Removal of All SPENT Criminal Records from PNC, etc

If British society truly believes in rehabilitation (and I often doubt it does) then when a conviction becomes SPENT  the record should be removed from the PNC, local police databases, IDENT 1 fingerprint and photograph databases.

The weeding of this information will save money. And it would allow those individuals who have rehabilitated themselves to move on with their lives -and contribute to this new "Big Society" that the government talks about.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is outdated and needs to be brought up to date to reflect CRB, ISA, ECHR (Human Rights Laws).

Furthermore, court records must also be subject to weeding – fully subject to the Data Protection Act.

 

Why is this idea important?

If British society truly believes in rehabilitation (and I often doubt it does) then when a conviction becomes SPENT  the record should be removed from the PNC, local police databases, IDENT 1 fingerprint and photograph databases.

The weeding of this information will save money. And it would allow those individuals who have rehabilitated themselves to move on with their lives -and contribute to this new "Big Society" that the government talks about.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is outdated and needs to be brought up to date to reflect CRB, ISA, ECHR (Human Rights Laws).

Furthermore, court records must also be subject to weeding – fully subject to the Data Protection Act.

 

Data Protection and DVLA

DVLA and The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002
 
Recently I fell foul of a car park management company. This company uses number plate recognition technology to scan your car registration on entry and exit from a car park.  With this information they simply contact the DVLA who are seemingly happy to hand over your name and address.
 
This company makes the excess parking charge on the basis that you have breached a contract with them.  You are deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract simply by parking your car (in the Aldi supermarket car park).  I won't bore you here with the appropriateness of their signage.  My point is that this dispute is based on a civil law contractual dispute and yet the DVLA is still quite happy to hand over my personal data.
 
I have included below an extract from the DVLA guidance in this area.  I don't believe staying 107 minutes instead of 90 minutes in the Aldi supermarket car park should be regarded as "reasonable cause" for the DVLA to hand over my personal data to a private business.  The DVLA is being used as a cheap resource by companies who simply have to set up cameras and then use the DVLA database.
 
A brief spell using Google shows that this is a concern of many hundreds, if not thousands, of others. I hope you will lend your support stopping this abuse of the DVLA data, sorry I mean MY data held by the DVLA.
 

Currently, Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows the Agency to release information from its vehicle register to the police, to local authorities for the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anybody who demonstrates ‘reasonable cause’ to have the information made available to them. Regulations also allow for a fee to be charged to cover the cost of processing requests.

‘Reasonable cause’ is not defined in legislation but release is normally associated with road safety, events occurring as a direct consequence of the use of the vehicle, the enforcement of road traffic legislation and the collection of taxes. The Agency has to evaluate very carefully the reasons for the request as well as the way in which the information will be used before releasing the information.

Why is this idea important?

DVLA and The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002
 
Recently I fell foul of a car park management company. This company uses number plate recognition technology to scan your car registration on entry and exit from a car park.  With this information they simply contact the DVLA who are seemingly happy to hand over your name and address.
 
This company makes the excess parking charge on the basis that you have breached a contract with them.  You are deemed to have accepted the terms of the contract simply by parking your car (in the Aldi supermarket car park).  I won't bore you here with the appropriateness of their signage.  My point is that this dispute is based on a civil law contractual dispute and yet the DVLA is still quite happy to hand over my personal data.
 
I have included below an extract from the DVLA guidance in this area.  I don't believe staying 107 minutes instead of 90 minutes in the Aldi supermarket car park should be regarded as "reasonable cause" for the DVLA to hand over my personal data to a private business.  The DVLA is being used as a cheap resource by companies who simply have to set up cameras and then use the DVLA database.
 
A brief spell using Google shows that this is a concern of many hundreds, if not thousands, of others. I hope you will lend your support stopping this abuse of the DVLA data, sorry I mean MY data held by the DVLA.
 

Currently, Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows the Agency to release information from its vehicle register to the police, to local authorities for the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anybody who demonstrates ‘reasonable cause’ to have the information made available to them. Regulations also allow for a fee to be charged to cover the cost of processing requests.

