Data protection – outlaw the trading of personal data for gain

The sale of personal data has become commonplace in recent times and that data is being used (abused) by those who are buying and those who are selling. As a result, there is a swingeing increase in those who are greatly motivated by greed to exploit the fact that, inadvertently or otherwise, they are in possession of information that could be traded.

My name, my address and any other detail pertinent to me is pertinent to me alone. If that information is of any consequence to any other person – whether for profit or not – it is not to be traded under any circumstances.

One classic example of traded data relates to circumstances where a civil liability might be incurred, e.g. a motor accident. There is scarcely any physical damage to the vehicles involved and yet, 'claims farmers', unscrupulous solicitors, accident management companies, vehicle repairers, engineers or anybody involved in the process will have personal details of the parties involved in the accident; details which have a trading value to others who can exploit the civil litigation system – not in the name of justice and fair play but in the name of personal greed with little regard for the possible consequences of their activity. Watch TV during any advertisement break and bear witness to a myriad of traders (mostly illegitimate) who are seeking to make money from the 'victims' of the accident most of whom never suffered injury in the first instance but who are ready and willing to perjure themselves for the promise of a crock of gold.

Outlaw the trading of personal data and rid the country of a litigious nation whose primary motivation in life is "Something for nothing" 

Why is this idea important?

The sale of personal data has become commonplace in recent times and that data is being used (abused) by those who are buying and those who are selling. As a result, there is a swingeing increase in those who are greatly motivated by greed to exploit the fact that, inadvertently or otherwise, they are in possession of information that could be traded.

My name, my address and any other detail pertinent to me is pertinent to me alone. If that information is of any consequence to any other person – whether for profit or not – it is not to be traded under any circumstances.

One classic example of traded data relates to circumstances where a civil liability might be incurred, e.g. a motor accident. There is scarcely any physical damage to the vehicles involved and yet, 'claims farmers', unscrupulous solicitors, accident management companies, vehicle repairers, engineers or anybody involved in the process will have personal details of the parties involved in the accident; details which have a trading value to others who can exploit the civil litigation system – not in the name of justice and fair play but in the name of personal greed with little regard for the possible consequences of their activity. Watch TV during any advertisement break and bear witness to a myriad of traders (mostly illegitimate) who are seeking to make money from the 'victims' of the accident most of whom never suffered injury in the first instance but who are ready and willing to perjure themselves for the promise of a crock of gold.

Outlaw the trading of personal data and rid the country of a litigious nation whose primary motivation in life is "Something for nothing" 

Implementation of Money Laundering Regulations

Any law abiding person recognises the need for Money Laundering Regulations;  the way they are implemented by many organisations leads to a loss of personal freedom and serious risk of Identity Theft.

Nearly everyone seems to need either a driving licence or passport to verify one's identity  against money laundering.  I live in Northern Ireland, and take exception to having to post my passport to England for two reasons

  1. The risk of it being lost in the post and my identity being compromised
  2. Whilst it is away I cannot travel, by air, to England where I have family because a passport is required to board a plane.

Posting away a driving licence is potentially worse – the identity theft risks are similar but if one's passport is away one may be unable to produce it to the police in the 5 days required in NI, hence limiting one's ability to drive

Please can we have the regulations set so that law abiding people are not inconvenienced or identites risked

Why is this idea important?

Any law abiding person recognises the need for Money Laundering Regulations;  the way they are implemented by many organisations leads to a loss of personal freedom and serious risk of Identity Theft.

Nearly everyone seems to need either a driving licence or passport to verify one's identity  against money laundering.  I live in Northern Ireland, and take exception to having to post my passport to England for two reasons

  1. The risk of it being lost in the post and my identity being compromised
  2. Whilst it is away I cannot travel, by air, to England where I have family because a passport is required to board a plane.

Posting away a driving licence is potentially worse – the identity theft risks are similar but if one's passport is away one may be unable to produce it to the police in the 5 days required in NI, hence limiting one's ability to drive

Please can we have the regulations set so that law abiding people are not inconvenienced or identites risked

Should all government data on citizens be controlled by independent trusts? And to whom would they be answerable?

