Cllr. Gavin Ayling

I went to London today and on the way I read my favourite magazine, Scientific American. The issue I was reading was a special issue focussing on privacy in the modern world (September 2008).

I have a profile on Facebook and, heck, a website here where I occasionally say something that I feel needs saying (less frequently recently). I also use Google to search and only rarely delete anything from my search history. But the article I was reading that triggered the ‘must write’ response was one on RFID tags.

When I first decided to get an Oyster card it was after a long period of thinking about it. To me having the Mayor of London able to see where I’m going seemed like a bit of an imposition. Why should he need to know where I’m going? And can I trust a man who leaves the Congestion Charge cameras on on Sundays? Eventually I decided that as it was voluntary it wasn’t unreasonable to help them manage the network and, anyway, it’s cheaper for the right reasons.

But as I read the RFID article I realised how many things I was carrying had an RFID tag in them. I was going to an examination so I had my new-style passport with me as ID. This contains a passive chip that is encrypted (I believe) using my passport number as a key. But also on my person I had said Oyster card and also my new Barclaycard that has PayPass.

If I wander into a shopping centre, the article explained, an array of RFID tag readers in appropriate places may just be able to read my RFID tags and find out where I go, where I stop or dally and where I don’t go. While, at the moment, this would not necessarily identify me as me, it wouldn’t be too hard for that to happen and it would be much easier to integrate that data into a useful database than are images on CCTV.

I have to admit, despite my concerns about freedom I am not worried about the implementation of RFID in the West yet (China’s another matter: China to issue RFID ID cards) but it is an area we need to keep an eye on.

You may know, if you live in Adur District, that we can recycle cardboard cartons used for drinks like orange juice etc. And if you live in Worthing, the same is true (as we share this service).

But if you live elsewhere, the following website shows which Councils can recycle cartons.

I thank readers for commenting on my last green question post but I think I didn’t make myself clear. Perhaps it is obvious that I was right that the kettle uses more fossil fuels than a kettle, but there are many other questions we don’t know the answer to.

For example, is it better to drive at 45mph in fifth gear or 39mph in fourth gear if both make the engine do 2000rpm? Is it better to go slowly, change gear less but stay in a low gear or go slightly faster (where the engine is more efficient) but need to change up and down gears regularly? Is it better to keep an old inefficient, working boiler or waste the manufacturing effort of making a new efficient boiler (without mentioning the associated waste costs)? Is it better to throw out a massive, old cathode ray television and replace it with an LCD TV, or keep using it until it dies? Or should you replace your TV with an LCD one at all because of the metals used in their manufacture (even though they’re massively more efficient)? Should I use my unused energy-wasting lightbulbs or skip them for the energy saving ones I have in the drawer and throw the old-style ones away?

Now some of those questions are obvious, and I do know the answer) but some are not and there’s no single place where I (Joe Public) can find the answer easily. Those thousands of volunteers that Rob is hoping for need this information.

George Osborne was on Radio 4 this morning making a very clear and intelligent argument in favour of the principle of green taxes.

I think most people these days are a little cynical about green taxes. Isn’t it true, they say, that green taxes are about revenue rather than behaviour? Isn’t it true that outside of London there is no viable alternative to private transport? And isn’t it true that a tax meant to disincentivise a behaviour, in the absence of an alternative, serves only to hurt the lower and middle earners?

Well Osborne’s solution is to create price stability — ensure the effective price of oil maintains a certain level and there will be a realistic chance of people investing in alternatives. Make long-term guarantees about the minimum level of landfill tax and then companies can be sure that it is worth investing in making money out of the situation.

While we would all like to believe that people and companies do the right thing because it’s the right thing, there’s absolutely no harm in allowing companies to profit from environmentally friendly practices. Even though there are arguments about the ‘green-ness’ of the Toyota Prius, no-one can claim it has been bad for the Toyota company.

Our current government announces things at pre-budget report stage and if they’re unpopular, changes its mind on the day of the budget. Osborne and co. have promised that there won’t be a raft of surprise new measures on the day of the budget which will allow companies and early-adopter consumers to know that their purchases and money-making exercises are going to have a sound-business case in five years time.

Like social welfare and the NHS, the Conservatives have taken the lead on another policy area — environmental realism.

This video is quite scary:

What what’s more scary is that I have no doubt that the MEPs mentioned will retain their seats. Democracy is flawed in two directions — politicians who don’t do what they promise and an electorate who don’t notice or care.

But let’s leave the EU.

Spot Sky’s deliberate mistake in the image on this article.

(There’s no live rail).

If this picture is updated, don’t worry, I’ve a screenshot which I’ll upload later!

In the Guardian today:

Howe had written that the election of Johnson might trigger a mass exodus of older African-Caribbean migrants back to the West Indies.

Wadsworth wrote on his blog that McGrath responded: “Well, let them go if they don’t like it here.”

How sensitive we have become. It is not racist to respond to a particular question in this way. Would it be considered racist if a Labour Minister had responded to questions about the net emmigration of people born in the UK to places like France and Spain “well let them go”? I imagine such a conversation has been had, and I cannot believe anyone would get upset about it.

I respect Johnson very much, but he should have stood by his man; otherwise we are all at risk for making innocuous and non-racist comments.

If people who immigrated then choose to emmigrate because of the result of a democratic election, that’s not really the business of the electee. Especially one who has made it clear he is working for all Londoners.

I believe we should always attempt to reverse all aspects of a proposition to decide whether or not it is fair. And if the colour of the people, or the direction of flow were reversed, there would be no accusation of racism. None.