HOMEWORK... Three things you need to do during Half Term week - Respond to the consultation on Digital ID . Closing date is 1st March. - Respond to the consultation on Road User Charging 10th March. - Respond to the consultation on the Digital Pound . Closing date is 7th June. ————————————————————————————————— LINKS TO CONSULTATIONS: Digital ID https://bit.ly/DigitaliDConsultation Road User Charging https://bit.ly/RoadUserChargingConsultation Digital Pound https://bit.ly/DigitaliDconsultation ————————————————————————————————— WHERE TO SEND YOUR ANSWERS AND HOW TO RESPOND: Digital ID (survey) https://surveys.domains.gov.uk/s/C0ZD81/ Road User Charging (email) scrutiny@london.gov.uk Digital Pound (web form and email) https://app.keysurvey.co.uk/f/41651494/3010/ Digitalpoundconsultation2023@bankofengland.co.uk or CBDC@HMTreasury.gov.uk ————————————————————————————————— TIPS ON HOW TO RESPOND - DIGITAL ID https://surveys.domains.gov.uk/s/C0ZD81/ 1. Name (optional) 2. Email (optional) 3. Are you an individual or an organisation? 4. What sector are you in? 5. Data sharing should either improve a service or provide a benefit. Does it? Strongly disagree. Write something along the lines of... 'The proposal seeks to move all personal data into one place, giving multiple governmental departments access to a wide array of personal information. Although the consultation claims this is for a benefit, for people who are concerned about autonomy and privacy, this is a shocking assault on our basic freedoms. Many people can see that what might start as an innocent sharing of data could easily be manipulated to become a tool of of an overreaching right wing government, and the people are right to be concerned at this consultation. 6. Does the data sharing improve the wellbeing of individuals? Strongly disagree. Write something along the lines of... 'I feel very strongly that my personal data should not be shared by multiple government departments. This represents a data risk and a privacy risk. In my opinion, if one department needs to access certain parts of my data then it should be irrelevant to other departments. I strongly disagree with this proposal, this is the sort of digital system that one would find in a tyrannical regime'. 7. Does data sharing support administration and enforcement? Strongly disagree. Write something along the lines of... 'Citizens should feel they are free to move around the country and conduct themselves without the constant scrutiny of the government electronically monitoring movements. I believe this scheme will have a detrimental effect on the mental health of the nation.' 8. Should the Cabinet Office, Department for Transport, DEFRA and the DBS all share your data for public service delivery? Strongly disagree. Write something along the lines of... 'Giving data sharing powers over individual identity to the cabinet office, DVLA, DEFRA and DBS is an assault on our privacy and could easily lead to restrictions of movement. These departments have no need to share data, when they haven't had the need before - for example the DBS system has for many years failed at protecting children and minors from predatory adults. The focus should be on making sure that individual departments are doing an adequate job with the data that they have, not burdening them with access to information that is irrelevant to the task that they require. 9. Should the Cabinet Office, Department for Transport, DEFRA and the DBS all share your data for public service delivery? Strongly Disagree Write something along the lines of... 'As I have noted in my response to question 8, these government departments should not have access to the same digital ID documents because it would be far too easy for this information to be used in nefarious and restrictive ways by an overreaching government with bad intent'. 10. Should any other public bodies have access to personal data? No Write something along the lines of... 'I do not wish for any government departments to be privy to, have access to and view any of my personal data that is not directly necessary for the function of that department. Everything over and above the basic requirements is, in my opinion, a contravention of my basic rights' 11. Are the 'data items - attributes' consistent with the objective? Strongly Disagree Write something along the lines of... The data items themselves are incredibly private and should not be shared between government departments In any way. There is no need or requirement for any of this information to be shared between departments. There is no limitation in place on the photos that are associated with the 'attributes' and there is no need for any government department to have access to my photos, my income or my address history. This is a contravention of my privacy and could easily be used in nefarious ways by a government with bad intentions. 12. Will this ID system result in anyone losing any benefits? Neither Agree nor Disagree Write something along the lines of... 'People do not want to share a lot of personal information. Not everyone has the technical ability to fill forms in online. Older people do not want to log into anything online, and an inability or unwillingness to engage with this new 'digital id' could result in people losing benefits - people should not be coerced into participating in a government ID system that they do not want to be a part of'. 