Strict Privacy Restrictions on Press Reporting

In the light of William Hague's recent encounter with our trashy press, I think the time for respecting a human being's personal life is long overdue.

This has highlighted how essential a person's privacy needs legal enforcement behind it.

It's not a question of whether the gay affair he allegedly had is true or not. It's NO ONE'S business either way.

Bring in strict privacy press reporting laws now.

Why is this idea important?

In the light of William Hague's recent encounter with our trashy press, I think the time for respecting a human being's personal life is long overdue.

This has highlighted how essential a person's privacy needs legal enforcement behind it.

It's not a question of whether the gay affair he allegedly had is true or not. It's NO ONE'S business either way.

Bring in strict privacy press reporting laws now.

The government should encourage self-moderated forums

Many site users here including myself have had posts removed by the moderators for in our view inadequate reasons, based on other protests I've seen here.

Moderated forums in general present a problem, because the moderator is constantly asked to take sides – i.e. decide between somebody's right to post, and the rights of somebody complaining about a post.

The best solution would be SELF-MODERATED forums, such as exist on the BBC 606 site, so that whoever starts a thread can delete abusive comments on it if they please, as the BBC put it "are in control of their space."

Because otherwise we just have the constant DENIAL OF FREE SPEECH.

To put it simply, I want the right to say what I want on MY idea page without being abused, and I give in return the right to everybody else to do the same, say what they like on THEIR PAGE, and delete any comments they find abusive.

The tag system on this site is for example a major source of ANONYMOUS ABUSE, and once again, should be under the control of whoever starts the page, unless the site administrators are quite happy about the poster being abused, as appears to be the case on this site to date.

Why is this idea important?

Many site users here including myself have had posts removed by the moderators for in our view inadequate reasons, based on other protests I've seen here.

Moderated forums in general present a problem, because the moderator is constantly asked to take sides – i.e. decide between somebody's right to post, and the rights of somebody complaining about a post.

The best solution would be SELF-MODERATED forums, such as exist on the BBC 606 site, so that whoever starts a thread can delete abusive comments on it if they please, as the BBC put it "are in control of their space."

Because otherwise we just have the constant DENIAL OF FREE SPEECH.

To put it simply, I want the right to say what I want on MY idea page without being abused, and I give in return the right to everybody else to do the same, say what they like on THEIR PAGE, and delete any comments they find abusive.

The tag system on this site is for example a major source of ANONYMOUS ABUSE, and once again, should be under the control of whoever starts the page, unless the site administrators are quite happy about the poster being abused, as appears to be the case on this site to date.

Avoid estate agents, sell your own home

 

Currently in the UK if a person wants to set up a company to enable individuals to sell their properties online, and then provides those individuals with a 'for sale' board, the company would be classified as an estate agent.

Under section 1 of the Estate Agents Act 1979,  you are an estate agent if you:

  1. for the purpose of, or with a view to, effecting the introduction to the client of a third person who wishes to acquire or, as the case may be, dispose of such an interest; and
  2. after such an introduction has been effected in the course of that business, for the purpose of securing the disposal or, as the case may be, the acquisition of that interest;

Due to an exemption clause this Act does not apply to the publication of advertisements or the dissemination of information (e.g a newspaper), but because the company provides a ‘for sale’ board it is seen as an ‘introduction’ therefore the Estate Agents Act 1979 and Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 apply.

 

As an estate agent you are bound by the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, where you can not ‘make false or misleading statements about specified matters relating to property’, therefore before a property could be entered on your website you would have to verify all its particulars.

An office of fair trading (OFT) study into home buying and selling states that changes to outdated legislation, which has hindered firms hoping to set up online services for people to sell their own home, would help both buyers and sellers.  When the Estate Agents Act came into force a high street estate agent was the primary way to buy and sell properties.  The act needs updating to take into account new technologies, the OFT proposes two options for updating the Estate Agents Act 1979:

  1. define the activities that pose risks to consumers, and link the prohibitions and requirements in the law to those activities. 
  2. frame the law in terms of the agency relationship between the seller and the intermediary – if the intermediary is both marketing the property and negotiating then they should be subject to regulation, whereas if the intermediary is a neutral trading platform that facilitates direct contact between individuals, then they should not. 

