Just revealed: UK Government warned of smart meter security threat back in 2012

Posted on March 24, 2016 by admin

From Computer Weekly
by Bryan Glick, Editor in Chief
24 Mar 2016 13:

The government was warned four years ago that its plans for a nationwide smart meter roll-out represented a “potentially significant” security and privacy threat, Computer Weekly has learned.

The government was warned as long as four years ago that its plans for a nationwide roll-out of smart meters represented a “potentially significant” security and privacy threat, Computer Weekly has learned.

A report in the Financial Times last week said that GCHQ had “intervened” to help boost the security of the £11.7bn programme to install smart meters in every UK home.

An unnamed senior Whitehall official told the FT that every smart meter used the same encryption key for data communication, opening up a single point of failure for hackers to take over every device if they accessed the key. As a result, GCHQ added further security measures.

Yet the security risks inherent in the design of the smart meter network were raised as long ago as March 2012 in a report produced by the Cabinet Office to review plans for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) programme.

The review – co-authored by government chief technology officer Liam Maxwell – was highly critical of the proposal to create a “monopoly” data and communications company (DCC) to act as a middle-man between energy providers and their customers. Even so, a contract to set up and run DCC was awarded to Capita in 2013, in a 12-year, £175m deal.

The Cabinet Office report highlighted the risk of having a “new GB-wide entity with reach into every home”.

Read more about smart meters

The report, seen by Computer Weekly, went on to point out: “The proposed technical model inserts a new third-party between consumers and energy providers. It thus introduces an additional and potentially significant security and privacy vulnerability.

“All 28 million households would be connected to the DCC, presenting a major vector for cyber-attacks given the vulnerability of a single, centralised entity managing all the switching into every home. It also introduces a central point for surveillance and privacy compromise.”

The report said that CESG – the information security arm of GCHQ – had “voiced strong concerns about the proposed approach”, and the document recommended an independent review of the proposed security and privacy architecture.

“Misleading”

DECC said that the FT article was “misleading” and that it had worked with GCHQ from the start.

“Smart meters will help hardworking families and businesses to take control of their energy use, bringing an end to estimated bills and helping bill-payers to become more energy-efficient. They’re part of this government’s commitment to make Britain’s energy infrastructure fit for the 21st century,” said a DECC spokesperson.

“Smart meters will operate on a secure system that only authorised parties, such as energy suppliers and network companies, can access. Working with experts across industry and across government, we have put in place robust security controls which are based on international standards and industry good practices.”

Single point of failure

The Cabinet Office report further raised the risk of denial of service attacks cutting out communications between consumers and energy providers. It said the centralised model that has since been implemented raised “enduring concerns” by introducing a single point of failure and an access point to the entire smart meter network.

“The DCC will have the ability to disable any meter remotely, a facility that creates a significant cyber security threat in the form of enabling an attacker – insider or outsider – to centrally disrupt or otherwise interfere with energy supplies,” said the report.

In an interview published in March 2016 in The Brewery Journal – a publication from PR firm Freud Communications – Ian Levy, technical director at CESG, said the organisation had “recently” examined the smart meter project to ensure its security.

“In the design of the system, we’ve assumed that vulnerabilities exist in each component, and designed the system so it’s tolerant to those weaknesses,” he said.

Long list of concerns

The Cabinet Office review of the smart meters project in 2012 highlighted a long list of concerns relating to the programme beyond the security threat, warning that it ran the risk of “replicating the problems of major government IT projects of the last 15+ years”.

One concern raised was: “[The programme] imposes a solution based on using single large suppliers with exclusive 10+ year contracts rather than being based on open standards, interoperability and an open marketplace.”

Another issue was: “The programme is following an old-style rather than agile procurement processes, and currently using a competitive dialogue restricted to a limited number of large suppliers able to meet the high procurement bar and long contractual period.”

Other suppliers subsequently involved include CGI, with an eight-year contract worth £75m to develop and operate the system controlling the movement of messages to and from smart meters. Arqiva and Telefonica have 15-year contracts worth £625m and £1.5bn respectively to establish regional wide area networks connecting the data application with gas and electricity meters.

The Cabinet Office made 31 separate recommendations suggesting significant changes to the smart meter programme in a wide range of areas – not just security – including a three-month “reset” period to reconsider the project. It is not clear which, if any, of those recommendations were implemented.

Halt, alter or scrap

The smart meter programme has come under increasing scrutiny in the past year as concerns grow about the likelihood of success. In March last year, the Institute of Directors called for the project to be “halted, altered or scrapped” immediately to avert an expensive IT failure.

In the same month, MPs on the Energy and Climate Change Committee said the plans were veering off-track. “Without a significant and immediate change to the present approach, the programme runs the risk of falling far short of expectations,” said committee chair Tim Yeo.

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500279800/Government-warned-of-smart-meter-security-threat-back-in-2012

Posted under Fair Use Rules

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Just revealed: UK Government warned of smart meter security threat back in 2012

UK engineering organization questioned worker training, roll-out haste, and fires in 2012

Posted on March 24, 2016 by admin

It’s alarming to read this 2012 article.

The UK-based Institution of Engineering and Technology is a 140-year old professional organization.

