There are many names to call it, but all in all, a natural disaster is one that comes with or without warning. The past year was overloaded with natural catastrophes that cost billions of dollars. People in the United States alone suffered from several hurricanes and tornadoes. There were many areas that were rocked and destroyed by earthquakes, like the East Coast, Colorado and Peru. Japan had her share of tsunami, and Queensland, Australia, Bangkok and most recently, the Philippines suffered from destructive floods. These events tend to send a lesson across – that natural disasters should be put in the top risk concern.

Today, businesses and government agencies should prepare for all of these looming disasters. Each should have an individual plan for disaster recovery. In today’s information-driven world, further disasters can result from power outages and network failures. There should still be time for every business to adjust and respond to risks. In any possible event, there should be uninterrupted and continuous access to either personal or corporate data.

Although internet privacy issues are not new, they are not something to be taken for granted. Today, sharing of information can be done through many different means. A careless attitude among users has developed when it comes to giving out private information. At first there were no harsh consequences, but the explosion of giving away private information has killed privacy. Users willingly give away their privacy mainly through social networking, but except when they are affected, they really don’t care about this.

By posting her European summer vacation pictures on Facebook, one high school English teacher in Georgia lost her job. The school authorities said that the pictures “promote alcohol use” and “contained profanity”. Her pictures showed her holding a glass of wine and a mug of beer. She has sued the school, but this experience is something that should teach a lesson to every social networking enthusiast. It is not safe to share even those well-meaning photos in the internet.

The teacher claimed that she carefully chose the options in the privacy settings on her Facebook account. She believed that such restrictions would allow only her closest friends to see her pictures, but she lost her job because of them. This is clear proof that privacy settings do not save a user from exploitation. It is probable that one of her friends posted her photos somewhere else. Being careful with what one posts does not guarantee internet safety.

Beijing considered as “unacceptable” Google’s action of blaming China for the hacking attacks that the search giant suffered. After a year, Google was again attacked; the first one also pointed to China as the source of the perpetrator. Google said that there was a concentrated Chinese campaign to steal the personal email accounts of some senior government officials of the U.S. and Chinese activists. The company said that both the first and the second attacks were both traced to Jinan, China.

Google explained that the concerted attack used targeted emails that were sent to hundreds of recipients. To the users’ dismay, the emails led to a fake log in page created by some unscrupulous individuals, and not by Google. The recipients were willing to give their passwords because these emails appeared to have been sent by a known sender.

According to a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman in a news briefing, blaming the crime on China is improper. He further mentioned that hacking is an international problem, and China is also a victim. China has always declared that it does not condone hacking. It did not deny that hacking remains a popular hobby in the country, but it is not supported, by any means, by any public agency or entity.

On grounds of privacy, four police officers are suing so that their personal cellphone records cannot be obtained. The unauthorized circulation of a photo of a man killed while resisting arrest prompted the authorities to conduct an investigation on them. The four officers sued in order to block the search of their cellphones. However, there is no direct denial from them that they had nothing to do with the distribution of the controversial photo.

One of the four officers admitted at the police office that he used his cellphone to take the picture of Carlos Boles. The 35-year-old man died of a gunshot while he was resisting arrest in a house at Osage Street, St. Louis. During the commotion, Deputy U.S. Marshal John Perry was also killed. A third one, a city police officer, was also wounded.

Attorney John Bouhasin chose not to reveal how many among the four officers were involved. He only gave a hint that “some have admitted seeing and forwarding the photo”. He also filed a petition for a restraining order. The investigation focuses on which among the four officers forwarded the pictures to others. It rapidly spread through emails or short message service (SMS). The picture eventually reached the Post-Dispatch and some television stations. However, these entities found the picture so graphic that they decided not to use it.

Yes, pedestrians and people at rail and bus stations and special events venues are being scanned. They are subjected to x-rays that may be harmful to health without their knowledge. This is a clear issue of privacy invasion that has just been recently disclosed.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has obtained documents that imply an existence of contracts. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has called some providers to develop new mobile and static scanning systems. Intended specifically for detection of explosives, the contract signed was worth millions of dollars.

EPIC was able to obtain the documents from the DHS through a request filed last year under the Freedom of Information Act. Siemens Corporate Research and Northeastern University were tasked on a special assignment. They are to propose and develop an Intelligent Pedestrian Surveillance platform. The contract specified one that could detect improvised explosive devices concealed in backpacks and under clothing.

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.

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.

