Seattle City Light: Seattlites Need an Opt-In Policy for Smart Meters

By Molly Connelly and Jan Bultmann

As Seattle City Light customers, we ask Seattle City Light (SCL) to create an advanced metering infrastructure policy that mandates that SCL obtain informed consumer consent before installing advanced metering devices (AKA “smart meters”) — that is, an opt-In policy.

The system should carry no financial disincentives for those customers who decide not to opt-in.  

In this blog:

  • Threats to Privacy
  • Potential Unintended Consequences
  • Erosion of Public Trust
  • Current Legal Landscape
  • Gap Analysis of Federal and State Regulations
  • Precedents that Support an Opt-in Model
  • Conclusion

Threats to Privacy

Advanced metering technology poses a threat to individual privacy, as federally funded research shows. Government agencies including the Congressional Research Service1, Department of Energy2 and National Institute of Standards and Technology3, have written extensively about the specific threats to privacy generated by residential smart meters. Independent researchers have further documented the level of intimate detail that can be gathered from smart meter data, such as what customers are watching on television.4,5 

Potential for Unintended Consequences

We are concerned that smart meters can now, or in the future, be misused to act as data collection devices which make previously private activities inside our dwellings subject to unauthorized official and criminal surveillance. We are concerned about such data being collected and stored in databases that may not be protected against warrantless searches, and may be managed by companies that have a history of profiting off of warrantless electronic surveillance.6 We are concerned about a lack of clarity regarding Constitutional protections for information collected by Seattle City Light that could be shared with city, state and federal law enforcement via the Seattle Shield Program7 and the Washington State Fusion Center.

Erosion of Public Trust

In the midst of the continuing Snowden revelations about government use of unregulated technology for warrantless electronic surveillance, public trust in the ability of elected officials and public institutions to adequately protect us is at a low point. We need laws and regulations to catch up with technology so that there are clearly defined privacy protections for smart meter data, and data collection and storage protocols that are based on established, relevant law, not just departmental policies. 

Current Legal Landscape

Legal experts acknowledge that our current federal laws and regulations don’t provide adequate smart meter data privacy protection. For example, the Federal Wiretap Act could allow a utility to give permission to law enforcement or a third party to intercept smart meter data without a warrant.8  The third party doctrine as it relates to utility records containing smart meter data has not yet been tested in the Supreme Court. The Stanford Technology Law review advises that “When confronted with a business record or other information held by a third party, the Court should ask whether the record, or the technology used to create the record, reveals information about activities taking place inside the home that otherwise would not be available absent a trespass into the home. The Court should further inquire as to whether the consumer has been able to exercise any real choice about whether to create such records…Under this test, information about in-home activities generated by advanced meters or sensors in a demand response system would be protected by the Fourth Amendment” and “law enforcement officials should be required to obtain a warrant before being given access to those records”.9

At the September 26, 2013 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Review, Senator Mark Udall asked Deputy Attorney General James Cole for clarification on whether section 215 of the Patriot Act (the “business records” provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which allows records to be collected via secret general warrants issued with a diluted standard of probable cause and placing the recipient under gag order) can be used by the National Security Agency to collect business records including “utility bills”; Mr. Cole was unable to rule it out.10 

Gap Analysis of Federal and State Privacy Protections

The US Supreme Court has asserted that “at the very core [of the Fourth Amendment] stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion”.11Our Washington State Constitution provides even more rigorous protection of privacy rights than those guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Unlike the Fourth Amendment, WA State Const. Article I Section 7 “clearly recognizes an individual’s right to privacy with no express limitations”12 and states that “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”  Washington State has historically recognized that an individual has some level of protected privacy interest in power usage, but existing regulations on how law enforcement can access utility records are based on analog meter electrical consumption records collected monthly which are not able to reveal discrete information about a customer’s in-home activities. 