From the Institution of Engineering and Technology
Engineering and Technology Magazine

Smart Meters, Dumb Fires

17  December 2012
By Kris Sangani

The energy supply industry is gearing up for a mass rollout of smart meters across the UK, but should reports of smart-meter fire-related incidents be a cause for concern?

The energy supply sector, like all infrastructure sectors, is draped in red tape. But despite the complex web of meetings between regulators, civil servants, energy companies and other interested parties, the sector is in danger of losing sight of one of the most important aspects of all: the safety of consumers in their own homes.

The UK’s main energy suppliers have been given strong incentives to install as many smart meters as they can, as rapidly as possible, and are in the process of mobilising an army of installers. But what technical background do these installers have?

Reports of fires related to smart meters in the USA and Australia have quite rightly provoked concern among consumers. That concern seems well justified; following an enquiry with the Health and Safety Excutive, E&T has uncovered the fact that the UK has suffered its share of incidents.

Kieran Jenkins, factory manager for consumer unit manufacturer Proteus Switchgear, describes an incidents in Wolverhampton in March 2012.

“Initially, the insurance company had suggested that the fault was with our consumer unit, which had been working without fault for over four years,” explains Jenkins. “But when we looked into the matter we noted that a smart meter had been installed just weeks before and the meter tail was not properly secured.”

A massive rollout of smart meters to every domestic home in the UK will come as part of the government’s strategy to reduce carbon emissions. The existing meters were, in many cases, installed decades ago.

It is the energy companies that are tasked with figuring out exactly how to fulfil this undertaking. The major part of the roll-out is expected to start in 2014 and is scheduled to be completed by 2019, with the majority of consumers receiving new meters during this window.

However, millions of smart meters could be operational before this as energy companies have been rolling out the new devices to some customers on a trial basis.

Smart meter rollout

No programme is as large as that of British Gas, which has already installed more than 600,000 smart meters – mainly in business premises, but in some homes as well. By the end of this ‘foundation stage’, British Gas would have installed more than a million smart meters. Other suppliers such as E.ON, EDF and First Utility are also participating in the foundation stage.

One advantage of smart meters is that the suppliers will no longer have to employ an army of people to knock on doors to physically inspect meters and ensure that readings are accurate and no unauthorised tampering has taken place.

However, the supplier will need to mobilise legions of smart-meter installers. Most have reached the logical conclusion that they ought to retrain some of their existing meter operators, inspectors and readers. They are also advertising job vacancies specifying no experience necessary since you do not have to be a qualified electrician to replace an existing meter with a smart one.

Codes of practice

One of the largest suppliers of meter readers is the utility division of G4S who have had a long-standing deal with British Gas to install smart meters for its business customers.

G4S currently has around 300 smart-meter installers and a growing number with dual-fuel capability; the company anticipates that these numbers are increasing with the rollout of the domestic smart-metering market. But how are they managing the process of retraining this workforce?

“We work to MOCOPA (Meter Operator Code of Practice Agreement) for electricity installations and MAMCOP (Meter Asset Manager Code of Practice) for gas installations. We are also audited by the British Standards Institute and Gas Safe, among others,” explained G4S in a statement to E&T.

British Gas added: “All meter workers are assessed to ensure they are competent to undertake the work issued to them. All tools and personal protective equipment are supplied by G4S and we have an auditing regime in place to check that the meter installers follow correct processes and leave all installations in a safe and tidy state.

“Smart energy experts are trained to a Level 2 Diploma in Smart Metering and take part in an apprenticeship scheme with the National Skills Academy for Power – Qualification Credit Framework,” British Gas continued. “A competence assessment is carried out to Gas Industry standards (Gas Safe), Electric Industry standards via MOCOPA, and where required through the local Distribution Network Operators. All training is carried out in full compliance with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations, the Health and Safety at Work Act, Electricity at Work Regulations and RIDDOR.”

E.ON also gave a statement: “We deliver a comprehensive training programme for our smart-meter installers which involves a mixture of classroom-based courses and in-field experience. This is coupled with an extensive mentoring programme. Our electricity-meter installers are MOCOPA certified and our gas-meter installers are GasSafe certified, and we have a stringent set of criteria which we apply to ensure that we recruit people who are technically proficient, safety conscious and skilled in delivering excellent customer service.”

Safety as standard

However, Gemserv, which administers the MOCOPA standard, does not certify individuals. Instead, as the registration authority, it authorises meter-operator companies to issue a ‘competency certificate’ to individuals deemed to be working to an adequate standard.

Others have voiced concerns about the safety of the work being carried out. The Electrical Safety Council (ESC), whose recommendations are supported by a range of industry bodies, wants an isolating switch built into smart meters. This would allow contractors a simple and safe means of isolating the electricity supply in UK homes when necessary, such as for the replacement of a consumer unit.

The only way currently to isolate the supply is to remove the electricity distributor’s cut-out fuse but electricians are not authorised to do this. The ESC claims that efforts to provide such permission have been blocked by the electricity supply industry.

“This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to provide a simple and relatively inexpensive engineering solution to a major obstacle to safe working practice and consumer protection; and we believe our recommendations are both financially and operationally justified,” explains Mike Clark, ESC technical director.