Just wondering on this, but the more storage we get, inevitably the more data the government holds will increase. Computers were supposed to reduce paperwork, they increased it due to data.

The more data the government holds the more capacity, power and potential corruption therein they have to start abusing it. Should the control of what requests in their various contexts are acceptable and what not, lie with the system, or should it be independently controlled?

Trusts can be used to monitor which types of data requests are asked (by polticians, police, insurance companies), of whom and why. Police are already known to use anti terror requests to identify comparatively petty criminals, showing that (through the abuse of power) they can be no more trusted with data than said criminals.

As we have more data over time over more issues, I propose that the data is pulled away from the people that can unaccountably use that data to trusts that are accountable. Once appointed, they could appoint new members keeping themselves independent. But to whom should the trusts be accountable? The people via votes, other data trusts, or the politicians they are supposed to regulate?

Why is this idea important?

Just wondering on this, but the more storage we get, inevitably the more data the government holds will increase. Computers were supposed to reduce paperwork, they increased it due to data.

The more data the government holds the more capacity, power and potential corruption therein they have to start abusing it. Should the control of what requests in their various contexts are acceptable and what not, lie with the system, or should it be independently controlled?

Trusts can be used to monitor which types of data requests are asked (by polticians, police, insurance companies), of whom and why. Police are already known to use anti terror requests to identify comparatively petty criminals, showing that (through the abuse of power) they can be no more trusted with data than said criminals.

As we have more data over time over more issues, I propose that the data is pulled away from the people that can unaccountably use that data to trusts that are accountable. Once appointed, they could appoint new members keeping themselves independent. But to whom should the trusts be accountable? The people via votes, other data trusts, or the politicians they are supposed to regulate?

Should all government data on citizens be controlled by independent trusts? And to whom would they be answerable?

Just wondering on this, but the more storage we get, inevitably the more data the government holds will increase. Computers were supposed to reduce paperwork, they increased it due to data.

The more data the government holds the more capacity, power and potential corruption therein they have to start abusing it. Should the control of what requests in their various contexts are acceptable and what not, lie with the system, or should it be independently controlled?

Trusts can be used to monitor which types of data requests are asked (by polticians, police, insurance companies), of whom and why. Police are already known to use anti terror requests to identify comparatively petty criminals, showing that (through the abuse of power) they can be no more trusted with data than said criminals.

As we have more data over time over more issues, I propose that the data is pulled away from the people that can unaccountably use that data to trusts that are accountable. Once appointed, they could appoint new members keeping themselves independent. But to whom should the trusts be accountable? The people via votes, other data trusts, or the politicians they are supposed to regulate?

Why is this idea important?

Just wondering on this, but the more storage we get, inevitably the more data the government holds will increase. Computers were supposed to reduce paperwork, they increased it due to data.

The more data the government holds the more capacity, power and potential corruption therein they have to start abusing it. Should the control of what requests in their various contexts are acceptable and what not, lie with the system, or should it be independently controlled?

Trusts can be used to monitor which types of data requests are asked (by polticians, police, insurance companies), of whom and why. Police are already known to use anti terror requests to identify comparatively petty criminals, showing that (through the abuse of power) they can be no more trusted with data than said criminals.

As we have more data over time over more issues, I propose that the data is pulled away from the people that can unaccountably use that data to trusts that are accountable. Once appointed, they could appoint new members keeping themselves independent. But to whom should the trusts be accountable? The people via votes, other data trusts, or the politicians they are supposed to regulate?

humans rights for the public

I have to be honest I'm been arrested on several times and my DNA have been taken but I've not been charged but I found out that my DNA hasn't been distroyed but kept on the national police DNA systems, which I find is a breach of my human rights, Also whilst on the conversation of national Police system, that if a person had been arrested on an offence but later found out either the person is innocent or wrongly arrested, the arrest is still on the system and when or if that person is stopped, the officer does an check on that person, there radio's are so loud that others in the public eye can over hear that persons arrest previously convictions, and they mis understand the person/person's arrest record and they gets pushed aside. Theis is a serious breach of data protection act.

