TV licence fee should be reclassified as a civil offence – not a criminal offence

Please support amendments intended to ensure that the TV licence  fee is recoverable as a civil matter only, following non-payment and failure to respond to a notice issued by OFCOM – not a criminal offence.  This is an unfair and outdated penalty.

The television licence fee is a "despised compulsory impost" and should be scrapped.  The annual charge and the BBC should be funded by other means.

Why is this idea important?

Please support amendments intended to ensure that the TV licence  fee is recoverable as a civil matter only, following non-payment and failure to respond to a notice issued by OFCOM – not a criminal offence.  This is an unfair and outdated penalty.

The television licence fee is a "despised compulsory impost" and should be scrapped.  The annual charge and the BBC should be funded by other means.

Repeal the Digital Economy Bill

The digital economy bill bypasses due process.

Before any sanction is taken against an individual there should be a judicial process and not action taken by any for profit organisations.

This act is unfair and was rushed through at the end of the previous parliament. It should be repealled and re-written.

Why is this idea important?

The digital economy bill bypasses due process.

Before any sanction is taken against an individual there should be a judicial process and not action taken by any for profit organisations.

This act is unfair and was rushed through at the end of the previous parliament. It should be repealled and re-written.

Stop recording our emails and phone calls

One of the craziest ideas the Labour government brought in was a requirement for ISPs and telephone companies to keep records of all our phone calls and emails and for them to be available to the government. That law should be repealed. If security services need to listen in to terror suspects, then that should be authorised on a case by case basis with proper judicial process.

Why is this idea important?

One of the craziest ideas the Labour government brought in was a requirement for ISPs and telephone companies to keep records of all our phone calls and emails and for them to be available to the government. That law should be repealed. If security services need to listen in to terror suspects, then that should be authorised on a case by case basis with proper judicial process.

Recording emails, website visits and text

The last government wanted to record who we email, who we text, and what websites we use. It was intended that all this could be used for the prevention and detecting of serious crime.

Whilst it I think it is a good idea to know who is visiting sites that tell you how to build bombs etc, I feel that it is highly intrusive to record if we visited a site about things like aclohol problems, sites that help with male ompetence etc.

My idea is that the law should be changed to exclude websites and pone numbers that are set up to help people. This would mean that whilst the police could find out who called a suspected bomber a few times before an attack, the police would not be able to see if someone had accessed a web site that offers help or called Childline, crime stoppers etc. It would also mean that parents would know that calling someone for help with their alocohol problems etc would not be passed on to others, such as social services.

Why is this idea important?

The last government wanted to record who we email, who we text, and what websites we use. It was intended that all this could be used for the prevention and detecting of serious crime.

Whilst it I think it is a good idea to know who is visiting sites that tell you how to build bombs etc, I feel that it is highly intrusive to record if we visited a site about things like aclohol problems, sites that help with male ompetence etc.

My idea is that the law should be changed to exclude websites and pone numbers that are set up to help people. This would mean that whilst the police could find out who called a suspected bomber a few times before an attack, the police would not be able to see if someone had accessed a web site that offers help or called Childline, crime stoppers etc. It would also mean that parents would know that calling someone for help with their alocohol problems etc would not be passed on to others, such as social services.

Remove internet censorship by the State (except for child pornography)

There are a number of laws in existence which make it illegal to possess information (images, text, videos) obtained from the internet.  The nature of modern technology, including caching, means that simply visiting the sites – intentionally or by accident – puts you in breach of the law. These are an infringement of my rights to read and think what I wish.  

The exception to this is pornographic material involving children, where genuine harm is done in its creation – I could not support legalisation of that.  

I would also invite Mr Clegg to consider whether our democracy is so fragile that material banned for the purposes of state security presents a genuine threat.

Why is this idea important?

There are a number of laws in existence which make it illegal to possess information (images, text, videos) obtained from the internet.  The nature of modern technology, including caching, means that simply visiting the sites – intentionally or by accident – puts you in breach of the law. These are an infringement of my rights to read and think what I wish.  

The exception to this is pornographic material involving children, where genuine harm is done in its creation – I could not support legalisation of that.  