‘Reasonable cause’ is not defined in legislation but release is normally associated with road safety, events occurring as a direct consequence of the use of the vehicle, the enforcement of road traffic legislation and the collection of taxes. The Agency has to evaluate very carefully the reasons for the request as well as the way in which the information will be used before releasing the information.

Keep Civil Servant Details Private

The Conservatives pledged to publish the job titles for every member of staff in the Civil Service, and presumably all other public bodies.

This is dangerous.

And a massive breech of privacy.

There are good arguments for publishing some details of top staff, who suggest top level policies and brief Ministers, but 99% do not have this level of influence. Some have good reason for being selective about who they give their details to. A cousin of mine works for a Policing body. If her children's classmates knew that they would be beaten up regularly. Her car would be vandalised or sabotaged. If it were known that her husband has access to senstive data he would be a target for terrorists and organised crime. Most people have one or two dodgy relatives, some might be tempted to ask for favours. Neither my cousin or her husband are influential (or rich) so it is difficult to see what publshing their details would achieve. And publishing their grades would tell the whole world what salary they are on. From there it is a small step to putting peoples bank details on line.

By the way, their employer does not allow out-of-office phone messages, because that would make it easy for naughty people* to impersonate them while on holiday and exercise some Policing advantages or possibly hack their computers. Their neighbours know when they are on holiday, but not who they work for. These are genuine security and lifestyle issues. Redacting data would be unreliable and error prone.

Why is this idea important?

The Conservatives pledged to publish the job titles for every member of staff in the Civil Service, and presumably all other public bodies.

This is dangerous.

And a massive breech of privacy.

There are good arguments for publishing some details of top staff, who suggest top level policies and brief Ministers, but 99% do not have this level of influence. Some have good reason for being selective about who they give their details to. A cousin of mine works for a Policing body. If her children's classmates knew that they would be beaten up regularly. Her car would be vandalised or sabotaged. If it were known that her husband has access to senstive data he would be a target for terrorists and organised crime. Most people have one or two dodgy relatives, some might be tempted to ask for favours. Neither my cousin or her husband are influential (or rich) so it is difficult to see what publshing their details would achieve. And publishing their grades would tell the whole world what salary they are on. From there it is a small step to putting peoples bank details on line.

By the way, their employer does not allow out-of-office phone messages, because that would make it easy for naughty people* to impersonate them while on holiday and exercise some Policing advantages or possibly hack their computers. Their neighbours know when they are on holiday, but not who they work for. These are genuine security and lifestyle issues. Redacting data would be unreliable and error prone.

Restriction of Public Records

I would like to see a stop to anyone accessing Birth and Marriage certificates for the living apart from the person themselves. 

 

As an amateur genealogist I am well aware of the searchable databases of living people that are available and how to order someone elses birth and marriage certificate without their knowledge.  It is wrong. 

 

It is the public's interests to tighten the Public Records Act (1958) amended to prevent this very personal data getting into the wrong hands.  All public access to certificates of living individuals should be stopped forthwith and access should be denied for 100 years.

 

I would also like the electrol roll to have access denied for 100 years as these can be used to track living people.  Every living person should have a right to privacy and this privacy should not be breached by any government.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see a stop to anyone accessing Birth and Marriage certificates for the living apart from the person themselves. 

 

As an amateur genealogist I am well aware of the searchable databases of living people that are available and how to order someone elses birth and marriage certificate without their knowledge.  It is wrong. 

 

It is the public's interests to tighten the Public Records Act (1958) amended to prevent this very personal data getting into the wrong hands.  All public access to certificates of living individuals should be stopped forthwith and access should be denied for 100 years.

 

I would also like the electrol roll to have access denied for 100 years as these can be used to track living people.  Every living person should have a right to privacy and this privacy should not be breached by any government.

NHS central database

Uploads of patients records is proceeding apace,  even though many people are unaware that their records are being uploaded, and have not had the chance to make an informed choice as to whether they want this: I understand this database contains many errors, and once you are on it your medical details are accessible to hundreds of thousands of people working for the NHS.

Why is this idea important?

Uploads of patients records is proceeding apace,  even though many people are unaware that their records are being uploaded, and have not had the chance to make an informed choice as to whether they want this: I understand this database contains many errors, and once you are on it your medical details are accessible to hundreds of thousands of people working for the NHS.