Why is this idea important?

I have to be honest I'm been arrested on several times and my DNA have been taken but I've not been charged but I found out that my DNA hasn't been distroyed but kept on the national police DNA systems, which I find is a breach of my human rights, Also whilst on the conversation of national Police system, that if a person had been arrested on an offence but later found out either the person is innocent or wrongly arrested, the arrest is still on the system and when or if that person is stopped, the officer does an check on that person, there radio's are so loud that others in the public eye can over hear that persons arrest previously convictions, and they mis understand the person/person's arrest record and they gets pushed aside. Theis is a serious breach of data protection act.

Time For Disclosure On UFO’s And Extra Terrestrial Life

The people of this country have had enough of being duped on so called government cover ups and misleads, on unidentified flying objects and extra terrestrial life.

There is now too much evidence to suggest that the government ignores this, and it is time we had disclosure on the matter and a new law in place that enables the public to have the right to know.

At a campaign meeting in 2009, newly elected British Prime Minister David Cameron promised to disclose any information the government had about the existence of Aliens/UFO's if he was elected as Prime Minister.

Now that he has been elected I think the British public should hold him to his promise and he should make a statement on whether the government or any of it's intelligence agencies are holding any information on UFO's/Aliens, and if so, he should make steps to release ALL of that information to the public.

David Cameron said at the meeting in 2009:

 


"I think we should be as open as possible, so I would be quite happy to give you a guarantee that if I became prime minister I would always be entirely open and frank about these things.

"I don't think any of us have any clue whether there's intelligent life out there and it is certainly not something that any Government should seek to hide from anyone."

So David Cameron believes he has a moral obligation to release any information the government may have. Since he has been elected he has apparently been working to make government more transparent by publishing more information to the public about spending, etc. Let's hope he does the same with any information the government or the MOD may have.

Disclosure soon?

Lets get this out in the open and lets do it for our country, not the USA or anyone else, just us.

We have the right to know, and we need to know now!
 

Why is this idea important?

The people of this country have had enough of being duped on so called government cover ups and misleads, on unidentified flying objects and extra terrestrial life.

There is now too much evidence to suggest that the government ignores this, and it is time we had disclosure on the matter and a new law in place that enables the public to have the right to know.

At a campaign meeting in 2009, newly elected British Prime Minister David Cameron promised to disclose any information the government had about the existence of Aliens/UFO's if he was elected as Prime Minister.

Now that he has been elected I think the British public should hold him to his promise and he should make a statement on whether the government or any of it's intelligence agencies are holding any information on UFO's/Aliens, and if so, he should make steps to release ALL of that information to the public.

David Cameron said at the meeting in 2009:

 


"I think we should be as open as possible, so I would be quite happy to give you a guarantee that if I became prime minister I would always be entirely open and frank about these things.

"I don't think any of us have any clue whether there's intelligent life out there and it is certainly not something that any Government should seek to hide from anyone."

So David Cameron believes he has a moral obligation to release any information the government may have. Since he has been elected he has apparently been working to make government more transparent by publishing more information to the public about spending, etc. Let's hope he does the same with any information the government or the MOD may have.

Disclosure soon?

Lets get this out in the open and lets do it for our country, not the USA or anyone else, just us.

We have the right to know, and we need to know now!
 

Disband the ICO

Disband the Information Commissioner's Office and abolish the Data Protection levy. The ICO serves no obvious purpose. The Data Protection Act 1998 is out of its depth when faced with 21st century communication technology. The levy is an annual "quiet" tax on business.

Why is this idea important?

Disband the Information Commissioner's Office and abolish the Data Protection levy. The ICO serves no obvious purpose. The Data Protection Act 1998 is out of its depth when faced with 21st century communication technology. The levy is an annual "quiet" tax on business.

