Video surveillance is utilized by many people in the United States today. Regular people use them to keep a watchful eye over their property; if they leave for work or go on an extended vacation they will flip it on to get evidence of any attempted break ins. The police are the main proprietors of these security cameras though, as they use them in pretty much everything they do; they are mounted to the front of every police car and kept rolling all of the time so the crook (or the cop!) can’t get away with any funny business. Businesses also employ these cameras services quite regularly. They might do so for security reasons, such as mounting one outside of their office building to try and catch any crooks on video who might be breaking into their building. They could also do it for a more controversial reason; watching the employees. Many businesses use these cameras to monitor unknowing employees, and make sure they aren’t doing anything illicit.

There are two sides to this argument; one says yes to the cameras, and one says no. The side supporting the video surveillance says that the threat of cameras watching employees will stop them from doing anything the company would not support. Also, it takes out the risk of trusting an employee with too sensitive of a task. The other side says that this trust is exactly what makes an employee loyal; if they are being watched all of the time, they won’t feel trustworthy themselves. Also, it just isn’t right to perform monitoring of someone without them knowing, and you know the employees wouldn’t know.

The city of Los Angeles has proposed a multi-million dollar buyout of all sorts of Internet information: e-mail, personal information, even police records. They propose to use Google to find all of this information; essentially tap Google’s unlimited database. Although the city wishes to buy everything for noble reasons like criminal tracking and other crime deterrents, the public worries for its loss of privacy.

Paul Weber, who spearheads the Los Angeles Police Protective League, says that he himself is worried. He says that his unit has little knowledge on what the plan fully entails, and they are quite worried about what the repercussions on the public’s privacy will be. He is especially worried about the release of confidential police records and other criminal data.

He was right, and not the only one worried. The online messaging giant Twitter sent out a message to be careful when using Google, because they frequently use “cloud computing”: storing files online rather than in their direct control. This allows the data to be much easier to hack and get into. Twitter isn’t the only one to have this concern though, but it a novel event that one huge company calls out another.

This shift from keeping data and information online is useful, as it cleans up the massive amount of space needed to store all of this data, but it represents many security issues. For one, the whole thing would be accessed by a username and password system, so if a hacker got either, he could be on his way into a gold mine of information. This is also amplified by the fact that many people link their accounts together, so if a hacker gained access to one account, he could actually be getting into many accounts. Also, there are not as many layers of security that prevent an interloper from gaining access.

Invasion of Privacy is a number of things. First of all, privacy is indeed a law, and one all citizens of the U.S. are entitled to.

Most of the time, invasion of privacy applies to celebrity and other public figures. Basically it represents their freedom from excessive media intrusion into their lives, and are often represented in celebrity libel cases. These often have to do with celebrities being portrayed in a negative or untrue manner, and unfortunately, often fail. The celebrities file them, but the rarely win, since it is just seen as a way of life to be stalked as a prominent public figure.

As an average citizen though, do not think these laws don’t apply to you. You have every right to privacy that these A-listers do as well. Some may think “why even bother? My privacy isn’t being invaded…” This may be true; surely you are not finding slander about John Doe on the front of People magazine, but that is not to say you are being invaded in other ways.

When George Orwell penned his novel 1984, he predicted that personal privacy and freedoms would be idyllic notions of the past. Some thought the story was just a outrageous tale spun to entertain the paranoid of his era, but some of its ideas are being manifested; just about 25 years later.

In the UK, there are government CC cameras around seemingly every corner, and here in the U.S., we have our beloved Patriot Act. These acts seem to keep chipping away at our rights: unreasonable search and seizures are not permitted.

Some people do not care about this freedom; “why is it a problem if you’ve got nothing to hide?” That’s not the point: these freedoms are inherited upon birth and are now being infringed at a rapid rate. States are beginning to plan actions that will effectively ban anonymous proxy servers, which allow you to remain anonymous online.

If you thought you have privacy when you’re surfing the ‘net, you’re sadly mistaken. Every site you visit, every email you send, goes through the server of your ISP. As you might have heard recently on the news, the only way to guarantee your security is to use an anonymous proxy. It sounds mysterious, doesn’t it? First, you need to know why you may need one.

According to Colorado Law School professor Paul Ohm, there may be more to worry about than we know. Ohm says, “…almost no other entity poses a greater threat to privacy than the ISP.” While some Internet users are aware of this, most haven’t entertained any major concerns about all their private information that is transmitted. Up until now, ISPs haven’t had the technology to really play around with people’s privacy.

Those are the operative words: up until now. Deep packet inspection gear is being developed by several software companies that can not only collect this data, it can sort it so it can be sold to advertisers so you can be targeted by marketers preying on your harvested interests. The companies with this software are offering large amounts of cash to ISPs for this information. What ISP company is going to want to turn down money? Another aspect is that the government, in the interests of being able to wiretap a user’s Internet data if they are suspected of acting against this country, has required ISPs to install this kind of gear. Just in case.

According to Computerworld, an irate Arkansas man posted information that he found on his PulaskiWatch website.  This sensitive information was gleaned from emails from a county clerk and nine other government officials. All of the information was found through public records. Other sensitive information on Virginia officials was also posted by a watchdog group called the Virginia Watchdog. Sadly, the group doesn’t seem to be working well.

The man who posted the information, Bill Phillips, did so because he had a point to prove to county officials.  Phillips is the owner of PulaskiWatch and found out that officials had posted circuit court records which showed such information as voided checks, Social Security numbers and even bank account numbers. In retaliation, Phillips searched thousands of office-related emails he found on the Internet and posted what he found.  A few of the emails that were acquired by Computerworld contained sensitive information. Two examples of the content are, first, a woman who left their employ because she feared for her safety.  A dangerous looking man was loitering in the parking lot. The second example was how much salary to pay two employees who had been recently demoted.  In addition, Phillips posted each county employee’s name, salary and the date hired.  He appears to be only retaliating on county officials and not posting sensitive information like they did.  Information of that nature has already been posted on the Pulaski County site before, and once is more than enough.  As a side note, students that work for the elections will make $7.50 an hour. Yes, that was in one of the emails as well.

When you send emails or go browsing on the web, there is more going on than just visiting sites or sending out messages.  First, your Internet communications are full of information such as headers.  Deep packet inspection is a process that captures and reads through your internet activities and collects details about the formatting, as well as reads the actual emails or web site you visit.  In other words, deep packet inspection software can gather the information used by your computer without your knowledge or permission.

Your communications can contain financial information, log-ins, personal details and other information that makes it possible for your identity to be compromised by criminals and your accounts to be assessed.  This is a major problem.

According to several periodicals, such as CIO magazine, the use of DPI or Deep Packet Inspection is being reviewed by Congress, and possibly will be rendered illegal.  Although no one is champing at the bit to claim they are using this technology, your employer, your ISP and criminals all have the necessary tools to use this method to inspect your Internet activity.

Although they mean well, Congress is notoriously slow on passing legislation, and you don’t have time to wait for their findings.  Waiting could have devastating results.  But there is an immediate solution available, and that is to use an anonymous proxy for all your internet activity.  It will encrypt your communications and that can defeat or delay any deep packet inspection activity.

This is one of those situations where depending on others to protect you is not the best approach.  Digital thieves are everywhere.  Protect yourself and use an anonymous internet proxy.  Privacy is not a given on the internet.  It’s usually what’s taken.