Users of PBX telephone systems could then regularly update the currently used Robo/Telemarketer numbers, and remove false poisitives. Public would be assured that the listed numbers are current and that private subscribers and false positives are not being blocked.
The current system of collecting these numbers from diverse web databases means anyone can blacklist YOUR NUMBER.
Why is this idea important?
Users of PBX telephone systems could then regularly update the currently used Robo/Telemarketer numbers, and remove false poisitives. Public would be assured that the listed numbers are current and that private subscribers and false positives are not being blocked.
The current system of collecting these numbers from diverse web databases means anyone can blacklist YOUR NUMBER.
Review the Data Protection Act to prevent it being used as an excuse for not disclosing information which is reasonably required.
Why is this idea important?
Review the Data Protection Act to prevent it being used as an excuse for not disclosing information which is reasonably required.
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.
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?
The Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act needs repealing and replacing with something that is understandable by the reasonable person on the street. Currently it is unnecessarily cumbersome and full of exemptions that it makes it impossible to understand to the average person on the street. Large organisations can hide behind exceptions without any kind of sanction or independent review. The ICO is a toothless organisation that has no real sanctions and provides very limited and often standardised advice that does not address the issues raised by complainants. The public when they need assistance need the organisation they seek assistance from to be able to address their issues, express the advice in an understandable way that addresses these issues and not merely quotes standardised paragraphs of legislantion leaving them to work out what issue this is addressing or referring to. The public also want these organisations to have the ability to issue proper and effective sanctions. They should also provide timely advice and answer the public when they correspond with them to save time in receiving and dealing with complaints later on in the process which is a complete waste of tax payers money and also will save them time and money in the long run not having to deal with complaints from unsatisfied members of the public who then become disillusioned with government organisations because of the poor standard of service they get and ironic thing is the public are paying for this. These Acts need to be replaced by something that the public can use without having to resort to an organisation for assistance and which are not riddled with overcomplicated exemptions that render the access to information effectively inaccessible defeating the object of freedom in information which at present the ICO is in effect upholding the restriction of information.
Why is this idea important?
The Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act needs repealing and replacing with something that is understandable by the reasonable person on the street. Currently it is unnecessarily cumbersome and full of exemptions that it makes it impossible to understand to the average person on the street. Large organisations can hide behind exceptions without any kind of sanction or independent review. The ICO is a toothless organisation that has no real sanctions and provides very limited and often standardised advice that does not address the issues raised by complainants. The public when they need assistance need the organisation they seek assistance from to be able to address their issues, express the advice in an understandable way that addresses these issues and not merely quotes standardised paragraphs of legislantion leaving them to work out what issue this is addressing or referring to. The public also want these organisations to have the ability to issue proper and effective sanctions. They should also provide timely advice and answer the public when they correspond with them to save time in receiving and dealing with complaints later on in the process which is a complete waste of tax payers money and also will save them time and money in the long run not having to deal with complaints from unsatisfied members of the public who then become disillusioned with government organisations because of the poor standard of service they get and ironic thing is the public are paying for this. These Acts need to be replaced by something that the public can use without having to resort to an organisation for assistance and which are not riddled with overcomplicated exemptions that render the access to information effectively inaccessible defeating the object of freedom in information which at present the ICO is in effect upholding the restriction of information.
Currently several Government Departments and Agencies and other Public Bodies are allowed to provide personal information to effectively anyone willing to pay for that information. While some information should be made avaialble to relevant 'offical bodies' such as the Police availability of infomration to commercial or 'non-official' bodies for payment of a fee should be restricted.
Example – private car park contractors should not be able to obtain personal details linked to a specific car to pursue unpaid parking charges. Should their be a criminal or security reason for any operator needing to know the details then these should be refered to the Police. Information held by the DVLA should only be made fully available to certain official bodies such as the Police, any other commercial bodies should only be able to request access to details that do not identify the individual unless the individual gives thier explicit concent such as when applying for insurance on line, and even then the insurer should provide such protection that the individuals personal details are not to be disclosed unless as a result of formal criminal/legal proceedings.
