Neighbourhood groups are important to many people but social networks that show full names and even partial addresses such as street name and neighbourhood name make the most vulnerable amongst us even more vulnerable!

My daughter who has learning difficulties and lives in a Mencap supported house, with my support, cancelled a package she had, despite the fact it was made clear at the time she could not act individually in this sort of situation she was phoned direct and phone/bullied into a new package she did not want causing her extreme distress.

PERSONAL PRIVACY: The Digital Economy Bill currently before Parliament will introduce compulsory age verification without guaranteeing privacy protections for subscribers. This omission risks users’ personal details and private sexual preferences being exploited for commercial gain and/or leaked into the public domain. SEXUAL FREEDOM: Consensual adult sex should not be outlawed, yet this Bill will prohibit the publication of depictions of sexual activities that are legal to perform. This Bill imposes a financial burden on free, amateur and niche commercial websites, affecting sexual minorities by denying them from freely expressing their sexuality.

Right now, the Government is trying to push a new snooping law through Parliament. The Investigatory Powers Bill would force companies such as Sky, BT, Google and Facebook to keep detailed records of what we do online for a year – even if we are not suspected of committing any crime whatsoever. The Government are calling these ‘Internet Connection Records'. The Bill has been criticised for not being clear about what ICRs are. But basically they include our internet history, the apps we use, and even the messages we send to our friends and family! The websites we visit reveal so much about who we are – who we bank with, where our kids go to school, our health worries, our sexual preferences, who we are likely to vote for. Imagine knowing that every time you visit a website or use an app, it will be recorded. No other Government in the world has these kinds of intrusive powers. And they don’t need them. We need to ask why the British police need to access our web history when police forces around the world don’t do this. Some people say ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’. But we should all be worried about our sensitive personal information being collected and analysed. Companies like Talk Talk have been hacked before, and the sensitive data that all our ISPs will now be expected to keep about us will be very valuable to cyber-criminals. The Government have tried to push through new snooping powers before and a public backlash stopped them in their tracks. Now we need to come together again and demand Theresa May removes Internet Connection Records from the Bill.

Would you like to attend the funeral of one of your loved ones only to hear the sounds of a neighbouring barbecue or a loud stereo? Would you like to live next door to a constant funeral procession, with all the associated sounds coming through your windows daily? The Scottish Government is proposing to allow crematoriums to be built and operated directly next to your house in their new Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Bill. The Local Government and Regeneration Committee will meet on January 6th to review their proposals. The Scottish Government have made a huge oversight in their new Cremations and Burials Bill: they have removed the requirement for any minimum distance to be upheld between crematoriums and homes. This is a vital protection for the privacy of mourners and home-owners and a minimum distance must be upheld in law. In the Government's own consultation paper on the bill (which they put out to industry experts to pass comment on their plans) 75% of respondents recommended to keep a minimum distance of 200 yards (see Q11 in this document: https://goo.gl/8PlZ93). The Consultation Report states: "Respondents were strongly in favour of retaining a significant minimum distance. Many who commented considered that the most important factor for retaining a minimum distance was to ensure privacy and dignity for both home owners and mourners. A substantial distance would also ensure adequate provision for memorial gardens and car parking." This petition asks the Local Government and Regeneration Committee to ensure the 200 yard minimum distance is upheld in the new Bill. Already in Haddington, East Lothian, the local planning authority has granted permission for a crematorium to be built in anticipation of the new law - construction has not begun yet but it will soon if the Bill is passed by the Committee this petition is addressed to. For the crematorium in question; there are several neighbouring properties, including a dairy farm. The closest home is only 45 yards away and has bedroom windows below the level of the proposed chimneys in line with the prevailing wind! The proposed car park for the crematorium is directly next to the garden meaning that both the home owners and mourners would have a huge lack of privacy. Imagine walking to your loved-one's funeral and hearing children playing or people laughing? Imagine trying to relax in your garden whilst mourners walk by. Also, emissions from crematoriums are still not entirely understood - particularly and most worryingly in the case of mercury which is present in tooth fillings and is extremely toxic to humans and animals. The Scottish Government hope that by removing the requirement for any minimum distance to be upheld between a crematorium and a home that local planning authorities will make the correct decisions on a case-by-case basis. However, the above development is a case in point that this does not work: East Lothian council owns the building in which the proposed crematorium is to be built and they have wanted to sell it for a number of years. They have agreed a deal with a crematorium developer to sell the building and therefore have a vested interest in ensuring everything goes smoothly in the panning process and, as such, have ignored local businesses and home-owners concerns and ignored all of the numerous negative impacts the development might have. They have abandoned due diligence in the pursuit of profit. If the Scottish Government allows this Bill to pass without upholding the minimum distance of 200 yards which is recommended by it's own consultation then it is condemning not only the people of Haddington but also countless others in future to have their homes and businesses - never mind the funerals all over the country - severely affected. The Government's job is to create legislation to protect people in all aspects life and if this Bill is passed into law without upholding any minimum distance between a crematorium and homes/businesses then the Government will fail in it's duty to the people of Scotland. It is clear that Local Planning Authorities are subject to prejudice and therefore fail to protect the people of Scotland given what has occurred in Haddington, East Lothian in anticipation of the new law being passed. Please uphold the minimum distance of 200 yards!

Being a victim of revenge porn is a devastating experience. It is not fair that victims who take the brave step of pressing charges against their abuser currently risk being named in the media, particularly in coverage of the court case. We want the Government to change the law to ensure victims get the protection they deserve.

