« More EU madness on Rubbish | Main | Who paid for Kennet's Bin Bugs »

Kennet District Council Buggers

Apologies for the rash of articles on the Kennet District Council Bugging scandal!
Let me just summarise a couple of points.

My big complaint is that that Kennet Council secretly introduced an electronic bug onto my premises - it doesn't matter what the bug can do or is for - that is simply unacceptable.

We will now hear all sort of "reasonable" reasons why the bugs should be there. Here is Kennet's first version:

Source

Martin Smith, head of Environmental Services at Kennet District Council, which covers Devizes, admitted that residents had not been told their bins were electronically tagged. Nor is there any reference in documents about the council's waste-recycling strategy. There is nothing sinister about this,' he said. 'These are simply chips that will enable us to sort out disputes between householders about whose wheelie bin is whose. If there are any arguments we can just send out an officer to scan the chip and settle the argument.
'There is a debate in Government over the possibility of introducing charges but that's not what we had in mind when we ordered the chips.'

And that sounds like complete rubbish to me.
The truth is that the EU is ruling our refuse and the councils are just doing what our European masters want them to - and that means that our bins are going to be policed tighter than our borders.

And as to the RFID tags produced by deister electronic. We are told they are just to identify the address - so why do they need to be so large? Why do they need to have Read/Write capability - TC chipnest transponder specification? And what is the purpose of choosing a system that has an "open architecture (which) allows Software houses and systems integrators to provide bespoke solutions."
All this at £2 a bin just to provide an address? Pull the other one.

If Kennet District Council has a reasonable explanation why did they not declare it and argue for it instead of secretly installing them?

When did our Civil Servants become the Stasi?

Comments

Why do most news services call a RFID chip a bug - its passive and a way of doing what could also be done with a painted/ stamped serial number. RFID much more efficient than manually reading and quicker and binmen would never agree to paperwork. Not sure if it covert of just out of the way (from being vandalised/ knocked off by lifting equipment).

And the bin is the councils, never ours. So they don't need permission. Maybe as it was obvious that we were going to find out its more a PR issue. I think people dumping lots of glass/ plastic/ paper and card in 2006 deserve some penalty if recycling services are accessible to them. Scotland has mostly communal bins so not really an issue here, the paranoid can always swap bins with their neighbours regularly. It may encourage fly tipping and burning the bins is toxically silly. Remove the tag if it bothers you.

Why do most news services call a RFID chip a bug - its passive and a way of doing what could also be done with a painted/ stamped serial number. RFID much more efficient than manually reading and quicker and binmen would never agree to paperwork. Not sure if it covert of just out of the way (from being vandalised/ knocked off by lifting equipment).

And the bin is the councils, never ours. So they don't need permission. Maybe as it was obvious that we were going to find out its more a PR issue. I think people dumping lots of glass/ plastic/ paper and card in 2006 deserve some penalty if recycling services are accessible to them. Scotland has mostly communal bins so not really an issue here, the paranoid can always swap bins with their neighbours regularly. It may encourage fly tipping and burning the bins is toxically silly. Remove the tag if it bothers you.

Why do most news services call a RFID chip a bug - its passive and a way of doing what could also be done with a painted/ stamped serial number. RFID much more efficient than manually reading and quicker and binmen would never agree to paperwork. Not sure if it covert of just out of the way (from being vandalised/ knocked off by lifting equipment).

And the bin is the councils, never ours. So they don't need permission. Maybe as it was obvious that we were going to find out its more a PR issue. I think people dumping lots of glass/ plastic/ paper and card in 2006 deserve some penalty if recycling services are accessible to them. Scotland has mostly communal bins so not really an issue here, the paranoid can always swap bins with their neighbours regularly. It may encourage fly tipping and burning the bins is toxically silly. Remove the tag if it bothers you.

Why do most news services call a RFID chip a bug - its passive and a way of doing what could also be done with a painted/ stamped serial number. RFID much more efficient than manually reading and quicker and binmen would never agree to paperwork. Not sure if it covert of just out of the way (from being vandalised/ knocked off by lifting equipment).

And the bin is the councils, never ours. So they don't need permission. Maybe as it was obvious that we were going to find out its more a PR issue. I think people dumping lots of glass/ plastic/ paper and card in 2006 deserve some penalty if recycling services are accessible to them. Scotland has mostly communal bins so not really an issue here, the paranoid can always swap bins with their neighbours regularly. It may encourage fly tipping and burning the bins is toxically silly. Remove the tag if it bothers you.

Posting something four times does not make it true.
Posting something four times does not make it true.
Posting something four times does not make it true.
Posting something four times does not make it true.
RFID's come in various varieties including active and passive.
Here is an exerpt from a spychips.com position paper:-


'Limitations of RFID Technology : Myths Debunked

The following technological limitations have been proposed as reasons why consumers should not be concerned about RFID deployment at this time. We address each perceived limitation in turn, and explain why in themselves, these limitations cannot be relied upon as adequate consumer protection from the risks outlined above.