13. Will this ID system result in anyone an individual or household losing access to any benefits? Neither Agree nor Disagree Write something along the lines of... As with my reply to question 12. People who do not wish to be a part of this government ID should not be 'punished' financially or otherwise because they don't want their ID shared between departments. 14. Will this scheme impact all people equally as per the Equality Act? No. 'I think a scheme that shares a wide array of personal data between multiple government departments will do a great deal of harm to the mental health of the nation. There is no need for this scheme, and no desire from the public.' FINAL NOTES SECTION Write something along the lines of... 'In the light of this survey; the fact that it has not been advertised, the fact that we have not had a year long consultation where we could discuss in village halls and civic centres with councillors, the fact that this is being slipped in online where nobody really knows about it makes me very suspicious of the motives behind the consultation. This is a democratic country, the people should have the right to vote on big decisions like this, and the consultation should be visible and long term - not published quietly on New Years Day and run for a short period. This is a disgrace.' ————————————————————————————————— TIPS ON HOW TO RESPOND - ROAD USER CHARGING 1. Do the current road user charging systems in London require reform? No. We have the ULEZ which has already impacted people enough. What we need now is NO MORE CHARGING MOTORISTS TO GO ABOUT THEIR DAY. People are stressed and poor thanks to the state of the economy and the impact of the last few years. We need LESS regulation and monitoring. Let the people recover. 2. How might smarter road user charging differ from the current daily charges for driving applied in London? Instead of proposing new systems, adjust the old systems. EG the daily charge stops at midnight, meaning someone who is visiting between 10pm and 2am pays twice. Fix that first. 3. How might charges for driving in London be varied for different types of journeys, such as travelling for work, caring responsibilities or essential services? You should not have to pay extra whether you are travelling for work, for caring or for essential services. We already pay fuel duty, which is a cost per mile as you pay more if you drive more. We don't need any more road charging systems, people are already on their knees. 4. What strategies and targets could smarter road user charging support? Why don't we look at the health and happiness of the nation instead of spurious targets? 5. What technology could be used to support smarter road user charging? Human beings want LESS technology intruding in their lives, not more. 6. How could smarter road user charging assist with tackling current challenges such as traffic, air pollution and climate change? The ULEZ is already doing this. The people don't want any more. We are taxed via VED on emissions, electric cars have been incentivised, enough is enough. 7. Are road user charging schemes best set up at a city or regional level, or as a national system, and what benefits or difficulties would you expect with either approach? We already have a road user charging at a national level, it's called ROAD TAX and FUEL DUTY. We do not need any more. Why not reduce the road tax on older vehicles that have been around for many years and have paid their own carbon dues by remaining in use instead of being replaced by another brand new car (most of the carbon in cars is in the BUILD). 8. If smarter road user charging is introduced, which charges or taxes should it replace and how should the current taxes and charges be changed? It shouldn't. The people writing this report should focus on the health of the nation, not on more ways to price people out of driving their cars and visiting family. 9. What discounts and exemptions would you like to see for any new smarter road charging scheme, for example to help disabled people, those on low incomes, those who need to drive for work, or people who live in areas with low levels of public transport? We the people do not want a road charging scheme. Especially when it is sold to us by the likes of Sadiq Khan, who is currently promoting a ULEZ expansion whilst taking his dog for a walk in a 3 car convoy, one of which does 13 miles per gallon. Less hypocrisy, more understanding, please. 10. If the Government were interested in a national distance-based road user charging scheme, would London be a sensible place for a trial? No. Nowhere is a sensible place for a trial. This is starting to look like a work of dystopian fiction. Let the people be free. 11. If distance-based road user charging was introduced, do you think Londoners who drive should pay less in total for vehicle or driving-based charges, the same, or more than they do currently? They would all pay more. It would cost many, many people dearly. 12. Mayors and local authorities currently have powers to introduce new road charging schemes. Do you think anything further is required beyond an electoral mandate for these bodies to use those powers (for example a local referendum)? All of these new schemes should be put to a public vote like any good democratic country would do - anything else is the work of a dictatorship. 