Despite being unauthorised, many electrical contractors remove cut-out fuses when necessary, as the legitimate alternatives cost time and money for both contractors’ businesses and their clients, says the ESC.

As an added safety measure, smart meters are being designed to give a ‘last gasp’ alarm signal if the supply to the meter is cut. This will immediately alert the authorities to any unauthorised removal of a cut-out fuse.

Electrical Safety Regulations

The ESC has also highlighted the consequences of disturbing meter tails during the installation process.

“Meter-tail connections at the main switch in consumer units may be loosened when meters are replaced, creating a possible fire hazard,” claims Clark. “We would therefore like to see the meter installer having to check the tightness of these connections before re-energising installations, something that is not currently being made a requirement.”

All incidents relating to the Electrical Safety Quality Continuity Regulations (ESQCR) are managed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and, as such, ought to be reported to the HSE, usually by the fire services.

An HSE spokesperson said: “Since 2010, HSE has received three reports of near misses to the ESQCR Electrical Incidents Database involving smart meter installations. The reported issues are not specific to the meters themselves, but appear to be related to incorrect or faulty installation practices.”

But this may not be the full picture. A 2010 report produced by a fire officer working for the East Sussex Fire Service for the Association of Chief Fire Officers suggested a significant under reporting of meter related incidents: “since it is likely that a percentage of incidents involving overheated electrical equipment are never reported to the Service and instead are dealt with entirely by the local electrical supply company,” the report says.

Preparing for the rollout

Needless to say that this by no means conclusive proof that there is a problem with the rollout of smart meters. But enough experts have raised questions about the training and speed of the current foundation stage. The actual rollout is the most aggressive smart meter transition in the world and all the checks and balances to ensure safety have to be in place for it to be safe and secure for every consumer.

In other regions, where similar trials are taking place, there have already been dozens of incidents of smart-meter related fires reported. Some have been attributed to poor design while others have been put down to poor installation.

Energy suppliers need to be wary as smart meters have already attracted criticism due to data privacy concerns, security of data and the increase in bills to pay for the rollout. This is on top of existing criticism of energy companies and their existing pricing policies.

We contacted several UK energy suppliers for interviews. No spokesperson was offered when we went to press.

http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/12/in-the-safety-of-our-own-homes.cfm

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on UK engineering organization questioned worker training, roll-out haste, and fires in 2012

Ontario, Canada: late night Smart Meter fire

Posted on March 24, 2016 by admin

From Bayshore Broadcasting News Centre

Smart Meter Fire in Owen Sound

by Matthew Sanderson
March 23, 2016

Fire officials say a number of electrical issues could have caused the small fire.

(Owen Sound) – A smart meter caught on fire at a home in Owen Sound.

It happened around 1:30 AM on Wednesday at a home on 6th Avenue West.


A picture of the damage caused by a fire in a smart meter in Owen Sound. (photo from @IAFF531)

A member of the family inside the home was up and noticed the lights flickering.

Once the family member noticed the fire on the smart meter, the rest of the family escaped the house unharmed.

Owen Sound Fire Prevention Officer Greg Nicol tells Bayshore Broadcasting News a number of electrical issues could have caused the fire inside the meter.

Nicol says the home was equipped with working smoke alarms and a carbon monoxide detector.

There was very minimal damage done to the side of the brick house.

He does say however, that if the house had siding in the area of the meter — it would have caught the house on fire.

Audio: http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/downloads/audio/smart_fire.mp3

http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=83213

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Ontario, Canada: late night Smart Meter fire

Alert from fire officials: Using your washing machine at night could cost you your life: Firefighters warn over plan to charge different rates at different times of day

Posted on March 24, 2016 by admin

From This is Your Money

By James Burton For The Daily Mail
Published 22 March 2016, Updated: 23 March 2016

  • Government is working with power firms to fit a smart meter in every home
  • They will help gas suppliers to charge different rates at different times
  • This could make it considerably cheaper to run appliances at night

Millions of lives will be put at risk by plans to offer all families cheaper energy during the night, firefighters say.

To help people cut their energy bills, the Government is working with power companies to fit a ‘smart meter’ in every home.

As well as recording how much energy you use every half-hour, smart meters will help gas suppliers to charge different rates at different times of day.

Disaster: A burnt-out washing machine in Cheshunt, Herts. The Chief Fire Officers Association says it was never consulted on plans to offer all families cheaper energy during the night

Disaster: A burnt-out washing machine in Cheshunt, Herts. The Chief Fire Officers Association says it was never consulted on plans to offer all families cheaper energy during the night

Families will see prices fall when demand drops and rise at peak times. This could make it cheaper to run appliances such as washing machines, tumble dryers and dishwashers at night.

However, Money Mail has learned fire experts have serious concerns about the idea. The Chief Fire Officers Association says it was never consulted on whether it is safe to do so.

It warns that running electrical appliances while you are asleep will put your family at greater risk of being trapped by fire.

Andy Reynolds, electrical safety expert for the association, says: ‘Never leave a tumble dryer, washing machine or dishwasher running when you have gone to bed or have left the house unoccupied.

‘If it is absolutely necessary to run one of these appliances during sleeping hours, then there should be sufficient working smoke alarms correctly sited to alert sleeping occupants.

