Wednesday, January 31, 2018

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, You Got Two Choices, Fight Back....Or Die

As the London Taxi Trade lays down dying, the media vultures pick away at our carcass. 


Van driver ploughs into muslim worshippers in Findsbury Park and it's all over the TV and papers for weeks....Uber driver purposely mows down pedestrians in Exhibition Road.....and there's a media blackout!

Third party multinationals like Ford, Shell, VW, Volvo are now queuing up, waiting to take a slice of our everyday business, sucking the blood away from our life forms. Every Tom Dick And Harry has an idea how to procure our livelihood. 

Given the green light by TfL, hop on hope off shuttle from Ford.

BWM’s DriveNow and Daimler’s Car2Go services to join together. 

The press and TV media are of course, in the 'swindle' as are our licensing regulator and even our Prime Minister. How come she can tell Europe to Save Uber, but we can’t talk about it to Mike come our orgs in the New a United Trade Group, stood for this???

Everyone seems to have vested interests in pulling down the best, most professional Taxi service in the world. Instead of being proud of our 365 years of excellent service, they continue to force feed fake news into the media for public consumption. Sean Paul Day warned this would happen months ago, did no one take any notice???

Sean said:
The Secretary of State and the Department of Transport ignore human rights violations in favour the market.

Whilst the political drive in the USA is forcing Uber to recognise labour rights, and resistance in Europe shows no sign of abating, Transport for London, at the behest of the U.K. Government are ploughing ahead to amend regulations to accommodate Uber in its entirety. 

Uber's history of violations and the protests knows no boundaries. For Uber, no money is bad money! 

Read the who,e of Sean's post here:

Let's not forget the way TfL PCO's were used to protect Uber image when an Uber driver got 12 years for rape. PCO's were confiscating copies of the Taxi Magazine left on Taxi rear window shelves.

Let's not forget about the 13,000 fake DBS certificates swept under TfLs dirty carpet for seven months. Even now, only 2,600 have reapplied and the rest are still working on fake documents. Could have major convictions for violence, drug offences and even sexual predators.

#UberRape App was illegal from day one!

TfL Director Leon Daniels
Lied to the GLA transport committee on multiple occasions regarding Uber's landline and their non-existent on/off insurance.  

No Friends In The National Media:
No mention in the media of the wonderful work done by Mike Hughes and Poppy Cabs, or Dean Thomas with his warm clothing appeal and regular feeding the homeless outside Charing Cross Police Station. 

No mention of the Taxi War veterans charity trips, the Underprivileged Children’s outings, the trips to Disneyland Parish with seriously sick children. 

One seriously rotten apple in our 365 years, its in the headlines for a month. 

This onslaught has been unintentionally supported by our trades weak representation, not helped by continual infighting.... and they wonder why no one's signing on to the Knowledge. 

The time for just getting on with it over
The time for waiting to see what’s gonna happen next week, next month, next year... is over
The time for sitting back and letting others do the fighting... is over.

This wonderful trade of ours is at a crossroads, with two choices:

Forget about our wonderful tradition and 365 years of history....and lay down and die!!!
Or stand together, backs against the wall, and fight.

Diplomacy and good behaviour isn't working 
Enough is enough... It's time to get down and fight dirty.

Make no bones about it...the ITA's five days of demos hit TfL hard in the wallet.

It couldn't have come at a worst time for them, as they announce a massive £400m deficit in their budget.

Let's send them this message:

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Coming Up In Parliament Friday 2nd February, Plus Letter From New Transport Secretary

Friday 2 Feb see's the second reading of the Licensing of Taxis Safety Bill.

Below is the Bill as it stands at the Moment, it will naturally be amended at later stages.

Click this link to read the Bill.

Below is a letter sent to a Taxi driver Member of the LCDC, by the new Transport Secretary Jo Johnson. 

Here is another letter from the new Transport Secretary, sent to a member of the Save Black Taxis Group. It's nice to see that these letters areas to be written individually and are not just a standard letter.

Thank you for writing to me about Uber.