1. Read-range distances are not sufficient to allow for consumer surveillance.

RFID tags have varying read ranges depending on their antenna size, transmission frequency, and whether they are passive or active. Some passive RFID tags have read ranges of less than one inch. Other RFID tags can be read at distances of 20 feet or more. Active RFID tags theoretically have very long ranges. Currently, most RFID tags envisioned for consumer products are passive with read ranges of under 5 feet.

Contrary to some assertions, tags with shorter read ranges are not necessarily less effective for tracking human beings or items associated with them. In fact, in some cases a shorter read range can be more powerful. For example, if there were an interest in tracking individuals through their shoes as they come within range of a floor reader, a two-inch read range would be preferable to a two-foot read range. Such a short range would help minimize interference with other tags in the vicinity, and help assure the capture of only the pertinent tag positioned directly on the reader.

2. Reader devices not prevalent enough to enable seamless human tracking.

The developers of RFID technology envision a world where RFID readers form a "pervasive global network" It does not take a ubiquitous reader network to track objects or the people associated with them. For example, automobiles traveling up and down Interstate 95 can be tracked without placing RFID readers every few feet. They need only be positioned at the entrance and exit ramps. Similarly, to track an individual's whereabouts in a given town, it is not necessary to position a reader device every ten feet in that town, as long as readers are present at strategic locations such as building entrances.

3. Limited information contained on tags.

Some RFID proponents defend the technology by pointing out that the tags associated with most consumer products will contain only a serial number. However, the number can actually be used as a reference number that corresponds to information contained on one or more Internet-connected databases. This means that the data associated with that number is theoretically unlimited, and can be augmented as new information is collected.

For example, when a consumer purchases a product with an EPC-compliant RFID tag, information about the consumer who purchased it could be added to the database automatically. Additional information could be logged in the file as the consumer goes about her business: "Entered the Atlanta courthouse at 12:32 PM," "At Mobil Gas Station at 2:14 PM," etc. Such data could be accessed by anyone with access to such a database, whether authorized or not.

4. Passive tags cannot be tracked by satellite. The passive RFID tags envisioned for most consumer products do not have their own power, meaning they must be activated and queried by nearby reader devices. Thus, by themselves, passive tags do not have the ability to communicate via satellites.

However, the information contained on passive RFID tags could be picked up by ambient reader devices which in turn transmit their presence and location to satellites. Such technology has already been used to track the real-time location of products being shipped on moving vehicles through the North American supply chain.

In addition, active RFID tags with their own power source can be enabled with direct satellite transmitting capability. At the present time such tags are far too expensive to be used on most consumer products, but this use is not inconceivable as technology advances and prices fall.

5. High cost of tags make them prohibitive for wide-scale deployment.

RFID developers point to the "high cost" of RFID tags as a way to assuage consumer fears about the power of such tags. However, as technology improves and prices fall, we predict that more and more consumer products will carry tags and that those tags will become smaller and more sophisticated. We predict that the trend will follow the trends of other technical products like computers and calculators.'

I think people dumping lots of glass/ plastic/ paper and card in 2006 deserve some penalty if recycling services are accessible to them.

Why, when almost all recycling is completely economically and environmentally pointless? It's just a bizarre western cargo cult. It would make more sense to charge extra to people who are recycling as they are the ones causing extra costs to the council (which we all have to pay a share of).

Stuart - you beat me to it! I was going to put Gaz down for being a webmong and some sort of eco fascist all rolled into one!

"And the bin is the councils, never ours."

And who owns the f**king council you dipsh*t? Who pays for the council's very existence? Who pays for the legions of incompetent spazzos* in their offices? Who paid for that bin? My bin wasn't a free gift from Croydon Council, it was part of a deal we made involving me giving them a lot of money for the privilege of being allowed to live in my own house and they would in return house lots of foreign (and domestic) scroungers in the shite parts of town and empty my bin out once a week and my recycling bin every fortnight**.

* My family have had to deal with them on some finnancial matters and yes they are an incompetent pack of dribbling mongs.

** Bloody useful it is, because there is not enough room in my bin for my newspapers and beer bottles anyway.

Yep the council do own the bins but a) we have already paid for them in council tax and b) you cannot store the bin on pavements and roads only you own property (otherwise it constituets an obstruction) so if they put a bug in the bin and I have to keep it on my own land then it breaches civil liberties (remember watergate?).

How can Martin Smith say that the chips were just planted to sort out whose bin belonged to who when it is public knowledge that only a portion of bins were fitted with these. How did the council know who would dispute ownership with who? It must of been more than that.

Post a comment