‘Everyone in the household should know what the escape plan is in the event a fire breaks out.’

Energy experts also reacted with horror at the idea. Mark Todd, marketing director at price comparison site Energyhelpline, says: ‘It’s unbelievable customers are being told to run appliances at night to save money.

‘No one appears to have consulted the fire service.

‘Everyone in the energy industry advises it and the Government likes it as it spreads out usage meaning we need fewer power stations, but running appliances at night puts you at an increased risk of being trapped in a burning building as you sleep.’

As well as recording how much energy you use every half-hour, smart meters will help gas suppliers to charge different rates at different times of day

About two million people are signed up for a tariff called Economy 7, which offers cheap overnight energy. Prices are typically slashed for seven hours from 11pm, midnight or 1am.

For decades, people using Economy 7 have been advised to take advantage of this by running washing machines and dishwashers when they are in bed. Now this sort of pricing could be rolled out to millions of families nationwide.

More than a million smart meters have been installed and the Government wants them to be in every household by 2020.

The scheme will cost taxpayers £11 billion, but its backers hope to generate savings of £17 billion by encouraging people to be more energy-efficient.

Smart Energy GB, the national campaign for the devices, says they ‘are paving the way for a more energy-efficient future’.

Earlier this month, the National Infrastructure Commission, which advises the Government, said the meters would allow families to ‘manage demand for electricity in response to price signals’.

‘They might do this themselves or use automated systems to ensure their appliances operate at the most cost-effective times of day,’ it continued.

The country’s biggest energy suppliers are united in wanting to charge different prices throughout the day. In industry jargon, this is called a time-of-use tariff. British Gas has already tested a scheme that charges more in the day and less at night.

It raised electricity prices by 99 per cent between 4pm and 8pm in the trial with Northern Powergrid and the University of Durham and cut them by 31 per cent at night.

British Gas says on its website that time-of-use tariffs will mean you being charged less for electricity ‘if you can wait a few hours’ to do your washing.

The accompanying video promises that moving the time of one load of washing a week ‘can make a difference to your electricity bill’.

EDF has tested its version of the tariffs, Economy Alert. A study by university Imperial College said it should be ‘offered to everyone’ if it helps to improve efficiency.

A trial by Npower found that time-of-use charges persuaded nearly 90 per cent of people to run their washing machine at a different time of day.

Experts warn that running electrical appliances at night will put you at greater risk of being trapped by fire

Claire Maugham, director of policy and communications at Smart Energy GB, says: ‘Time-of-use tariffs will be an essential part of managing our future national energy supply by enabling energy use at off-peak times.

‘It will be every consumer’s choice whether they use one of these tariffs, and we should all carry on following fire safety advice in our homes, whatever energy tariff we’re on.

‘Britain’s smart meter roll-out has been designed with the consumers at its heart, including safety measures such as a carbon monoxide check on all gas appliances in your home as part of the installation.’

A British Gas spokesman says: ‘We have no plans to trial or launch any time-of-use tariffs that offer cheaper electricity at night.’

The firm says it is instead hoping to offer free electricity between 9am and 5pm on Saturday or Sunday. EDF would not comment and Npower did not respond.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-3505060/Using-washing-machine-night-cost-life-Firefighters-warn-plan-charge-different-rates-different-times-day.html

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Alert from fire officials: Using your washing machine at night could cost you your life: Firefighters warn over plan to charge different rates at different times of day

Scientists challenge European SCENIHR’s misrepresentation of science

Posted on March 10, 2016 by admin

Posted on EMF Safety Network

by Cindy Sage
March 8, 2016

We are in an era of unprecedented psychological manipulation of the science on potential health effects of EMF and RFR.

Over the last few years, the BioInitiative Working Group has worked many hours on the European Commission’s science reviews of EMF and RFR.  What they say matters.  It’s the expert committee for the European Union (EU) recommending whether EMF and RFR public safety limits are okay, or need substantial revision.  You know where we stand on this.  The limits are grossly inadequate in Europe and the US.

The European Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) did a bad job of it in 2009, and has unsurprisingly disappointed us again in 2015.  Through deceptive language tactics, the Committee has deliberately put out misinformation to erase what should have been clear findings of potential health effects of electromagnetic fields.  Health effects that matter greatly to millions of regular people who want to know about EMF.

What’s their NAME?

The Scientific Committee for Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, right?  Emerging (not proven).  Newly identified (not conclusively demonstrated).

What is the NAME OF THEIR REPORT?  

“Final opinion on Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)”  Not conclusively proven health effects.

What did they conclude?

That there are no conclusively proven biological effects.

How Could That Happen?

” While the scope of the Opinion [SCENIHR, 2015a] did include potential health effects, it was not SCENIHR’s objective to decide whether the possibility of an effect exists, as erroneously suggested by Sage et al. It should be noted that the term “risk” already accounts for probability of a harmful effect and that various levels”. (SCENIHR Leitgeb, 2015)

WHAT?

It would be just an academic farce if our lives didn’t depend on the outcome.  But, we do.  All around the planet, we depend on good advice from educated experts that are supposed to be independent thinkers and good analysts of what is a ‘potential health effect’. No amount of dust-kicking can obscure the basic fact that the SCENIHR failed to do what it was directed to do.

