You may have seen the tremendous news that "pay as you throw" schemes have been abandoned. Big Brother Watch wholeheartedly approves. As we documented in our report on this topic, those underhand plans symbolised the worst of our Big Brother state - snooping on our private waste and charging us for the privilege, without any sort of democratic mandate to boot.
On the other hand, you may have seen that the Government is embracing a supposedly alternative scheme in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, which also uses bin microchips. Those who chose to opt into the scheme are given reward tokens when they fill their recycle bins which can be used in local shops.
I oppose such a scheme too, and have been challenged on this by the (generally admirable) Leader of the Council, David Burbage. I thought that I would set my thoughts out here.
First of all, privacy concerns remain entirely unchanged. The Borough's scheme still requires bins to have microchips, both for those who choose to opt in and those who do not. Technology with the capacity to record your waste habits is undesirable, whatever the initial stated purpose.
As we uncovered in the research for our report, there has been an explosion in the number of snooping bin chips. We found that there are microchips in the bins of 2.6 million households: none of them were asked if they agreed to having the chips in place, and none of them (with the honourable exception of those in the Royal Borough) were even told that it was happening.
Those chips create a data set, generated daily, which shows - inter alia - when you're away from home. The risks of such a database being abused, I say, are obvious. I have been called paranoid for raising such prospects. Perhaps the 25 million people whose details were lost when HMRC lost the child benefits database in 2006 were paranoid. Perhaps the 600,000 servicemen whose personal details were lost in the course of 650 laptops going walkies from the MoD were paranoid. But I tend to believe that any such data accumulation by the state is in the end very likely to be lost or abused, and I see no proof that the bin police will be more secure than the taxman or the Ministry of Defence (indeed, on the latter, wouldn't it be worrying if the council bin Stasi were more secure than the MoD?).
Putting accidental leaks aside, the possibility of abuse by guardians of data always exists. We are assured by Councils that their officers are responsible and mature and experienced and won't abuse this data set. I've outlined the perils of reliance on such promises before. Suffice it to say that I do not prefer to have my privacy (and potentially, safety) dependent on every council officer's goodwill.
Secondly, I fear that this is not the end point of any such scheme. The punitive and vindictive "pay as you throw" tax was at least out in the open.
Now exactly the same technology is being introduced, via the bribe of an
“incentive scheme” - once in place, where next? Those 2.6 million chips are still there, and - although we'll have to do some more research on this to establish it as a fact - my suspicion is that yet more councils are installing them notwithstanding the putative end of "pay as you throw". Look at the direction of travel in public policy. Why do you think councils sink this kind of "investment" into this technology? It's so that it can raise revenue.
The environment and “user rewards” are being used as twin stalking
horses – once the technology is in place, the calls for pay-as-you-throw
schemes will eventually re-emerge, with the predictable talk of "but look how bad how things are for the environment / we're still missing our recycling targets / we have to do something / with regret... and the same data generators will be in situ to be switched over to pay as you throw.
Windsor and Maidenhead are adamant that they would never do such a thing. Well, the same point about goodwill dependence applies here. Furthermore, these councillors can't speak for their successors, or bind them. Worst of all, even if W&M adhere to their position, if their pioneering scheme is seen as "best practice" and taken up by other councils there is of course the real risk (or probability) that those other councils do not share their scruples.
I haven't even addressed some of the obvious points that exist in the field - what about people deliberately filling the bins, in order to get the reward..? - but the central point remains: if we fall for this, we’re allowing the same spying technology to be introduced by the back door.
By Alex Deane
Spot on. Call me cynical but I tend to believe that this concern for the environment is nothing more than wanting to avoid large EU fines for failing to meet targets on landfill reduction.
Once the bin chips are installed they have their foot in the door for punitive measures in the future. There will be very little you can do to stop any measures the council wants to introduce and interfering with these chips is likely to be an offence of some kind (since the bins themselves also belong to the council) So whether it is dressed up as a reward or a punishment we should say no to these chips.
Posted by: Jeremy Davids | 09/06/2010 at 03:50 PM
Unless the law is changed, there is absolutely no requirement for local people to have chips in their bins.
Indeed, a local authority would probably be acting illegally if it attempted to do so, because it would be acting unreasonably and in contravention of (whatever Act it is) that obliges the local authority to collect domestic waste from properties in its area.
Your opposition to this legal, opt-in scheme is ill-directed. There are, of course, lots of data protection laws - that we have fully complied with, and we've checked - that mean that having a simple RFID e-barcode (cuz that's all it is) identifying the address that the bin is at, is perfectly straightforward.
In some locales in the US, they have put a barcode on the bin instead, but the system is less reliable.
Ultimately, the RFID just efficiently records the address of each bin rather than relying on the driver to write down the address for each bin collected (with the appropriate weight that gives a reward).
It's very Luddite to complain that the identifier is electronic rather than (let's say) visual.
I agree with your opposition to a bin tax, but basically if (a future) Government wanted to introduce one for the "something must be done" reason, they could do so and make it obligatory for Councils to put chips in bins, weigh rubbish and the like.
It could happen anyway, regardless of whether we have incentive based recycling with RFID today, tomorrow or in five years time.
A bin tax could be imposed by putting a barcode on every bin, chip or no chip. Your position is therefore completely without merit.
[As for the "away from home" point, well, bin-men, postmen, milkmen and any number of local people already know that across a vast number of people on their rounds. As do mobile phone companies, banks, credit card companies . . . !
So, an interesting and spurious worry - but another to put in the "paranoia" pile rather than a legitimate data protection complaint.]