I want both taxis and private hire vehicles to continue to prosper throughout London and the UK. Passenger choice is important, as is continued industry innovation and the protection of jobs. 

However, I understand your concern for this issue. Regarding the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles, this is a matter for local authorities, but it is important that all transport operators meet appropriate standards to ensure a safe service for all passengers. As I am sure you know, transport operators can appeal against licensing authorities if the authority refuses to renew its licence and can continue to operate while an appeal is ongoing, as has happened regarding the case with Uber. 

Ministers at the Department of Transport have established a working group to consider the issues surrounding taxi licensing, following a Westminster Hall debate on the subject. The working group will consider a variety of issues including that of passenger safety. Ministers expect to be able to publish the working group's findings early this year, which may result in the government issuing new statutory guidance in this area.

The Law Commission also recently undertook a comprehensive review of the taxi and private hire regulation in England and Wales, at the behest of the Department for Transport. Ministers are currently considering all the recommendations in the Law Commission's report against the backdrop of what is a rapidly changing sector and will formally respond to the Law Commission and announce its intensions once this scrutiny is completed. 

Thank you again for taking the time to write. 

Kind regards,

Jo Johnson

Member of Parliament for Orpington

Councils Join Tory Attack On The Licensed Taxi Trade With No Go Areas.

In the wake of the Bank Junction Taxi access scandal, and with Oxford Street, Tottenham Court Road, and Baker Street to follow suit, Camden and Hackney have unveiled plans to ban Taxis from more of our working area.

If you are going to be weak, just sit back, bend over and get shafted without a fight, there will be much more to follow. 

If you are expecting your org to fight tooth and nail on your behalf, you are very misguided. 
The members of the New United Trade Group have all signed a good behaviour clause in the new engagement policy, so won’t be doing anything on your behalf that might upset TfL, for fear of exclusion from the secret, un-minuted meetings. 

We need leaders will backbone! 
Not unopened war chests

It’s time to stand up and say:“ENOUGH’s ENOUGH”.

We need a War Council, not self-interested egotistic empire builders
Because that’s exactly what we are facing, a war on Taxis drivers and our trade. 

While London’s Cabbies are stressing over how they are going to find the money to pay their tax bills, Theresa May stands up and tells Europe ‘we must save’ Uber, an illegally operating predatory company that doesn’t pay UK taxes, a company her husband has a conflict of interest in with his investment group.
You couldn’t make it up. 

A New Game's Afoot! 
Both Camden and Hackney have published online consultations, but don’t count on them as they(like TfL) take no notice if consultations... they just go in and do what ever they want, knowing that any resistance will be weak. 

Camden’s consultation closes on the 20th of February 2018. 

Up for closure...Frederick St, to be joined by roads around Mount Pleasant. If you feel you’d like to have your opinion heard, click this link below:

The biggest threat to your right to ply for hire is being launched by Hackney again. 
If you’d like to be heard, click their link below:

The Hackney consultation is about the closure of several streets around Shoreditch to all but electric vehicles. It will be many years before the majority of London Taxis are electric.

Remember the proposed 20mph around schools that were suddenly rolled out borough wide, and then quickly escalated to neighbouring boroughs?
If access is restricted in Shoreditch, it won’t be long before other boroughs follow suit. 


Another kick in the wallet comes from Westminster City Council who never wanting to miss a revenue raising trick, have now implemented new parking charges to pre 2015 diesel Taxis, 50% higher than petrol vehicles.

The City of London and TfL have not kept their promise (there's a surprise) to reopen the Bank Junction should there be road closures in the surrounding area. 

There has been no movement from our wonderful representative orgs in the New United Trade Group ( NUT group) to get CoL and TfL to keep their promise....Wouldn't want to break the good behaviour clause they signed up to, but keep paying the subs 👀👍🏻


Monday, January 29, 2018

Have Gett Got It Wrong Again ? Have Their Data System Been Hacked ?

Gett tell their drivers, don't worry about selling out your trade or your hard earned knowledge to a third party... They are going to pay you for it!

