With the ever present disturbing problems regarding privacy, lawmakers are looking into adding more ways to better protect children. As of now, the law specifies protection for children when they surf the internet. It requires businesses to follow special rules when it comes to the online collection and use of children’s personal information. However, there is a conflicting stand by lawmakers on this issue. Even members of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce are not one in deciding whether there is a need to craft special protection for kids 13 to 17 years old.

The provisions in the 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) contain special requirements for websites that permit the access of children under age 13. These websites must get a parent’s permission before they can collect, use or disclose a child’s personal information. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposes to revise the definition of personal information. The proposal states that this definition should include geographical location data and other identifiers, such as cookies.

There is also a divided opinion as to the extension of coverage of COPPA, specifically the one covering teenagers. Privacy advocates are saying that Congress should include special protection for teens in order to broaden its privacy legislation. There are representatives from at least two states who proposed a more radical legislation. They would go as far as barring websites from tracking children while they are online.

The creation of a Privacy Task Force by Connecticut’s Attorney General was triggered by online and data privacy issues. This development was announced to the public last September 15th in answer to the ever increasing number of internet privacy concerns and data breaches. The announcement clarified that the task force’s main activity is public education about data protection requirements.

The Attorney General’s office has felt the need for a plan that will directly deal with these two big issues. Internet and data privacy problems have been pestering consumers and the general public interest for quite some time. There are at most a dozen ongoing investigations concerning security breaches. These cases mostly resulted in the loss of medical records of patients, insurance records or personal information of customers. A lesser number of cases have something to do with the unauthorized collection of personally identifiable information.

The office has also asked the help of giant tech companies to boost the campaign on protecting the privacy of consumers. While the investigations are going on, Google and Facebook have also committed to get involved in consumer protection. To some extent, the willingness of these companies to take part in the campaign is turning out positive results.

Internet users do not give second thoughts that they could be penalized for faking their personal information on the internet. Now, Facebook users may have to think many times before providing any false name, age, or date of birth on their accounts. Such occurrences may sound silly, but there have been several cases where users were penalized for violating the “terms of use” of the websites that they visited.

The U.S. Congress is now set on expanding the scope of laws that pertain to “cybersecurity”. There is already the so-called Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was enacted in 1986, but little is known about it. It mainly deals with the laws that pertain to computer hacking. Since its enactment, its provisions are periodically broadened, and it now extends far beyond hacking.

At present, it is unlawful for any person to use a website outside of its terms of “authorized access”. This means that users cannot go beyond the limits in the terms and conditions set by the owner. The user faces a criminal responsibility, particularly if these are committed within a workplace setting.

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.

One of the purposes why privacy laws exist is to give adequate protection to personal information. Today, millions of users share their personal data in social networking. These data are then collected in the database of these companies. Without adequate protection, these data could be abused. The results could be detrimental to these data owners. To avoid such consequence, users need to set limits as to which information is to be shared and which is not.

Privacy laws remained the same for more than twenty years. Considering the present status of technology, these laws have been outdated. They can no longer give full protection to personal information. If ever, these laws would have loopholes and thus could be questioned.

Just recently, Twitter disclosed an incident that illustrates the inapplicability of existing privacy laws. It received a federal order requiring it to submit its stored users’ data to authorities. Although the company questioned such action, it cannot say “no” because privacy laws would “allow” such. Users of the digital age would always be violated if the same incident happens continuously. Internet users of today need more protection that those in the past. It is because today, there are many ways that these data could be used for self-vested interests. One more thing about today’s users is they have lesser limits in data sharing. This fact validates the need for a revised implementation of privacy laws.

There is a growing public interest in the issue over internet privacy. In no other time has there been like today’s heated debates over it. In the past, privacy laws were there, and were applicable during that era. Then technology became more sophisticated but at the same time user-friendly. This gave rise to internet companies that collect user’s data to build their own marketing niche.

Here comes the privacy issue. Users became open to providing their personal information to these companies. Unknowingly, they are also opening their “doors” to intruders. Using their own supplied information, users are being tracked by companies that thrive on data marketing. Some of these marketers could abuse and take advantage of using this to push their own purpose.

Adding complexity to the issue on privacy is the fact that existing privacy laws are already outdated. Information technology has grown very rapidly, but privacy laws have remained dormant and hence obsolete. Users’ privacy could no longer be fully covered. It is very easy for an interested party to gain access to personal data or behavior of online users. Companies that have possession of these data cannot simply say “no” whenever they are called to turn these over to authorities. This is because existing privacy laws “allow” such access to records.