Why is this idea important?

 

Currently in the UK if a person wants to set up a company to enable individuals to sell their properties online, and then provides those individuals with a 'for sale' board, the company would be classified as an estate agent.

Under section 1 of the Estate Agents Act 1979,  you are an estate agent if you:

  1. for the purpose of, or with a view to, effecting the introduction to the client of a third person who wishes to acquire or, as the case may be, dispose of such an interest; and
  2. after such an introduction has been effected in the course of that business, for the purpose of securing the disposal or, as the case may be, the acquisition of that interest;

Due to an exemption clause this Act does not apply to the publication of advertisements or the dissemination of information (e.g a newspaper), but because the company provides a ‘for sale’ board it is seen as an ‘introduction’ therefore the Estate Agents Act 1979 and Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 apply.

 

As an estate agent you are bound by the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, where you can not ‘make false or misleading statements about specified matters relating to property’, therefore before a property could be entered on your website you would have to verify all its particulars.

An office of fair trading (OFT) study into home buying and selling states that changes to outdated legislation, which has hindered firms hoping to set up online services for people to sell their own home, would help both buyers and sellers.  When the Estate Agents Act came into force a high street estate agent was the primary way to buy and sell properties.  The act needs updating to take into account new technologies, the OFT proposes two options for updating the Estate Agents Act 1979:

  1. define the activities that pose risks to consumers, and link the prohibitions and requirements in the law to those activities. 
  2. frame the law in terms of the agency relationship between the seller and the intermediary – if the intermediary is both marketing the property and negotiating then they should be subject to regulation, whereas if the intermediary is a neutral trading platform that facilitates direct contact between individuals, then they should not. 

Bypass DAB and promote internet

Promote radio braodcasting via internet (no cost in expensive new aerials), and businesses will start to make more internet wi-fi radios using cableless routers already in place in most househoolds. The added benefit is that you do not need Megahertz bandwidths to stream radio. You could also keep the exisitng FM transmitters for use in car radios.

Why is this idea important?

Promote radio braodcasting via internet (no cost in expensive new aerials), and businesses will start to make more internet wi-fi radios using cableless routers already in place in most househoolds. The added benefit is that you do not need Megahertz bandwidths to stream radio. You could also keep the exisitng FM transmitters for use in car radios.

Broadband providers must be truthful about their download speeds

Broadband providers should have to provide the service they say they will in their contract.  At the moment, companies can sell you a certain speed of internet access, but in reality get away with providing far lower than this, a lot of the time. 

You wouldn’t pay to stay in a five star hotel for a month, only to be given a four star hotel for two weeks and then a two star hotel for the rest of that month.  So we shouldn’t have to accept less than we pay for when it comes to Internet services.

As a bare minimum, Internet providers should have to provide speeds 95% as fast as they advertise, for 95% of the time you pay for.  If they fail in this, they should have to reimburse their customers for that month.

Why is this idea important?

Broadband providers should have to provide the service they say they will in their contract.  At the moment, companies can sell you a certain speed of internet access, but in reality get away with providing far lower than this, a lot of the time. 

You wouldn’t pay to stay in a five star hotel for a month, only to be given a four star hotel for two weeks and then a two star hotel for the rest of that month.  So we shouldn’t have to accept less than we pay for when it comes to Internet services.

As a bare minimum, Internet providers should have to provide speeds 95% as fast as they advertise, for 95% of the time you pay for.  If they fail in this, they should have to reimburse their customers for that month.

Let the BBC be the best it can be, for the public who pay for it

 

In the name of commercial fairness the BBC is held back from offering the services it wants too.  These additional services (such as offering more HD content, or creating iPhone Apps) would cost little to implement but would offer a good service for the public.  Various regulatory bodies however, often hold the BBC back.  This is apparently because the new services offered by the BBC would harm its commercial rivals.  In reality however, this probably wouldn’t hold true.  Firstly there are few people who would watch a BBC program at the expense of an ITV one, just because it happened to be available on HD or remained on the iPlayer for a few more days.  It would merely improve the viewing experience for the public. 