Medical records

All medical records should remain confidential and only be shared with other appropriate professionals if the individual concerned agrees. The records should never be shared without this consent.

Why is this idea important?

All medical records should remain confidential and only be shared with other appropriate professionals if the individual concerned agrees. The records should never be shared without this consent.

Protect “confidential” medical records from the authorities

I am calling for medical confidentiality to be respected and for the practice of allowing the police and CPS access to a person's medical records to be stopped and indeed made illegal and a ban on using a person's medical history or records in criminal proceedings.

Currently, in certain circumstances the police can obtain a warrant to get a copy of a person's supposedly confidential medical records, including mental health records.

Sometimes, the clinical staff responsible for protecting the records will not even require a warrant, but will provide the records on the basis of a request from the police or CPS.

Why should the authorities be able to look at and use your "confidential" medical records against you, when questioning or prosecuting you?

I'm particularly concerned that if someone has a mental health problem,  the fact that medical records are not confidential will put people off seeking help and sharing their thoughts and feelings with a therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist, because they might worry that these probably quite strange thoughts could be used against them in the future. If they don't seek help, their condition will probably get worse and they might become a danger to themselves or others.

The thoughts and feelings expressed in therapy may be no more weird than those that most people have from time to time, but if the person becomes a suspect in an investigation in the future, the fact that they have shared their thoughts in therapy means that they can then be used against them by the police, or as "evidence" or to make them out to be some sort of wierdo and turn the jury against them in court.

If a person is fortunate enough to be able to pay for private therapy, the notes from this will not be available to the authorities, mainly because they will not know that you had therapy or who you saw, but if you are poor and have to accept therapy on the NHS, the authorities will see this from your GP's records and then go fishing in your mental health records for anything they think will help their case.

I think it's disgusting that we don't protect medical confidentiality so that people can seek help without worrying that it might cause problems for them in the future, but currently the NHS and the Government regards your records as their property to do with what they wish.

Why is this idea important?

I am calling for medical confidentiality to be respected and for the practice of allowing the police and CPS access to a person's medical records to be stopped and indeed made illegal and a ban on using a person's medical history or records in criminal proceedings.

Currently, in certain circumstances the police can obtain a warrant to get a copy of a person's supposedly confidential medical records, including mental health records.

Sometimes, the clinical staff responsible for protecting the records will not even require a warrant, but will provide the records on the basis of a request from the police or CPS.

Why should the authorities be able to look at and use your "confidential" medical records against you, when questioning or prosecuting you?

I'm particularly concerned that if someone has a mental health problem,  the fact that medical records are not confidential will put people off seeking help and sharing their thoughts and feelings with a therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist, because they might worry that these probably quite strange thoughts could be used against them in the future. If they don't seek help, their condition will probably get worse and they might become a danger to themselves or others.

The thoughts and feelings expressed in therapy may be no more weird than those that most people have from time to time, but if the person becomes a suspect in an investigation in the future, the fact that they have shared their thoughts in therapy means that they can then be used against them by the police, or as "evidence" or to make them out to be some sort of wierdo and turn the jury against them in court.

If a person is fortunate enough to be able to pay for private therapy, the notes from this will not be available to the authorities, mainly because they will not know that you had therapy or who you saw, but if you are poor and have to accept therapy on the NHS, the authorities will see this from your GP's records and then go fishing in your mental health records for anything they think will help their case.

I think it's disgusting that we don't protect medical confidentiality so that people can seek help without worrying that it might cause problems for them in the future, but currently the NHS and the Government regards your records as their property to do with what they wish.

Right to privacy

With the increase of third party quangos having more and more access to your personal records.   This can only be bad and open to clear violations of an individuals right to privacy.

 

The Terrorism powers allow more snooping into peoples private lives.

 

The use of Third party providers. Profit making companies to provide help for the unemployed.  This gives them more and more accesss to your personal info. With the latest coerced labour scenario you have no right to silence,no privacy, you have to tell them everything you do. Infact the only thing that aint regulated ans sanctions imposed for as far as I am aware is flatulence.

Why is this idea important?

With the increase of third party quangos having more and more access to your personal records.   This can only be bad and open to clear violations of an individuals right to privacy.

 

The Terrorism powers allow more snooping into peoples private lives.

