This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !
I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !
Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?
Why is this idea important?
This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !
I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !
Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?
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.
Marketing companies should be banned from using autodialler systems and from using offshore call centres. I work from home and despite my telephone numbers being registered with the TPS, I sometimes receive several calls a day (usually from call centres in India) from people trying to sell consolidation loans or find out if I have been mis-sold an insurance policy.
Why is this idea important?
Marketing companies should be banned from using autodialler systems and from using offshore call centres. I work from home and despite my telephone numbers being registered with the TPS, I sometimes receive several calls a day (usually from call centres in India) from people trying to sell consolidation loans or find out if I have been mis-sold an insurance policy.
Do not allow companies to telephone a person's house to try and make enquires about their needs. Or to try and sell them their services.
Why is this idea important?
Do not allow companies to telephone a person's house to try and make enquires about their needs. Or to try and sell them their services.
1. Eurostar tickets bought in the UK have to, by law, have your name printed on them. (Although not if purchased on the more freedom-respecting continent.)
2. London Transport tracks your whereabouts, if not any longer by CCTV camera, certainly still by computer every time you enter or leave a station or board a bus.
This should be abolished.
Why is this idea important?
1. Eurostar tickets bought in the UK have to, by law, have your name printed on them. (Although not if purchased on the more freedom-respecting continent.)
2. London Transport tracks your whereabouts, if not any longer by CCTV camera, certainly still by computer every time you enter or leave a station or board a bus.
This should be abolished.
The Conservatives pledged to publish the job titles for every member of staff in the Civil Service, and presumably all other public bodies.
This is dangerous.
And a massive breech of privacy.
There are good arguments for publishing some details of top staff, who suggest top level policies and brief Ministers, but 99% do not have this level of influence. Some have good reason for being selective about who they give their details to. A cousin of mine works for a Policing body. If her children's classmates knew that they would be beaten up regularly. Her car would be vandalised or sabotaged. If it were known that her husband has access to senstive data he would be a target for terrorists and organised crime. Most people have one or two dodgy relatives, some might be tempted to ask for favours. Neither my cousin or her husband are influential (or rich) so it is difficult to see what publshing their details would achieve. And publishing their grades would tell the whole world what salary they are on. From there it is a small step to putting peoples bank details on line.
By the way, their employer does not allow out-of-office phone messages, because that would make it easy for naughty people* to impersonate them while on holiday and exercise some Policing advantages or possibly hack their computers. Their neighbours know when they are on holiday, but not who they work for. These are genuine security and lifestyle issues. Redacting data would be unreliable and error prone.
Why is this idea important?
The Conservatives pledged to publish the job titles for every member of staff in the Civil Service, and presumably all other public bodies.
This is dangerous.
And a massive breech of privacy.
There are good arguments for publishing some details of top staff, who suggest top level policies and brief Ministers, but 99% do not have this level of influence. Some have good reason for being selective about who they give their details to. A cousin of mine works for a Policing body. If her children's classmates knew that they would be beaten up regularly. Her car would be vandalised or sabotaged. If it were known that her husband has access to senstive data he would be a target for terrorists and organised crime. Most people have one or two dodgy relatives, some might be tempted to ask for favours. Neither my cousin or her husband are influential (or rich) so it is difficult to see what publshing their details would achieve. And publishing their grades would tell the whole world what salary they are on. From there it is a small step to putting peoples bank details on line.
By the way, their employer does not allow out-of-office phone messages, because that would make it easy for naughty people* to impersonate them while on holiday and exercise some Policing advantages or possibly hack their computers. Their neighbours know when they are on holiday, but not who they work for. These are genuine security and lifestyle issues. Redacting data would be unreliable and error prone.
The law that requires a citizen to give up encryption keys with threat of a jail sentence should be scrapped.
Why is this idea important?
The law that requires a citizen to give up encryption keys with threat of a jail sentence should be scrapped.
That interception of a private individuals, ,postal mail, mobile phone and landline calls, e:mail and any other form of electronic communication, by any government organisation, security service or the police with out an individual court order for every occurence.
Why is this idea important?
That interception of a private individuals, ,postal mail, mobile phone and landline calls, e:mail and any other form of electronic communication, by any government organisation, security service or the police with out an individual court order for every occurence.
The E-borders project records and monitors far too many details about the trips of its citizens.
There are no reasonable grounds for the Government needing to know the destination, method of payment, companions etc etc of its citizens when they make a foreign or domestic trip.
To collect such information should require a Court Warrant just as the search of a person's home should.
Why is this idea important?
The E-borders project records and monitors far too many details about the trips of its citizens.
There are no reasonable grounds for the Government needing to know the destination, method of payment, companions etc etc of its citizens when they make a foreign or domestic trip.
