Economy 7 metering query

[JohnW2]

Well yes, we know there will be rules ... but we know just how often they get broken.

Yes, it's an imperfect world - but, in any event, as I said, it's not really particularly 'sensitive' data we're talking about.

Not to the extent it can with "smart" meters. We know that there can be time of day tariffs, but these have to be set in advance. .... The key thing they allow is temporary overrides - so regardless of what tariff you were expecting, you can find your rates temporarily hiked at peak times.

As I said before, only if that is allowed by contract. The only think which can't be done without a smart meter (at least, until we have 'smart appliances') is to alter the timings of the charging periods. Even now, charges often change during a billing period - in which case they estimate, on a pro-rata basis, how much total usage (total peak rate and cheap in the case of E7etc.) has occurred at each charging rate. That only usually happens once, occasionally twice, during a billing period, but there is no reason why they couldn't do the same for multiple changes, or for a 'temporary hike'. The advantage of a smart meter in that situation is that, I assume, the consumer would be able to see what was being done to charges, rather than having to wait months to see a bill.

And as BAS says, also those who know that mistakes happen. At present, if the supplier screws up and wants to disconnect you, they have to send someone out to do it - there's an opportunity to intervene at that point, not to mention that it costs them to do this so there's another check put in place. In the brave new world, they can simply switch you off and argue about it later - or just switch you off by mistake. Yes, there are rules and procedures that are supposed to be followed, but as you have experienced, "mistakes happen" - so what's to prevent you being disconnected because you clearly can't have been paying for a long time if you owe them a 7 digit amount

Things go wrong, but I do think people are worrying far too much about this - and particularly if it's true that most suppliers are not going to use 'remote disconnection', anyway!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

- so what's to prevent you being disconnected because you clearly can't have been paying for a long time if you owe them a 7 digit amount .

I forgot to comment on this. There was no suggestion that I'd failed to pay anything - I had paid all bills up to and including the previous one. The 'slightly incorrect' amount they billed me for was just for the recently-ended 6 months' usage!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Of course things can (and undoubtedly will) go wrong, and mistakes made - with or without smart meters (I once got an electricity 'bill' for a 7-figure sum!). However, that occurs in all walks of life. The important thing is that regulation, policing and provisions for correcting mistakes are in place to minimise the 'risks' associated with mistakes or abuses.

Reported a day or so ago was the story of a woman who was placed on Universal Credit, and has not had any payments (to which she is entitled) for 8 months. She has survived on handouts from family, food banks, and by selling everything she owned apart from a sofa and a bed. If the Government cannot regulate and police its own operations, how are they going to do it for businesses?

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/n...-ex-npower-customers-huge-late-bills-mse-says

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1609411/We-take-British-Gas-to-task.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bills-an...k-energy-bills-by-suppliers-who-demand-thous/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2247646/Power-firm-condemned-over-war-veterans-suicide-bid.html

http://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/2006/12/my_british_gas_.html

And those are just the few on the first pages of searches for people being hounded over mistaken bills.

So don't just brush it aside and say "the important thing is that regulation, policing and provisions for correcting mistakes are in place to minimise the 'risks' associated with mistakes or abuses." It's going to be the same companies and the same people in them who will be using their new abilities to increase their rates on a per-customer basis.

 

[JohnW2]

.... And those are just the few on the first pages of searches for people being hounded over mistaken bills. ......... It's going to be the same companies and the same people in them who will be using their new abilities to increase their rates on a per-customer basis.

I'm a little confused. Are you talking about 'mistakes' or deliberate acts?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Both. Deliberate acts done by people after a mistake has happened.

Perhaps you'd be less confused if you read the stories and thought about what could/would have happened if the remedy for an assumed debt was not going to court, or selling it to a debt collector, or having to break into someone's home, but simply to increase the customer's price, or cut him off "at the flick of a switch".

And how long before it's automated systems doing the price tweaking etc?

 

[SimonH2]

There was no suggestion that I'd failed to pay anything - I had paid all bills up to and including the previous one. The 'slightly incorrect' amount they billed me for was just for the recently-ended 6 months' usage!

It seems I wasn't very clear. Suppose the automated systems are programmed with something along the lines of "debt X time", if debt if very high (like a 7 figure sum), then time doesn't need to be much at all to reach a large number and trigger the "disconnect non paying customer" systems. As BAS alludes to below, at present they have to schedule someone to actually visit your house, and it's highly likely that by the time that happens, a human will spot the problem.

... if the remedy for an assumed debt was not going to court, or selling it to a debt collector, or having to break into someone's home, but simply to increase the customer's price, or cut him off "at the flick of a switch".

Exactly. At present there are several steps that must be gone through before someone gets cut off - and that includes booking an engineer to actually go to the premises to pull the main fuse. In theory, all the same checks and procedures will be required before cutting off a customer - but when it's as easy as ticking a box on a computer screen then you have to wonder how effective they will turn out in practice.

And how long before it's automated systems doing the price tweaking etc?

Not long at all.