Just very recently in the U.S., a call for enhanced mobile data storage and self-destruct mechanism was urgently called. It was based on the premise that privacy and confidentiality of data are now at high risk. There is a big possibility that even routine searches would include mobile and similar devices and hence data stored in them.

Most of the presently existing privacy laws were applied way back before high-tech devices came into existence. In the past, a person when searched has with him no more than a wallet, a purse, a hanky, or a keychain. Times have changed. Powerful computing devices now lurk in the pockets and bags of people. These could be cellular phones, flash drives, netbooks, etc. There are yet many more and even more powerful ones to come.

These devices contain enormous amount of data. Whether for personal or business use, they contain sensitive, private, or confidential data. With the present trend of enhancing personal search, there is a need to “hide” these data somewhere else. Thus there is a need for enhanced mobile data storage. In other cases, self destruction of data is also important.

There was a time when millions of Americans were beset by sudden phone calls. That was the time when telemarketing started creating its place in the net. While doing an important chore for the family, the phone would ring. When answered, you would be disappointed once the caller started asking about lots of private information. That was obviously invasion of privacy.

Finally, Americans were able to put an efficient solution by signing up for the Do Not Call Registry. Disgruntled people signed up and the tool was put in place. Somehow, that was the best thing to do to get rid of annoying callers.

Internet technology becomes more and more invasive. Tools are being improved, each one with a specific market. With these tools, new ways of behaving online were developed. Here comes a newer, cleverer type of privacy invasion – tracking the behavior of internet users.

Corporations are able to monitor and study your keystrokes. After some time, they would be able to draw a picture of your online activities. For example, they would know which sites you frequently visit. Finally they would have a clear idea of your internet profile. You would fit into one or more of their targeted customers.

By then, marketers would consider you one of their prospects. This would be to their benefit, and, as usual, to your disturbance. This is the beginning of a new cycle of unwanted online advertisements and the likes.

From the “Do Not Call Registry” crusade, here comes the “Do Not Track” campaign. This was recommended by the Federal Trade Commission in December of last year. With this in place, corporations can no longer keep track your internet behavior. However, there are pros and cons as to its usefulness.

You would recall that in 2005, the New York Times uncovered the existence of warrantless household wiretapping. It was laid on track in 2001 by the National Security Agency. It took nearly 5 years for the government to acknowledge that it is indeed working. Since its setting up, NSA had been keeping an eye on overseas phone calls made by Americans.

In the recent issues, it’s not the government meddling into private lives. Lots of corporations make money by gathering private information. Some do it for good cause, others for their own selfish reasons. However, the main issue is not much why data are collected. It is in the way information is “stolen” from innocent people. It is the question of internet privacy that is on top of this.

The current move by the U.S. Commerce Department might be able to create a positive environment for internet users. It has called to develop a “privacy bill of rights” proposed for people who divulge information in the internet. One of the major sections would be to set guidelines for telemarketing and online advertising corporations among others.

Private and other kinds of information that are gathered online must not be used without consent from the owner. The Internet is, without question, a useful tool in almost all areas of human activity. However, users must be careful enough when comes to using personal information. This is a question that cannot be solved by any tool or gadget. It is more than expertise, even more than brains. Internet privacy has more to do with human freedom and social justice.

Privacy: it doesn’t seem like we have much of it these days. Nearly everything we do these days is being watched. This new surveillance is manifested in many aspects of life. A person just walking down the street could be caught on tape from a store’s outdoor security camera. A driver who runs a red light could be caught on a security camera embedded in the light and sent a nice little ticket and directions on how to pay the fee. Students in school and in college are watched the most closely. In today’s cut throat world, students will do anything that they can to put themselves ahead of the pack, and that includes an unfair advantage by cheating. Some universities with large, lecture style rooms survey test takers with hidden video cameras to try and catch cheaters and give everyone a level playing field. Some on the more paranoid spectrum think the government watches everything we do, and records it all to be used against us later for criminal implications.

This is far from accurate though. While the government certainly does, and this is no secret, record things about the American people, it is certainly only for our safety. Ever since the 9/11 bombings, our country has stepped up security three-fold. This is most noticeable in the airports; the conduit for the brutal attacks. Where you used to go through security with pretty much just a visual check and a quick metal detector, you now spend quite a bit of time. It is not uncommon to see a person having to take off coat, shoes, and belt to be searched and patted down, to make sure they are not a threat. To most though, this is just an annoyance and means they have to wake up even earlier for their flight lest they miss it due to a convoluted security check.