Posted by: Cllr David Burbage | 09/06/2010 at 06:32 PM
" ... obliges the local authority to collect domestic waste from properties in its area"
versus
"A bin tax could be imposed ... "
Which one takes precedence please ?
Or to put it another way, since the council is OBLIGED to remove domestic waste, how can they then demand payment ?
I already paid for bin collection from council tax, thanks.
Posted by: Purlieu | 09/06/2010 at 07:23 PM
It would be a far more reliable system if cctv was installed in everybody's home so that we could monitor exactly what goes into the rubbish bins or down the sink. And there should be a 'poo scale' installed in your toilet to weigh your faeces on it's way to the coast and any 'extra' would have to be investigated with a fine toothcomb.
Posted by: Ashtrayhead | 10/06/2010 at 11:22 AM
@Cllr Burbage:
Luddites and paranoids eh? You wouldn't be resorting to the use of "loaded words" by any chance, Sir?
"So, an interesting and spurious worry - but another to put in the "paranoia" pile rather than a legitimate data protection complaint."
So paranoia is not a legitimate complaint? Perhaps you think that paranoia is only a weakness of individuals who can be discounted and ignored? But isn't paranoia also a result of the situation in which an individual lives? Would you have been able to avoid paranoia in Stalin's Russia, do you suppose?
Anyway who is paranoid exactly? We aren't the ones installing CCTV everywhere, monitoring Internet traffic, spying from remote control drones, arresting photographers for taking innocent photographs, recording every vehicle movement, DNA sampling anyone in sight, etc etc etc. We live in a paranoid country, my friend.
Paranoia arises from not being in a position to know for certain what the true situation is, and constantly having to assume, guess, speculate, take on trust etc. In our current situation we are practically drowning in technology that most of us cannot possibly understand in sufficient depth. Is it all controlled by trustworthy people? Is it only doing what we were told it is doing? Is it still doing what the original version did when introduced? Would we be informed of any change? What spying technologies are in use of which we are totally ignorant? These are not stupid questions, they are the voice of experience. We know that power is always abused. The alternative to enquiring about the truth and dangers of such matters is to become an adult infant, who meekly accepts whatever currently suits power and money to dictate.
To isolate an issue like bin-chipping as if it were a trivial event in an otherwise normal and healthy society, is to be wilfully blind.
Posted by: Redacted | 11/06/2010 at 05:27 PM
When I was young we had one dustbin which was half the size of the current wheelie bin. In addition to domestic waste the ashes from the coal fire were also put in it hence the title "dust"bin.
When I did the shopping for my mother the potatoes along with the vegetables were emptied into my paper carrier bag, the meat was rolled in white paper & glass bottles had a deposit on them which could be redeemed. Collecting them & taking them back earned us enough money to buy "black jacks", "gob stoppers" & "Jubblies". Instead of punishing the population, for buying their food encased in plastic trays, double/triple wrapped packaging why doesn't the government penalise food producers & supermarkets for excesses. The public have very little choice in the matter when it comes to sourcing their food suppliers.
When I started work in the licensed trade in 1972 ALL beer, mineral & some wine bottles were returnable. These were returned to the brewery, washed & refilled with beer, lemonade & wine. Nowadays not a single bottle from the licensed trade is returnable. All bottles are now recycled whatever that might mean & pollution from the heating/melting process makes a mockery of the so called "green agenda". When I see someone at the top taking industry to task on these issues then I'll believe they have a true environmental stance. Until then I'll drop my excess packaging in street bins or the tip. At the moment councils are using the recycling agenda as a money making racket which I'll not be party to.
Posted by: Phil Randome | 11/06/2010 at 08:07 PM
@Phil Randome:
I completely agree Phil. I too remember that past. You probably remember the rag-and-bone men too? This whole agenda is about money, not the environment. Specifically it's about the cost of landfill. But God forbid that we should even consider the supply-side of this issue or the sacred concept of the throw-away society. The interests driving that are too powerful to tackle and it's much easier to go after the little people instead.
But it is a completely pointless effort. Vast numbers of people are too stupid to understand which box stuff should go into, or too childish to dispose of rubbish responsibly; and many probably have no spare space in which to hoard categorised rubbish or a dedicated admin department to manange domestic waste issues on behalf of the household.
Never mind, just fine them heavily, they'll have to comply.
Actually, if my council would stop sending me self-promotional magazines to recycle that would be a help. Ta.
Posted by: Redacted | 12/06/2010 at 09:37 AM
Actually the Windsor one was detailed in the Register I think.
They are chipping ALL bins and each household will have a chance to "opt in".
They say the reason for chipping all bins is that the bin lorry will reject an unchipped bin.
This is because households who have opted in could occasionally use an unchipped bin and therefore make their figures look really good thus getting a bigger "reward".
Clearly they believe that people who have not opted in will blindly thust that their info is not being collected.
Yeah right.
Posted by: Purlieu | 13/06/2010 at 10:46 AM
my previous comments on the previous post could be read as being infavour of chips in bins. to be clear i am not in favour of them. they have a cost associated with the installation, maintenance of the eqiupment not to mention the software and backend infra needed to run them. this type of thinking / implementation is why the UK is in the red.
well said Phil.
i am not sure that the 'dataprotection' or 'privacy' arguments are the strongest though.
Posted by: mrmovie | 14/06/2010 at 02:18 PM
Genius only means hard-working all one's life.
Posted by: supra skytop | 10/11/2010 at 07:12 AM