Talk:Smart meters

Serious organisations
Serious organisations like the Open Rights Group warn of the general problem of privacy, including protection of data obtained from smart meters.http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/moj-data-protection-call-for-evidence Of course, the typical citizen would happily sell rights to their DNA to Facebook for thirty coins on Farmville.

The reference does not support the claim. Let's find a better reference and add it to the article. We need to keep something about the nutty conspiracy theories also, because they range to extreme nuttiness.

A group in Germany found they could detect what television show was playing by monitoring electricity use, but they had to sample use every 2 seconds (instead of hourly like smart meters actually do) and account for/eliminate all other electrical use in the house, a practical impossibility in my view.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-57364883-245/researchers-find-smart-meters-could-reveal-favorite-tv-shows/
 * The rate of measurement is just a matter of flipping a few bits in software. --83.84.137.22 (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The bit about ORG is because there was actually extensive discussion of this on the ORG lists - the mere ation is problematic in practice, because large piles of data tend to be misused, and that's a serious concern of serious organisations. I have put the conspiracy nutters second, because they really are just idiot noise - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, the conspiracy stuff is just insane bullshit. Just because conspiracists advocate a position that sensible people also advocate doesn't mean the conspiracists are in any way worth noting - it's just nutpicking when you haven't anything to say about the idea itself. Although I appreciate that Anthony Watts' clock stopping at a correct time is a remarkable event - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * But you have removed the very mission info about the nutters. The ref even had a pic of Hitler! The article now reads as an endorsement of all privacncluding the crazy conspiracy ones, along side the legitimate ones.


 * That nutters express the same concerns does not make the nutters' concerns worth noting. They're completely irrelevant to the actual important question. And the concerns are legitimate, so there's no reason the article shouldn't appear to say that - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case I respectfully disagree. The volume of conspiracy nonsense on this issue is significant. It's not just one or two people. Maybe I have encountered a lot more of these people than you have. It will be useful to say, THESE concerns are serious, but those other guys are nuts. This will help defend the serious concerns. Maybe later I'll write something acceptable to you, right now I'm on my cell.Weorthe (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your apparent purpose is to make it look silly when it isn't, hence the nutpicking. I appreciate you love your previous golden prose, but you're actually wrong - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not what nutpicking is. Nutpicking is smearing legitimate concerns by citing some nut, trying to make it appear that the legitimate concerned parties are akin to the nuts.  That is absolutely not my intent and it's hard to see why you think it is.   When I originally wrote this article, I only presented the wacky conspiracy side of opposition to smart meters, as my purpose was to expose wacky conspiracy thinking and radiation woo, and petulant reaction to tiered pricing.  Your very legitimate correction/contribution about the real dangers of creating a pool of personal data that could ultimately become abused was great, but your over-sensitivity toward any mention of the nuttier conspiracies is a little confusing (and your one reference didn't back up your point as it only had about 5 bland words on smart meters that I could see; that's why I added an EFF reference).  Instead of ignoring the woo, let us do this: (A (nuts), but B (the real concerns)).  Putting the real concerns second gives them the semantically stronger position.

Tiered pricing
Tiered pricing is old hat; in the UK we've had tiered electricity pricing for decades (seriously, Economy 7 metering was introduced in 1978). Is this really some fearsome novelty in the US? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Hydrogen and Time / talk / contribs
 * No, it exists here too, especially with water (for some reason). --Seth Peck (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Moer
Here

Scream!! (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC) +
 * UK: Stop Smart Meters! UK
 * USA: Stop Smart Meters! – a list of contacts by US state can be found here
 * Canada: Coalition to Stop Smart Meters (British Columbia) StopSmartMeters.ca (British Columbia)
 * Australia: Stop Smart Meters Australia
 * New Zealand: Stop Smart Meters NZ

There is more than one kind of smart meter opponent
David Gerard, I'm sorry you think you're being smeared as a person concerned about smart meter data collection whenever someone points out that there are nuts who oppose them too. There are lots of groups and organizations that endorse absurd conspiracy theories about them, and radiation woo also. See links above. They are not fewer in number than serious concerned people like you. Such groups can and should be called out here. Stop taking offense. Weorthe (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear?
OK, why is this article in the Nuclear [energy] category? Smart meters don't care what the source of the voltage is. Vivisectionist (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)