Is that what they think our knowledge is worth to us, that it's ok to give it to a third party for a few quid? 

After the news broke about the Mobileye mapping project that will be used to program driverless Uber cars, Gett sent out this notice to a trade org. 


We have had some questions about the agreement with Mobileye  about mapping for autonomous vehicles.
This has nothing to do with routing or the knowledge. It is simply about building up more detailed maps of London's roads.

Many vehicles are likely to be offered these mapping boxes including, we imagine, buses, scooters, PHVs , and other fleet vehicles.

As drivers will be paid for having them, it seems sensible to at least have a conversation with Mobileye to make sure some of the revenue from the mapping project could end up in cabdrivers pockets rather than anyone else's.

If it went ahead it would be entirely voluntary of course. We don't have any dates for the project.


Have Gett's data systems been hacked?

Drivers on the app are reporting phone calls from a withheld number purporting to be from Gett, asking for bank details. Although they have issued a warning to their drivers, questions need answers as to how Gett driver phone numbers have been acquired!

Shell Would Like To Thank All Taxi Drivers Working On Foreign 3rd Party Owned Online Apps

Following the announcement that Uber will not its London license renewed by authorities, amid safety concerns, BCG Digital Ventures has announced its own bid to disrupt the city’s transport scene. Fare Pilot will see the BCG subsidiary join forces with energy giants Shell, as the pair aim to provide Britain’s capital with an innovative new travel option.

Uber, the application designed to disrupt the taxi industry, has experienced explosive growth since its inception in 2009. By 2015, the organisation was worth over $50 billion, expanding its operations rapidly into 60 global territories, and 330 cities. 

Unfortunately for the ride hailing app, however, such a level of success is always accompanied by an enhanced level of public scrutiny. In recent years, this has seen the group repeatedly subjected to high-profile investigations into its massive environmental impact, its effects on traffic congestion causing extra pollution, its employment practices and its low health and safety standards.

Now, after Its data and customer account hacking cover up, 50% increase of serious sexual assaults by drivers on passengers including multiple rapes, compounding a harsh couple of months for the ‘unicorn’, in which it forfeited its title as the world’s most valuable start-up to Didi Chuxing, Uber also found itself out of a license in one of its largest European markets. The group’s licence to trade in London will not be renewed by the city’s transport authorities, who said the renewal was denied due to safety concerns. 

Uber lost its licence in September, when Transport for London declared that the company was not “fit and proper” to operate in the capital, and accused it of a series of failures over passenger safety. Uber hopes to win back TfL's approval through a series of talks (follow the money), but in the meantime because TfL never had the backbone to protect public safety, a legal appeal against the ban allows it to continue operating while the process occurs. According to London Mayor Sadiq Khan, the appeal process could stretch out for “a number of years."

While the current loss of licence seems not to have impaired Uber’s potential for business in the immediate future, however, it has opened the market up for competitors capable of differentiating themselves from the allegedly unsafe app. 

Fare Pilot, a new machine learning venture, backed by Shell and BCG Digital Ventures (BCG DV), aims to do exactly that. 

Unfortunately for the traveling public, they will be using the same batch of disgruntled drivers, seen to have acquired PH licenses from TfL by presenting fake criminal record certificates and fake medical passes. They will be using the same bank of drivers who have committed serious sexual assaults including rapes on passengers, pushing up the Mets statistics in London to an all time high.

However, the duo are scaling a Data Platform and Mobile application framed at luring Uber drivers using new techniques in Artificial Technology to anticipate customer demand, (basically plying for hire) utilising live hotspot data to get more fares, by charging the drivers cheaper rates than Uber. 

Fare Pilot already boasts a fleet of active users in the 10s of thousands, having ventured into London, as well as launching in Los Angeles and New York, in preparation for a global rollout.

Licence to drive

Shell has said its already applied for a licence to operate private hire taxis in London through one of its subsidiaries. 