If there is a mandatory license fee, the BBC should be obligated to offer the best possible service it can to the public.  If that drives up the competition, so much the better.  The commercial competition should not mind the BBC forging ahead with improved broadcasting technologies – taking the risk from first implementation away from them.

Why is this idea important?

 

In the name of commercial fairness the BBC is held back from offering the services it wants too.  These additional services (such as offering more HD content, or creating iPhone Apps) would cost little to implement but would offer a good service for the public.  Various regulatory bodies however, often hold the BBC back.  This is apparently because the new services offered by the BBC would harm its commercial rivals.  In reality however, this probably wouldn’t hold true.  Firstly there are few people who would watch a BBC program at the expense of an ITV one, just because it happened to be available on HD or remained on the iPlayer for a few more days.  It would merely improve the viewing experience for the public. 

If there is a mandatory license fee, the BBC should be obligated to offer the best possible service it can to the public.  If that drives up the competition, so much the better.  The commercial competition should not mind the BBC forging ahead with improved broadcasting technologies – taking the risk from first implementation away from them.

Let the BBC be the best it can be, for the public who pay for it

 

In the name of commercial fairness the BBC is held back from offering the services it wants too.  These additional services (such as offering more HD content, or creating iPhone Apps) would cost little to implement but would offer a good service for the public.  Various regulatory bodies however, often hold the BBC back.  This is apparently because the new services offered by the BBC would harm its commercial rivals.  In reality however, this probably wouldn’t hold true.  For example, there are few people who would watch a BBC program at the expense of an ITV one, just because it happened to be available on HD or remained on the iPlayer for a few more days.  It would merely improve the viewing experience for the public. 

If there is a mandatory license fee, the BBC should be obligated to offer the best possible service it can to the public.  If that drives up the competition, so much the better.  The commercial competition should not mind the BBC forging ahead with improved broadcasting technologies – taking the risk from first implementation away from them.

Why is this idea important?

 

In the name of commercial fairness the BBC is held back from offering the services it wants too.  These additional services (such as offering more HD content, or creating iPhone Apps) would cost little to implement but would offer a good service for the public.  Various regulatory bodies however, often hold the BBC back.  This is apparently because the new services offered by the BBC would harm its commercial rivals.  In reality however, this probably wouldn’t hold true.  For example, there are few people who would watch a BBC program at the expense of an ITV one, just because it happened to be available on HD or remained on the iPlayer for a few more days.  It would merely improve the viewing experience for the public. 

If there is a mandatory license fee, the BBC should be obligated to offer the best possible service it can to the public.  If that drives up the competition, so much the better.  The commercial competition should not mind the BBC forging ahead with improved broadcasting technologies – taking the risk from first implementation away from them.

Drive to get all UK citizens online by 2012

This is a government drive to get everyone in the UK online by the year 2012, the government should realise that not everyone in the UK wants to get use the internet. 'Up to ten million people in the UK have never used the internet, according to figures from Race Online 2012.' Not everyone chooses to embrace the internet and they should be free to make their own decisions about whether they get online or not.

Why is this idea important?

This is a government drive to get everyone in the UK online by the year 2012, the government should realise that not everyone in the UK wants to get use the internet. 'Up to ten million people in the UK have never used the internet, according to figures from Race Online 2012.' Not everyone chooses to embrace the internet and they should be free to make their own decisions about whether they get online or not.

Oppose Written Declaration 29

Recently the EU has dreamt up a new law that demands that search engines retain users search data for two years to allow the authorities to have a little snoop around, if they feel like it.

You can read further details here:

https://eu.ixquick.com/eng/press/pr-ixquick-fights-data-retention-policy.html

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-566344

Britain should oppose this intrusive measure.

Why is this idea important?

Recently the EU has dreamt up a new law that demands that search engines retain users search data for two years to allow the authorities to have a little snoop around, if they feel like it.

