Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

From	Message
thumper 27-Jan-13, 00:47	It's the law! You must let us attach OUR new smart meter to your house or you will go to jail. This is OUR property we are forcibly attaching to your house. You can't remove it or damage it or you will go to jail. It will allow us to track your comings and goings from your home with RF signals and you will pay for it, or be arrested. It's the law and you must comply!! Chicago Suburb Arrests Mothers for Refusing Energy Meters In Naperville, IL, two mothers were arrested last week for refusing to allow utility workers to install controversial smart meters on their homes. The city’s new Naperville Smart Grid Initiative requires new controversial smart meters to be installed in every home. Residents opposed to the smart meters have been fighting the initiative for over two years. Jennifer Stahl, an advocate against the smart meters initiative, told The Blaze she “was protecting” her property when she refused to allow the smart meter installer install the device. She felt “like a momma bear protecting her babies,” she recalled. Many opponents to the meters worry about the type of data the smart grid will collect, opening up a potential for hackers and criminals to know when residents are home or not. Also, because the meters work on a wireless RF system, some are concerned about health safety in their home. Reports of health risks due to the meter's wireless transmitter's omission of electromagnetic frequencies surfaced in 2011. People with the meters installed on their homes reported symptoms such as headaches, insomnia, tinnitus, and DNA breakdown. According to the Chicago Tribune, Malia “Kim” Bendis was also arrested on two misdemeanors for resisting a police officer and attempted eavesdropping, when she filmed police on scene, despite a recent federal court ruling that the state of Illinois’s ban on recording police officers in the line of duty was “unconstitutional.” The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling in November. The city maintains that homeowners can opt out of the wireless transmitters but only by substituting those with an alternative meter at a high fee. The Tribune reports there is a $68.35 initial fee for the alternative meter plus a $24.75 monthly fee for manually reading it. www.breitbart.com
musket33r 27-Jan-13, 05:34	Smart meters save electricity companies thousands by making it thousands of times easier to collect data. If you don't want to have a smart meter then you shouldn't be connected to the electrical grid. <<People with the meters installed on their homes reported symptoms such as headaches, insomnia, tinnitus, and DNA breakdown. >> This is priceless. I bet these people all have cordless phones, wi-fi and sattelite navigation in their cars. All of these technologies require absorbtion and sending of (harmless) EMF. Having a smart meter in your house is no different than having a wireless radio or a TV with an antenna. Then again, someone sued Air France because the Concorde affected her contraception.
chaz5 27-Jan-13, 08:16	... new technologies are invading our lives, that's for sure; and, the privacy of our homes is being compromised on many fronts. There are devices for our cars that report how we drive so the insurance companies know if we speed or drive recklessly. There are medical devices that can be implanted in our bodies ... cameras to watch the elderly ... here in AZ we have cameras watching for speeders and red light chasers. Big Brother is here and thriving and most folks acquiesce to it as being OK and nonthreatening. The TV series, Person of Interest, may be more about reality than fiction. It's government. It's bug business. It's utilities, insurance, and hospitals. It's everywhere! Just how is one to resist this avalanche of attacks upon our privacy and individual rights? Are all of these things merely inevitabilities that we must accept ever so slowly but surely ... eroding humanity as we know it?
softaire 27-Jan-13, 08:39	The new smart meters are an example of violating the 4th Amendment in the Constitution. They can report on which devices were used, at what times, and soon other things too. The data is stored on power company computers. It is not hard to imaging the power company giving the information to government or selling it to marketing companies. It is even more likely that it will be sold to appliance manufactures who may try to invalidate warranties for over usage, wrong usage, or illegal usage in some cases. Imagine Microsoft or another software manufacturer suing you for using a pirated copy of software. This, to me is an invasion of privacy and an illegal search because, in the past, it would have needed a person to physically come into the house to get they information.
