Cheating UK

All the Indian it companies are bringing alot of professionals on intercompany transfers to UK.

1.they only pay allowance to them but in their work permit they show income nearer to 40k at the time of visa application,but they will not pay taxes to gov of UK

2.they are killing IT industry in UK.

3.if a guy comes on TCS intercompany transfer and works for one company in UK for 3 months then TCS is using the same person in another company for some other time.All the it companies are using intercompany transfer as tier1

4.intercomapny transfer should be specific for one company like TCS-VISA for 6 months not like TCS for 2 years

5.all intercompany transfer professional should pay taxes in UK.

Why is this idea important?

All the Indian it companies are bringing alot of professionals on intercompany transfers to UK.

1.they only pay allowance to them but in their work permit they show income nearer to 40k at the time of visa application,but they will not pay taxes to gov of UK

2.they are killing IT industry in UK.

3.if a guy comes on TCS intercompany transfer and works for one company in UK for 3 months then TCS is using the same person in another company for some other time.All the it companies are using intercompany transfer as tier1

4.intercomapny transfer should be specific for one company like TCS-VISA for 6 months not like TCS for 2 years

5.all intercompany transfer professional should pay taxes in UK.

A central government resource for IT

Parliament should have it's own internal IT sourcing department charged with minimising costs by making systems as common as possible.

Why is it that every new government initiative has its own website, and each of them is completely different?  Surely it must be costing the taxpayer money, and it looks rubbish too. 

It is not beyond the wit of man to run one IT system for all government web sites, and still have them work in the way that is requrired.   Much of it could use open source software. 

I'm not talking about major projects like health databases (don't get me started). This department could have oversight for that, but it's primary use would be to control little projects like this website.

 

(I admit I have no idea if the government has it's own It department.   But if they have, why does every government website look as if it was coded by someone different, and why do none of them work very well?)

 

Why is this idea important?

Parliament should have it's own internal IT sourcing department charged with minimising costs by making systems as common as possible.

Why is it that every new government initiative has its own website, and each of them is completely different?  Surely it must be costing the taxpayer money, and it looks rubbish too. 

It is not beyond the wit of man to run one IT system for all government web sites, and still have them work in the way that is requrired.   Much of it could use open source software. 

I'm not talking about major projects like health databases (don't get me started). This department could have oversight for that, but it's primary use would be to control little projects like this website.

 

(I admit I have no idea if the government has it's own It department.   But if they have, why does every government website look as if it was coded by someone different, and why do none of them work very well?)

 

Copyright modification for internet use

Currently copyright makes it illegal by default to use bits downloaded and uploaded via internet. This default behaviour that all bits on the internet are illegal by default and you need to ask a permission to use those bits from someone other side of the world. This should be modified so that bits are legal by default and illegal activity happens only when something more serious than normal internet use is happening. The limits of the copyright protection should be checked. Why current system is not working is because anyone could be successfully sued based on current rules and it takes huge amount of effort to avoid those arbitrary restrictions that are preventing _all_ use of bits downloaded over internet.

Why is this idea important?

Currently copyright makes it illegal by default to use bits downloaded and uploaded via internet. This default behaviour that all bits on the internet are illegal by default and you need to ask a permission to use those bits from someone other side of the world. This should be modified so that bits are legal by default and illegal activity happens only when something more serious than normal internet use is happening. The limits of the copyright protection should be checked. Why current system is not working is because anyone could be successfully sued based on current rules and it takes huge amount of effort to avoid those arbitrary restrictions that are preventing _all_ use of bits downloaded over internet.

Copyright changes

Start to reverse the escalations in copyright legislation. For example reduce the period of time, limit the situations and/or periods wherin copyright can be transferred from the original holder to companies.

Why is this idea important?

Start to reverse the escalations in copyright legislation. For example reduce the period of time, limit the situations and/or periods wherin copyright can be transferred from the original holder to companies.

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" 

Complete Invasion of Privacy

Discard the Digital Economy Act, it’s a complete invasion of privacy. Indroduced by an unelected offcial at the behest of media giants. How many millions are being wasted on Ofcom strong-arming ISPs to SPY on their clients. Media giants can’t control the game anymore so this is their answer, a complete invasion of privacy introduced by Mandleson. Who elected Mandelson to introduce policy? No one did, therefore it is illegal and unjust.

Why is this idea important?