Read for yourselves. This is double-speak.  The SCENIHR’S science review that has failed to carry out the central question asked of this Committee. This is an assessment on which the fate of billions of human beings depends, and upon which global health rests.

For SCENIHR to issue an unwarranted finding of  ‘all clear’ by redefining the reporting terms and misreporting the evidence is bad for science, bad for the public and intensely bad for school children who are sitting in classrooms with WiFi all day, required to use wireless tablets for schoolwork. Read more: http://www.bioinitiative.org/rebuttal-emf-effects/

Scientists Challenge SCENIHR

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Scientists challenge European SCENIHR’s misrepresentation of science

The Swedish No Risk Project

Posted on March 8, 2016 by admin

From EMFacts Consultancy

During the 1990’s the Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry (SiF) instigated research into reports of electro-magnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) in the modern information technology (IT) workplace with a possible link with chemical emissions from new electronic equipment.

The research team at SiF were concerned that the information technology (IT) workplace may be creating new and serious risks to health, as a result SiF initiated the No-Risk project which aimed at addressing all possible health hazards in the modern office-place. In 1999 SiF initiated the “Healthy Office project” in partnership with the Luleå University of Technology (LTU).

The project aimed at implementing the points raised in the SiF “No Risk” publication. However due to corporate and political concerns that this project was a threat to the introduction of new technology it was totally closed down with all publications withdrawn from circulation. For all intents and purposes the SiF No Risk project was as if it never happened.

However these documents are now available on this website in honour of the brave women and men who worked to make the modern IT workplace a safer and healthy place. Their dream must be kept alive. Also included is a pamphlet by the Swedish company Liberel which specialised in designing office places to reduce environmental hazards to workers and this company was directly involved in the SiF No Risk Project. It was Martin Andersson from Liberel who was the first to combine the necessity of reducing electromagnetic fields with the elimination of chemical emissions from office equipment.

See:
The death of the No-Risk and Healthy Office projects, JACNEM Vol. 29, No. 2, Sept. 2010

Don Maisch PhD

For the No Risk publications,

The Swedish No Risk Project

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Swedish No Risk Project

Knock, knock, is anyone home at the EPA?

Posted on March 4, 2016 by admin

The Bridgeton/West Lake radioactive waste dump and fire is a frightening disaster — just one of many that the EPA ignores.

From Center for Health, Environment and Justice

February 15, 2016

EPA has gone dark. McCarthy is awaiting the end of her term and no one is protecting the American citizens or our environment.

It is outrageous that Administrator Gina McCarthy refuses to acknowledge the citizens living near the Bridgeton/West Lake Superfund site. What is wrong with her? Just Moms STL wrote a letter requesting a meeting in May of 2015 and never even received an acknowledgement that they asked for a meeting. They traveled to Washington, DC anyway in hopes of seeing McCarthy after their federal delegation of senators and congress representatives sent a letter to encourage McCarthy to meet with them. The community received nothing from the office of the Administrator. Not a call, a letter or even an e-mail saying she had a prior commitment or was on travel.

A second letter was sent this past fall to say the community leaders are planning to travel to Washington, D.C. in February and would she please meet with them to discuss the Superfund site which has been mismanaged by her regional staff. Again there was silence. I personally called every day but one in the month of January and February leading up to the date that local people were traveling to D.C. On many occasions when I called, all I received was a voice mail message that asked me to leave a message and someone would get back to me. I left message after message and no one, not a single person from the agency returned my call.

On a few occasions I actually talked to a woman who answered the phone. She was courteous and respectful and always promised to deliver the message to scheduling department. “Someone will call you back soon.” But no one ever called. The citizens living around the site began a telephone campaign to McCarthy’s office. It was only a week until they travel to D.C. and no one provided an answer if McCarthy would meet or not. The community sold cupcakes, brownies, t-shirts, and worked hard to raise the funds to visit D.C. and meet with the Administrator to explain what was going on from their perspective.

With a slim chance of meeting with McCarthy, now two years since their first request for a meeting was made, they climbed on a plane and came to D.C. While there they met with their congressional delegation, allies in the field but never had a meeting with McCarthy. Also they were never denied a meeting; it was deafeningly silent. My goodness if the answer is “NO” then say so. To say nothing is irresponsible, inexcusable and further victomizing the victims.

I stood outside of McCarthy’s office at 9 a.m. the last day of the groups visit. From the sidewalk I called her office and explained that local leaders are downstairs and waiting for a response from McCarthy before they need to leave for the airport. The public relations office sent down a two young people to receive the letter the community had for McCarthy, outlining their concerns. They apologized that McCarthy wasn’t available to meet. She couldn’t have told the citizens before they left St. Louis that she couldn’t meet? It is not a big request to ask for a simple yes or no of availability.

My take away . . . fire McCarthy. My tax dollars should not be spent on someone who works in government and ignores the citizens of the United States. All she had to do on both occasions is say I’m sorry I’ve got a previous engagement. Common courtesy should be a requirement of federal employment.

http://chej.org/2016/02/knock-knock-is-anyone-home-at-epa/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Knock, knock, is anyone home at the EPA?