To collect such information should require a Court Warrant just as the search of a person's home should.
Change security laws to prevent their use by local authorities to invade peoples privacy
Why is this idea important?
Change security laws to prevent their use by local authorities to invade peoples privacy
I am calling for medical confidentiality to be respected and for the practice of allowing the police and CPS access to a person's medical records to be stopped and indeed made illegal and a ban on using a person's medical history or records in criminal proceedings.
Currently, in certain circumstances the police can obtain a warrant to get a copy of a person's supposedly confidential medical records, including mental health records.
Sometimes, the clinical staff responsible for protecting the records will not even require a warrant, but will provide the records on the basis of a request from the police or CPS.
Why should the authorities be able to look at and use your "confidential" medical records against you, when questioning or prosecuting you?
I'm particularly concerned that if someone has a mental health problem, the fact that medical records are not confidential will put people off seeking help and sharing their thoughts and feelings with a therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist, because they might worry that these probably quite strange thoughts could be used against them in the future. If they don't seek help, their condition will probably get worse and they might become a danger to themselves or others.
The thoughts and feelings expressed in therapy may be no more weird than those that most people have from time to time, but if the person becomes a suspect in an investigation in the future, the fact that they have shared their thoughts in therapy means that they can then be used against them by the police, or as "evidence" or to make them out to be some sort of wierdo and turn the jury against them in court.
If a person is fortunate enough to be able to pay for private therapy, the notes from this will not be available to the authorities, mainly because they will not know that you had therapy or who you saw, but if you are poor and have to accept therapy on the NHS, the authorities will see this from your GP's records and then go fishing in your mental health records for anything they think will help their case.
I think it's disgusting that we don't protect medical confidentiality so that people can seek help without worrying that it might cause problems for them in the future, but currently the NHS and the Government regards your records as their property to do with what they wish.
Why is this idea important?
I am calling for medical confidentiality to be respected and for the practice of allowing the police and CPS access to a person's medical records to be stopped and indeed made illegal and a ban on using a person's medical history or records in criminal proceedings.
Currently, in certain circumstances the police can obtain a warrant to get a copy of a person's supposedly confidential medical records, including mental health records.
Sometimes, the clinical staff responsible for protecting the records will not even require a warrant, but will provide the records on the basis of a request from the police or CPS.
Why should the authorities be able to look at and use your "confidential" medical records against you, when questioning or prosecuting you?
I'm particularly concerned that if someone has a mental health problem, the fact that medical records are not confidential will put people off seeking help and sharing their thoughts and feelings with a therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist, because they might worry that these probably quite strange thoughts could be used against them in the future. If they don't seek help, their condition will probably get worse and they might become a danger to themselves or others.
The thoughts and feelings expressed in therapy may be no more weird than those that most people have from time to time, but if the person becomes a suspect in an investigation in the future, the fact that they have shared their thoughts in therapy means that they can then be used against them by the police, or as "evidence" or to make them out to be some sort of wierdo and turn the jury against them in court.
If a person is fortunate enough to be able to pay for private therapy, the notes from this will not be available to the authorities, mainly because they will not know that you had therapy or who you saw, but if you are poor and have to accept therapy on the NHS, the authorities will see this from your GP's records and then go fishing in your mental health records for anything they think will help their case.
I think it's disgusting that we don't protect medical confidentiality so that people can seek help without worrying that it might cause problems for them in the future, but currently the NHS and the Government regards your records as their property to do with what they wish.
Local Councils should be banned from snooping, it waste's precious time and resource all of which the tax-payer has to foot the bill, without even going into the civil liberties issues. Local councils are there to administer and manage local services only not intrude on people's lives
Why is this idea important?
Local Councils should be banned from snooping, it waste's precious time and resource all of which the tax-payer has to foot the bill, without even going into the civil liberties issues. Local councils are there to administer and manage local services only not intrude on people's lives
With the increase of third party quangos having more and more access to your personal records. This can only be bad and open to clear violations of an individuals right to privacy.
The Terrorism powers allow more snooping into peoples private lives.
The use of Third party providers. Profit making companies to provide help for the unemployed. This gives them more and more accesss to your personal info. With the latest coerced labour scenario you have no right to silence,no privacy, you have to tell them everything you do. Infact the only thing that aint regulated ans sanctions imposed for as far as I am aware is flatulence.
Why is this idea important?
With the increase of third party quangos having more and more access to your personal records. This can only be bad and open to clear violations of an individuals right to privacy.
The Terrorism powers allow more snooping into peoples private lives.