I would also invite Mr Clegg to consider whether our democracy is so fragile that material banned for the purposes of state security presents a genuine threat.

Repeal Digital Economy Act Sections 9-18; rewrite or repeal 3-8

Repeal Digital Economy Act Sections 9-18 (disconnection of users and website blocking); rewrite or repeal 3-8 (letter writing to alleged infringers)

Why is this idea important?

Repeal Digital Economy Act Sections 9-18 (disconnection of users and website blocking); rewrite or repeal 3-8 (letter writing to alleged infringers)

Repeal the Dangerous Images Act

This appears to be a scary law where you can be forced to have your computer inspected and if they find something they don't like sitting in your temporary internet files, you can end up in jail.

Doesn't even matter if it was sent to you or a hacker put it there – a single image of tony the tiger  in an uncompromising position sent by a unknown person can land you in court.

The requirement of the law is often that it's sexually arousing – which as this varies from person to person is a thought crime.

It too often seems that the people who like this law are raging perverts who think everything is sexual and want the law to protect themselves from themselves.

We don't need nannying like that.

Why is this idea important?

This appears to be a scary law where you can be forced to have your computer inspected and if they find something they don't like sitting in your temporary internet files, you can end up in jail.

Doesn't even matter if it was sent to you or a hacker put it there – a single image of tony the tiger  in an uncompromising position sent by a unknown person can land you in court.

The requirement of the law is often that it's sexually arousing – which as this varies from person to person is a thought crime.

It too often seems that the people who like this law are raging perverts who think everything is sexual and want the law to protect themselves from themselves.

We don't need nannying like that.

Encryption laws

Annex I Section 5 Part 2 ("Information Security") of the UK Strategic Export Control Lists (Dual-Use Items) should be removed, as in today's connected digital world, encryption should not be classed as "Dual-Use".

Why is this idea important?

Annex I Section 5 Part 2 ("Information Security") of the UK Strategic Export Control Lists (Dual-Use Items) should be removed, as in today's connected digital world, encryption should not be classed as "Dual-Use".

Scrap Copyright for personal/non-profit use

Be it Art, Music, Film, Software, reports.. it's all data in one way or another which whilst the creator should have a right to make money from it and control usage by business, all data should be free for personal use.

That doesn't mean eg.  you aren't allowed to put shareware restrictions on software but if you do get hold of a full version via P2P then it shouldn't be illegal.

If someone is profiting (eg. selling DVDs in the pub) then this should be punished harder

Why is this idea important?

Be it Art, Music, Film, Software, reports.. it's all data in one way or another which whilst the creator should have a right to make money from it and control usage by business, all data should be free for personal use.

That doesn't mean eg.  you aren't allowed to put shareware restrictions on software but if you do get hold of a full version via P2P then it shouldn't be illegal.

If someone is profiting (eg. selling DVDs in the pub) then this should be punished harder

Scrap Copyright for personal/non-profit use

Be it Art, Music, Film, Software, reports.. it's all data in one way or another which whilst the creator should have a right to make money from it and control usage by business, all data should be free for personal use.

That doesn't mean eg.  you aren't allowed to put shareware restrictions on software but if you do get hold of a full version via P2P then it shouldn't be illegal.

If someone is profiting (eg. selling DVDs in the pub) then this should be punished harder

Why is this idea important?

Be it Art, Music, Film, Software, reports.. it's all data in one way or another which whilst the creator should have a right to make money from it and control usage by business, all data should be free for personal use.

That doesn't mean eg.  you aren't allowed to put shareware restrictions on software but if you do get hold of a full version via P2P then it shouldn't be illegal.

If someone is profiting (eg. selling DVDs in the pub) then this should be punished harder

Stop broadband providers calling a service “Unlimited” unless it really is.

Many broadband internet and other service providers claim to offer an "Unlimited" service that is in reality nothing of the sort. There is either a small print 'fair usage' policy which may not even tell you what their idea of fair usage is, or your connection may be cut off or restricted. You may even be unexpectedly be charged without notice (especially for mobile broadband)

I would ban broadband providers who cut off or charge their customers for using the word "Unlimited" and require them to give explicit quantities of data in their marketing materials, and to warn customers before any excess use charges apply.

