Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #211
    podfish's Avatar
    Supporting Member

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol - ADMISSION OF METERS SPYING FOR PROFIT

    Quote Jude Iam wrote: View Post
    OK, here we have the revelation from the horse's mouth: admission of the REAL reason for the hard, universal push for 'smart' (sic) meters. Wake up, America. ....
    In one fell swoop, every utility’s claim of “smart meters do not spy on you” is now dissolved.
    Their myth is now shattered. .... Watch Onzo’s rather jaw dropping 90-second marketing video:.
    that's a typically conspiratorial midset. First, there's no REAL REASON. There are lots of reasons. Sure, that's one of them, and without "Waking up, America" can disabuse itself of the myth. Oh yeah, shatter the myth. Whatever. Somehow my jaw didn't drop to learn that the modern connectivity can be used for data-collection.

    Personally, I'm kind of surprised at the level of legal restrictions that are imposed (I didn't say followed) on data collection of individuals. And if my jaw drops, it's that largely these companies seem reasonably willing to do some anonymizing since they are quite interested in the aggregate. This to me seems a sign that it's still an immature technology. There are too many advantages for "them" to know everything. You'll see it as a crime- or terrorist-prevention tool; if something shocking (in the real sense of shock) happens, it'll be more than just Trump voters who will support enabling of the surveillance capabilities that are already there. I think it was Brin who wrote that fighting for privacy gives tools to the privileged but won't really protect the rest of us.

    So bottom line, this seems a weird hill to plant your flag. Your phone knows so much more about you 'cuz you probably keep it with you a lot, and if anyone cares to do it they can use it as a microphone without you knowing. Fortunately we're a few years away from cheap & easy data processing on that level - despite the fears of several others on this board.

    as you can tell, it's not the overarching thesis I disagree with, it's the pearl-clutching over something really minor in both health hazard and risk to liberty.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  3. TopTop #212
    Jude Iam's Avatar
    Jude Iam

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Yes, Sieglinde, First Amendment; that one - and a few others. Protecting our diminishing CIVIL LIBERTIES is hardly "stupid", is it? Jude

    Constitutional rights

    The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

    • The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
    • The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
    • The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
    • The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
    • The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
    The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.
    For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.
    The court ruled in 1969 that the right to privacy protected a person's right to possess and view pornography in his own home. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Stanley v. Georgia that, " If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch."
    The controversial case Roe v. Wade in 1972 firmly established the right to privacy as fundamental, and required that any governmental infringement of that right to be justified by a compelling state interest. In Roe, the court ruled that the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy only after viability. Before viability, the mother's right to privacy limits state interference due to the lack of a compelling state interest.
    In 2003, the court, in Lawrence v. Texas, overturned an earlier ruling and found that Texas had violated the rights of two gay men when it enforced a law prohibiting sodomy. [Countdown: 10 Milestones in Gay Rights History]
    Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."
    Access to personal information

    A person has the right to determine what sort of information about them is collected and how that information is used. In the marketplace, the FTC enforces this right through laws intended to prevent deceptive practices and unfair competition.
    The Privacy Act of 1974 prevents unauthorized disclosure of personal information held by the federal government. A person has the right to review their own personal information, ask for corrections and be informed of any disclosures.
    The Financial Monetization Act of 1999 requires financial institutions to provide customers with a privacy policy that explains what kind of information is being collected and how it is being used. Financial institutions are also required to have safeguards that protect the information they collect from customers.
    The Fair Credit Reporting Act protects personal financial information collected by credit reporting agencies. The act puts limits on who can access such information and requires agencies to have simple processes by which consumers can get their information, review it and make corrections.
    Online privacy

    Internet users can protect their privacy by taking actions that prevent the collection of information. Most people who use the Internet are familiar with tracking cookies. These small stores of data keep a log of your online activities and reports back to the tracker host. The information is usually for marketing purposes. To many Internet users, this is an invasion of privacy. But there are several ways to avoid tracking cookies.
    Browsers and social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, allow users to choose levels of privacy settings, from share everything to only share with friends to share only the minimum, such as your name, gender and profile picture. Protecting personally identifiable information is important for preventing identity theft.
    The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) enforces a parent's right to control what information websites collect about their children. Websites that target children younger than 13 or knowingly collect information from children must post privacy policies, get parental consent before collecting information from children, allow parents to decide how such information is used and provide an opt-out option for future collection of a child's information.
    Right of publicity

    Just as a person has the right to keep personal information private, he or she also has the right to control the use of his or her identity for commercial promotion. Unauthorized use of one's name or likeness is recognized as an invasion of privacy.
    There are four types of invasion of privacy: intrusion, appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity and false light. If a company uses a person's photo in an ad claiming that the person endorses a certain product, the person could file a lawsuit claiming misappropriation.
    Movable boundaries

    The Supreme Court approaches the right to privacy and personal autonomy on a case-by-case basis. As public opinion changes regarding relationships and activities, and the boundaries of personal privacy change, largely due to social media and an atmosphere of "sharing," the definition of the right to privacy is ever-changing.