 

The use of Third party providers. Profit making companies to provide help for the unemployed.  This gives them more and more accesss to your personal info. With the latest coerced labour scenario you have no right to silence,no privacy, you have to tell them everything you do. Infact the only thing that aint regulated ans sanctions imposed for as far as I am aware is flatulence.

Clarification of data sharing obligations of public bodies

To provide a simple requirement to cover the obligations of public bodies to provide (or not) information to each other.

One example of this is Section 17 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1992, This protects peoples data collected for Council Tax purposes, but appears to conflict with legislation covering, amongst others, HMRC, the police and the CSA. All of these have generic legislation, but make many requests for information from Council Tax authorities, whereas there is specific legislation covering electoral registration and certain housing functions.

There must be many other examples of this where similar disclosure (or non-disclosure) requirements exist.

These uncertainties and conflicts could be removed by a simple piece of generic legislation which could either enable disclosure, or prevent it. I would be happy either way – I just want a) clarity and b) to stop endless arguments about whether someone is entitled to information or not

Why is this idea important?

To provide a simple requirement to cover the obligations of public bodies to provide (or not) information to each other.

One example of this is Section 17 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1992, This protects peoples data collected for Council Tax purposes, but appears to conflict with legislation covering, amongst others, HMRC, the police and the CSA. All of these have generic legislation, but make many requests for information from Council Tax authorities, whereas there is specific legislation covering electoral registration and certain housing functions.

There must be many other examples of this where similar disclosure (or non-disclosure) requirements exist.

These uncertainties and conflicts could be removed by a simple piece of generic legislation which could either enable disclosure, or prevent it. I would be happy either way – I just want a) clarity and b) to stop endless arguments about whether someone is entitled to information or not

Repeal the 100 year act on UK census records.

The  1930 US Federal Census records are available to a global public, why not the UK 1921 records?

The reason is peoples confidentiality and, I am led to believe, that under 100 years after the census some people may still be living and thus it protects their confidentiality? Most people on the 1921 census will by 2011 be already deceased but even if their is only one still living as opposed to one billion their confidentiality is of equal importance, but what information are we protecting?

Most information concerned present conditions. Name and address, martial status and nember of years present marriage, age, occupation and place of birth etc. Hardly mind blowing information.  Most of which can be found by obtaing a person's birth or marriage certificate which are available!

More sensitive information from the 1911 census involving whether someone was deaf,  dumb, blind, imbecile, lunatic or feeble minded will not be available until 2012. This question was excluded from the 1921 census as it offended some parents. But if this more personal information can be excluded from the 1911 released data why cannot other such data be also excluded from the 1921 census?

Also, why is the census information on a UK census more sensitive than that of a US one?

  

Why is this idea important?

The  1930 US Federal Census records are available to a global public, why not the UK 1921 records?

The reason is peoples confidentiality and, I am led to believe, that under 100 years after the census some people may still be living and thus it protects their confidentiality? Most people on the 1921 census will by 2011 be already deceased but even if their is only one still living as opposed to one billion their confidentiality is of equal importance, but what information are we protecting?

Most information concerned present conditions. Name and address, martial status and nember of years present marriage, age, occupation and place of birth etc. Hardly mind blowing information.  Most of which can be found by obtaing a person's birth or marriage certificate which are available!

More sensitive information from the 1911 census involving whether someone was deaf,  dumb, blind, imbecile, lunatic or feeble minded will not be available until 2012. This question was excluded from the 1921 census as it offended some parents. But if this more personal information can be excluded from the 1911 released data why cannot other such data be also excluded from the 1921 census?

Also, why is the census information on a UK census more sensitive than that of a US one?

  

Surveilance Subjects Must (eventually) be Notified

Identified subjects of official surveilance should, in the long term, be notified of which of their communications where intercepted, the justification for doing so and the conclussions drawn.

Obviously it would not be sensible to do this while the enquiry was in progress. A time limit should be set, say five years, by the end of which such notification must take place.

Meanwhile the amount of surveilance being conducted should be published regularly and in detail. Number of phone calls tapped. Number of numbers traced, number of e-mails read and so forth.

Why is this idea important?