dmaestro 27-Jan-13, 09:52	This is modern society. Welcome to the 21rst century! Every technology is both an opportunity and a potential threat. We are all not going back to the horse age, Amish like way of life at the time the constitution was written. An alternative was offered but at higher cost because it cost the utiliy more. Once you connect to a public utility or use public services you lose some autonomy. Horse age ideas must adapt. As the world population and urbanization increases along with technology people must adapt to the new reality or face decline.
softaire 27-Jan-13, 10:06	Yes, it is the 21st Century and technology has advanced. The question is why do we need to lose our liberties simply because technology allows advanced searches, tracking, reporting, and analysis. While I agree that this may be useful in preventing or resolving crimes, we should also apply advanced legislation to increase our rights and protections accordingly to keep up with modern technology. We should not now have lessened expectations of privacy and rights than we did when the Constitution was written. The purpose of warrants is to prove there is a justifiable reason for searching. We should be applying the same reasoning to the new technology. You should not be able to access, search or seize information about people (even if stored on the Internet) unless you have a valid reason, supported by a valid warrant. And, Google, Facebook or anybody else (like power companies) should not allow access to the information by anyone, under any circumstances, without there being a valid warrant.
dmaestro 27-Jan-13, 10:26	The reason is that technology is a game changer and it becomes a risk management issue. When the horse age constitution was written they did not anticipate cell phone directed flash mobs. The information is out there already and the expectation of privacy should not be as a practical matter, it becomes a matter of preventing misuse of information. As the bad guys get better at beating the system, we must adapt to the new reality.
softaire 27-Jan-13, 11:13	dm I didn't understand your last. Do you mean that we should or should not write legislation that protects our rights and privacy (as envisioned by the Founders, at least) in order to keep up with technology? Do you mean that since some stuff is already out there, that we need to let it be unprotected and available to anyone at any time? I agree that we need to try and stop the bad guy from beating the system. I'm just not sure what you mean by "bad guy" or "the system". Can you explain that more also?
dmaestro 27-Jan-13, 12:00	I mean we need to be very creative to find the right balance. We already have the ability to search an array of electronic information sources. The danger occurs when you get groupthink. It is not as much a matter of prohibiting information gathering per se as it is adequate protections about how it can be used.
chaz5 27-Jan-13, 12:03	... but we're dealing with fallible humans who might (likely!) misuse information for profit, for gain, for revenge, for destruction, etc. Are we sure we want to cross this bridge? Or, is there just no going back?
dmaestro 27-Jan-13, 12:19	I don't see any turning back.
chaz5 27-Jan-13, 12:20	... can a person who chooses to do so, withdraw from the inevitable process?
dmaestro 27-Jan-13, 12:47	An enoloyed urbanite would find it hard. There are ways to minimize exposure.
chaz5 27-Jan-13, 13:00	... despite overly extreme conservative talking points, doesn't this inevitability sound like something to be avoided or at least managed more conspicuously in favor of the population? Or, are we all just lemmings?
softaire 27-Jan-13, 13:40	Is there ANYONE who can tell me what ".. despite overly extreme conservative talking points, ..." means?
thumper 27-Jan-13, 16:48	That's easy Softie In some circles, anything 'conservative' said by two or more more people would be considered or claimed to be, 'overly extreme conservative talking points'.
dmaestro 27-Jan-13, 16:49	I agree these trends threaten our liberties Chaz. It is a careful balance that must continually be reevaluated. "Despite overly conservative talking points" refers to claims like smart meters being unconstitutional. The courts have ruled they are not.
chaz5 27-Jan-13, 16:53	... even right here it seems the far right conservatives have missed the point yet again. My point was hardly Liberal-oriented ... or even close.
softaire 27-Jan-13, 18:39	chaz Is there any chance that you could provide an example of what you consider to be an "overly extreme conservative talking point" and explain why you think it so. I'd be glad to respond... possibly you're correct.

GameKnot: play chess online, Internet chess league, online chess puzzles, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, chess clubs, free online chess games database and more.