You can read further details here:

https://eu.ixquick.com/eng/press/pr-ixquick-fights-data-retention-policy.html

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-566344

Britain should oppose this intrusive measure.

Amendments to Digital Economy Act 2010

At the current moment parts the the Digital Economy Act 2010 introduced by Lord Peter Mandelson on 8th of April which  is simply unenforceable and too draconian in statue to implerment properly.  The following changes which I propose would benefit not only Internet providers but aswell compensate Industries who lose said money to digital piracy. 

Proposel

  • The right to download copyrighted work for home use, educational purposes without any economical benefit or the intent to redistribute.
  • Creation of a new independant government body of which handles copyright on digital and internet use of said copyrighted materials and which collects payment of monies collected from a new tax .
  • A marginal tax all Internet providers would charge on top of all subcriptions made and passed to the new independant government body who then distributes the monies to the various lobbies who own the said copyright.

Why is this idea important?

At the current moment parts the the Digital Economy Act 2010 introduced by Lord Peter Mandelson on 8th of April which  is simply unenforceable and too draconian in statue to implerment properly.  The following changes which I propose would benefit not only Internet providers but aswell compensate Industries who lose said money to digital piracy. 

Proposel

  • The right to download copyrighted work for home use, educational purposes without any economical benefit or the intent to redistribute.
  • Creation of a new independant government body of which handles copyright on digital and internet use of said copyrighted materials and which collects payment of monies collected from a new tax .
  • A marginal tax all Internet providers would charge on top of all subcriptions made and passed to the new independant government body who then distributes the monies to the various lobbies who own the said copyright.

Digital Economy Act (Unscrupilous Lawyers)

Hi,

I have been a victim of mis-identification due to the misuse of this proposed law (which has not been sanctioned / implimented yet).

I have been accused of downloading an MP3 Song, and am in litigation procedings with a company called ACS LAW after being blatantly accused of this transaction, and they are trying to blackmail me into paying them £295.00, using my IP address as proof, this can easily be faked, of altered by someone with access to hacking knowlege, or my wireless has possibly been "piggybacked", or someone hid behind a proxy to perform this.

I have the beckground knowlege to know that this accusation would be unsound in any court in the UK at the moment, and am fighting this with a denial letter, if necessary with legal solicitors on my side, who's advice I have since sought, that specialise in IP dealings (Intellectual Property), but fear that the Digital Economy Act's introduction will open the door for many more unsavoury law firms that extort money out of fear of litigation without proof.

Why is this idea important?

Hi,

I have been a victim of mis-identification due to the misuse of this proposed law (which has not been sanctioned / implimented yet).

I have been accused of downloading an MP3 Song, and am in litigation procedings with a company called ACS LAW after being blatantly accused of this transaction, and they are trying to blackmail me into paying them £295.00, using my IP address as proof, this can easily be faked, of altered by someone with access to hacking knowlege, or my wireless has possibly been "piggybacked", or someone hid behind a proxy to perform this.

I have the beckground knowlege to know that this accusation would be unsound in any court in the UK at the moment, and am fighting this with a denial letter, if necessary with legal solicitors on my side, who's advice I have since sought, that specialise in IP dealings (Intellectual Property), but fear that the Digital Economy Act's introduction will open the door for many more unsavoury law firms that extort money out of fear of litigation without proof.

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.

Remove Internet Censorship by the State

To remove censorship of internet content.

Whether I look at extreme right or left wing political literature, or details of how to grow cannabis, or videos of people being killed, the actual act of my clicking hasn't harmed anyone.

Production of the material may still be illegal, following the advice in the material may still be illegal, but the act of clicking and typing shouldn't be.

Why is this idea important?

To remove censorship of internet content.

Whether I look at extreme right or left wing political literature, or details of how to grow cannabis, or videos of people being killed, the actual act of my clicking hasn't harmed anyone.

Production of the material may still be illegal, following the advice in the material may still be illegal, but the act of clicking and typing shouldn't be.