Restriction on the use of information (with exceptions)

Restrict the use of information collected by public bodies concerning individuals or corporate enities to their own functions and responsibilities and prevent them from passing such information to other entities, be they private or public, (including the sale of the information gathered), except to authorised officers of HMRC, police officers of the rank of inspector or above and upon application, or the security services upon application to a designated Home Office official.

The same restriction should be placed on private entities, but here an individual may as part of a contract agree to disclosure, but such contractual term should be specific in nature relating to a particular use and not a general one covering all conceivable possibilities, or aspirations of the collecting entity.

Why is this idea important?

Restrict the use of information collected by public bodies concerning individuals or corporate enities to their own functions and responsibilities and prevent them from passing such information to other entities, be they private or public, (including the sale of the information gathered), except to authorised officers of HMRC, police officers of the rank of inspector or above and upon application, or the security services upon application to a designated Home Office official.

The same restriction should be placed on private entities, but here an individual may as part of a contract agree to disclosure, but such contractual term should be specific in nature relating to a particular use and not a general one covering all conceivable possibilities, or aspirations of the collecting entity.

Religious bodies should not hold personal data against our will

Religious organisations such as CoE should be required by law to destroy all the data they have about individuals if they request it. This includes baptism records.

Why is this idea important?

Religious organisations such as CoE should be required by law to destroy all the data they have about individuals if they request it. This includes baptism records.

An Open Monarchy

The monarchy is an undemocratic institution costing the taxpayer millions of pounds per year. Any exemptions protecting the monarchy from Freedom of Information legislation must be overturned. The cost of the monarchy must be completely open to public scrutiny.

Why is this idea important?

The monarchy is an undemocratic institution costing the taxpayer millions of pounds per year. Any exemptions protecting the monarchy from Freedom of Information legislation must be overturned. The cost of the monarchy must be completely open to public scrutiny.

Amendment of Freedom of Information Act

There needs to be a review of the Freedom of Information Act with a particular emphasis upon the cost of the administrative burden that it is placing upon public authorities. There is a paradox inherent in the drive towards increased openness and transparency, in that the more one commits public authorities towards such aims, the more resource one needs to apply towards satisfying such aims. The conclusion is that one unintentionally creates more of what one is trying to do away with – complexity, bureaucracy and increased secrecy.

Why is this idea important?

There needs to be a review of the Freedom of Information Act with a particular emphasis upon the cost of the administrative burden that it is placing upon public authorities. There is a paradox inherent in the drive towards increased openness and transparency, in that the more one commits public authorities towards such aims, the more resource one needs to apply towards satisfying such aims. The conclusion is that one unintentionally creates more of what one is trying to do away with – complexity, bureaucracy and increased secrecy.

Reform or repeal the Freedon of Information Act

Reform or repeal completely the Freedom of Information Act that allows access to details about the way organizations and individuals work. Only if certain criteria are met can a request be declined.

Why is this idea important?

Reform or repeal completely the Freedom of Information Act that allows access to details about the way organizations and individuals work. Only if certain criteria are met can a request be declined.

Opt out of EU Procurement Regulations for Public Contracts

My idea is that we should opt out all EU procurement directives, in particular the The Public Contracts and Utilities Contracts (Amendment)
Regulations 2007 and the EU Remedies Directive (Council Directive 2007/66/EC).

Instead we should put a general responsibility on Public Bodies to ensure value for money in all their activities and use normal governance best practice to monitor performance.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is that we should opt out all EU procurement directives, in particular the The Public Contracts and Utilities Contracts (Amendment)
Regulations 2007 and the EU Remedies Directive (Council Directive 2007/66/EC).

Instead we should put a general responsibility on Public Bodies to ensure value for money in all their activities and use normal governance best practice to monitor performance.

Freedom of Information

The Official Secrets Acts need to go.  You can't have a Freedom of Information Act and an Official Secrets Act on the statute books at the same time.  It does'nt make sense.  The Official Secrets Acts could be replaced with an Espionage Act or something similar..