Discard the Digital Economy Act, it’s a complete invasion of privacy. Indroduced by an unelected offcial at the behest of media giants. How many millions are being wasted on Ofcom strong-arming ISPs to SPY on their clients. Media giants can’t control the game anymore so this is their answer, a complete invasion of privacy introduced by Mandleson. Who elected Mandelson to introduce policy? No one did, therefore it is illegal and unjust.

Shared Information Technology

Why do all Governement Depts need their own IT departments, policies and systems. Why can't many services be shared – one network for communications, one procurement department (do each dept really need to decide what colour of laptop they have), shared data centres etc. etc.

There are probably similar communities/types of dept that could be grouped and procure of delivery their own services on sharded basis = for example why can't all local goverment in a region use the same systems and shared services.

It requires ploiticalk will and proper management – no good if lots of committees take years to get agreement on what they will have – by then the IT worls will have left them behind. Give someone the responsibility to make it happen and tell each dept what they are going to get – i.e. what the tax payer can afford

Why is this idea important?

Why do all Governement Depts need their own IT departments, policies and systems. Why can't many services be shared – one network for communications, one procurement department (do each dept really need to decide what colour of laptop they have), shared data centres etc. etc.

There are probably similar communities/types of dept that could be grouped and procure of delivery their own services on sharded basis = for example why can't all local goverment in a region use the same systems and shared services.

It requires ploiticalk will and proper management – no good if lots of committees take years to get agreement on what they will have – by then the IT worls will have left them behind. Give someone the responsibility to make it happen and tell each dept what they are going to get – i.e. what the tax payer can afford

Prevent foreign software companies monitoring computer programs

Scrolling through the licence agreement for a piece of software pre-installed on my new BlackBerry, I was appalled to find that the software company was telling me that I could not use it unless I agreed to monitoring.

The software company monitors usage to ensure that users comply with US law.

Why is this idea important?

Scrolling through the licence agreement for a piece of software pre-installed on my new BlackBerry, I was appalled to find that the software company was telling me that I could not use it unless I agreed to monitoring.

The software company monitors usage to ensure that users comply with US law.

DEbill

DEbill passed under the Labour government has major implications on civil liberties? I also believe the Conservative and Liberal Democrats were both against the bill?

Why is this idea important?

DEbill passed under the Labour government has major implications on civil liberties? I also believe the Conservative and Liberal Democrats were both against the bill?

Remove “Windows tax” on new computers

This "law" has not been created by the government, but has been established by a corporation which has created a monopoly in the software and computing industries.

In a country where values such as consumer freedom, innovation, free trade and competition are held with utmost importance, why is one technology firm allowed to carry-out practices which are essentially illegal?

There have been many anti-trust suits filed and won against Microsoft by the EU and the USA, but these practices continue.

When one purchases a new PC, one is forced to buy Microsoft Windows for £99-230. This is included in the price of the computer and the consumer has no choice in the matter. The UELA then states that the consumer may receive a refund if the software is not used, but this is almost impossible to attain and there have been only a handful of cases in the UK where consumers have received a refund for their unused software.

Microsoft then creates a further grievance to the consumer by not including office software (which is essential on any computer) and making its operating system susceptible to viruses. Individuals or businesses then have to pay £130-430 for office software and £50 a year for antivirus software subscriptions. Consumers should have the option to chose not to buy Windows or these products and chose a free operating system (Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris).

These costs are then replicated in the public sector. Taxpayers are being forced to pay for these software licenses on all computers used in the public sector. If schools, hospitals, the police etc. switched to Free and Open Source Software, it could save the taxpayer a bundle and the money could be put to better uses such as employing more staff in schools or making computers available to children with learning disabilities.

The French police lowered its IT costs by 70% by switching to Linux – http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/03/french-police-saves-millions-of-euros-by-adopting-ubuntu.ars

Small businesses could also benefit from lowering IT costs, especially in these tough financial times.

The solution: remove this de-facto law/tax by creating a new law that prohibits hardware vendors from bundling software with computers. Individuals/businesses/government would then have the choice between purchasing software or using free software.

Why is this idea important?

This "law" has not been created by the government, but has been established by a corporation which has created a monopoly in the software and computing industries.

In a country where values such as consumer freedom, innovation, free trade and competition are held with utmost importance, why is one technology firm allowed to carry-out practices which are essentially illegal?

There have been many anti-trust suits filed and won against Microsoft by the EU and the USA, but these practices continue.