Clear Channel ‘Radar’ billboards will track the public via their cellphones

Posted on March 1, 2016 by admin

The program is called “Radar” and is in partnership with AT&T and other companies.

In the works are appliances that offer ads based on Smart Meter and IoT data collected from people within their homes, data that is also transmitted out to the utility, third-party collectors, and the government.

Constantly spied on, monitored, and known to the nth degree.
Every tiny detail of our lives watched by all the enabled appliances, electronics, and signs around us.
Nowhere that is private.
Eyes everywhere.
We are the reality show.
When do we become not just data to sell, but also entertainment for others?

The surveillance tsunami.

From Common Dreams

‘Incredibly Creepy’ Billboards to Track Behavior of Passers-By

‘People have no idea that they’re being tracked and targeted’

by Nika Knight, staff writer
February 29, 2016

Billboards across the country will soon begin to spy on the behavior of passers-by and sell that data to advertisers.

Clear Channel Outdoor Americas, which owns tens of thousands of billboards nationwide, is on Monday announcing plans to use people’s cell phones to allow its billboards to track the behavior of everyone who walks or drives past the ads.

“People have no idea that they’re being tracked and targeted,” Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, told the New York Times, which broke the news on Sunday. “It is incredibly creepy, and it’s the most recent intrusion into our privacy.”

The marketing behemoth is partnering with AT&T and other companies that track human behavior to collect data on viewers’ activity, which advertisers could then use to create hyper-targeted ads—similar to how websites track visitors through their browsers and sell that data to online marketers.

The problem, say privacy advocates, is that most people when out in public will have no idea that their every move is being recorded and analyzed and sold for marketing purposes. When similar ads that used smartphones to track behavior were installed in phone booths in New York City in 2008, there was loud public outcry and the billboards were quickly removed after a Buzzfeed investigation.

Indeed, even Clear Channel Outdoor Americas’ own spokesman conceded to the New York Times that the company’s new service does “sound a bit creepy.”

Critics also note that the use of smartphone data to track the behavior of unsuspecting passers-by poses specific risks to children, who are more susceptible to advertisements, studies show, and who are also using mobile phones at younger and younger ages. Fifty-six percent of children ages eight to 12 have their own cellphones, a 2012 study found.

Facial-recognition technology is also increasingly used by advertisers to track behavior in public spaces, and many people remain unaware of it. The February 2016 issue of Consumer Reports drew attention to the growing phenomenon, and listed a few examples of how the technology is being put to use:

In Germany, the Astra beer brand recently created an automated billboard that noted when women walked past. The billboard approximated the women’s age, then played one of several prerecorded ads to match.

Retailers can use facial recognition systems to see how long people of a particular race or gender remain in the shop, and adjust displays and the store layout to try to enhance sales.

Using related technology, some high-end retailers in the U.S. have experimented with “memory mirrors” that perform tricks such as storing images of what shoppers tried on so that they can be revisited, or emailed directly to friends for feedback.

Public tracking techniques such as facial recognition are “largely unregulated,” the magazine observed.

“People would be outraged if they knew how facial recognition” is being developed and promoted, Alvaro Bedoya, the executive director of Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy & Technology, told Consumer Reports. “Not only because they weren’t told about it, but because there’s nothing they can do about it.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/29/incredibly-creepy-billboards-track-behavior-passers

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clear Channel ‘Radar’ billboards will track the public via their cellphones

Former PUC staff says PUC bias favors industry over public

Posted on February 21, 2016 by admin

From the San Diego Union-Tribune
February 19, 2016
PUC bias favors industry over public
By Kim Malcolm

File – In this Sept. 9, 2010 file photo, a massive fire roars through a mostly residential neighborhood in San Bruno, Calif., after a lethal 2010 gas pipeline explosion that engulfed a suburban San Francisco neighborhood in flames, killing eight people. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File) The Associated Press

The California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has been on the hot seat for more than a year over allegations of corruption that have motivated criminal investigations, ended careers and heightened fears about the hazards of utility facilities. Sadly, the allegations come as no surprise to me. I worked at the PUC for 25 years, mostly as an administrative law judge and professional staff to four commissioners, two of whom were appointed by our governor. I had a great career at the PUC and, although I rarely sat quietly on the sidelines, I am not a disgruntled former employee.

I left the commission in 2008 because I could not be effective. Among the experiences that led me to this conclusion: being removed as administrative law judge from a major energy case in response to utility lobbying and being removed from another major energy case the day after I told a commissioner I couldn’t promise to rule in favor of the utilities prior to hearing the case.

I was eventually informed that I would not be assigned to any cases the utilities cared about and I was admonished for allowing members of the public to speak at a (get ready for it) public hearing. But I didn’t feel singled out and that was the problem — I didn’t want to work in an organization that had become so explicitly compromised.

The PUC had changed by the time I left, but not so drastically, as recent events might suggest. Over the past 100 years, the PUC’s rules, policies and processes have evolved to give the captains of industry extraordinary influence.

The utilities may have let their pipeline systems crumble or botched a nuclear plant repair, but they have performed one job with great skill and success: stacking every card in the regulatory deck in their favor. The PUC’s culture of procedural complexity, regulatory double-speak and corporate cronyism puts every public-spirited intervenor at a disadvantage and has cowed some of the best.

