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.

Retain FM radio

As part of the digital Britain report, it was proposed that national FM radio be switched off to free up bandwidth for DAB broadcasts. I believe that FM radio should be retained. I also believe that if we are to switch to a digital format, there are several formats which have considerable advantages over DAB.

I suggested to the last government that FM should be retained and DAB allowed to die. Their response was that DAB had to proceed since there were already a few million DAB sets in the UK. The fact that there are hundreds of millions of FM receivers in the UK seemed lost on them.

Why is this idea important?

As part of the digital Britain report, it was proposed that national FM radio be switched off to free up bandwidth for DAB broadcasts. I believe that FM radio should be retained. I also believe that if we are to switch to a digital format, there are several formats which have considerable advantages over DAB.

I suggested to the last government that FM should be retained and DAB allowed to die. Their response was that DAB had to proceed since there were already a few million DAB sets in the UK. The fact that there are hundreds of millions of FM receivers in the UK seemed lost on them.

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.

Legalize Segways, Go-Peds and other personal electric transporters

Please update outdated and archaic statutes to permit new electric vehicles to be ridden on the road like electric bicycles.

Personal transporters and electric scooters, e.g. the Segway Personal Transporter or the Go-Ped, are considered motorized vehicles by the Department for Transport and subject to road traffic laws. Oddly enough, electric bicycles, which are also powered, are waived from these requirements and are legal to ride in the United Kingdom without any encumbrances.

There are four laws that need to be updated to permit these vehicles to be used.

Highway Act of 1835
Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986
Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) and
Road Traffic Act 1988.

The Highway Act of 1835 bans these vehicles from being operated on pavement or road in England Wales (Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835). Certain vehicles used by disabled drivers are exempted from these requirements but only where they use Class 2 or Class 3 invalid carriages. Scooters are not classed as invalid carriages and so cannot be used on pavements.

Under the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986, the Department of Transpor considers these electric scooters to be motor vehicles even though they travel at less than 18mph. These vehicles need to obtain registration and comply with basic safety standards. Most two-wheeled vehicles that travel faster than 4mph have to comply with the European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval (ECWVTA), which came into operation on 17 June 1999. The European Union does not understand how to classify these new personal electric vehicles. Member countries can pass their own specific legislation to handle them but the United Kingdom has refused to do so. The European Commission have indicated to the DfT that:

“No EC whole vehicle type- approval has been sought as the Segways is not primarily intended to travel on the road. If this manufacturer (or manufacturer of a similarly propelled vehicle), should eventually decide to seek EC type approval for such a vehicle intended for road travel, [the Commission] consider that it would need to be on the basis of Directive 2002/24/EC on the type approval of two or three wheel vehicles.”

“Member States have the right to lay down the requirements which they consider are necessary to ensure the protection of road users (i.e. may fix the conditions for allowing non EC type-approved vehicles on its roads).”

The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) also needs to be updated. This states that every mechanically propelled vehicle used or kept on a public road should be registered and licensed. Electric scooters are mechanically propelled so they require registration and a vehicle registration licence (tax disc). Additionally, the user would need a driving licence and motor insurance. This legislation also enforces certain construction and lighting requirements that should not be relevant to electric bicycle substitutes.

Because electric scooters do not meet the relevant requirements for use on UK roads, and because there is no separate legislation here for public road use by non-EC type-approved vehicles, they cannot be registered and licensed for use on a public road in the United Kingdom. As a consequence, any user of such a vehicle on a public road is likely at the very least to be committing the offences of using the vehicle without insurance and using the vehicle without an excise licence.

Finally, drivers of electric scooters are in breach of section 87 and section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. As such drivers require a driving licence and third party insurance. Because these vehicles cannot be licensed for use on a road, they do not come within the categories of vehicle covered by a driving licence. Therefore, any person using an electric scooter on a road, even with the best of intentions, will be violating their driving licence.

Why is this idea important?

Please update outdated and archaic statutes to permit new electric vehicles to be ridden on the road like electric bicycles.

Personal transporters and electric scooters, e.g. the Segway Personal Transporter or the Go-Ped, are considered motorized vehicles by the Department for Transport and subject to road traffic laws. Oddly enough, electric bicycles, which are also powered, are waived from these requirements and are legal to ride in the United Kingdom without any encumbrances.