The use of Third party providers. Profit making companies to provide help for the unemployed. This gives them more and more accesss to your personal info. With the latest coerced labour scenario you have no right to silence,no privacy, you have to tell them everything you do. Infact the only thing that aint regulated ans sanctions imposed for as far as I am aware is flatulence.
I concur with the idea submitted by "nrs" in July 2010 "that the electoral register should be completely and universally removed from access by any third party"
Additionally this should be prohobited from all third parties irrespective of monetary gain in any capacity whatsoever.
I have discovered that 192.com have been selling my address to anyone who will pay despite the fact that I opted out in 2003. They are happy to work with old data. An opt out system is operated. When you don't know your in it, how can you know to opt out.
Furthermore I have now discovered that Experian and similar credit reference agencies are actively marketing the sale of individuals information on their web-sites. It appears to be a very profitable business for them. United Utilities have passed my data to an insurance company and they have obtained my ex directory phone number from Experian.
With investigation I have discovered that local councils make as little as £300 for selling the register yet companies are potentially making thousands when they in turn sell it on to anyone who wants to buy it. This probably does not cover the cost of overheads for them being bound by law to supply it to would be purchasers. Who else is getting private information?
Despite having registered for the Telephone Preference Service and the Mailing Preference Service to protect my details, I have still had my address used fraudulently on two occasions and in both these instances, the Police did not want to get involved. I also receive numerous marketing calls and the companies calling refuse to give you their name and become rude and abusive if they don't cut you off first.
I believe it imperative that the law is repealed to help protect inividuals from identity theft and nuisance calls from marketing companies.
Why is this idea important?
I concur with the idea submitted by "nrs" in July 2010 "that the electoral register should be completely and universally removed from access by any third party"
Additionally this should be prohobited from all third parties irrespective of monetary gain in any capacity whatsoever.
I have discovered that 192.com have been selling my address to anyone who will pay despite the fact that I opted out in 2003. They are happy to work with old data. An opt out system is operated. When you don't know your in it, how can you know to opt out.
Furthermore I have now discovered that Experian and similar credit reference agencies are actively marketing the sale of individuals information on their web-sites. It appears to be a very profitable business for them. United Utilities have passed my data to an insurance company and they have obtained my ex directory phone number from Experian.
With investigation I have discovered that local councils make as little as £300 for selling the register yet companies are potentially making thousands when they in turn sell it on to anyone who wants to buy it. This probably does not cover the cost of overheads for them being bound by law to supply it to would be purchasers. Who else is getting private information?
Despite having registered for the Telephone Preference Service and the Mailing Preference Service to protect my details, I have still had my address used fraudulently on two occasions and in both these instances, the Police did not want to get involved. I also receive numerous marketing calls and the companies calling refuse to give you their name and become rude and abusive if they don't cut you off first.
I believe it imperative that the law is repealed to help protect inividuals from identity theft and nuisance calls from marketing companies.
A Labour MP, Geraint Davies, wants to effectively ban anonymous pre-pay credit cards via a Ten minute rule bill. He apparently has 40 MPs supporting this (shame on them).
I don't want this to happen
Why is this idea important?
A Labour MP, Geraint Davies, wants to effectively ban anonymous pre-pay credit cards via a Ten minute rule bill. He apparently has 40 MPs supporting this (shame on them).
I don't want this to happen
Facebook is endangering millions of British citizens through its cavalier approach to users' privacy. It continual push to make more and more user information public (with the occasional strategic backdown for PR purposes) continues to put British people at risk of identity fraud.
The site is storing information such as scraped e-mail contact lists without fully disclosing this to its users. Additionally, it is storing information about people who choose not to subscribe to it, without their consent.
The British government should protect its citizens' freedom by insisting that Facebook discontinue its corrupt practices, or by educating people clearly on the intentions of this malevolent organisation.
Why is this idea important?
Facebook is endangering millions of British citizens through its cavalier approach to users' privacy. It continual push to make more and more user information public (with the occasional strategic backdown for PR purposes) continues to put British people at risk of identity fraud.
The site is storing information such as scraped e-mail contact lists without fully disclosing this to its users. Additionally, it is storing information about people who choose not to subscribe to it, without their consent.
The British government should protect its citizens' freedom by insisting that Facebook discontinue its corrupt practices, or by educating people clearly on the intentions of this malevolent organisation.
The DVLA sells personal information to parking and clamping firms. This allows them to issue tickets in private car parks. I think this practice should be banned immediately.
Why is this idea important?
The DVLA sells personal information to parking and clamping firms. This allows them to issue tickets in private car parks. I think this practice should be banned immediately.
When people register cars it is so the Police can trace car owners if they break the law. There is a high standard of proof and the Police have high standards.