The cost to Californians of regulatory capture is probably staggering. During the past 15 years — a period of underfunded education, high unemployment and aging infrastructure — the PUC approved utility proposals to spend billions of customer dollars on “smart” meters most customers will never use, approved “incentive awards” to the utilities for unsuccessful energy efficiency programs and rubber-stamped fossil-fuel power plants California doesn’t need. It is not surprising that the rates of California’s regulated utilities are among the highest in the nation. If you had been a residential customer of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in 2014, your monthly electricity bill for 500 kilowatt hours would have been $58 instead of the $116 you paid SDG&E or the $93 you paid PG&E.

The PUC and the utilities it regulates are full of talented, dedicated employees, and the PUC has done some really good things over the years. The system, however, is broken.

In response to allegations of impropriety, bias and criminal activity, the PUC appears to have employed those time-tested strategies called circling the wagons, window dressing and rearranging the deck chairs. The PUC’s leadership seems to have forgotten the reforms it promised more than a year ago and its stated commitment to improved safety.

Six years after the San Bruno disaster, the PUC sat quietly for months while a SoCalGas storage facility spewed more than 85,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases into California’s air and endangered the lives of thousands of California residents. As if to confirm allegations that the PUC operates as if it were above the law, the PUC recently stated it would defy a court order to turn over public documents on the basis of its “ethical” obligation to ignore the court because, well, you’re not the boss of me.

In the future, PUC decision-makers and utility executives may be more careful about what they put in emails. But the state’s interest in consumer protection, public safety and the natural environment will continue to take a back seat to the politically connected and the too-big-to-fails unless the state makes significant changes to the PUC’s decision-making processes, redefines conflicts of interest and eliminates the revolving door.

It is hard to criticize an organization that is like family to me but it is harder to see what has happened to it. As some of my former PUC colleagues have said, we need to put the public back in the California Public Utilities Commission.

Malcolm formerly worked as a private consultant for California nonprofits on energy and environmental issues following a 25-year career at the PUC.

See also: PUC actions raise concerns, require reforms

Editor’s note: The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board invited the PUC to submit an op-ed. It has not yet.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/feb/19/puc-corruption-utilities/

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Former PUC staff says PUC bias favors industry over public

Australian Broadcasting Corporation report: Wi-Fried?

Posted on February 17, 2016 by admin

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Tuesday, 16 February 2016

To view:
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4407325.htm
29:12
download video: mp4

WiFi-6_small.jpg

Could wifi-enabled devices be harmful to our health? You cannot see it or hear it but Wi-Fi blankets our homes, our schools and our cities. Australia’s safety agency says there’s no evidence of harm, but that’s not the same as saying its safe. A growing number of scientists are concerned that the widespread use of Wi-Fi and Wi-Fi-enabled devices could be slowly making us sick. In this Catalyst investigation, Dr Maryanne Demasi explores whether our wireless devices could be putting our health at risk.

TRANSCRIPT 

Boy
Oh, my God, what the…?!

NARRATION
You can’t see it or hear it, but wi-fi blankets our homes, our cities and our schools.

Dr Devra Davis
Children today are growing up in a sea of radiofrequency microwave radiation that did not exist five years ago.

NARRATION
Our safety agencies dispute that wireless devices like mobile phones cause harm.

Dr Ken Karipidis
Don’t think it’s good enough to say at the moment that mobile phone use does cause cancer.

Dr Devra Davis
Cell phones emit pulsed radiation…

NARRATION
But some of the world’s leading scientists and industry insiders are breaking ranks to warn us of the risks.

Professor Bruce Armstrong
There is an association between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumours.

Frank Clegg
I’ve been in the technology industry all of my career and I’ve seen the tremendous benefits technology can provide. My concern is nobody can say that it’s safe.

NARRATION
Do mobile phones cause brain cancer? And is wi-fi making us sick?

Dr Maryanne Demasi
In this episode, I investigate the latest research and advice about the safety of our modern wireless devices.

NARRATION
The digital revolution has transformed our lives. Phones, tablets, watches and laptops all connected to wireless networks. We use these devices to make calls, send texts, write emails, play music, take photos, and even watch TV. In fact, chances are you could be watching this on your wireless device right now.

Dr Devra Davis
We’ve gone from the equivalent of the horse-and-buggy to the jet in about ten years. The transformation in technology has been without precedence. The devices that are held directly next to the body, the mobile phone, the cordless phone, are the ones we’re most concerned about.

NARRATION
When US cancer epidemiologist Dr Devra Davis was first told about the risks of mobile phones, her reaction was predictable disbelief.

Dr Devra Davis
I said, ‘What are you talking about? There’s no problem. If there were a problem, I would know about it.’ ‘Cause of course, I was working at the National Academy of Sciences. I was working at the Cancer Institute, a Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, and I frankly thought, ‘There’s nothing to this.’ Then, however, I began to look and the more I looked, the more concerned I became.

NARRATION
Dr Davis has had a distinguished career as a Presidential appointee for the Clinton administration and is recognised internationally for her work on environmental health and disease prevention. She was recently in Australia holding a series of public seminars.