Why is this idea important?

Many broadband internet and other service providers claim to offer an "Unlimited" service that is in reality nothing of the sort. There is either a small print 'fair usage' policy which may not even tell you what their idea of fair usage is, or your connection may be cut off or restricted. You may even be unexpectedly be charged without notice (especially for mobile broadband)

I would ban broadband providers who cut off or charge their customers for using the word "Unlimited" and require them to give explicit quantities of data in their marketing materials, and to warn customers before any excess use charges apply.

Make access to the Internet a fundamental human right

Access to the Internet should be recognized as a fundamental human right, available to everyone. The law should also lay down a minimum standard of service.

The British government has agreed to provide everyone with a minimum 2Mbps broadband connection by 2012 but it is a commitment rather than a legally binding ruling.

Why is this idea important?

Access to the Internet should be recognized as a fundamental human right, available to everyone. The law should also lay down a minimum standard of service.

The British government has agreed to provide everyone with a minimum 2Mbps broadband connection by 2012 but it is a commitment rather than a legally binding ruling.

Repeal the Digital Economy Act 2010

The Digital Economy Act is a massive insult to our civil liberties and should be repealed in its entirety, subject to the less objectionable clauses being redrafted and discussed democratically in the Houses of Parliament to pave the way for a proper digital economy which does not punish innocent people.

Why is this idea important?

The Digital Economy Act is a massive insult to our civil liberties and should be repealed in its entirety, subject to the less objectionable clauses being redrafted and discussed democratically in the Houses of Parliament to pave the way for a proper digital economy which does not punish innocent people.

Mandatory disclosure of loss of data / security incidents

When an organisation looses, misplaces or abuses data held about you or when an organisation is hacked, attacked or circumvented they should have to report such things to the Information Commissioner, it's shareholders (if plc), the police (where a crime has been committed) and the individuals who's data may have been abused.

Why is this idea important?

When an organisation looses, misplaces or abuses data held about you or when an organisation is hacked, attacked or circumvented they should have to report such things to the Information Commissioner, it's shareholders (if plc), the police (where a crime has been committed) and the individuals who's data may have been abused.

Digital Economy Act

The Digital Economy Act was pushed through the parliament in the washup by the previous administration. It was a bill that was lobbied for extensively, by money-concerned corporations, with little to none of the ISPs having to enforce the Act being consulted.

It should be repealed unconditionally.

Why is this idea important?

The Digital Economy Act was pushed through the parliament in the washup by the previous administration. It was a bill that was lobbied for extensively, by money-concerned corporations, with little to none of the ISPs having to enforce the Act being consulted.

It should be repealed unconditionally.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

This law is unessessary – we already have laws to prevent people committing acts of sexual violence towards others.  This law prevents people making or viewing a record of acts which occur between consenting adults. 

Why is this idea important?

This law is unessessary – we already have laws to prevent people committing acts of sexual violence towards others.  This law prevents people making or viewing a record of acts which occur between consenting adults. 

Restore the right to fair trial for online copyright infringement

Since the Digital Economy Act (DEA) was passed rapidly at the end of the last government, there is an assumption that you are guilty of copyright infringement unless you can prove your innocence. Copyright holders can make an allegation to your ISP that your are infringing copyright, and you automatically go onto a "watch list" of infringers unless you can prove that it wasn't you.

Please repeal the sections of the DEA relating to online copyright infringement and restore the requirement for copyright holders to prove your guilt, rather than leaving you to prove your innocence.

Why is this idea important?

Since the Digital Economy Act (DEA) was passed rapidly at the end of the last government, there is an assumption that you are guilty of copyright infringement unless you can prove your innocence. Copyright holders can make an allegation to your ISP that your are infringing copyright, and you automatically go onto a "watch list" of infringers unless you can prove that it wasn't you.

Please repeal the sections of the DEA relating to online copyright infringement and restore the requirement for copyright holders to prove your guilt, rather than leaving you to prove your innocence.