Many people feel that companies make enough money from us already purchasing products from them, using our income in banking to invest, or tying us into long term contracts with phone companies ensuring future income for said company etc.. therefore public and private companies or corporations should not be able to sell our data without individuals permission. This should be passed as a law under the data protection Act 1998. They should also ensure, that, allowing the use of our data is not a requirement for being provided services as this is entirely undemocratic and is in effect bribery and coercion. Companies should honour us when they say the will not use our data for any other purposes than managing our trading account with them. In addendum to this request, The "information commissioning" officer , Christopher Graham and his department needs to ensure a more thorough investigation is undertaken and enforce the policies below until decisions are made regarding the request above of a change to the Data protection act. Many of the below principles in the Data protection act 1998 are being broken regularly. and we are not informed if a company is making money form us. These principles need to be amended to ensure our data is not sold without our permission or personal benefit outside of the original agreement we have made with said company. Data Protection Act 1998 summary of rules below - Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless: at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and - in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met. - Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes. - Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed. - Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. - Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes. - About the rights of individuals e.g.[10] personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects (individuals). - Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data. - Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data. These principles need to be amended to ensure our data is not sold without our permission or personal benefit outside of the original agreement we have made with said company.

We are all familiar with the constant calls which invade our privacy from Tele-Marketing Companies - more often than not from Offshore Calling Centres, such as those based in India who are outside of the reach of our laws. Despite these calls being frustrating, inconvenient & more often than not, downright fraudulent they are still used by leading U.K. based companies as a loophole to get around the Telephone Preference laws which are intended to prevent this. Although we may not be able to stop the Offshore Call Centres entirely, we can, at least, clamp down on those companies that use them. Give the law some power to clamp down on such companies & remove the ever increasing Western market for these Call Centres.

Our names are part of our personal identity and are used by each of us to distinguish ourselves. Here is what we would like to say to Facebook. Dear Facebook, We would like to draw your attention to the way Facebook members have been treated regarding their names and accounts recently. Whilst we understand that Facebook has rules regarding acceptable names the recent purge is ignoring your own rules. People called “Bob” are being made to become Robert for example…. And the names we are known by in real life may not actually be those we have on legal documents. This certainly applies in my case, and in others too. We are not using the names on our facebook accounts for fraudulent, underhand or deceitful purposes so see no need for you to lock us out of our accounts and prevent us communicating with friends near and far. Please reconsider your recent actions as demanding “proper” names is causing chaos and consternation for many, many people, it is antisocial as well as heavy handed and may eventually contribute to the demise of Facebook in the future if an acceptable alternative becomes available to us We sincerely hope you will see fit to reverse your recent actions and allow us to revert to out proper account status on Facebook Thankyou in advance :-)

This the same as proposing to spy directly on our thoughts. Why is this? Thinking people will see that it is only the TECHNOLOGY that changes between spying on our internet intimacy and the spying on the intimacy of our thoughts. Scientists have ALREADY been able to 'read our thoughts' using an electronic implant. If these (irresponsible) power seekers proposed today to spy on our thoughts, there would be such a hue and cry that it would shake the very foundations of our society. We need to make sure that this erosion of our human rights, this constant leveraging of available technology by the ‘in power’ spies is outlawed once and for all. Perhaps this would be a good reason to have (within the UK) a written constitution? The argument that it is all done for the common good is not good enough – not unless you wish your thoughts to be opened up to scrutiny in future by the then ‘democratic or undemocratic’ power brokers. SAY NO NOW.

The proposal to abandon Net Neutrality on the internet in favor of a multi-tiered content-biased system is deeply flawed. It would: 1. create a system that inhibits technical innovation by allowing ISPs to choose which technologies their customers can access. 2. create a system that protects entrenched companies while penalizing the start-ups that have been the life blood of the internet. 3. limit access of non-profit organizations that cannot afford "fast-lane" fees. 4. penalize media companies that do not directly own cable or satellite access to consumers. The Internet has flourished under the de facto common carrier ISPs held until recently. It is time for the FCC to declare that ISPs are Common Carriers and hold them to that status. Please exam with an open mind, see the value in net neutrality, to business and private users equal access enables creativity and new business growth. A two tear access to the internet is bad for competion, R&D and the next generation of new world beating businesses. Professionals from the scientific community offer this view and as an MP you must listen to experts who are not in the pocket of lobbyists for example:- http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=75141 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/10/favorite_sites_looking_slow_today_its_a_net_neutrality_protest/

GCHQ are taking away our freedoms and rights to privacy. Collecting masses of data that will undoubtably be leaked in the future. All of UK citizens privacy is now at risk!

The Internet is the world's greatest platform for free speech. I accept the need to censor a few things, but not the need to do so in secret. Far from it. Why should the applicant have an automatic right to censor another's work without being held accountable for doing so?

More time is needed to ensure proper laws are discussed and agreed. We do not live in a policed state... Maybe there is law firm out there that would take on a mass case of legal challenges by the public to force telecoms companies to destroy the data now and thereby force the government into proper dialogue with people they are representing!

If you were accused of something terrible and degrading that you had not done, and your details together with these allegations appeared on the front page of your local newspaper, for example, then can you imagine the damage caused to you alone? You as a son or daughter, an employer or employee, parent, a sister or brother, a friend, minister, you as a celebrity,... let alone others too like your children, friends and family and associates. Can you see how that would quite easily stain your life having a profound and long lasting impact that could not be erased!? Yes, this regularly happens to innocent people like you and me before any opportunity to a fair hearing or trial and by mistake. The permanent damage based on alleged guilt is unfair and unjustified! It’s done just so that newspapers can have something to print, 'a juicy story', scare tactics or for greed. Sign this petition to reduce the media's powers to invade your privacy, devastate and ruin lives by being able to print allegations with personal details. I had not given it too much consideration until it happened to me and my family. Anonymity is the only fair way for the innocent.