 

[JohnW2]

Suppose the automated systems are programmed with something along the lines of "debt X time", if debt if very high (like a 7 figure sum), then time doesn't need to be much at all to reach a large number and trigger the "disconnect non paying customer" systems. As BAS alludes to below, at present they have to schedule someone to actually visit your house, and it's highly likely that by the time that happens, a human will spot the problem. .... At present there are several steps that must be gone through before someone gets cut off - and that includes booking an engineer to actually go to the premises to pull the main fuse. In theory, all the same checks and procedures will be required before cutting off a customer - but when it's as easy as ticking a box on a computer screen then you have to wonder how effective they will turn out in practice.

The things you say are all possibilities, but ....

... I think we have to be very careful about fearing/'rejecting' any 'technological advance' because it may 'go wrong' and because it makes it easier for people/companies/organisations/governments to misuse (or even abuse) it, since we could still be in the Stone Age if we'd always taken that approach. Anything new may result in errors/mistakes/misuse/abuse, and may even make it 'easier' to make mistakes, but the only thing we can do about that is try to build in as many 'safeguards' as possible to minimise such risks - by design, implementation, regulations, legislation and 'policing'.

Do you think it would be 'better' to return to the days when electricity bills/bank statements were hand- or type-written on the basis of manual calculations done "on the back of a cigarette packet" (because silly computers can occasionally add a few zeros onto a 'sum payable!)?

Do you think it would be 'better' for us to return to the days when we didn't have credit/debit/charge cards or on-line financial transactions (all of which are associated with many mistakes, misuses and abuses)?

Do you think it would be better if we turned the clock back a few decades to the days when law enforcement agencies had none of the currently available forensic science (which can 'make mistakes', and can be misused/abused) to facilitate the bringing of criminals to justice more often or more quickly?

... etc., etc., etc.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No - I think it would be better if people like you didn't blithely assume that any new systems will somehow magically avoid the generically intrinsic problems which have afflicted every one of their predecessors.

Subscribe to the Risks Digest, and read it for a while.

 

[JohnW2]

No - I think it would be better if people like you didn't blithely assume that any new systems will somehow magically avoid the generically intrinsic problems which have afflicted every one of their predecessors.

I am making no such assumptions. On the contrary ...

....Anything new may result in errors/mistakes/misuse/abuse, and may even make it 'easier' to make mistakes ...

However, as I said, if we had always adopted, and somehow 'acted upon' your view (i.e. 'rejected' changes/advances), we would still be living in the pre-semiconductor world or worse.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I think we have to be very careful about fearing/'rejecting' any 'technological advance' because it may 'go wrong' ... build in as many 'safeguards' as possible to minimise such risks - by design, implementation, regulations, legislation and 'policing'.

Do you agree that one way, the most important way, of minimising risks is to minimise the number/size of things that can create a risk ? For example, one way of minimising the risk from storing petrol (for the lawnmower etc) is to only keep a small supply appropriate to your needs rather than stockpiling large quantities. In a similar vein, one reason retailers like debit cards is because it reduces the amount of cash they have to collect and transport - less cash == less risk. And for online shopping, one of the golden rules for PCIDSS compliance is to not store debit/credit card details* - because if they aren't stored on your server, they aren't there to be slurped when you get hacked.

With "smart" meters, rather than minimising the amount of data collected and stored (minimise the risk), they have gone for the "store everything even though it's not needed" approach. They've been criticised for it, but have shrugged off the question with "it'll be secure" as if any of us believe that
All that is NEEDED for billing is the accumulated totals for each rate - so that'll be 2 or 3 registers for normal operations, plus probably one or two more for "peak charging" periods. So probably no more than half a dozen numbers each month. Bear in mind that we've had multi-rate billing for decades without the need for collecting and storing this amount of information.
What we are getting is 48 figures PER DAY (per fuel), a mine of information that can give a deep insight into household routines - valuable for advertising, even more valuable for crooks. None of that is needed for billing, so applying basic security principles - DON'T STORE IT and then it can't be hacked.

* Yes, some larger outfits do store them, but then they take all the risk and are (hopefully) big enough to employ security professionals who know what they're doing.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

However, as I said, if we had always adopted, and somehow 'acted upon' your view (i.e. 'rejected' changes/advances), we would still be living in the pre-semiconductor world or worse.

I'm not rejecting them.

But I am advising great caution over the adoption of "changes/advances". I am advising that we always challenge proposals for them, asking questions like why? Who benefits? Why do it this way instead of that? What have you done to make your system intrinsically secure?

The first of those is necessary because of the number of companies introducing shiny-new-things for no reason other than they can. No matter whether there is any point, and certainly let's not even think about security.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...cars-in-spate-of-keyless-thefts-a3657951.html

When trying to find that online (I read it yesterday) I found the same basic story reported on many times in the past.

I wonder how many car owners petitioned the makers, pleading that they do something to remove the awful burden of having to get a key out of their pocket?

I wonder if the makers decided to do this just because they could? And clearly without considering security at all.



Seriously - subscribe to the Risks Digest, and read it for a while.