The current Revised Code of Washington (RCW 42.56.335) which regulates law enforcement access to utility records does not require a warrant, or a showing of probable cause, but instead only requires the weak standard of “reasonable belief” that the utility record will help establish that the customer committed a crime.  Advanced meter electrical consumption records can reveal discrete information and intimate details about a customer’s activities occurring within the confines of their home, including use of medical equipment, hours of occupancy, and more. These merit Constitutional protection requiring a warrant for law enforcement to access.

Our laws have not kept pace with changing technology, and we are at risk of violating constitutionally protected privacy rights. In 1994 State v. Young the WA Supreme Court recognized strict privacy protections regarding infrared as a device that discloses information about activities occurring within the confines of a home, and which a person is entitled to keep from disclosure absent a warrant.  An apt quote from the ruling:

However, in construing Const. art. 1, § 7, we have resisted the uncertain protection which results from tying our right to privacy to the constantly changing state of technology. We recognize as technology races ahead with ever increasing speed, our subjective expectations of privacy may be unconsciously altered. Our right to privacy may be eroded without our awareness, much less our consent. We believe our legal right to privacy should reflect thoughtful and purposeful choices rather than simply mirror the current state of the commercial technology industry.”13  

We need the City of Seattle to step in and model privacy policies that reflect thoughtful and purposeful choices.

Precedents that support an opt-in policy

Other jurisdictions have heard customer concerns about smart meters including privacy and data security issues and have responded by creating opt-in policies. The Eugene Water and Electric Board (Oregon’s largest customer owned utility) voted unanimously on Oct. 1, 2013 to move forward with an advanced metering project that takes an opt-in approach that focuses on consumer choice.14 In 2012 the state of New Hampshire enacted a law which prohibits electric utilities from installing smart meter gateway devices without the property owner’s consent.15 Vermont now requires written notice before installing a smart meter, and prohibits fees for those customers who choose not to opt-in.16 Section 1252 of the United States Energy Policy Act of 2005 acknowledges consumer choice and supports an opt-in approach. There is a current bill in the Washington state legislature that will give additional statutory protection to smart meter data by adding it to the public records disclosure exemptions.17

Conclusion

Given the privacy risks of smart meters, consumers must be allowed to choose whether to accept these risks or avoid them by not opting-in to a smart meter.  In the absence of adequate state and federal legislation, we call upon the City of Seattle and Seattle City Light to enshrine the “Opt-in” model in law. The current plan for an opt-out presumes consent; which we argue is inadequate and potentially even unethical, because the technology of smart meters has gotten ahead of consumers as well as regulators. The opt-in model requires explicit, informed consent and encourages customers to be active participants in their utility decisions by allowing them to make an informed consumer choice after being educated about the benefits and risks of smart meters and the security of their information.  

1 Congressional Research Service, Smart meter data: privacy and cybersecurity, CRS Report for Congress, 2012.

Available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42338.pdf

2 Department of Energy, “Data access and privacy issues related to smart grid technologies”, 2010. Available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/Broadband_Report_Data_Privacy_10_5.pdf

3 National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Guidelines for smart grid cybersecurity: Vol. 2, privacy and the smart grid”, The Smart Grid Interoperability Panel – Cybersecurity Working Group, vol. NISTR 7628, 2010. Available at: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/ir7628/nistir-7628_vol2.pdf

4 Ulrich Greveler, Peter Glosekotter, Benjamin Justus and Dennis Loehr. Multimedia content identification through smart meter power usage profiles. In Computers, Privacy and Data Protection, 2012. Available at: http://www.nds.rub.de/media/nds/veroeffentlichungen/2012/07/24/ike2012.pdf

5 Miro Enev, Sidhant Gupta, Tadayoshi Kohno and Shwetak N. Patel. Televisions, video privacy, and powerline electromagnetic interference. In ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 537-550, 2011. Available at: http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~yoshi/papers/ccs2011-emi.pdf

6 e.g. SAIC, who presented the Seattle City Light Business Case for AMI in 2012. SAIC has a long and troubling history of producing unconstitutional data collection programs for government entities, e.g. they developed the NSA Trailblazer program for warrantless electronic surveillance; it ended in failure, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. They also created PRISM, the NSA program which is currently being used for unconstitutional metadata collection. Note that SAIC offshoot Leidos is a vendor for Meter Data Management Systems used in advanced metering infrastructures.