Identified subjects of official surveilance should, in the long term, be notified of which of their communications where intercepted, the justification for doing so and the conclussions drawn.

Obviously it would not be sensible to do this while the enquiry was in progress. A time limit should be set, say five years, by the end of which such notification must take place.

Meanwhile the amount of surveilance being conducted should be published regularly and in detail. Number of phone calls tapped. Number of numbers traced, number of e-mails read and so forth.

CRB Checks

Quite simply, to carry out a single CRB check, rather than one for every activity you may be involved with. This would cut down on vast volumes of administration with huge costs to the taxpayer, but importantly, it would also speed up the process, which is one of the main complaints of the present system.

Like others, I am tempted to suggest that you get rid of the checks altogether, but I can see there would be an immediate outcry if there was just one unfortunate incident, resulting in immediate cries for a government minister's head to roll.

Why is this idea important?

Quite simply, to carry out a single CRB check, rather than one for every activity you may be involved with. This would cut down on vast volumes of administration with huge costs to the taxpayer, but importantly, it would also speed up the process, which is one of the main complaints of the present system.

Like others, I am tempted to suggest that you get rid of the checks altogether, but I can see there would be an immediate outcry if there was just one unfortunate incident, resulting in immediate cries for a government minister's head to roll.

End/Reduce Collection of Data from ISPs

ISPs have been bullied and cajoled into keeping vast quantities of information about every single action a person takes online, and being well versed in computers, I can avoid this if I so wish.

Therefore, those who are most dangerous and require monitoring are completely able to ignore this and pass straight through the net, no matter how many 'restrictions' are placed on it.

It criminalises the innocent, leading to paranoia about something that should be essentially private. Do not trade any more of our freedom for security, if anything we should be given our freedom back, and refuse to live in fear.

Why is this idea important?

ISPs have been bullied and cajoled into keeping vast quantities of information about every single action a person takes online, and being well versed in computers, I can avoid this if I so wish.

Therefore, those who are most dangerous and require monitoring are completely able to ignore this and pass straight through the net, no matter how many 'restrictions' are placed on it.

It criminalises the innocent, leading to paranoia about something that should be essentially private. Do not trade any more of our freedom for security, if anything we should be given our freedom back, and refuse to live in fear.

Make Police comply with Data Protection laws for Vetting

The Police service seems to think that it is not covered by the DPA when it comes to Vetting decisions for employees/prospective employees. They are also allowed to withhold information and don't have to tell you if they are withholding anything, or why. What nonsense.

Any organisation should have to say if

a) they are withholding any data; and

b) if so, on what grounds.

Otherwise you can never know what wrong information they may hold about you.

Why is this idea important?

The Police service seems to think that it is not covered by the DPA when it comes to Vetting decisions for employees/prospective employees. They are also allowed to withhold information and don't have to tell you if they are withholding anything, or why. What nonsense.

Any organisation should have to say if

a) they are withholding any data; and

b) if so, on what grounds.

Otherwise you can never know what wrong information they may hold about you.

Ban IEMI harvesting

Some shopping centres (noteably Gunwharf Quays in Portsmouth) as well as national chains of coffee shops routinely gather the IEMI numbers of mobile phones and other similar devices carried by the customers who visit these establishments. At present there is little publicity or scrutiny of the scale of such automated IEMI harvesting or the uses to which the data so gathered is put.

Why is this idea important?

Some shopping centres (noteably Gunwharf Quays in Portsmouth) as well as national chains of coffee shops routinely gather the IEMI numbers of mobile phones and other similar devices carried by the customers who visit these establishments. At present there is little publicity or scrutiny of the scale of such automated IEMI harvesting or the uses to which the data so gathered is put.

Stop Local Councils passing on personal data and reduce the amount of personal data that they are allowed to hold.

Local Councils should be prevented from passing peoples' personal data on to third parties without people's express consent, given at the relevant time and not thorugh some form of "blanket small print".

Why is this idea important?

Local Councils should be prevented from passing peoples' personal data on to third parties without people's express consent, given at the relevant time and not thorugh some form of "blanket small print".