Why is this idea important?
Currently several Government Departments and Agencies and other Public Bodies are allowed to provide personal information to effectively anyone willing to pay for that information. While some information should be made avaialble to relevant 'offical bodies' such as the Police availability of infomration to commercial or 'non-official' bodies for payment of a fee should be restricted.
Example – private car park contractors should not be able to obtain personal details linked to a specific car to pursue unpaid parking charges. Should their be a criminal or security reason for any operator needing to know the details then these should be refered to the Police. Information held by the DVLA should only be made fully available to certain official bodies such as the Police, any other commercial bodies should only be able to request access to details that do not identify the individual unless the individual gives thier explicit concent such as when applying for insurance on line, and even then the insurer should provide such protection that the individuals personal details are not to be disclosed unless as a result of formal criminal/legal proceedings.
Allow civilians to be able to listen to civilian Air Traffic Control Communications.
Why is this idea important?
Allow civilians to be able to listen to civilian Air Traffic Control Communications.
Information collected by public sector bodies in the course of the work, including those available under freedom of information leg should be available for free re-use by the public and organisations..
Why is this idea important?
Information collected by public sector bodies in the course of the work, including those available under freedom of information leg should be available for free re-use by the public and organisations..
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.
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.
To make open for public online inspection the finances of all MP's and members of the Lords.
To permit online investigation of the ethnic and national origins of all MPs and members of the Lords.
Why is this idea important?
To make open for public online inspection the finances of all MP's and members of the Lords.
To permit online investigation of the ethnic and national origins of all MPs and members of the Lords.
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.
Selling over the phone and on the doorstep in intrusive, invasive and annoying. Why should companies have the right to use your information just to pass on, sell and intrude on your day to day life. Marketing calls come at all times of the day and are more often than not completely useless to the majority of the public.
Why is this idea important?
Selling over the phone and on the doorstep in intrusive, invasive and annoying. Why should companies have the right to use your information just to pass on, sell and intrude on your day to day life. Marketing calls come at all times of the day and are more often than not completely useless to the majority of the public.
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.
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".
fed up of expenses scandels, soliciting with prostitutes and drab reality t.v show appearances wich portrey if anything mps lack of common ground between them and the 'common' man i.e(labour class) ??
Take the big 'i am' out of politics get B.T (or other ISP) on the phone establish a broardband connection in every home let the people decide on what bills and legislation are passed in the worlds first truly direct democracy
pleasae rate 5*
Why is this idea important?
fed up of expenses scandels, soliciting with prostitutes and drab reality t.v show appearances wich portrey if anything mps lack of common ground between them and the 'common' man i.e(labour class) ??
Take the big 'i am' out of politics get B.T (or other ISP) on the phone establish a broardband connection in every home let the people decide on what bills and legislation are passed in the worlds first truly direct democracy
pleasae rate 5*
Revise the roll of the Information Commissioner to make the Commissionn concentrate on important data protection aspects and to give it powers to prosecute the big organisations, such as HM Customs & Excise, which dish out our confidential information with impunity.
At the other end of the scale, the Commission makes a ridiculous charge on all organisations to fund it. The small Parish Council for which I work is charged £35 per annum by the Commission. There are two pints here:
1 The Commission does absolutely nothing useful for this £35. It claims it produces 'guidance notes. Well, I don't want guidance notes at a cost of £35 pa thank you.
2 There must be an enormous number of organisations which have to pay a compulsory fee. There are 10000 Parish Councils in England and Wales, so the Commission must be employing an army of money collectors and bean counters.
Why is this idea important?
Revise the roll of the Information Commissioner to make the Commissionn concentrate on important data protection aspects and to give it powers to prosecute the big organisations, such as HM Customs & Excise, which dish out our confidential information with impunity.