At his point we would like to point out to shell, there are no such thing as private hire Taxis....there app will only be ap,I able to Minicabs. They will not be able, under the PHV act of 1998 to use the word Taxi in any shape or form in their advertising" 

While the group remains the UK’s most valuable brand, Shell have been working constantly to diversify their offering amid flagging demand for fossil fuels. In late 2017, this saw the corporation make a grand entrance into the electrical vehicles market – as Britain’s automotive industry prepares for life after combustion engines in 2040.

The app, which tells drivers where there is high demand for Minicabs, filed an application for a licence with London’s transport authority in July. 

Sources close to Shell have stated the group has no intention of “taking on Uber”, and that the licence was needed for regulatory reasons to allow small-scale pilots, many might say the fact FarePilot’s arrival into London coincides with Uber’s current troubles suggests otherwise. The technology, once it is licenced, will be tested as a business-to-business taxi service (not a good start Shell, you really need to do more research on this, Minicab not Taxi business), rather than one marketed to consumers. However, Shell’s application for a minicab hire licence would leave room for it to go even further by providing a ride-hailing service itself.

According to James Farrar, chair of the private hire driver’s branch of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, said if the app did take this step, it would have to introduce safety measures to differentiate itself from Uber. Farrar added that employment protections should also be offered, stating, “With a $250 billion oil industry giant now entering the gig economy the urgent need for worker protections in the minicab industry could not be clearer.”

This is not new news as the project, was first announced at the end of 2016. Shell, has a 74% stake, while the remainder is owned by the Boston Consulting Group. 

The digital innovation, incubation and investment wing of BCG, will be working closely with Volkwagen, who have gained valuable experience in the immediate online car hire business, after a $300m investment in the real Taxi app Gett. 

So a big well done to all you Licensed London Taxi drivers signed up and working for foreign third party owned online apps, Shell's new app drivers will owe you debt of gratitude for being their Guinea pigs.


You know it makes perfect sense!

A Taxi app, own by its drivers, driven by knowledge, black cabs only, a monthly fee and nothing else to pay, no matter how many jobs you do. 

You get to keep what you earn.... it doesn't end up in an outsider investor's pocket !

New app now up and running.

PC Stephen Mitchell....Who? You Might Well Ask... by Marc Turner.

How come this face hasn't been spread all over the media for the last month?

John Worboys  is a household name, due to the press and media informing on an hourly basis of every twist and turn in the saga of his shocking early parole. Yet nothing about PC Stephen Mitchell?

Mitchell and Worboys have much in common. Both committed their dastardly deeds against women, while in positions of trust. Then unexpectedly, without warning, paroled early. Worboys was a London Taxi driver. Mitchell, was a Police Constable for Northumbria Police.

Both were sentenced to life, with similar minimum terms for their crimes. They were expected to rot in jail, and not be heard of till they perished.

The London Taxi driving fraternity was so up in arms over the disgusting antics of Worboys, that if death by lethal injection was allowed.There would be no shortage of cabbies volunteering to administer the dose!!!

What appears to be inequitable is the disproportionate press/media attention between these two cases.

Why does Worboys merit so much intense national coverage, while Mitchell does not? Both dangerous to women. Their crimes equally as heinous. 

Seems to be an agenda here. We have a prime minister, who last year whist a judge was in deliberation regards an employment tribunal appeal, spoke in favour of the appellant (Uber). Most unusual. Then last week in Davos, at the World Economic Summit, decided to give the same 'disruptor' a primetime endorsement!

This's where the press/media, some acting as government puppets, come in. Mitchell is of no interest/importance  to the Tories and media. They see him as a bad apple, and prefer not to demoralize the short staffed, underfunded police force.

Worboys is a different kettle of fish. He' s the parole boards unwitting  gift to the Tories and press/media cronies to bludgeon the London licensed Taxi trade.

In the 364 year history of hackney carriages (Taxis) it has never/ever harboured anybody of the infamy of Worboys. That's a good conduct record other industries and institutions could only dream of 

Perhaps the rants and accusations of President Trump against the press/media have a grain of truth about them, if the unequal reportage of Worboys/Mitchell, is anything to go by!