8 Balough, Cheryl Dancey (2011) “Privacy Implications of Smart Meters,” Chicago-Kent Law Review: Vol 86: Iss. 1, Article 8, page 18. Available at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol86/iss1/8

9 Jack I. Lerner, Deirdre K. Mulligan (2008) “Taking the “Long View” on the Fourth Amendment: Stored Records and the Sanctity of the Home”, Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 3. Available at: http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/lerner-mulligan-long-view.pdf

11 Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961), discussed in section 512. Also see: Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), (discussed infra part II)

12State v. Simpson, 95 Wash.2d 170, 622 P.2d 1199 (1980) (discussed infra part I, section (2)) http://www.leagle.com/decision/198026595Wn2d170_1249.xml/STATE%20v.%20SIMPSON

13 State v. Young, 123 Wash.2d 173, 867 P.2d 593, (1994), (discussed infra Section II, [7]) https://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/st_v_young.htm

16 http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=30&Chapter=077&Section=02811

17http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2114&year=2013

22 Replies to “Seattle City Light: Seattlites Need an Opt-In Policy for Smart Meters”

  1. Hi there, just became alert to your blog through Google,
    and found that it is truly informative. I’m going to watch out for brussels.
    I’ll appreciate if you continue this in future. Numerous people will be
    benefited from your writing. Cheers!

  2. So glad to see SPC working on this. Recommended reading: “Smart Metering and Privacy in Europe: Lessons from the Dutch Case” by Cuijpers and Koops. In Holland they found that the utility companies had vastly overstated the importance of collecting identifiable information from consumers.

  3. Hi there,

    We are doing a news story about Seattle City Light installing digital meters soon and we were wondering if someone would be available to comment on the privacy concerns today.

    If so please give me a call,
    -Henry
    ——————————–
    Henry Rosoff
    Reporter, KIRO 7
    hrosoff@kirotv.com
    (206) 718-9660

  4. If you are worried about accuracy, take your
    first batch of items to the post office and have the clerk verify the
    postage is correct. These watches will influence the behavior of an individual.
    This also eliminates tasting foods for those who cook.

  5. This particular kind of doorway bell be placed by you everywhere of
    your house however whilst putting this kind of kind of front
    door bell something that you should take into consideration is basically that you just
    need to put the wifi doorbell because spot to enable you to definitely just hear
    the sound of your bell. This is especially important if you are handing
    over one of the paint brushes to your kid. Some of these systems use remote
    cell phone door answering, which allows the user to unlock a door remotely
    using their cell phone as a trigger.

  6. Given that people have different lifestyles and levels of fitness, there
    are many programs where“experts” give general rules about what to
    do in the gym to gain muscle or just fitness in general.
    Aikido focuses on realizing synchronization between ‘ki’ (spirit) and ‘tai’ (the body).
    Get ready to become fit and have an amazing immune system that will make sure your visits
    to the doctor cue to illnesses are reduced significantly.

  7. I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was good.
    I don’t know who you are but definitely you’re going to a famous
    blogger if you aren’t already 😉 Cheers!

  8. Some top names in the business are Century, Gripmaster, UMAB, Grant, Motion – Rx, Macho, and Primal Impact, and you can find
    these brands at most respected martial arts vendors. Korean kuk
    sul won also has the long staff in their system and the techniques used are like
    a blend of Chinese and Japanese moves. In the sense that martial
    arts are simply the art of war all forms of combat that are codified and traditional
    in their teaching can be considered martial arts regardless of their national origin.

    My web blog – kamas weapons

  9. Hi,
    Could you please, please tell me how you got the locations of all the nodes? Did you also get camouflaged cell relay/repeater meter locations (if they exist in WA)?
    Thanks.
    Clare

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.