Internet freedom is crucial for democracy

The Internet was built as a tool for co-operation and has so far survived multiple attempts at regulation and control for political, idealogical and financial reasons . Decisions on issues limiting the freedom of users need to be public, informed and properly debated. Vested interests struggling to retain out-moded business models (I'm thinking of the music industry in particular) should be informed that they cannot have it both ways: if the market says that consumers (meaning us mugs) have found a more desirable way of doing things then the suppliers must adapt or perish, and that the public purse is not there to prop them up. It's a free market, isn't it, or is there something I've missed? Also government should not use the opportunity offered in order to impose political control at the expense of legal control.

Why is this idea important?

The Internet was built as a tool for co-operation and has so far survived multiple attempts at regulation and control for political, idealogical and financial reasons . Decisions on issues limiting the freedom of users need to be public, informed and properly debated. Vested interests struggling to retain out-moded business models (I'm thinking of the music industry in particular) should be informed that they cannot have it both ways: if the market says that consumers (meaning us mugs) have found a more desirable way of doing things then the suppliers must adapt or perish, and that the public purse is not there to prop them up. It's a free market, isn't it, or is there something I've missed? Also government should not use the opportunity offered in order to impose political control at the expense of legal control.

Give 50% of Govt ICT contracts to companies with turnovers under £20m

It has been reported that the Govt is paying £105m for the HMRC website over a period of three years. By any benchmark, HMRC is paying a top price for this. It has also been reported that 85% of Govt IT contracts go to only 6-8 large suppliers. Cut free the Govt ICT marketplace from this overpriced restricted supply chain where the major barrier to entry is not price or capability but a tendering process that puts off a lot of capable smaller companies from going through the bidding process. This can be done easily by reserving 50% of Govt ICT contracts for smaller SME's. This would not be anticompetitive as at least 50% of the UK's ICT industry outside Govt resides in these smaller SME's anyway. I plead to the UK Government, save money, get better ICT systems, stimulate economic growth, break up the current monopoly ICT supply chain.

Why is this idea important?

It has been reported that the Govt is paying £105m for the HMRC website over a period of three years. By any benchmark, HMRC is paying a top price for this. It has also been reported that 85% of Govt IT contracts go to only 6-8 large suppliers. Cut free the Govt ICT marketplace from this overpriced restricted supply chain where the major barrier to entry is not price or capability but a tendering process that puts off a lot of capable smaller companies from going through the bidding process. This can be done easily by reserving 50% of Govt ICT contracts for smaller SME's. This would not be anticompetitive as at least 50% of the UK's ICT industry outside Govt resides in these smaller SME's anyway. I plead to the UK Government, save money, get better ICT systems, stimulate economic growth, break up the current monopoly ICT supply chain.

Repeal the Digitial Economy Bill – new thinking required on filesharing

The Digital Economy Bill should be repealed for two reasons:

1) it is rushed and vague, and did not receive appropriate review in order to fully assess the validity and impact of it's unclear proposals

2) it representatives 20th century thinking being applied to a 21st century way of life, we should be be innovative and forward thinking in this matter

Why is this idea important?

The Digital Economy Bill should be repealed for two reasons:

1) it is rushed and vague, and did not receive appropriate review in order to fully assess the validity and impact of it's unclear proposals

2) it representatives 20th century thinking being applied to a 21st century way of life, we should be be innovative and forward thinking in this matter

Internet Radio – not DAB

I foolishly bought a DAB radio 4 or 5 years ago. What a waste of £200 that was. Reception is appalling.
DAB is '80s technology, superceded in the '90s and overtaken by the internet in the noughties. It's an idea out of it's time and needs to be binned.
Look to the internet (mobile and fixed) and iPlayer for the future. Make appliances wifi compatible. Beef up the broadband and we could end up making and exporting internet compatible devices to the rest of the world.

 

Why is this idea important?

I foolishly bought a DAB radio 4 or 5 years ago. What a waste of £200 that was. Reception is appalling.
DAB is '80s technology, superceded in the '90s and overtaken by the internet in the noughties. It's an idea out of it's time and needs to be binned.
Look to the internet (mobile and fixed) and iPlayer for the future. Make appliances wifi compatible. Beef up the broadband and we could end up making and exporting internet compatible devices to the rest of the world.