Dr Devra Davis
People are assuming everything’s fine until we have evidence that we’re in the middle of a disaster.

NARRATION
Today, there’s over 6 billion phone subscriptions worldwide – many of them smartphones with apps that frequently receive and transmit electromagnetic signals. In a similar way, the human body has electromagnetic fields. Electrical currents flow through nerve fibres and muscle tissue and external interference can disrupt those signals.

Dr Devra Davis
Our heart and our brain are electric. We need to understand that exposing our electric body to mobile phone radiation for thousands of minutes a month, for hundreds of hours over a lifetime, it’s going to have a biological effect on you. In fact, the Blackberry comes with a warning. It says, ‘If you have a pacemaker implanted in your chest, keep the mobile device at least 20cm away. Well, your heart is a pacemaker whether you have a machine in it or not. So obviously you wanna protect your heart and the rest of your body.

NARRATION
Finnish radiation biologist Dr Dariusz Leszczynski is an internationally recognised expert in radiation safety and has been an advisor to the WHO on such matters. He says most people with a smartphone nowadays may be unwittingly breaching the safety limits of their device.

Dr Dariusz Leszczynski
Sometimes person puts cell phone in pocket which are connected to internet, then safety limits are being breached and this cell phone doesn’t comply with safety regulations once it is put in pocket.

NARRATION
Phones are manufactured to ensure the radiation they emit can’t overheat the body and cause thermal damage. It’s called the specific absorption rate, but during testing, the phone is positioned at a distance away from the model body. Therefore when you put your smartphone in your pocket directly against your body, you may be exceeding the safety standard.

Dr Dariusz Leszczynski
In order to comply with safety standards, this cell phone has to be at some distance from body.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
So it’s fair to say that sometimes people would be breaching the safety standard of their mobile phones every day.

Dr Dariusz Leszczynski
Yes.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
That’s quite shocking. I don’t think people are aware of this information.

Dr Dariusz Leszczynski
Because nobody’s talking about it, including radiation safety authorities. They simply don’t mention it.

NARRATION
Electromagnetic radiation is everywhere. We have always been exposed to natural sources like the sun, but there are some sources of radiation that are man-made. Today, with the proliferation of mobile and wireless technology and devices that emit artificial radiofrequency radiation, some claim we’re exposed to levels up to a quintillion times higher than natural background levels. The spectrum of electromagnetic radiation ranges from ionising radiation like X-rays which have enough energy to knock electrons out of their orbit and cause cancer, to non-ionising radiation like microwaves which have much less energy and considered to be safer. Mobile phones, tablets, phone towers, smart meters, baby monitors and wi-fi routers are all sources of radiofrequency microwave radiation. Professor Bruce Armstrong was part of an expert panel on radiation which gathered for the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC. The panel was tasked with analysing whether radiofrequency radiation could cause cancer.

Professor Bruce Armstrong
Its decision was, essentially, that it possibly causes cancer.

NARRATION
That means radiofrequency radiation is now classified as a Class 2B possible human carcinogen.

Professor Bruce Armstrong
It was inevitably a controversial decision.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
What was your personal decision?

Professor Bruce Armstrong
I thought that IARC got it right based on the evidence.

NARRATION
Heavy users are defined as those who talk on a mobile 30 minutes a day for longer than 10 years. Journalists like myself, tradespeople, brokers, even teenagers would easily meet that definition these days. So I went to ARPANSA, our federal agency responsible for protecting us from the harmful effects of radiation. I asked one of their physicists, Dr Ken Karipidis, for his view on IARC’s decision.

Dr Ken Karipidis
On a personal level, I don’t think it should be a 2B. Other people say it should be higher.

NARRATION
Dr Karapidis says there’s no cause for concern.

Dr Ken Karipidis
We’ve been doing research in this area for a very long time and our assessment of the evidence suggests that although some studies do show effects, there is no established evidence that the low levels of radiofrequency radiation from tablets and phones and wi-fi and what have you causes health effects.

Dr Maryanne Demasi
So ARPANSA’s not actually saying these devices are safe.

Dr Ken Karipidis
We can only provide advice on assessment of the evidence. We do not provide guarantees of safety. I don’t think a scientist can do that.

NARRATION
In Ontario is the former head of Microsoft Canada, Frank Clegg. He has gained valuable insight into the machinations of the tech industry.

Frank Clegg
I’ve been in the technology industry all my career and I’ve seen the tremendous benefits that technology can provide. My concern is nobody can say that it’s safe. All my industry and all government agencies say is there is no proof of harm. To my mind, that’s not the same as saying it’s safe.

NARRATION
Mr Clegg points out that the safety standard only protects people from thermal damage that can occur through overheating. But scientists have demonstrated that radiation emitting devices can cause DNA damage without heating tissue. These are non-thermal effects.

Frank Clegg
Unfortunately, the safety standards in North America and Australia are based on this theory that’s many decades old that if tissue doesn’t get heated, then it can’t cause harm. That’s just out of date, and what the biologists tell us and have shown in many experiments, and again, peer-reviewed published papers, that there is damage done at the DNA level, and from a biological standpoint, non-thermal radiation can cause and does cause harm to humans.

Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Australian Broadcasting Corporation report: Wi-Fried?