There are four laws that need to be updated to permit these vehicles to be used.

Highway Act of 1835
Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986
Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) and
Road Traffic Act 1988.

The Highway Act of 1835 bans these vehicles from being operated on pavement or road in England Wales (Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835). Certain vehicles used by disabled drivers are exempted from these requirements but only where they use Class 2 or Class 3 invalid carriages. Scooters are not classed as invalid carriages and so cannot be used on pavements.

Under the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986, the Department of Transpor considers these electric scooters to be motor vehicles even though they travel at less than 18mph. These vehicles need to obtain registration and comply with basic safety standards. Most two-wheeled vehicles that travel faster than 4mph have to comply with the European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval (ECWVTA), which came into operation on 17 June 1999. The European Union does not understand how to classify these new personal electric vehicles. Member countries can pass their own specific legislation to handle them but the United Kingdom has refused to do so. The European Commission have indicated to the DfT that:

“No EC whole vehicle type- approval has been sought as the Segways is not primarily intended to travel on the road. If this manufacturer (or manufacturer of a similarly propelled vehicle), should eventually decide to seek EC type approval for such a vehicle intended for road travel, [the Commission] consider that it would need to be on the basis of Directive 2002/24/EC on the type approval of two or three wheel vehicles.”

“Member States have the right to lay down the requirements which they consider are necessary to ensure the protection of road users (i.e. may fix the conditions for allowing non EC type-approved vehicles on its roads).”

The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) also needs to be updated. This states that every mechanically propelled vehicle used or kept on a public road should be registered and licensed. Electric scooters are mechanically propelled so they require registration and a vehicle registration licence (tax disc). Additionally, the user would need a driving licence and motor insurance. This legislation also enforces certain construction and lighting requirements that should not be relevant to electric bicycle substitutes.

Because electric scooters do not meet the relevant requirements for use on UK roads, and because there is no separate legislation here for public road use by non-EC type-approved vehicles, they cannot be registered and licensed for use on a public road in the United Kingdom. As a consequence, any user of such a vehicle on a public road is likely at the very least to be committing the offences of using the vehicle without insurance and using the vehicle without an excise licence.

Finally, drivers of electric scooters are in breach of section 87 and section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. As such drivers require a driving licence and third party insurance. Because these vehicles cannot be licensed for use on a road, they do not come within the categories of vehicle covered by a driving licence. Therefore, any person using an electric scooter on a road, even with the best of intentions, will be violating their driving licence.

Allow Anyone To Set Up A Local TV Station

Allow any one to set up a local TV station.  Impose a low power limit and prevent operators having licences for more than one area, but just make it easier.  Don't force people to categorise their channels. Remove massive bureacratic and operational hurdles – it's all but impossible to operate a TV channel without a legal department. Remove scope for malicious complaints.

OK, impose a few conditions. Convicted criminals, sex shop onwers and people "convicted" of trading offences in civil courts should be required to undergo full "Appropriate Person" checks, and debtors, but let ordinary people set up channels.

Let people sub-lease capacity at different times of day without assuming liability for content.

Make it even easier by making Ofcom provide "TV station in a box" model kits, eg docs, retention of recordings, etc.

And keep local council out of it, there is enough bland well meaning rubbish out there.

Why is this idea important?

Allow any one to set up a local TV station.  Impose a low power limit and prevent operators having licences for more than one area, but just make it easier.  Don't force people to categorise their channels. Remove massive bureacratic and operational hurdles – it's all but impossible to operate a TV channel without a legal department. Remove scope for malicious complaints.

OK, impose a few conditions. Convicted criminals, sex shop onwers and people "convicted" of trading offences in civil courts should be required to undergo full "Appropriate Person" checks, and debtors, but let ordinary people set up channels.

Let people sub-lease capacity at different times of day without assuming liability for content.

Make it even easier by making Ofcom provide "TV station in a box" model kits, eg docs, retention of recordings, etc.

And keep local council out of it, there is enough bland well meaning rubbish out there.

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.