People do not give their details so some licenced ex-nighclub bouncer can make a trumped up allegation and harass them at home. But that's exactly what happens. Any "person with a valid claim" eg a car park attendant or clamper – can write to the DVLA and get the owners details for a can registration number.
This WILL be abused. Owners of expensive cars will find themselves burgled. Attractive women will gain stalkers. Grudges will be pursued.
There is an altenative – the DVLA should never disclose an address but should instead forward communications for a modest fee, say 50p.
Remember, convicted hammer murderer Levi Bellifield was the owner of a clamping business. He could have got your home address without any questions.
Why is this idea important?
When people register cars it is so the Police can trace car owners if they break the law. There is a high standard of proof and the Police have high standards.
People do not give their details so some licenced ex-nighclub bouncer can make a trumped up allegation and harass them at home. But that's exactly what happens. Any "person with a valid claim" eg a car park attendant or clamper – can write to the DVLA and get the owners details for a can registration number.
This WILL be abused. Owners of expensive cars will find themselves burgled. Attractive women will gain stalkers. Grudges will be pursued.
There is an altenative – the DVLA should never disclose an address but should instead forward communications for a modest fee, say 50p.
Remember, convicted hammer murderer Levi Bellifield was the owner of a clamping business. He could have got your home address without any questions.
Prevent councils and other organisations from using web cams for the purpose of booking motorists for minor traffic infringements e.g.parking
Why is this idea important?
Prevent councils and other organisations from using web cams for the purpose of booking motorists for minor traffic infringements e.g.parking
To provide a simple requirement to cover the obligations of public bodies to provide (or not) information to each other.
One example of this is Section 17 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1992, This protects peoples data collected for Council Tax purposes, but appears to conflict with legislation covering, amongst others, HMRC, the police and the CSA. All of these have generic legislation, but make many requests for information from Council Tax authorities, whereas there is specific legislation covering electoral registration and certain housing functions.
There must be many other examples of this where similar disclosure (or non-disclosure) requirements exist.
These uncertainties and conflicts could be removed by a simple piece of generic legislation which could either enable disclosure, or prevent it. I would be happy either way – I just want a) clarity and b) to stop endless arguments about whether someone is entitled to information or not
Why is this idea important?
To provide a simple requirement to cover the obligations of public bodies to provide (or not) information to each other.
One example of this is Section 17 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1992, This protects peoples data collected for Council Tax purposes, but appears to conflict with legislation covering, amongst others, HMRC, the police and the CSA. All of these have generic legislation, but make many requests for information from Council Tax authorities, whereas there is specific legislation covering electoral registration and certain housing functions.
There must be many other examples of this where similar disclosure (or non-disclosure) requirements exist.
These uncertainties and conflicts could be removed by a simple piece of generic legislation which could either enable disclosure, or prevent it. I would be happy either way – I just want a) clarity and b) to stop endless arguments about whether someone is entitled to information or not
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.
Too much petty interference is evident in the UK. Officials can intimidate and harrass you for a whole range of petty offences many of which carry a criminal sanction by them to levied on us. I want this pettiness and the powers to use it removed and presumed illegal in most cases and situations.
Why is this idea important?
Too much petty interference is evident in the UK. Officials can intimidate and harrass you for a whole range of petty offences many of which carry a criminal sanction by them to levied on us. I want this pettiness and the powers to use it removed and presumed illegal in most cases and situations.
Remove all compulsion to register as an elector, return to the older basis that registration is a matter of individual positive choice (provided one is eligible). Incidentally make the register of electors completely secret (except of course for public officers in the exercise of the electoral duties) so that it cannot be used for any other purpose.
Why is this idea important?
Remove all compulsion to register as an elector, return to the older basis that registration is a matter of individual positive choice (provided one is eligible). Incidentally make the register of electors completely secret (except of course for public officers in the exercise of the electoral duties) so that it cannot be used for any other purpose.
This should be restricted and only permitted with a court order. Over the last 13 years, the number of organisations who can gain entry without permission from the owner has risen from 1 to over 10.
Why is this idea important?
This should be restricted and only permitted with a court order. Over the last 13 years, the number of organisations who can gain entry without permission from the owner has risen from 1 to over 10.
This act allows for secret intrusion into the lives of individuals without them being aware. It is a violation of fundamental privacy, often without due cause. At the very least everybody who has been made subject to covert surveillance without any evidence been found upon them should be advised of this having taken place and advised of who sanctioned such a procedure and why.
Why is this idea important?
This act allows for secret intrusion into the lives of individuals without them being aware. It is a violation of fundamental privacy, often without due cause. At the very least everybody who has been made subject to covert surveillance without any evidence been found upon them should be advised of this having taken place and advised of who sanctioned such a procedure and why.