At the other end of the scale, the Commission makes a ridiculous charge on all organisations to fund it. The small Parish Council for which I work is charged £35 per annum by the Commission. There are two pints here:
1 The Commission does absolutely nothing useful for this £35. It claims it produces 'guidance notes. Well, I don't want guidance notes at a cost of £35 pa thank you.
2 There must be an enormous number of organisations which have to pay a compulsory fee. There are 10000 Parish Councils in England and Wales, so the Commission must be employing an army of money collectors and bean counters.
My ISP has aadmitted to retaining my emails from as far back as 2001, claiing that the law requires them to do so. It felt as though I had just discovered that the post office had been photocopying all my mail n case the state later wanted to read it.
Any such laws should not only be repealed, but data protection laws strengthened to prevent providers from retaining details of private emails.
Why is this idea important?
My ISP has aadmitted to retaining my emails from as far back as 2001, claiing that the law requires them to do so. It felt as though I had just discovered that the post office had been photocopying all my mail n case the state later wanted to read it.
Any such laws should not only be repealed, but data protection laws strengthened to prevent providers from retaining details of private emails.
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.
Currently DVLA sell full names and addresses of vehicle holders to anyone who pays a paltry sum. Data required to be submitted by private individuals to a government body should have protection under the Data Protection Act. If the information is held on an electronic database and given for a specific purpose there can be no justification for the government selling it on to anyone other than the police. Is it done to raise funds?
Why is this idea important?
Currently DVLA sell full names and addresses of vehicle holders to anyone who pays a paltry sum. Data required to be submitted by private individuals to a government body should have protection under the Data Protection Act. If the information is held on an electronic database and given for a specific purpose there can be no justification for the government selling it on to anyone other than the police. Is it done to raise funds?
To enable all personal data that is requested under subject data access request be handed over on request,without the person(s) being asked hiding behind some loophole.This is to be able to ensure data held is correct and can be amended.Also the waiting time should be reduced from 40 to 10 days.It should include all and any data held not just parts the person or persons decide should be send out
Why is this idea important?
To enable all personal data that is requested under subject data access request be handed over on request,without the person(s) being asked hiding behind some loophole.This is to be able to ensure data held is correct and can be amended.Also the waiting time should be reduced from 40 to 10 days.It should include all and any data held not just parts the person or persons decide should be send out
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 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.
I have occasion to use the Financial Services Ombudsman and represent an individual in the Health, Legal Services, Water Services and Parliamentary Ombudsman Scehmes.
In all cases I found the processes to be incredibly slow
I found that the procedures were court like and this meant that it made it very difficult for a complainant to advancea complaint as it was difficult or impossible for a complaint to adduce the evidence necessary to bring a successful claim (defeating the purpose of avoiding going to court).particularly as the one complained of does not necessarily have to place its card on the table (as is the case for litigation)
The scope and terms of reference under which complaints can be made are narrow and narrowly interpreted so such schemes are very limited and highly skewed in favour of large organisations or bodies who have infringed the rights of the complainants.
Why is this idea important?
I have occasion to use the Financial Services Ombudsman and represent an individual in the Health, Legal Services, Water Services and Parliamentary Ombudsman Scehmes.
In all cases I found the processes to be incredibly slow
I found that the procedures were court like and this meant that it made it very difficult for a complainant to advancea complaint as it was difficult or impossible for a complaint to adduce the evidence necessary to bring a successful claim (defeating the purpose of avoiding going to court).particularly as the one complained of does not necessarily have to place its card on the table (as is the case for litigation)
The scope and terms of reference under which complaints can be made are narrow and narrowly interpreted so such schemes are very limited and highly skewed in favour of large organisations or bodies who have infringed the rights of the complainants.
Abolish the Data Protection Act. Repeal the Privacy In Electronic Communications Regulations.
Why is this idea important?
Abolish the Data Protection Act. Repeal the Privacy In Electronic Communications Regulations.