Govt: Offer prizes for better technologies

Government doesn't do science very well – actually, extremely badly – but it knows what it wants. For instance, it wants cleaner vehicle engine with much higher fuel efficiencies. Government can't design them, but the private sector could – so why not set the goals, for this and renewable energy sources (among other nice-to-haves) and set the spec, offer a damned good prize of cash or grants or tax breaks, and let the inventive British get on with the job?

It could also introduce State protection – legal protection – for patent holders, many of whom fail to bring ideas to market because of the risk to their own homes and capital, and many of whom lose their patents because they can't afford to fight off the "big guys" who muscle in (remember the fight James Dyson had with Hoover and other companies who copied his typhoon vacuum cleaners? You've got to be wealthy to fight off those corporations).

If the Government sets a goal butt it isn't attained, nothing's lost. Otherwise it might be achieved, for all our benefits, or else there may be significant progress made along the way.

Let's give it a chance.

Why is this idea important?

Government doesn't do science very well – actually, extremely badly – but it knows what it wants. For instance, it wants cleaner vehicle engine with much higher fuel efficiencies. Government can't design them, but the private sector could – so why not set the goals, for this and renewable energy sources (among other nice-to-haves) and set the spec, offer a damned good prize of cash or grants or tax breaks, and let the inventive British get on with the job?

It could also introduce State protection – legal protection – for patent holders, many of whom fail to bring ideas to market because of the risk to their own homes and capital, and many of whom lose their patents because they can't afford to fight off the "big guys" who muscle in (remember the fight James Dyson had with Hoover and other companies who copied his typhoon vacuum cleaners? You've got to be wealthy to fight off those corporations).

If the Government sets a goal butt it isn't attained, nothing's lost. Otherwise it might be achieved, for all our benefits, or else there may be significant progress made along the way.

Let's give it a chance.

Prevent ISPs spying on their customers

Enact a law to protect the customers of Internet Service Providers from being spied on.

I was appauled to hear what BT did with their secret Phorm spying trials. They tried to sell their customer's private data to a marketing company, and didn't even feel it was necessary  to warn people it was happening.

Now other ISPs, including Virgin Media, are looking into similar systems to generate income through marketing and to spy in the name of detecting copyright infringement on behalf of media companies.

This is unacceptable. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy when online, in the same way as they do when speaking on the phone. Imagine the outrage if BT started routine monitoring of all phone calls and began inserting adverts related to the topic of conversation.

Why is this idea important?

Enact a law to protect the customers of Internet Service Providers from being spied on.

I was appauled to hear what BT did with their secret Phorm spying trials. They tried to sell their customer's private data to a marketing company, and didn't even feel it was necessary  to warn people it was happening.

Now other ISPs, including Virgin Media, are looking into similar systems to generate income through marketing and to spy in the name of detecting copyright infringement on behalf of media companies.

This is unacceptable. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy when online, in the same way as they do when speaking on the phone. Imagine the outrage if BT started routine monitoring of all phone calls and began inserting adverts related to the topic of conversation.

Promotion of British Science

We should enact special tax provision to ensure science is brought to the forefront of life in Britain where currently it is sidelined into an also-ran role for geeks.

The way we can do this is by providing science (and engineering) with special tax privelages for those individuals and companies actively 'doing' it. All the way from the schools and colleges up to Nobel science prize-winners we need to support it.

E.G how about no college fees and free loans to physics and chemistry students to stimulate interest. When they take up employment in 'real' industry here in the UK (but not if they get spirited away to America), give them a lower tax rate for the duration to live and work for a British-owned company. Likewise preferential loan and tax rates for enginering companies. Its all very well making interesting TV programs about it, but you have to back it up with real financial incentives. By the same token we need to discourage the blue-sky, and 'humanities' -type subjects. We can't afford luxuries which don't create industrial strength or generate real wealth.

Why is this idea important?

We should enact special tax provision to ensure science is brought to the forefront of life in Britain where currently it is sidelined into an also-ran role for geeks.

The way we can do this is by providing science (and engineering) with special tax privelages for those individuals and companies actively 'doing' it. All the way from the schools and colleges up to Nobel science prize-winners we need to support it.