Read full case report, click link below :

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Private Eye just masterfully exposed the ridiculous reality of Tory cronyism

Since the neoliberal age began under Margaret Thatcher in the late 1970s, Britain’s formerly state-owned industries and assets have been systematically sold off one by one into the hands of private companies and individuals. 

Not content with selling almost the entirety of Britain’s family silver, both the Tories and New Labour continued this neoliberal privatisation bonanza, concocting ever-more outlandish schemes that conveniently siphoned off taxpayer’s money and assets into the hands of private individuals and corporations, rather than back into the public purse.

Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) were one such method. First envisioned by the Tories under John Major, and which proliferated under the New Labour administration of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, PFIs are essentially scams used by governments to finance infrastructure projects by borrowing money from private companies. They left the incumbent government looking good in the short term as PFIs allowed them to keep the borrowing off the balance sheet, but they burdened future governments with the cost of paying off the exorbitant amount of interest attached to such schemes.

The British taxpayer will fork out more than £200Bn because of these PFI scams – a method which has now been exposed as costing 40% more than if governments had simply used public money for the projects. All of this £200Bn of taxpayer’s money will end up being trousered by already wealthy private shareholders.

It is often argued that PFI scams were allowed to proliferate under New Labour because Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were desperate to shed New Labour of the ‘tax and spend’ label that the Tories had successfully branded them in previous decades. Ultimately though, New Labour’s choice to use such obviously short-termist and financially irresponsible schemes was because, seemingly devoid of any principles or willingness to fight, they simply capitulated to the Tories’ neoliberal political arguments instead.

Not only did the Tories have the super-rich media barons almost exclusively on their side, the 1970s heralded the invention of ‘thinktanks’. 

These supposedly ‘independent’ institutions were set up by wealthy groups and individuals with the sole aim of pushing a political agenda. And what, I hear you ask, was their political agenda of choice? 
Privatisation, of course.

Privatisation is essentially a far more efficient way for governments to ensure the money they spend remains in the pockets of their ‘own kind’ – the super rich elite.

Conservatism, as the definition of the word implies, is all about attempting to maintain the status quo – it is an ever-evolving ideology created by a ruling elite who were afraid of losing their dominance to simply retain whatever powers and wealth they could. However, the genius of neoliberalism was that it enabled the Conservatives (and the pro-neoliberal New Labour Party) to allow the ruling class to wrestle back more power and more wealth than they could ever have hoped for, and concentrate it in the hands of an even smaller group of people than before.

However, not content with seeing their wealth and power increase dramatically over the last four decades, the ruling elite are always on the lookout for new scams to pull to ensure they remain wealthy and powerful – and simply handing jobs to their mates is another method they use to ensure they stay as top dogs, and everybody else remains fighting eachother for the scraps.

Cronyism is nothing new in politics – with most people having heard of the phrase ‘jobs for the boys’. But the neoliberal age, with what has essentially become a virtual merging of politics and business, has seen brazen political cronyism run rampant.

And so, here’s Private Eye’s take on just how ridiculous the reality of Tory cronyism has become under neoliberalism:

So, after reading that, don’t you think Britain might be due for a little bit of a change? How about electing somebody who has always stood up for the little guy rather than the interests of their super-rich mates. How about voting in someone who has fought tirelessly to end the scourge of poverty and homelessness. Someone who has always stood up to the establishment and done everything in his power to try and put a stop to a seemingly endless stream of corruption and war. Someone with principles and a vision of how Britain really should be. Someone who truly believes Britain should be a more equal, more just, more tolerant society. 

It is clear that neoliberalism is the problem, and Britain finally has someone willing to solve it.

Source :

Uber’s Cover-Up Of Data Breach, Is Worse Than The Crime.

On Nov. 21, 2017, Uber Technologies, Inc., the embattled San Francisco ride-hailing company, disclosed that two hackers had stolen data concerning 57 million driver and rider accounts, including phone numbers, email addresses and names of Uber riders from a third-party server and demanded $100,000 to delete their copy of the data.

