Meaning of words can sometimes cause misunderstanding especially when viewed by different groups. In legal standpoint, the meaning of a word can significantly affect the coverage of a law. Just like in the case of the Freedom of Information Act, the word “personal privacy” was interpreted by some to include “privacy of corporations”. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia made such a decision.

The Freedom of Information Act was helpful in making open those documents that used to be out of the public’s eyes. It has made a distinction between those documents that can be divulged and those that cannot. Disclosure of facts gathered for law enforcement would be tantamount to “invasion of personal privacy” because these are considered private. Personal privacy is protected while the people’s right to know is also served. The abovementioned provision is stipulated in the law’s “exemption 7”.

What brought about such debate on word meaning? According to the appeals court, the phrase “personal privacy” is meant to include corporations. It further added that the word “personal” is the adjectival form of “person”. Because F.O.I A. defines “person” to include “corporation”, then it follows that personal privacy includes corporations.

Google has just presented its users the 2-factor authentication. This requires the user to provide his or her cell or landline telephone number. This is done so that Google can send the user a one-time authentication code to log in to his or her gmail account. This new service has raised apprehensions and doubts on consumers as to Google’s real purpose.

Once a user tries to log in to his or her account, he or she will be given the option between a cell or a landline number. After which Google will send through the provided number an authentication code. This code will be entered in the prompt box provided for the purpose and sent to Google. Only then will the user be able to log in. It is a simple process which seems harmless, but a closer look at it would raise some doubts.

Phone numbers are private properties. In the internet, uploading of cellular or landline phone numbers could pose danger. Doing such with Google’s new technology is not an exception. Collecting such valuable data from users just for authentication is not good enough reason. It can be imagined how much numbers can be collected from the millions of users even for one-time use only. Where would these data be stored? Would they be immediately deleted? How sure can the user be that these data will not be stored for future use?

Setting expiry date for photos that you upload to the internet has become possible. German IT professor Michael Backes has developed X-pire that easily allows a user to set the expiry of photos. He presented the so-called “web eraser” to the Consumer Protection Ministry. It can delete pictures according to the conditions set by the user. The availability of this tool is believed to be the first step towards regaining control over uploaded pictures. So far, owners of photos lose control over the pictures that they share online so problems crop up sooner or later.

Backes explained how the tool works. Photos are first encrypted before these can be uploaded. This limits the photo’s accessibility. A special plug-in is required on the browser so that the viewer can see the image. The “key” contained in the plug-in unlocks access to the image. Using X-pire, this key expires on the date specified by the user. The picture can no longer be accessed and hence “erased” from the web. This is how the tool gives the user control over his photos.

This new system might put an end to the problem which many users encounter regarding abuse of uploaded pictures. Pictures in the net have been used with malicious intentions and this has caused unpleasant experiences. Once pictures are uploaded, they can stay there for eternity. Imagine the host of pictures uploaded in Facebook or Picasa. Having no control over them, the owner is at risk of problems coming his or her way sooner or later. Many have experienced the “Streisand effect” which up to now haunts many people.

The experience of the 9/11 attacks has caused so much terror among citizens. It has triggered the introduction of government policies against terrorism. Since then, citizens have either been suspects of terrorism or victims of privacy violation. With government’s efforts to counter terrorism, individual privacy has been taken for granted and hence freedom is curtailed.

Let us take a look at some of the policies implemented and their effects on individual privacy. In many places in the US, a number of peaceful political organizations have been monitored as “terrorist groups”. To say the least, it is a shame on the part of these groups who only wanted political reforms but are branded as terrorists. Just because they group and gather together, it is reason enough to put them in the list of “suspects”.

Imagine some environmental and union activism ending up in terrorism related databases. This happened in California where pro-environment groups are highly active. In the same place, unionism is on the rise giving way for more citizens to form groups in order to pool their resources together. But look at what happened. It is clear that efforts on surveillance do not spare even those groups who are plain and simple civilians.

A campaign to vote against the extension of the PATRIOT Act was called for by several groups. The voting was scheduled February 8, 2011. The so-called H.R. 514 is about to be extended, but it needs a YES vote by a full two-thirds of the House’s members. The reauthorization was seen as being fast-tracked to the House floor.

Contentions were aired questioning the manner the bill would be extended. One point that was raised was that there were no significant reforms to the old law that would merit its extension. According to critics, there is no provision for oversight and accountability. If ever, it is very weak and would not hold water.

Last year yet, the bill was proposed and debated on. Among the proposed reforms were on the areas of checks and balances. As the old version was criticized as lacking of these features, the new one is “ripe” with those. But the debates and deliberations went on until the deadline was already close. The move for extension of the old version came up when the amendments could no longer make it to the deadline. In February of last year, the extension was moved until this February 2011. In addition, there was a promise made to fully consider the raised issues before the next deadline.

Goodbye to those unwelcome advertisements that are annoying. Surf the net feeling more secure. Do not worry about someone tracking your online behavior. This time, you can always choose to remain private and safe. The time has come for online users to determine how they would behave online.

Better times for internet users are slowly gaining higher ground. After much of debates and proposals, regulators are now expecting for some positive effects of their crusade. Google and Mozilla, two of the largest names in internet announced the availability of new software. Users would now have more freedom as their web browsers would use this. What is the most significant feature of the software? It is its capability to allow users to permanently stay out of online tracking system. Many advertisers used to follow online activities. With correct profiling, they can build profiles and deliver tailored ads to target users.

Large internet advertisers and data trackers including Google and Yahoo initiated this move. They would now enable users to easily opt out of tracking on their sites. It used to be that opting out was rather complicated and more demanding. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer would add a feature where users could intentionally block monitoring efforts.

Did you ever remember publishing your home address online? Was it with Twitter or Facebook? Well, if you did not, that’s good for you! And better bear in mind not to – ever! If you did, then it’s time to polish your Facebook profile information. You would be asking why the fuss. Read on and maybe you would really say to yourself that some personal info is still worth keeping.

It is understandable that online users often casually give out their home address. There’s no problem with it with friends whom you want to be close with. However, if your home address is opened to millions of other online users, there is the problem. Privacy problems may be worse than what you would expect.

Just recently, information was gathered that Facebook shows its users’ home address to developers. Jeff Bowen in one of his posts wrote that Facebook makes these data available in the development platform. Actually, it is not only the users’ addresses but also their mobile phone numbers.

Others would feel conscious, but others for sure would enjoy “acting” in front of cameras.
Now are you thinking of actors and actresses? Well, it’s just your own neighborhood, with those surveillance cameras placed somewhere. And of course they’re not for you but for those criminals around. This is part of government’s plan to reduce incidence of crime.

Mayor Gabriel J. Campana of Williamsport City was both eager and hesitant about the plan. He knew it cannot be implemented in full swing. An approved City Council resolution has been passed, limiting its area of coverage. According to the ruling, these spy cameras would only be placed at parks and other public utilities. The Mayor pushes for a wider area, one that would include the larger portion of the district. Being hopeful, he said that he would do all he could to draw support for his idea. With the present resolution, the area of exposure would be places such as Memorial, Elm, Brandon, Youngs Woods, Newberry and Shaw Place.

Campana’s proposal is based on the idea of increasing the area of exposure. This, he asserts, would result to the best possible use of the funds. According to the mayor, places considered as high crime areas as recognized by the police should be integrated. Some would not favor this idea. Others say that a wider area makes the coverage thinner. It is better to concentrate efforts over a smaller area. With the present resources, the same number of cameras would be used not considering the area.