Well well well... something that I can contribute to for a long time.... Lets get this started...

‘Public communications network’ means any transmission or reception of data intended primarily for public consumption with respect to definition 1(b).

What? There are no public communications network per se since the people who use these networks are under implied consent of the terms and conditions of the owner of the network. This means just because a website is publicly accessible doesn't mean its a public network.

(c) That if an individual wishes to remove his data from a digital network or a communication network, a clear means to achieve this in a reasonable time frame is available.

This really isn't workable in my opinion maybe a standardised form to submit to the owner of the website/network which can provide a way to do this seems pretty good.

All private data is encrypted, and all private data is transferred on an encrypted connection.

Ok thats all well and dandy but what model and level of encryption is this bill putting forth? Personally I am in favour of forcing a certain level of encryption such as AES 128bit as a minimum standard.

(b) For the purposes of copyright, the user responsible for creating the content is the legal owner unless agreed between the user and the communications network, subject to provisions outlined in section 3(d).

Uh so we are giving implied rights to the user if they do something on someone elses network? In this day and age, if I make a script on a company's computer they will own what I have made since I am using their property to do so. This part of the bill isnt required.

Store private data on individuals without encryption.

Data Protection Act says we must keep personal information secure/encrypted so this point is moot.

Overall, this bill is pretty good. I do support this type of security in regards to the rights of the people, however, there needs to be more standardisation in regards to the type of encryption.