Why is this idea important?

The Official Secrets Acts need to go.  You can't have a Freedom of Information Act and an Official Secrets Act on the statute books at the same time.  It does'nt make sense.  The Official Secrets Acts could be replaced with an Espionage Act or something similar..

Keep personal data private

All personal data held by the state should only be released to third parties with the express permission of the individual to whom that data applies.

At present government departments (Such as the DVLA and the Land Registry) sell personal data to commercial organisations (private parking enforcers, house price comparison websites) without needing permission.

The Electoral Roll requires the permission of the individual before data is published in a public list.

All existing legislation should be reviewed and any future legislation should be modelled on the Electoral Roll; At the time data is entered on a government data base (e.g. buying a car or house) express permission must be given for the data to be made public.

Why is this idea important?

All personal data held by the state should only be released to third parties with the express permission of the individual to whom that data applies.

At present government departments (Such as the DVLA and the Land Registry) sell personal data to commercial organisations (private parking enforcers, house price comparison websites) without needing permission.

The Electoral Roll requires the permission of the individual before data is published in a public list.

All existing legislation should be reviewed and any future legislation should be modelled on the Electoral Roll; At the time data is entered on a government data base (e.g. buying a car or house) express permission must be given for the data to be made public.

Giving unnecessary information

There should be a presumption that personal information is not given rather than expected or required. For example when a purchase is made, the seller should not have the right to demand anything other than the cost of the item. Too many – e.g rail companies or theatres – insist that personal information is given.

Why is this idea important?

There should be a presumption that personal information is not given rather than expected or required. For example when a purchase is made, the seller should not have the right to demand anything other than the cost of the item. Too many – e.g rail companies or theatres – insist that personal information is given.

Consumer Credit Licences

Many business are constituted as groups of limited companies – usually 100% owned by the top, parent company.

This should be streamlined so that Group licences are available.

I am sure that there are other compliance processes where this principle could be extended such as Data Protection Notification, FSA registration, etc.

Why is this idea important?

Many business are constituted as groups of limited companies – usually 100% owned by the top, parent company.

This should be streamlined so that Group licences are available.

I am sure that there are other compliance processes where this principle could be extended such as Data Protection Notification, FSA registration, etc.

Scrap Information Commissioner’s Office and Data Protection Registration

I run a small business and because I maintain customer records on a computer ( what business doesn't these days) I am forced to register for data protection with the Information Commissioners Office. Every year they charge my company £35 by direct debit and send me a letter confirming that I am registered for another 12 months.

This is a complete nonsense.

The Data Commissioners Offixce do not monitor my performance; they have no idea if i am complying with the regulations and their only purpose, as admitted to me by one of their staff, is to issue certificates and collect annual fees.

The whole department is probably costing £millions to run every year and adds no value. It should be closed, saving businesses time and money which could be invested in other things.

I also understand that Clubs , Societies and Associations also get caught up under this legislation and are forced to pay an annual fee.

By all means retain the Data Protection Act 1998 as it protects individuals having their personal details distributed to unscrupulous third parties, but scrap the need to register.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I run a small business and because I maintain customer records on a computer ( what business doesn't these days) I am forced to register for data protection with the Information Commissioners Office. Every year they charge my company £35 by direct debit and send me a letter confirming that I am registered for another 12 months.

This is a complete nonsense.

The Data Commissioners Offixce do not monitor my performance; they have no idea if i am complying with the regulations and their only purpose, as admitted to me by one of their staff, is to issue certificates and collect annual fees.

The whole department is probably costing £millions to run every year and adds no value. It should be closed, saving businesses time and money which could be invested in other things.

I also understand that Clubs , Societies and Associations also get caught up under this legislation and are forced to pay an annual fee.

By all means retain the Data Protection Act 1998 as it protects individuals having their personal details distributed to unscrupulous third parties, but scrap the need to register.