In a classic example of the “cover-up being worse than the crime,” Uber shockingly revealed that it acquiesced to the hacker’s demands by paying the $100,000 ransom and then engaged in a plan to cover-up the hack for more than a year wherein Uber’s customers and drivers were never informed that their personal information had been stolen. 

Uber’s inexplicable delay in informing the public and its customers of the 2016 data breach has placed it in the regulatory and legal cross-hairs of the Federal Trade Commission, at least three European government agencies, the National Privacy Commission of the Philippines, the New York State Attorney General’s office, the New Mexico Attorney General, and the Los Angeles City Attorney (through a lawsuit filed earlier this month).

Data breaches at companies large and small can and will happen, but Uber’s current and, likely future, regulatory and legal entanglements reveal that hiding, ignoring or covering up a data breach is far worse than simply addressing the breach when it occurs.

While recklessly irresponsible, Uber’s attempted cover-up of the 2016 hack and data breach sadly mirrors the approach utilized by many companies seeking to avoid their responsibilities under various data breach notification laws. Based on information currently available, Uber attempted to conceal the 2016 data breach that affected 57 million accounts. In addition to the names, emails and phone numbers of riders, about 600,000 U.S. drivers’ license numbers were accessed. In private, Uber acquiesced to the demands of the hackers and then went further by attempting to hide the breach.

Uber’s chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, under the watch of former chief executive, Travis Kalanick, arranged a deal with the hackers to pay the $100,000 ransom. According to the New York Times, Uber tracked down the hackers and pushed them to sign nondisclosure agreements. To further conceal the damage, Uber executives also made it appear as if the payout had been part of a “bug bounty” – a common practice among technology companies in which they pay hackers to attack their software to test for soft spots. 

The details of the breach and cyber-attack remained hidden until November 21, 2017 when Dara Khosrowshahi, Uber’s new CEO as of August, disclosed the breach to the public as part of an attempt to regain public trust in the company after Uber’s purportedly toxic workplace culture came under scrutiny under ousted CEO Travis Kalanick.

While Mr. Khosrowshahi seeks to get in front of Uber’s breach cover-up by voluntarily disclosing details of the hack and Uber’s failure to notify customers, the response by regulators shows that we are venturing into a world where a company’s failure to comply with data breach notification laws by ignoring or covering up the breach will no longer be tolerated.

As a result of Uber’s efforts to conceal the data breach, Uber’s chief security officer was fired. A Federal Trade Commission spokesman said the agency is “closely evaluating the serious issues raised,” while Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn) said on Twitter that the Senate Commerce Committee should hold hearings to “demand Uber explain their outrageous breach – and inexplicable delay in informing its consumers and drivers.” According to The Wall Street Journal, the New York Attorney General’s office has opened an investigation.

In addition, New Mexico’s Attorney General issued a letter to Uber demanding that the company provide more information within 10 days and referred to the breach and Uber’s response as “gravely concerning.”

Overseas, Britain’s Information Commissioner’s Office, which oversees data protection in the country, said it would assess how the breach affected people in the U.K. and what steps Uber would need to take to better comply with data-protection requirements. The office has the power to fine Uber up to £500,000 ($665,000) for any wrongdoing. The deputy commissioner of the Information Commissioner’s Office noted that “[d]eliberately concealing breaches from regulators and citizens could attract higher fines for companies.” Likewise, data protection agencies and regulators in the Netherlands (the location of Uber’s European operations), Italy and the Philippines have launched investigations into the incident and were incensed by Uber’s lack of transparency and failure to adequately respond to protect customers once it learned of the data breach.

In California, Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer filed a lawsuit earlier this month against Uber asserting that Uber violated California’s Data Breach Notification Law (California Civil Code Section 1798.82) by failing to promptly report the breach. Under California Civil Code Section 1798.82, California companies are required to report hacks “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay.” At a news conference at Los Angeles City Hall, Los Angeles City Attorney Feuer stated, “[w]e’re taking action because we believe very strongly in the importance of protecting consumers.”