When one purchases a new PC, one is forced to buy Microsoft Windows for £99-230. This is included in the price of the computer and the consumer has no choice in the matter. The UELA then states that the consumer may receive a refund if the software is not used, but this is almost impossible to attain and there have been only a handful of cases in the UK where consumers have received a refund for their unused software.

Microsoft then creates a further grievance to the consumer by not including office software (which is essential on any computer) and making its operating system susceptible to viruses. Individuals or businesses then have to pay £130-430 for office software and £50 a year for antivirus software subscriptions. Consumers should have the option to chose not to buy Windows or these products and chose a free operating system (Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris).

These costs are then replicated in the public sector. Taxpayers are being forced to pay for these software licenses on all computers used in the public sector. If schools, hospitals, the police etc. switched to Free and Open Source Software, it could save the taxpayer a bundle and the money could be put to better uses such as employing more staff in schools or making computers available to children with learning disabilities.

The French police lowered its IT costs by 70% by switching to Linux – http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/03/french-police-saves-millions-of-euros-by-adopting-ubuntu.ars

Small businesses could also benefit from lowering IT costs, especially in these tough financial times.

The solution: remove this de-facto law/tax by creating a new law that prohibits hardware vendors from bundling software with computers. Individuals/businesses/government would then have the choice between purchasing software or using free software.

Repeal Digital Economy Act

The Digital Economy Act was brought into force as one of the last acts of the outgoing Labour government, with the support of the Tories and against the wishes of the LibDems. This undemocratically enacted act must be repealed and the parliament must be given a proper debate about its future.

Why is this idea important?

The Digital Economy Act was brought into force as one of the last acts of the outgoing Labour government, with the support of the Tories and against the wishes of the LibDems. This undemocratically enacted act must be repealed and the parliament must be given a proper debate about its future.

Repeal the digital economy act

Repeal the act as it operates badly.  It's known to be bad law.

 

Several people have suggested this.  it's unfair.  There are 19 entries if you search here for digital economy act and all are against it, but it is not possible to vote on any.  The system on those is broken.  Interesting! Just on an act about IT!   So I am suggesting it again as it is also not possible to comment now on any of the others.

 

And yes I do know how to vote and have done so on other items.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the act as it operates badly.  It's known to be bad law.

 

Several people have suggested this.  it's unfair.  There are 19 entries if you search here for digital economy act and all are against it, but it is not possible to vote on any.  The system on those is broken.  Interesting! Just on an act about IT!   So I am suggesting it again as it is also not possible to comment now on any of the others.

 

And yes I do know how to vote and have done so on other items.

Change the way in which public sector IT projects are handled

 

Having a preferred supplier list for IT projects has led to the following issues:

  • The best company or team may never get an opportunity to bid for work. This not only restricts free trade but also stops the public sector from getting the best price and service
  • Currently there are individuals and companies acting as brokers – they take a cut, just because they are already on the Preference Supplier List (PSL) – they do not do the work
  • IT project experts are not consulted for the likely success of what may appear to be the most cost effective solution

The government should set up a body which uses IT professionals to review IT projects and contracts. This body could be made up of volunteers (I am sure many in my field would offer their time) who review the projects at inception and throughout the process until completion. This body would ensure that projects were broken down into manageable chunks which deliver real value in increments

Complex software and systems are implemented all of the time in the city and it is very rare that we go to the board without a staggered plan – the public sector needs to learn from the people who have successfully developed the major systems which power our economy

An IT community project should be set-up to investigate how IT could be used to improve the efficiency of our police force and councils

Why is this idea important?

 

Having a preferred supplier list for IT projects has led to the following issues:

  • The best company or team may never get an opportunity to bid for work. This not only restricts free trade but also stops the public sector from getting the best price and service
  • Currently there are individuals and companies acting as brokers – they take a cut, just because they are already on the Preference Supplier List (PSL) – they do not do the work
  • IT project experts are not consulted for the likely success of what may appear to be the most cost effective solution

The government should set up a body which uses IT professionals to review IT projects and contracts. This body could be made up of volunteers (I am sure many in my field would offer their time) who review the projects at inception and throughout the process until completion. This body would ensure that projects were broken down into manageable chunks which deliver real value in increments

Complex software and systems are implemented all of the time in the city and it is very rare that we go to the board without a staggered plan – the public sector needs to learn from the people who have successfully developed the major systems which power our economy

An IT community project should be set-up to investigate how IT could be used to improve the efficiency of our police force and councils

Define Data Protection

While I agree that I do not want my private data to get into the wrong hands the majority of institutions and organisations that I have had to converse with by phone seem to use this as an excuse for being totally unhelpful. It is terrible when you cannot help your teenage, young adult children to sort out a problem because someone will not speak to you. Also, I have been married for nearly 30 years and cannot get Utility companies to put Mr & Mrs on the bill and then if I have to ring they will not speak to Mrs because it is Mr on the account! Rediculous!