 

Make easy the use of encryption and digital signing by all net users

Modify the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act  to make use of encryption not taboo or legally risky.

Remove whatever trade restrictions are stoping strong encryption being standardised.

Encourage commonly available encryption and education so that people understand it.

Why is this idea important?

Modify the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act  to make use of encryption not taboo or legally risky.

Remove whatever trade restrictions are stoping strong encryption being standardised.

Encourage commonly available encryption and education so that people understand it.

Voting System

Before a referendom on voting reform can we have some radical new ideas for a truly democratic system. There is no way would I put my cross alongside some of the existing lying, cheating, clueless, arrogant, greedy, and generally corrupt politicians for a first choice, let alone second choice.    So I am deprived of a voice.

Existing politicians must be shown the full contempt that I believe much of the British Public hold for them. Too often they read into election results totally preposterous personal interpretations of peoples intentions.

The internet is available to most people, at home, colleges, workplaces, libraries etc. I would propose that "government by the people" could, by using that technology, become a reality.

I can see a time when the voters are advised the time of any particular debate. If they wish to take part they can log in and submit there ideas.   Independent adjudicators could sift these ideas into some order of relevence and content and introduce the ideas for discussion.    After the debate parliament makes a recommendation and the electorate can vote yes or no.

I'm no brain surgeon but it seems easy enough to me.

In no time at all we could be rid of the EU, Elf an Safety, Out of Border Conflicts, Road Tax, murderers and a million other unwanted gems. And maybe,   just maybe,    we could be rid of the  prementioned politicians and replace them with honest administrators working 5 days weekly 9-5 for a realistic salary.

I suspect the real brains out there could work out an even better way to bring democracy back to the people.  I'm all ears….

 

Why is this idea important?

Before a referendom on voting reform can we have some radical new ideas for a truly democratic system. There is no way would I put my cross alongside some of the existing lying, cheating, clueless, arrogant, greedy, and generally corrupt politicians for a first choice, let alone second choice.    So I am deprived of a voice.

Existing politicians must be shown the full contempt that I believe much of the British Public hold for them. Too often they read into election results totally preposterous personal interpretations of peoples intentions.

The internet is available to most people, at home, colleges, workplaces, libraries etc. I would propose that "government by the people" could, by using that technology, become a reality.

I can see a time when the voters are advised the time of any particular debate. If they wish to take part they can log in and submit there ideas.   Independent adjudicators could sift these ideas into some order of relevence and content and introduce the ideas for discussion.    After the debate parliament makes a recommendation and the electorate can vote yes or no.

I'm no brain surgeon but it seems easy enough to me.

In no time at all we could be rid of the EU, Elf an Safety, Out of Border Conflicts, Road Tax, murderers and a million other unwanted gems. And maybe,   just maybe,    we could be rid of the  prementioned politicians and replace them with honest administrators working 5 days weekly 9-5 for a realistic salary.

I suspect the real brains out there could work out an even better way to bring democracy back to the people.  I'm all ears….

 

Net Neutrality

Anyone running an internet website, webshow, or other internet based communication in any form should be entitled to the exact same speed of communication to their customers as anyone else.

No ISP should be allowed to slow down selectively anyones website, for whatever reason.

Why is this idea important?

Anyone running an internet website, webshow, or other internet based communication in any form should be entitled to the exact same speed of communication to their customers as anyone else.

No ISP should be allowed to slow down selectively anyones website, for whatever reason.

Withdraw government endorsement of the Internet Watch Foundation

ISPs would no longer be required to use the blacklist of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) if they want a government contract as happens now.

Why is this idea important?

ISPs would no longer be required to use the blacklist of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) if they want a government contract as happens now.

Make ISP’s, Browsers and Seach Engine Companies more responible for what they provide.

There has been a general outcry on the behaviour of certain countries on the censorship of the internet.  Notably with Googles exploits in China.

Now Turkey is doing the same.  Technology does exist as proved with Googles relationship with China that stops Web pages from being viewed which is deemed to be unacceptable.