Disabled customers should not have to justify their disability to bored customer care staff in a supermarket. Having to produce proof of a disability (as the blue badge will have been left on display in their vehicle) is undignified and demeaning. Having to divulge sensitive and personal information in a public area of a supermarket is unfair and unjust. Forcing customers to struggle back through a shop to the customer care desk in order to avoid being fined when they are wheelchair bound, struggle to walk or are in pain is a disgraceful way to treat a customer. Refusing to accept the validity of a blue badge becuase they are not on a supermarkets database is highly unfair and quite possibly illegal.

Everyone has the right to participate in the struggle for social and environmental justice, without fear of persecution, objectification, or interference in their lives. However, many campaigns and individuals have been targeted by Britain’s undercover police for decades, undermining efforts for social justice that should be welcomed in a democratic society. Citizens have been spied on, psychologically and emotionally manipulated, and abused by officers for being part of, or simply knowing people who were part of, such campaigns. We welcome the announcement of a full public inquiry into political undercover policing, but it must be truly transparent, robust and comprehensive. In particular the inquiry must: * Be willing to hear evidence from those affected by undercover policing including: - the women deceived into long-term intimate relationships by officers - the family justice campaigns for those bereaved at the hands of the police and those challenging the efficacy of police investigations in relation to the deaths or assaults of loved ones - the construction workers blacklisted with the help of undercover police - the families whose dead children’s identities were stolen by officers - all campaign groups spied on * Protect police whistleblowers from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act and encourage current and former officers to give evidence. * Cover all undercover police units from 1968 to the present day. * Ensure the police fully cooperate with the inquiry and do not obstruct its operation though the use of their ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ stance. * Hold senior police officers past and present, especially former Met Commissioners and Special Branch Commanders, to account for any wrong doing attributed to the units under their command. * Investigate officers sharing or selling information and experience acquired through undercover policing to the private sector. * Make recommendations to change the law, especially the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), to prevent these abuses from continuing.

Many of us use this social media app for connecting with family and friends worldwide. Surveellience is one thing...banning this amounts to loss of human rights.

No government has the right to intercept the private messages made between their peoples. Cameron is proposing a bill that can ban all encrypted messages (i.e. snapchat, iMessage, whatsapp) between electronic devices that can not be intercepted by the state. Everything that you say on Facebook, Twitter, even MSN messager (if you still use that) will have to be recorded and stored by service providers so that it can be reviewed by a state-run institution at any time.This is not just a breach of our privacy, and against the idea of democracy but also a waste of tax payers' money in light of cuts to the public budget in health and social care. From the ORG petition, "The Government are calling these ‘Internet Connection Records'. The Bill has been criticised for not being clear about what ICRs are. But basically they include our internet history, the apps we use, and even the messages we send to our friends and family!" Lastly, snooping around the everyday conversations of normal people, turning the UK into a real life re-enactment of 1984 is a pathetic reaction to isolated acts of extremism and terrorism. By passing this bill, the conservative government is ultimately proclaiming that the terrorists have won the war on terror.

In the runup to Christmas 2014 my local Tesco store - Ilkley, West Yorkshire - placed posters next to the checkouts listing the store's extended opening hours over Christmas. The posters also invited customers to take a photo of the poster if they wanted their own record of the opening hours. So I did. As Christmas passed I forgot about the photo and may even have deleted it. A week ago,almost 6 months later, I was suddenly surrounded by the Store Manager, Head of Security and 3 other senior managers, frogmarched into a private corridor and interrogated, military style, as to why I have been systematically been taking illicit photos of the store staff on numerous occasions during the past 6 months! I explained to the Store Manager that this was completely untrue and that I have never taken 'illicit photos' of the staff on numerous occasions, but simply a photo of a poster on 1 occasion as described above. He refused to believe me and has subsequently informed me that his staff regard me as a major threat to their health and safety, a potential security risk to the store and that, furthermore, I am now the subject of a police investigation into the incident. Further enquiries to Tesco Head Office have revealed that this is standard Tesco policy which will be applied to each and every Tesco store in the UK. Although the specific circumstances of this case may be seen as ridiculous and laughable, they mask a much more serious and sinister trend. I have been treated by this store as almost a potential terrorist for simply taking a photo within a Tesco store. There was no suggestion at the time that this photo would be published, distributed, downloaded onto the internet or posted in any way to a third party. It was taken for purely personal use and, incredibly, at Tesco's own invitation. There is nothing illegal, as far as I am aware, about my actions. Yet Tesco have responded by treating me as a potential serious criminal. What is deeply disturbing about this is that if you are a photography student, photographer, journalist, artist or simply a law abiding member of the public who wants to engage in the hobby of photography you will be treated almost like a terrorist presenting a major threat to public safety by this company. This case introduces a major challenge to civil liberties and human rights of every single member of the public in the UK who happens to have a camera (or camera phone) in their possession while on Tesco premises. This is why I think a campaign should be launched to pressure Tesco to change this draconian policy.

I have recently been the victim of an Incoming Premium Rate Text Message scam. Fortunately TalkTalk, my Mobile Phone Provider eMailed me to warn me I had gone over my monthly allowance, and this is how I learned that I was being charged £4.50 for each one of these messages I had received. I had not knowingly subscribed to this. After doing some research I found that this scam is by no means an uncommon incident & is growing all the time. It even seems to have an authority (PhonePayPlus) which is supposed to monitor it. This, in itself, is ridiculous. It is clearly a way of making money under false pretences. All Premium Rate Text Messages are a rip off, but at least when making outgoing ones at least the customer is making the concious decision to throw their money away. These, however, are INCOMING. Most of all I was amazed to learn that this way of covertly taking money by deception is actually legal. This, to anyone with any sense of common decency can see this to be morally outrageous. Incoming Premium Rate Text Messages are theft, plain and simple, making use of some loophole in the law, targeting the most vulnerable. This loophole needs closing.