E.G how about no college fees and free loans to physics and chemistry students to stimulate interest. When they take up employment in 'real' industry here in the UK (but not if they get spirited away to America), give them a lower tax rate for the duration to live and work for a British-owned company. Likewise preferential loan and tax rates for enginering companies. Its all very well making interesting TV programs about it, but you have to back it up with real financial incentives. By the same token we need to discourage the blue-sky, and 'humanities' -type subjects. We can't afford luxuries which don't create industrial strength or generate real wealth.

Constitutionally free internet access

Free internet access  in the UK, would allow everyone to share his ideas, to make this country like a swarm of effervescent new ideas and to share wisdom and  awareness. Two countries are pioneering this idea: Estonia and Finland have declared free internet access in their constitution.

Why is this idea important?

Free internet access  in the UK, would allow everyone to share his ideas, to make this country like a swarm of effervescent new ideas and to share wisdom and  awareness. Two countries are pioneering this idea: Estonia and Finland have declared free internet access in their constitution.

Insecurity

One of the many reasons the digital economy bill will be so ineffective is because of the mass insecurity of business and home Internet connections.  Over 40% of wireless access points in the UK are encrypted with the WEP encryption standard.  These WEP access points takes less than 10 minutes to bypass, at which point the attacker has full access to the home owners or businesses Internet.  Committing cyber crimes which would break the law and lead to the home or business owner being punished for somebody else's crimes.


I myself have found many access points in government buildings which use the insecure WEP encryption leaving them pretty much open for the taking,  allowing anybody with a laptop and basic IT skills to take advantage.
 

The government needs to become more educated in IT before passing laws it which are unenforceable and dramatically flawed from the start.  With many examples of their inability to secure their own infrastucture in public maybe they should learn a little about the sector they are making laws for.

Why is this idea important?

One of the many reasons the digital economy bill will be so ineffective is because of the mass insecurity of business and home Internet connections.  Over 40% of wireless access points in the UK are encrypted with the WEP encryption standard.  These WEP access points takes less than 10 minutes to bypass, at which point the attacker has full access to the home owners or businesses Internet.  Committing cyber crimes which would break the law and lead to the home or business owner being punished for somebody else's crimes.


I myself have found many access points in government buildings which use the insecure WEP encryption leaving them pretty much open for the taking,  allowing anybody with a laptop and basic IT skills to take advantage.
 

The government needs to become more educated in IT before passing laws it which are unenforceable and dramatically flawed from the start.  With many examples of their inability to secure their own infrastucture in public maybe they should learn a little about the sector they are making laws for.

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.

Replace Internet Watch Foundation

The Internet Watch Foundation deals with obscuring and hiding internet 'nasties' such as Child porn and terrorism. It should be replaced with a politically independent oversight committee made up of differing views and beliefs.

Why is this idea important?

The Internet Watch Foundation deals with obscuring and hiding internet 'nasties' such as Child porn and terrorism. It should be replaced with a politically independent oversight committee made up of differing views and beliefs.

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.

Multi-Media Downloads! (Do not let this happen!)

My idea is that, why do you guys persist in shutting every thing like illegal downloads… Have you ever thought, the uk economy is diglitized now but the on going problem is money.. Do we have enough money to buy a Series Box set or get a Blue Ray Movie?

The Answer is no.

I pay BT over £30 a month for unlimited download to down load what i want. With great speed. So tell me, whats the point of paying BT if you're going to slap them with a curse of papers flying through your letterbox saying you're fined with £1000….

If you have Sky, then you're rich, I have BT vision and on Job seekers allowance.. At the end of the day, i watch a whole series then have to wait another 3 months just to see 12 more episodes while they are not UK series but USA because it' takes so long for the series to get here.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is that, why do you guys persist in shutting every thing like illegal downloads… Have you ever thought, the uk economy is diglitized now but the on going problem is money.. Do we have enough money to buy a Series Box set or get a Blue Ray Movie?

The Answer is no.

I pay BT over £30 a month for unlimited download to down load what i want. With great speed. So tell me, whats the point of paying BT if you're going to slap them with a curse of papers flying through your letterbox saying you're fined with £1000….

If you have Sky, then you're rich, I have BT vision and on Job seekers allowance.. At the end of the day, i watch a whole series then have to wait another 3 months just to see 12 more episodes while they are not UK series but USA because it' takes so long for the series to get here.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this idea important?

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

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

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

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