Aside from the political reasons, you can understand why this occurs.  Recently Google mapped all the streets in the country (and it intends to cover the world.), in doing so they also mapped poorly or unprotected wi-fi networks and in the process accessed data.from some of those sites.

Google says it was an accident, For the life of me I cannot see how software can be accidently written.  No programmer worth his salt would use a function within his program without knowledge of what that function does.

War driving is a term that describes people who drive around with laptops mapping poorly or unprotected sites so that others can use them. (Sounds familiar)

While I can hear the howls of protest I do think that sometimes society does need protecting from itself.

In my opinion the Hosting of pornographic sites can and should be stopped at source.  Google cureently has filters that can check for unacceptable images and or text. But it is left to the user to implement it.

If you use safe browseing you more often than not negate that filter.

There are numerous incidents which can be searched for which encourage the breaking of the law.  Either the search engine provider blocks the search or the Web Page is closed down.

If you doubt what I say Google "WEP Crack"  where you will encounter numerous web sites showing you how to "HacK" into a network,

ISP's Browser s and Search engines must be more responsible for there actions.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

There has been a general outcry on the behaviour of certain countries on the censorship of the internet.  Notably with Googles exploits in China.

Now Turkey is doing the same.  Technology does exist as proved with Googles relationship with China that stops Web pages from being viewed which is deemed to be unacceptable.

Aside from the political reasons, you can understand why this occurs.  Recently Google mapped all the streets in the country (and it intends to cover the world.), in doing so they also mapped poorly or unprotected wi-fi networks and in the process accessed data.from some of those sites.

Google says it was an accident, For the life of me I cannot see how software can be accidently written.  No programmer worth his salt would use a function within his program without knowledge of what that function does.

War driving is a term that describes people who drive around with laptops mapping poorly or unprotected sites so that others can use them. (Sounds familiar)

While I can hear the howls of protest I do think that sometimes society does need protecting from itself.

In my opinion the Hosting of pornographic sites can and should be stopped at source.  Google cureently has filters that can check for unacceptable images and or text. But it is left to the user to implement it.

If you use safe browseing you more often than not negate that filter.

There are numerous incidents which can be searched for which encourage the breaking of the law.  Either the search engine provider blocks the search or the Web Page is closed down.

If you doubt what I say Google "WEP Crack"  where you will encounter numerous web sites showing you how to "HacK" into a network,

ISP's Browser s and Search engines must be more responsible for there actions.

 

 

 

Open up the BBC’s archives

Any BBC programme, 10 years or older, should be freely available on the BBC website to stream and/or download, with no DRM. Any licence should be in the form of copyleft i.e. you can copy, share, modify, distort, clip or whatever any programme on there. The only restriction should be that those who make use of the BBC's content in this way simply state where they got the content from. The internet is not total anarchy, so most people would be happy to give the BBC credit.

Why is this idea important?

Any BBC programme, 10 years or older, should be freely available on the BBC website to stream and/or download, with no DRM. Any licence should be in the form of copyleft i.e. you can copy, share, modify, distort, clip or whatever any programme on there. The only restriction should be that those who make use of the BBC's content in this way simply state where they got the content from. The internet is not total anarchy, so most people would be happy to give the BBC credit.

Website directories/networks for the Self-Employed

Currently a website directory/network for professional/qualified/skilled self-employed people to advertise their services, to publish references and examples of past services, to join informal overlapping teams for specific tasks, to build and maintain relationships with past current and future customers, is classified as an Employment Agency by the Employment Agency and Employment Business Regulations when it is in fact a directory network publisher. 

The current classification imposes a vast bureaucratic cost on each user and each task.  The result is this revolutionary business model doesn't exist in the UK.

Why is this idea important?

Currently a website directory/network for professional/qualified/skilled self-employed people to advertise their services, to publish references and examples of past services, to join informal overlapping teams for specific tasks, to build and maintain relationships with past current and future customers, is classified as an Employment Agency by the Employment Agency and Employment Business Regulations when it is in fact a directory network publisher. 

The current classification imposes a vast bureaucratic cost on each user and each task.  The result is this revolutionary business model doesn't exist in the UK.