While it is not yet known how many drivers in California were affected by the hack and Uber’s cover-up, the City of Los Angeles’ lawsuit seeks $2,500 for each violation of the law. It has been reported that about 600,000 U.S. Drivers’ license numbers were accessed in the attack. Even by conservative estimates, Uber’s exposure in the City Attorney’s lawsuit alone could reach tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars.


The Uber breach and cover-up is an ongoing and developing story that reinforces the importance of transparency and taking data breach notification laws seriously. We continue to advise our clients to take proactive and vigilant steps now to ensure personal information and critical data in their possession is adequately protected. 

We also stress the importance of correctly and lawfully responding to a data breach should it occur at our clients’ businesses. The first step is to develop and disseminate a basic privacy practice and strategy to reduce the risk of a data breach actually occurring. As a starting point, limiting the personal information collected and retained can provide the strongest protection since a hacker cannot steal data containing personally identifiable information if the company does not keep such data. Companies should next focus on securing any private or sensitive data that they must maintain to prevent any unauthorized access. The use and retention of highly trained information security professionals is essential at this stage.

Even with the most sophisticated security measures in place to protect the disclosure of private information, companies are at risk to a hack or data breach. For this reason, a data breach response plan is essential to guide a company if, and when, a breach occurs. For California corporations, the retention of legal counsel to prepare the data breach response strategy is highly recommended to ensure that all measures comply with California’s existing data breach notification law.

Uber’s recent regulatory and legal troubles regarding its failure to properly notify its drivers and customers of the 2016 data breach serve as a reminder that the cover-up is often worse than the crime

Source : The Signal 

Friday, January 26, 2018

You Can Buy Diesel/Petrol From Any Garage In UK, But You Won't Get ThisWith Electric Charging.

Shell Garrage, Holloway Road...3 Different Formats Plugs!!!

German carmakers hope a network of high-power charging stations they are rolling out with Ford will set an industry standard for plugs and protocols that will give them an edge over electric car rivals.

At the moment, Tesla and carmakers in Japan and Germany use different plugs and communication protocols to link batteries to chargers, but firms building the charging networks needed for electric vehicles to become mainstream say the number of plug formats will need to be limited to keep costs down.

Carmakers behind the winning technology will benefit from having an established supply chain and an extensive network, making their vehicles potentially more attractive to customers worried about embarking upon longer journeys, analysts say.

Manufacturers that back losing plugs, however, could end up with redundant research and development and may have to invest to adapt assembly lines and vehicle designs so their customers can use the most widespread fast-charging networks.

Swiss bank UBS has estimated that $360 billion will need to be spent over the next eight years to build global charging infrastructure to keep pace with electric car sales, and it will be key to limit the numerous technologies now in use.

"The quick-charging marketplace might be growing fast but the issue of different types of connectivity and communication will need to be resolved going forward," UBS said in a study published this month.

To try to build critical mass for the Combined Charging System (CCS) favored by Europe, BMW, Mercedes-Benz maker Daimler, Ford and the Volkswagen group, which includes Audi and Porsche, said in November they would develop 400 high-power charging stations on main roads in 18 European countries by 2020.

"In the end, it is about safe-guarding investments for those that are investing in electric mobility," said Claas Bracklo, head of electromobility at BMW and the chairman of the Charging Interface Initiative (CharIN), which is backing CCS.

"We have founded CharIN to build a position of power."

It is still early days for electric cars and difficult to predict which plug technology will prevail or even whether there will always be different ways to charge vehicles, unlike the one-size-fits-all nozzle that can refill all petrol cars.
But there is a lot at stake for the carmakers ploughing billions of dollars into the development of batteries and electric cars.

Besides CCS, there are three other standards that will charge batteries fast: Tesla's Supercharger system, CHAdeMO, or Charge de Move, developed by Japanese firms including carmakers Nissan and Mitsubishi, and GB/T in China, the world's biggest electric car market.

