs and CDs you watch or listen to according to some sources. This information has been sold by some utility companies. Hacking the meters can tell a potential criminal the times that you are away from your home.

A 2012 article by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, smart meters can be used as part of a data retention program.

Smart Meter Hacking for Privacy

On day four of the 28th Annual Chaos Communication Congress, Smart Hacking for Privacy explored the privacy-intrusive potential of smart meter technology. EFF has articulated the privacy concerns around smart meters – including how this technology can be used to monitor what appliances a consumer uses in the home and exactly when she uses them. According to Network World, Smart Hacking for Privacy went a step further and showed that under certain circumstances, researchers could use smart meters to “determine devices like how many PCs or LCD TVs [were] in a home, what TV program was being watched, and if a DVD movie being played had copyright-protected material.” This builds off of research (PDF) by a team at the University of Washington on the electromagnetic interference (EMI) signatures produced by televisions. Smart Hacking for Privacy also demonstrated how smart meters could be hacked so that the readings were incorrect. The entire presentation is available on YouTube.

In 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission approved an opt-out program according to the Agriculture Defense Coalition.

We sent an email to the Arizona Corporation Commission on smart meter technology and are waiting a response. They may not have had time to formulate a response to the questions we asked because we only sent the email last night.

Texas has a bill in the Senate to ban the use of these meters.

600-smart-meter-signSmart meters are not a concern only in the United States. On the other side of the world groups in Australia are fighting against this technology. A group called the East Gippsland Action Group [Facebook page] offers a sign to be posted by the owners of property warning electric companies not to install the meters.

Their web site complains that these meters allow electric companies to control your airconditioner, heaters and other appliances in your home.

SEE ALSO:
Smart Meter Dangers

Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light

Posted on by

[This article was amended on 3 January 2012. The original incorrectly suggested that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was published by the American Psychological Association, and misspelled Dunkelfeld as Dunkenfeld.]

We can help keep children safe, [Sarah] Goode argues, “by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else”, and by “respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint”. Only then will men tempted to abuse children “be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed”.

In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament’s criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. “Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult,” it read, “result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.”

It is difficult today, after the public firestorm unleashed by revelations about Jimmy Savile and the host of child abuse allegations they have triggered, to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim. But if it is shocking to realise how dramatically attitudes to paedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject.

A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection, or with convicted sex offenders. There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.

So what, then, do we know? A paedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Savile appears to have been primarily an ephebophile, defined as someone who has a similar preferential attraction to adolescents, though there have been claims one of his victims was aged eight.

But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa: by no means every paedophile acts on his impulses, and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. In fact, “true” paedophiles are estimated by some experts to account for only 20% of sexual abusers. Nor are paedophiles necessarily violent: no firm links have so far been established between paedophilia and aggressive or psychotic symptoms. Psychologist Glenn Wilson, co-author of The Child-Lovers: a Study of Paedophiles in Society, argues that “The majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational.”

Read more at The Guardian UK