Why is this idea important?

While I agree that I do not want my private data to get into the wrong hands the majority of institutions and organisations that I have had to converse with by phone seem to use this as an excuse for being totally unhelpful. It is terrible when you cannot help your teenage, young adult children to sort out a problem because someone will not speak to you. Also, I have been married for nearly 30 years and cannot get Utility companies to put Mr & Mrs on the bill and then if I have to ring they will not speak to Mrs because it is Mr on the account! Rediculous!

Place a lower limit on WEEE regulations

Currently, even if you build a single custom PC for a customer, you are classed as a "producer" and have to sign up to a "weee producer compliance scheme". Given that the cost of this is around £600/year, this is outrageous!

Why is this idea important?

Currently, even if you build a single custom PC for a customer, you are classed as a "producer" and have to sign up to a "weee producer compliance scheme". Given that the cost of this is around £600/year, this is outrageous!

ALLOW SOFTWARE LICENSES TO BE TRANSFERRABLE

If I buy a book, I buy paper, cardboard and ink plus a licence to read it an unlimited number of times. When I don't want it any more I can sell it on an auction website and transfer the licence.

When I buy software I cannot transfer it in the same way and many times I cannot even transfer it to other computers that I own.

The UK law should be changed to allow software licences to be transferrable – just like books! 

Why is this idea important?

If I buy a book, I buy paper, cardboard and ink plus a licence to read it an unlimited number of times. When I don't want it any more I can sell it on an auction website and transfer the licence.

When I buy software I cannot transfer it in the same way and many times I cannot even transfer it to other computers that I own.

The UK law should be changed to allow software licences to be transferrable – just like books! 

Remove CE marking for computer shops

Most people don't know this, but companies that build custom spec computer systems are braking the law unless they spend around £500 – £1000 for CE compliance for each "variant" of the system. In I.T., there are thousands of "variants" (e.g. size of RAM, made of hard drive, style of case)

I am asking the government to remove the CE testing, marking and documentation keeping for the companies that assemble or upgrade computers.

Why is this idea important?

Most people don't know this, but companies that build custom spec computer systems are braking the law unless they spend around £500 – £1000 for CE compliance for each "variant" of the system. In I.T., there are thousands of "variants" (e.g. size of RAM, made of hard drive, style of case)

I am asking the government to remove the CE testing, marking and documentation keeping for the companies that assemble or upgrade computers.

Allow tinkering with electronics you own

Once we buy a piece of hardware (e.g. mobile phone), we should be allowed to tinker with it, add, remove and replace software on it, and even break it if we want to.

Current UK DRM laws prohibit us from removing software from a device, and replacing it with our own. Sometimes, even open-source software (against the will of the author) is surrounded by a "DRM wrapper" that prevents you from removing it!

I am asking government to restore the freedom to allow people to "remove" or "replace" software on hardware, and to forbid manufacturers from restricting people from doing such acts.

Why is this idea important?

Once we buy a piece of hardware (e.g. mobile phone), we should be allowed to tinker with it, add, remove and replace software on it, and even break it if we want to.

Current UK DRM laws prohibit us from removing software from a device, and replacing it with our own. Sometimes, even open-source software (against the will of the author) is surrounded by a "DRM wrapper" that prevents you from removing it!

I am asking government to restore the freedom to allow people to "remove" or "replace" software on hardware, and to forbid manufacturers from restricting people from doing such acts.

Allow rental of hardware which uses software

Not many people know this but rental out any products that contain software to customers (e.g. cars, computers), is illegial:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988[38] (as amended by The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 S18 – "except that in relation to [..] computer programs the restricted act of issuing copies to the public includes any rental of copies to the public"

The aforementioned words from Section 18 of the Act should be removed, and replaced with something that excludes programs built into hardware.

Why is this idea important?

Not many people know this but rental out any products that contain software to customers (e.g. cars, computers), is illegial:

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988[38] (as amended by The Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 S18 – "except that in relation to [..] computer programs the restricted act of issuing copies to the public includes any rental of copies to the public"

The aforementioned words from Section 18 of the Act should be removed, and replaced with something that excludes programs built into hardware.

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".