"I think over time CHAdeMO and CCS converge, likely into the current CCS standard, and the jury is out as to what will happen to Tesla," said Pasquale Romano, chief executive officer of Silicon Valley-based ChargePoint, which runs one of the world's largest charging station networks.

So far, there are about 7,000 CCS charging points worldwide, according to CharIN, with more than half in Europe. The European Union backs CCS as the standard for fast-charging but does not prohibit other plugs being installed.

That compares with 16,639 charge points compatible with CHAdeMO - most in Japan and Europe - and 8,496 Tesla Superchargers, with the majority in the United States. In China, there are 127,434 GB/T charging stations, according to the China Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure 
Promotion Alliance.

Just as in previous format wars such as the battle for videotape dominance between VHS and Betamax, each charging standard has its pros and cons.

Tesla's system is exclusive to its clients, for example, while CCS features a double-plug that can charge DC and AC, increasing the number of spots where drivers can recharge.

CHAdeMO, meanwhile, allows cars to sell power from their batteries back to the grid, a process known as bi-directional charging that can help stabilize energy networks in times of demand swings and earn car owners some extra cash.

"If I were Nissan, I'd be wanting to take that standard and make it the dominant one," said Gerard Reid, founder of Alexa Capital that advises companies in the energy, technology and power infrastructure sectors.

"It creates a competitive advantage for them," he said. 

Most plugs used to charge cars at home use alternate current (AC) and are slow, so building networks that can power vehicles fast when on the road is seen as key by the industry, given many potential consumers still worry about battery range.

Able to deliver more powerful direct current (DC), fast-chargers can load electric cars up to seven times faster.

The fastest DC stations, capable of delivering up to 400 kilowatts, can recharge cars within 10 minutes, a vast improvement on the 10-12 hours it can take to reload at some AC charging points today. 

Developers hope drivers will feel more confident about undertaking longer journeys if they know they can reboot with a quick pit stop similar to stopping at a petrol station.

With that in mind, the joint venture set up by the German carmakers and Ford to install CCS fast-chargers has teamed up with companies that have service station networks in Europe: Shell, OMV, Germany's Tank & Rast and retailer Circle K.

For traditional carmakers, getting ahead in the electric car race is also about staying relevant in an industry that has been shaken up by Tesla.

Elon Musk's company is now worth $11 billion more than Ford, even though Tesla delivered just 76,230 cars in 2016 while the U.S. car industry pioneer sold 6.65 million vehicles.

The German carmakers teaming up with Ford, however, believe their deeper pockets should give them the upper hand in the long run and they see charging technology as an important factor in the fight.

For now, CCS, Supercharger and CHAdeMO plugs continue to be installed in Europe as well as the United States, while China is pressing ahead with GB/T, suggesting it is too early to call a winner in the plug wars - especially as no carmaker will want to lose out on the Chinese market.

Tesla, for example, said in October it was modifying its Model S and Model X cars for China to add a second charge port compatible with the country's GB/T fast-charging standard.
Most other rivals are also incorporating the GB/T standard into their vehicles for China, which has ambitious quotas for electric car sales, although some industry officials still hope the country will adopt one of the other standards at some point.

While sticking with developing its proprietary network for now, Tesla is a member of the CHAdeMO and CharIN initiatives. It is also selling adapters so owners of its cars in North America and Japan can use CHAdeMO charging stations.

Tesla declined to comment on whether it would consider joining a rival charging standard at some point, a move analysts say could be a tipping point in the race for plug dominance.

"For Tesla it was always very important to have a charging infrastructure for our clients from the get-go," a spokeswoman said, adding that it welcomed all investment in car charging.

Tomoko Blech, who represents CHAdeMO in Europe, said fussing over which standard would prevail was not helpful given that the electric car industry was still in its early days and carmakers should fight it out with their models.

Some also argue there will always be several ways to charge battery-powered cars.

"If you drive a petrol car you can fuel it any place in the world. This is the best you can get," said Nicolas Meilhan, principal analyst at consultancy Frost & Sullivan.

"You will not get that for electric vehicles."


Jeremy, what car would you give to your worste enemy?