Written evidence submitted by Jarvis




The DCMS Committee is inviting written evidence on the following questions by Thursday

23 June.

What has been or will be the most important impacts of increasingly prevalent smart

and connected technology in our lives, including in the home, in the workplace and

in our towns and cities, and are they necessarily better than current systems?

so called "SMART" technology will being no benefits to the general public.

Two CEOs of Huawei have said publicly that 5G is not broadband and that is

what is needed for community use.

5G is about industrial and commercial uses plus surveillance. AI, VR,

robotics, autonomous vehicles. These will not benefit the ordinary person.

The most important impact will be a degradation of health - proven by many

studies worldwide. The cumulative effects are unknown but can be guessed


Are there any groups in society who may particularly benefit from or be vulnerable

to the increasing prevalence of smart technology, such as young or elderly people,

people with disabilities and people likely to be digitally excluded?

Spying will be made easier with many more potential access points.

There are many vulnerable groups such as those who simply do not want to

use it and those who already have health vulnerability (eg EHS & functional


How can we incentivise or encourage design that is safe, secure, environmentallyand

user-friendly and human rights compliant?

First you have to carry out a wide-ranging analysis focused on the problems

(if any) and a need or desire expressed by the public. This has been the

biggest failure to date. It the West Midlands the testbed is not a trial nor a

testbed - it is being treated as a policy.

When I ask people as I go around, 90% of people say they do not want faster

downloads; what is the point? It still takes (eg) 90 minutes to watch a video!

Only through strict regulation and honesty in science.

What are the key short- and long-term risks and threats, and how can we ensure

the devices, systems and networks of individuals, businesses and organisations are

digitally-literate and cyber secure?

Why is it so necessary to be digitally -literate? Of itself it will not improve

anyone's life.

The biggest risk is that we lose humanity.

How will current geopolitical concerns influence domestic consumers, e.g. regarding

standards of imported goods or in how we can deal with cyber threats?

Stop attacking people. Stop thinking competitively all the time.

People are not "consumers" it is denigrating to use that term for a population

of people.

Locally people are not concerned about geo-politics. It is only politicians.

Stop thinking that there is no life wiothout growth and there is only one way to


Do existing frameworks, like data protection legislation and the Public Security and

Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill, adequately address concerns with smart

technology, and if not, how could they be changed?

No because they do not understand it, at least the people who designed

those systems do not understand it.

Governments both local, national and internationally need to start listening to

their people. Maybe then we will get some sense.