    Further reading:

    Quote Sieglinde wrote: View Post
    Reminds me of the old "America Love it or Leave it Slogan" I can live anywhere I want to and I assume that the First Admendment still applies. I see stupid, I call it out.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. Gratitude expressed by:

  5. TopTop #213
    Sasu's Avatar

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    The CPUC will hold a voting meeting in Santa Rosa on Thursday April 6 at 9:30 am. This is a rare event, as these meetings are usually held in San Francisco. Sign up for public comments start at 9am till 9:30am. If you arrive after 9:30, you wait till all speakers finish and the President asks is there anyone else. Speakers likely get one minute.

    If you are getting higher bills because of PG&E’s bi-monthly estimated reading this is a chance to speak directly to the CPUC about it. See this
    Or talk about banning smart meters and why.

    Thursday April 6 at 9:30 am
    Santa Rosa City Hall Council Chambers
    100 Santa Rosa Ave., Santa Rosa
    More details:
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by:

  7. TopTop #214
    Sara S's Avatar
    Sara S
    Auntie Wacco

    Re: Speaking of PG&E Scam...Analogue Meter Users Heads-Up

    From this week's Sonoma West Times and News:

    PG&E SmartMeters installation on back burner

    By Bleys Rose, Sonoma West editor, [email protected] Apr 19, 2017

    PG&E appears to be in no rush to reignite the SmartMeter debate, despite having informed Sebastopol city officials they’d begin installing them in early 2017.

    For nearly two years, the gas and electric company has essentially halted concerted efforts to gain widespread consumer acceptance of the self-reading utility meters in Sebastopol after meeting with objections from some residents and encountering a legally dubious ban approved by the city council.

    On Monday, April 17, the general counsel of the California Public Utilities Commission weighed into the fray with a legal opinion that said the state legislature had granted the power company the right to install meters and that no city or county government could usurp that regulatory authority. Referring to Sebastopol’s ban, called Ordinance 1057, the letter to city council members noted the City of Fairfax had previously unsuccessfully challenged PUC infrastructure programs.

    “It is our opinion, therefore, that the (Sebastopol) ordinance is unlawful and unenforceable,” said the letter from Arocles Aguilar, PUC general counsel.

    Last month, alarmed that the PG&E suspension of installations was about to be lifted, the city council fired off a letter to company officials that called for more discussion on the issue.

    “With the opposition to SmartMeters in Sebastopol, the city is concerned that any efforts to install SmartMeters in Sebastopol may cause public disturbances which will require involvement from our police department,” said a letter signed by Mayor Una Glass on March 21. “This would not be good media attention for PG&E.”

    PG&E officials wrote back saying “we appreciate the continuing dialogue we are having ...” and added “… we will respond to your request in the near future.”

    PG&E spokesperson Deanna Contreras characterized the company’s stance as agreeing to more discussion and as starting a very slow process of contacting customers.

    “As we are doing routine maintenance and installation work, we are finding customers who want them,” she said. “It is a two-year process and we are doing just a few customers at a time. We are taking it slow because we want to ensure customers are well informed.”

    She said PG&E on April 3 sent about 10 letters to residential customers who live outside Sebastopol city limits. Those letters informed customers that they could opt out of a SmartMeter with a one-time $75 fee and by paying a monthly $10 charge that would expire after 36 months.

    Contreras said there are about 5,350 PG&E customer meters in Sebastopol.

    Sebastopol city manager Larry McLaughlin said city offices have received hardly any inquiries about SmartMeter installations in recent months.

    “Right now, if somebody called, I would tell them that PG&E has announced they will start installing meters on a routine basis when they are performing service calls at a residence, but that they would first receive consumer information and be given the opportunity to opt out,” McLaughlin said. “I have not heard of anybody getting approached who would be resistant to the idea of a meter, but then I haven’t of anybody being approached who didn’t want one either.”
    Last edited by Barry; 04-21-2017 at 12:23 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by:

  9. TopTop #215
    JimmyL's Avatar

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    After reading Bley Roses article in the Sebastopol Times, I wonder how many smart meters are installed in Sebastopol already.
    I've walked around the Barlow, looks like all the businesses there have them.
    I had one installed at my home 5 years ago.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by:

  11. TopTop #216
    Sieglinde's Avatar

    Re: Enforce the Smart Meter Ban in Sebastopol

    Interesting question. I may stroll my neighborhood and see. We have 25 units. I know of two with Smart Meters.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. PG&E to escalate Smart Meter deployment in Sebastopol?
    By Sasu in forum General Community
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-05-2013, 11:26 AM
  2. Sebastopol Smart Meter update: chasing off installers
    By Sasu in forum General Community
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-08-2013, 11:22 AM
  3. IJ article about Inverness resisting Smart Meter - Wireless Meter
    By daynurse in forum All Marin County Posts
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-23-2011, 05:17 PM
  4. Smart Meter issue revived in Sebastopol
    By Sabrina in forum General Community
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-14-2011, 12:30 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-06-2010, 07:08 PM