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.

There should be a system for disaster preparedness. For any company, it is a well-known fact that its most important assets are its people. Unquestionably, for these people, their most important asset is their family. Is there a company or agency plan on how to move its people, including their families, if the need arises? Another consideration is to make a communication plan that is timely, clear and honest.

Every company and agency has a host of information that is vital to the uninterrupted course of activities. There should be a data back-up plan which should be verified and validated, and situated out of harm’s way. It should also be accessible to the recovery location. To ensure better data privacy, cloud service is now available for the storage of key data.

There is no certainty as to how long catastrophic events could last. Some may last for days, others for weeks, and still others for months. There have to be options if the facilities, network, technology and people could not be available. It is also very vital to think about those other businesses associated with “parent” companies. Their preparedness has a direct effect on any company or agency because jointly, they form a chain or network. There is more impact if not only one, everybody else involved is well-prepared.

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.

Some privacy supporters say that the users’ worst rival is their own selves. One even said that the level of data disclosure is up to the users. What they reveal depends on their own choice. Data mining companies can only make a profit out of the data that is made accessible to them. They have nothing to sell if users do not give out information. Obviously, users are the ones who are giving up their privacy. It is neither those data mining companies nor the government that is taking advantage of users’ information. The users themselves give away their privacy in exchange for enjoyment and convenience.

To some extent, our private lives are no longer so private nowadays. One critic said that privacy issues have been here as early as the 19th century with the invention of the Kodak camera. People enjoyed taking photos of other people, even without their permission. From then on, privacy has changed so much and it has never been the same again. Today, hundreds of millions of photos are shared on the internet. For sure, several millions of these have caused privacy issues to its owners in one way or another.

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.

Google has taken steps to check the condition, and has tried to prevent further attacks. The company suspected that the intention of the hacking was to explore the contents of the hacked email accounts. With the stolen passwords, the perpetrators could change the forwarding and delegation settings of the victims. The company took the initiative to notify the account owners and secured the same. The concerned government agencies were also made aware that their email accounts were compromised.

The recent attack was aimed at the users’ accounts and not at Google’s system. It was easy for the hackers to fool their victims by appearing to be friendly. The users, in turn, willingly gave their email passwords. A company spokesman admitted that it is difficult to identify who is liable. At most, it could only settle on where the attack appears to have come from. To protect its users, Google focused on how it could enhance its security system. It tried to make sure that everyone was well informed about how he or she could maintain a safe email account. Before users can access their emails, they are now required to enter a pin generated by their mobile phone, and a password.

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.

The reaction of the community towards the picture stirred such a move by both police officers and the department. Many commented that the picture was in poor taste. Others said that it is “incredibly distasteful”. The police explained their policy on the taking of pictures. According to them, they are permitted to take pictures at any crime scene solely for investigative purposes. Any other purposes would be considered “completely inappropriate and unacceptable”.

The police’s stand is to protect the privacy of both the victim and the department. Exposure of such photos may invite undue sympathy to any of the parties involved. This might influence the merits of the case. U.S. Marshals Service Spokesman Jeff Carter made it clear that all photographs and videos taken by the agency’s employees should not be distributed anywhere. They are considered “evidence and official records” and should exclusively be used for investigative purposes.

The petition for a restraining order is now with the U.S. District Court. It was initially filed in St. Louis Circuit Court, but was transferred because it involved matters of federal law. The petition identifies the four officers only by their initials N.M., T.F., S.S. and C.B.

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.

This system could quickly scan through vehicles and buildings for concealed explosives and contraband using x-rays. A so-called Z Backscatter Van houses multiple cameras that secretly scan moving pedestrians for potential threats. Basically, a Z Backscatter Van is a new type of mobile threat detection system. Its advantage lies much in the system’s ability to “see” through thicker materials.

Another technology mentioned in the contract is a scanning system that would be used at entrances to special events or other points of interest. DHS has chosen Rapiscan Systems to develop this walk-through X-ray screening system. This will be set up along hallways where people are scanned without their knowledge. Even for people as far as 10 meters away, this is capable of detecting hidden metallic and high-density plastic objects.

EPIC said that the documents contain parts that describe of plans by DHS to use the scanners secretly. A critic said that DHS seems to think that “it has that wide authority to implement its national security goals”. The reason of national security could be accepted, but privacy rights should not be only secondary.

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.

Add to this those law enforcers who secretly monitor and photograph people at public meetings. For what purpose you might ask. Actually it is for no reasonable basis at all. Putting this situation in a particular place, this could mean that anybody can be monitored and photographed anytime, anywhere! Is this not privacy invasion?

Such over reaction in implementing preemptive measures against terrorists downgrades the essence of individual privacy. Many arguments have been aired, questioning the validity of excessive surveillance of private citizens. Little by little, individual privacy is stripped off from people who do not even have any idea of what terrorism is. On the contrary, those with positive activist orientation could end up as real terrorists because of prejudice set against them.

It would help to revisit policies that are intrusive of a person’s privacy. As previously emphasized in discussions, government should strike a balance between its efforts to protect national security and individual privacy. Citizens could feel more secure and happier if they can act without being watched. At the same time, they want a government that safeguards them from any terrorist attack.

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.

He further made a commitment to work for a bigger budget from government. As announced, the U.S. Department of Budget would grant $450,000 for the execution of the project. This is part of the COPS Technology program by the Department. Bidding is at hand in order to spot the responsible bidder. Once this condition is complied with, the project will right away begin.

An issue on privacy has also surfaced. Police Chief Gregory Foresman stated simply the use of these gadgets. He said that using cameras would basically be the same as police visibility. Of course, these machines could make permanent images on film. Based on condition, the cameras should be able to pan, zoom, and tilt. They could turn around 360 degrees, making them a little “better” than humans.

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.

In California, the Supreme Court has ruled out the detailed searches of an arrested person’s phones. This also authorized search of the suspect’s other devices during the time of the arrest. Even without a search warrant, authorities can comprehensively look into all data in these devices. Imagine them going over your photo, address book, Web browsing history, search history, and many more. This is alarming especially for innocent and law-abiding citizens.

Anything could happen during this inspection. There is the risk of data copying, deletion, and other intrusive acts. This would then be clear invasion of privacy.

Open-source systems of enhanced data storage and self-destruction mechanisms were proposed. He enumerated among others five of the initial attributes that should be included. These are options such as:

1. It should enable users to have continuous and automatic back-up in a secure off-device location.
2. It should enable users to specify the degree of data security that they want on a per-item basis.
3. Enhanced data encryption should be secured for all communications between the mobile devices and remote data storage data facilities.
4. Self-destruct mechanisms should be user-friendly especially during emergency and unusual situations.
5. Deleted data after self-destruct should be resistant to reconstruction using forensic technology.

It is true that government wants equal protection of the law for its citizens. One way to ensure this is to uphold their 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.

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.

Annoying as they might be, these time consuming practices help our country stay safe every day. The Patriot Act is a bill enacted by the government that essentially gives them free reign to look over any communications and intercept and listen to them, whether it be public or private. While most Americans support the government, especially if the government is just trying to look out for the people’s safety, the Patriot Act raised some eyebrows. People were worried that it would be the coming of Big Brother and the government would watch them do everything.

This is hardly true, but it is important to be knowledgeable and enjoy some privacy. Start with your Internet connection. Use an anonymous proxy server and surf the web anonymously and safely. Your private proxy will make you untraceable to any interlopers wishing to follow your online data trail.