Misuse of electoral register to set up ‘statistically’ based ‘hit’ lists of people who ‘might’ not be entitled to a 25% council tax discount

The statutory code of data matching practice under which the Audit Commission operates its data processing for the National Fraud Initiative should be strengthened, not weakened, as the Commission appears to intend should happen in its forthcoming consultation.  Failing the enactment of stringent additional safeguards for the innocent, the whole initiative, which goes to the heart of privacy and data protection should be abolished.

It is perfectly legal and proper for a 25% discount to be deducted if an adult appears on the electoral register but not on the data bases of the councilo which made the deduction. Indeed, the Audit Commission's own solicitor has accepted that the costs of collecting up to date information on who lives in each house would be prohibitive for council tax departments.

Despite this, the NFI has two exercises in which people are targeted for fraud investigations simply because they put an adult on the electoral register who is not on council tax data bases.  This exercise routinely gives rise to thousands of false positives, who have to prove their innocence.  Some council audit teams simply label them as 'frauds' and report numbers of 'frauds' on the basis of hit lists without an investigation of any sort and even when the council tax department has pointed out to them that the majority of people on these hit lists will be fully entitled, have failed in no statutory duty to inform of changed circumstances, and have told no lies.

A great deal of misleading information on this exercise has been circulated by the Audit Commission, in annual reports and other places.  Yet its own legal team admitted, after complaints, that it is perfectly legal to have a discount when the council tax department does not know about an adult who was subsequently added to the electoral register.  The legal opinion was provided by Leah Griffiths and is in the public domain.

The Audit Commission took advice from a barrister who said that if there appeared to be prima facie evidence that a person was 'claiming' a discount to which they were not entitled an auditor would be entitled to investigate.  The problem is that this data comparison does not and cannot show that a person is not entitled to the discount.  It cannot show that the second adult 'counts' as a resident for council tax purposes ie that they do not as the law has it 'fall to be disregarded'.

Sadly the vast majority of second adults on the electoral register but not on council tax data bases DO fall to be disregarded. 

Why is this idea important?

The statutory code of data matching practice under which the Audit Commission operates its data processing for the National Fraud Initiative should be strengthened, not weakened, as the Commission appears to intend should happen in its forthcoming consultation.  Failing the enactment of stringent additional safeguards for the innocent, the whole initiative, which goes to the heart of privacy and data protection should be abolished.

It is perfectly legal and proper for a 25% discount to be deducted if an adult appears on the electoral register but not on the data bases of the councilo which made the deduction. Indeed, the Audit Commission's own solicitor has accepted that the costs of collecting up to date information on who lives in each house would be prohibitive for council tax departments.

Despite this, the NFI has two exercises in which people are targeted for fraud investigations simply because they put an adult on the electoral register who is not on council tax data bases.  This exercise routinely gives rise to thousands of false positives, who have to prove their innocence.  Some council audit teams simply label them as 'frauds' and report numbers of 'frauds' on the basis of hit lists without an investigation of any sort and even when the council tax department has pointed out to them that the majority of people on these hit lists will be fully entitled, have failed in no statutory duty to inform of changed circumstances, and have told no lies.

A great deal of misleading information on this exercise has been circulated by the Audit Commission, in annual reports and other places.  Yet its own legal team admitted, after complaints, that it is perfectly legal to have a discount when the council tax department does not know about an adult who was subsequently added to the electoral register.  The legal opinion was provided by Leah Griffiths and is in the public domain.

The Audit Commission took advice from a barrister who said that if there appeared to be prima facie evidence that a person was 'claiming' a discount to which they were not entitled an auditor would be entitled to investigate.  The problem is that this data comparison does not and cannot show that a person is not entitled to the discount.  It cannot show that the second adult 'counts' as a resident for council tax purposes ie that they do not as the law has it 'fall to be disregarded'.

Sadly the vast majority of second adults on the electoral register but not on council tax data bases DO fall to be disregarded. 

Enforce the Data Protection Act

It should be enacted that any breach of the DPA should be an automatic fine paid to the person whoes information has been passed to a third party without their consent.  eg DVLA giving driver details and vehicle owner details to private companies to issue civil penalty notices.  If any organisation divulges private information to a third party without express WRITTEN permission then the oprganisation will pay £250 to the person agrieved. Any written permission wil lonly last a specific period of time as stated and only for the stated organisation.  Further breaches agasint the same person will result in incremental increases of £250 to a maximum of £1000 per breach.  This would do away withthe Data Protection Registrar who does not act against any organisation even though they admit several breaches have taken place.. this will also save the country the £ms paid to this toothless, powerless and useless quango

Why is this idea important?