One thing that many internet users ignore to give due consideration is personal information that they share online. For whatever reasons, it seems that information sharing has become very common and natural. Online users do not sense any damaging consequence that could come along with such data sharing. Too much personal information have been freely uploaded that privacy laws have to be improved. This is because many companies are taking interest on these data to be used for their own gains.

Social networking is one site where people could plainly give out their personal information. Facebook for instance has about 500 million users around the globe. This number of users has at least their basic private information open to practically anyone else online. All these data are in the custody of the networking business. These same data are what the government trying to defend in line with privacy laws.

As mentioned before, many internet users have become very careless in uploading information. With technology on the go, the government desires to put added control over data selling. Many government officials support the planned enhancement of privacy rights protection.

On the other hand, Facebook also has taken the test to redesign its strategies in the US. It has accepted the stand of the government leaning towards a stricter discharge of privacy laws. For this, the company has taken a stride ahead of the rest of its counterparts like Twitter, Zynga and LinkedIn.

In Canada, there are about 16,000 people who were conceived from donated sperm. In many parts of the country, the privacy of sperm donors remained undisclosed as provided by law. In British Columbia, sperm donor records are either shredded or incinerated after six years. Clearly, their children can no longer have access to these records when they become adults.

For a long time, children of these anonymous fathers did not ask about their fathers’ details. Some children do not know that they were conceived from donated sperm. Others know this truth but do not want to know more. Still others know this truth but do not know what to do to know more.

Not with the case of Olivia Pratten. She is leaving no stone unturned to know more about her father’s identity. Pratten does not know much about her biological father. She was born in 1981 after her mother sought the help of a fertility specialist in Vancouver. All she knew was that he is Caucasian, with a stocky build, brown hair, blue eyes and type “A” blood.

Now a journalist working in Toronto, the 28-year old Pratten is determined to know more about the sperm donor. She is now hoping that the British Columbia Supreme Court will favor its ruling for her. Never before has this court granted to reveal the identity of sperm donors. If ever, this will be the first of its kind in North America.

North America has maintained its ruling of maintaining anonymity rights of donors. Sweden, the U.K. and some other European countries, however, have legislations that force donors not to remain anonymous.

With Pratten’s case now in the B.C. Supreme Court, she is just awaiting for the court to rule in her favor. She asked for the court to include offspring conceived via egg and sperm donation in a new Adoption legislation. She also wanted a new law that would force physicians to maintain donor records indefinitely. If this is granted, children of donors could access these records once they become adults.

The issue at hand is not much about Pratten wanting to know her father’s identity. Rather, it is whether the anonymity of past sperm donors should be revealed.

A critic contends that granting a positive decision by the court would imply two things to future donors. First, donors would need better financial incentives. Second, they would think of themselves as helping other people build families by donating sperm. Either way, the issue remains the same: should the anonymity of sperm donors be kept intact?

Ever since cookies were introduced to surfers of the web, there has been two contrasting values perpetrating the Internet. One side was fully benevolent, and offered users ads tailored to their every need, and including products they might actually want, instead of the completely random bombardment of ads. All around this would create a more personalized, and just generally better surfing environment. The dark side to all of this is the tracking, and ruthless storage of information about your online life, and the possibility of all of this information to become known.

Online advertisement agencies have always had a spotted past with privacy laws and their invasion due to the behavioral advertising practices, (where they browse your history to figure out what you are interested in) and the fact that much of this is done with no permission and often without the consumer’s knowledge.

They need to change soon though, because people and lawmakers are complaining. Two subcommittees in the House are meeting this week to discuss implementing more stringent privacy laws as far as online advertising goes. The House has polled major Internet giants such as Yahoo, FaceBook, and MySpace, and found that many of them have very flawed and inadequate privacy guarantees. The people have spoken too; those polled confess they are unsure about how well they are being protected and usually completely unsure of their rights to privacy. Needless to say, the House is almost dead-set on increasing guidelines and enforcing them more strictly.

The Transportation Security Agency (further referred to as the “TSA”) has been hatching plans to start full body scanning, and implement this into airport security terminals across the nation. There was a bit a bit of controversy about this practice, and when called to the attention of the House Of Representatives, was banned in a 310-118 vote.

Privacy groups have claimed that the scanner can show in detail things that are meant to be hidden. “Even genitalia can be discerned in the scan”, some claim. TSA representatives on the other hand, assert that the imager is invades privacy only minimally, and even offers a “privacy algorithm” to further distort sensitive areas on travelers.