13. How are other cities and countries working on similar smarter road user charging ideas faring, and what alternatives are they looking at for achieving similar policy goals? Firstly, we the people did not have a say on the policy goals. Give the people the chance to vote on the policy, then give us the chance to vote on the road charging scheme. Anything else is a dictatorship. ————————————————————————————————— TIPS ON HOW TO RESPOND - DIGITAL POUND 1. Do you have comments on how trends in payments may evolve and the opportunities and risks that they may entail? Everything in life has risk. It is what makes us alive. Although people are paying with contactless and payment apps such as PayPal, the lifeblood of our day to day finance is debit banking and cash - the way it has always been done, and we don't want that changed 2. Do you have comments on our proposition for the roles and responsibilities of private sector digital wallets as set out in the platform model? Do you agree that private sector digital wallet providers should not hold end users' funds directly on their balance sheets? I don't agree in private sector companies holding my money on their balance sheet, but I absolutely don't agree with central government holding my money on a balance sheet. Neither is good for the consumer, but given the choice, I'd side with the private sector over the government on the basis of trust, and which of the two is more likely to use my funds against me. 3. Do you agree that the Bank should not have access to users' personal data, but instead see anonymised transaction data and aggregated system-wide data for the running of the core ledger? What views do you have on a privacy-enhancing digital pound? Neither the bank nor the government should see anything more than anonymised transaction data. I see no requirement for a digital pound at all and have no intention of using it. 4. What are your views on the provision and utility of tiered access to the digital pound that is linked to user identity information? This is the sort of thing that conspiracy theorists have been warning us about for deuces. This is the stuff of nightmares. Tiered access to your money, liked to your digital ID? Giving the government the ability to switch on your digital bank with your digital ID only gives the the power to switch it off, and I have no intention of being involved with that. 5. What views do you have on the embedding of privacy-enhancing techniques to give users more control of the level of privacy that they can ascribe to their personal transactions data? My honest opinion on this is that 99.9% of the public have no idea about the level of privacy their bank has, and there is nothing wrong with this. This question sounds like it's a back door for biometrics, which again, is the realm of conspiracy theories but definitely seems concerning in the context. 6. Do you have comments on our proposal that in-store, online and person-to-person payments should be highest priority payments in scope? Are any other payments in scope which need further work? None of these things need to be in scope. 7. What do you consider to be the appropriate level of limits on individual's holdings in transition? Do you agree with our proposed limits within the £10,000–£20,000 range? Do you have views on the benefits and risks of a lower limit, such as £5,000? So long as the digital pound is optional, it doesn't matter. I know I am not alone in saying I want nothing to do with a central. Bank digital currency, no matter what the limits. 8. Considering our proposal for limits on individual holdings, what views do you have on how corporates' use of digital pounds should be managed in transition? Should all corporates be able to hold digital pounds, or should some corporates be restricted? I do not agree with a digital pound. The whole idea with a currency is that it is founded on something tangible - otherwise it is I fiat currency, a fake currency. A digital pound has no grounding - it is worthless. 9. Do you have comments on our proposal that non-UK residents should have access to the digital pound, on the same basis as UK residents? See my comment above. 10. Given our primary motivations, does our proposed design for the digital pound meet its objectives? What exactly are the primary motivations? Why does the pound need to become digital, other than to increase governmental control of individual wealth and assets? 11.Which design choices should we consider in order to support financial inclusion? No comment. 12.The Bank and HM Treasury will have due regard to the public sector equality duty, including considering the impact of proposals for the design of the digital pound on those who share protected characteristics, as provided by the Equality Act 2010. Please indicate if you believe any of the proposals in this Consultation Paper are likely to impact persons who share such protected characteristics and, if so, please explain which groups of persons, what the impact on such groups might be and if you have any views on how impact could be mitigated. As with other current consultations, they make no provision for people who wish to be left alone, people who don't want to be a digital cog in a digital machine, people who just wish to remain as they are without having constant government meddling in their day to day lives, whether that's driving, finance or identification. These consultations need to factor in an ability for the human being to JUST SAY NO and refuse to be involved in any of these schemes that are alleged to be for the good of the nation. The digital pound, digital Id and road charging consultations are all very, very small steps from being the framework that a tyrannical government needs to completely control the people - and as such, I reserve the right to refuse my involvement in this.