It should be enacted that any breach of the DPA should be an automatic fine paid to the person whoes information has been passed to a third party without their consent.  eg DVLA giving driver details and vehicle owner details to private companies to issue civil penalty notices.  If any organisation divulges private information to a third party without express WRITTEN permission then the oprganisation will pay £250 to the person agrieved. Any written permission wil lonly last a specific period of time as stated and only for the stated organisation.  Further breaches agasint the same person will result in incremental increases of £250 to a maximum of £1000 per breach.  This would do away withthe Data Protection Registrar who does not act against any organisation even though they admit several breaches have taken place.. this will also save the country the £ms paid to this toothless, powerless and useless quango

Repeal the DATA PROTECTION ACT now being applied to Public Archives

ALL documents deposited in UK Public Archives should be available for viewing by all patrons with no restrictions on the contents.

The Data Protection Act generates over 800,000 COMPLAINTS every year for the Office of The Information Commissioner. Common sense says quite obviously that this is a flawed Law and should be repealed.

Uninformed Librarians and Archivists are using the DPA to censor and to close, completely OPEN, historic public documents for 100 YEARS which, if they were returned, would be open again! This is a travesty!

This diktat is perpetrated on the ENTIRE UK population without even lifting the telephone to obtain a definitive decision first from the ICO.

Why is this idea important?

ALL documents deposited in UK Public Archives should be available for viewing by all patrons with no restrictions on the contents.

The Data Protection Act generates over 800,000 COMPLAINTS every year for the Office of The Information Commissioner. Common sense says quite obviously that this is a flawed Law and should be repealed.

Uninformed Librarians and Archivists are using the DPA to censor and to close, completely OPEN, historic public documents for 100 YEARS which, if they were returned, would be open again! This is a travesty!

This diktat is perpetrated on the ENTIRE UK population without even lifting the telephone to obtain a definitive decision first from the ICO.

Give Right to Correct on all data held under the Data Protection Act

More information about people is held by more organisation than ever before.  Some of these organisations are public, some are private companies.

 

My idea is that if you find, and you should already have full access to information held about you, that the information they hold is false you should have the right to correct it.

Why is this idea important?

More information about people is held by more organisation than ever before.  Some of these organisations are public, some are private companies.

 

My idea is that if you find, and you should already have full access to information held about you, that the information they hold is false you should have the right to correct it.

Amend The Data Protection Act To Allow Unrestricted Access To Information Held About You.

Amend the Data Protection Act to prevent anyone from blocking your access to information they hold about you.

Every authority that holds information about you should have an office open to the public where you can access your file/s on demand.  If you can show photo ID such as a passport or driving licence your file should be made available for viewing immediately.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the Data Protection Act to prevent anyone from blocking your access to information they hold about you.

Every authority that holds information about you should have an office open to the public where you can access your file/s on demand.  If you can show photo ID such as a passport or driving licence your file should be made available for viewing immediately.

Data Protection Act

This Act should be considerably strengthened, the easy exceptions markedly reduced and the punishment for infringments available to judges widened.

It should apply to CCTV footage, especially that in police hands.

DVLA information.

Medical Information.

Personal records.

and many, many, other instances where their seem to be permitted "exceptions" to the Act.

Why is this idea important?

This Act should be considerably strengthened, the easy exceptions markedly reduced and the punishment for infringments available to judges widened.

It should apply to CCTV footage, especially that in police hands.

DVLA information.

Medical Information.

Personal records.

and many, many, other instances where their seem to be permitted "exceptions" to the Act.

DVLA – Selling Of Driver Details

DVLA selling of driver details to wheel clampers, etc is an abuse of Government

data.

ALL data held by Government about people's personal information should be

kept private by the Government and not sold or made available to anyone other

than those investigating criminal activities.

Why is this idea important?

DVLA selling of driver details to wheel clampers, etc is an abuse of Government

data.

ALL data held by Government about people's personal information should be

kept private by the Government and not sold or made available to anyone other

than those investigating criminal activities.