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.

In addition, the idea of a “web eraser” was again brought up. This is an older proposition, wherein businesses used to provide the mechanism for teens to erase their online tracks. With this, any personal information teenagers leave when they browse, especially in social networking sites, would be deleted once they log out.

At their age, teenagers usually commit the online mistake of giving too much personal information on the sites that they visit. They don’t know that these mistakes can haunt them months, or even years, later. The premise of a privacy advocate group is this: kids need more protection than they have right now.

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.

The Task Force will take charge of all investigations regarding consumer privacy breaches that are brought to the Attorney General’s office. In addition, its other function is to educate both the public and the business community. It will focus on protecting sensitive personal data and informing affected individuals whenever data breaches occur.

It will also act as a resource center where individuals and businesses can go to ask for help. As part of the initiative, those who need assistance either for protecting their own information or that of their customers can get in touch with the task force. It also believes that it can do a great deal to help customers in coping with the challenging and ever evolving technological environment.

Four attorneys who have proficiency, interest and experience in data privacy issues make up the Privacy Task Force. It is hoped that this program will provide an example for others who want to accomplish the same goal. Data and privacy protection programs will not be effective when left alone to the public. An expert group has to lead them into an understanding about the cost of data breaches and how they can avoid these kinds of problems.

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.

This will open the eyes of those who deliberately misstate their personal information for any reason. It is a frequent thing for social networking enthusiasts to lie about their names and ages. If the Congress decides to implement the law, falsifying would constitute a felony and would be punishable. Users would surely face penalties once Congress approves and decides such acts as criminal.

In the past, there were a number of cases that were filed by private parties involving silly disputes. A report said that an employer sued a former employee for sending personal emails and visiting Facebook on company time. Another case involved a company that sued a competitor for visiting the former’s website. The company made it a part of its terms of use that competitors are prohibited from visiting the site.

Before finally making a decision, Congress must clearly delineate those cases that involve criminal activities. Although there is a need to put real offenders on trial, the law has to be kind. It is not good, knowing that federal courts would be flooded with cases that involve mere breach of a promise.

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.

Those who go up against the court’s resolution argue that the ruling was based on faulty analysis. The term person is not in the relevant part of exemption 7 although it is found in F.O.I.A. This section does not identify “person” to include corporation. It also goes to show that Congress did not mean to have this analysis.

Such faulty view by the appeals court is a serious issue. This would eventually lead to the making of corporate privacy. If this remains as is, federal agencies and the courts would not be able to clearly define the bounds of the law. For example, the term “personal privacy” would encompass wide latitude of groups such as local, state, and foreign governments. The battle between individuals and groups trying to block the release of records would not end.

What is significant for now is the truth that efforts to defend personal privacy are alive. Government should satisfy the limits and conditions set forth in laws and policies. The general public is the end user but they can end up either as winners or losers.

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.

Tech companies decided to do something to protect themselves and their users. Lobbying is the effective strategy that they have discovered. Through lobbying, they can talk with lawmakers and privacy experts to propose their ideas. The purpose is not to totally influence decision, but to offer a wider venue for deliberation. They would like to see privacy laws that are favorable both to their business and users. They would like to see a balance between national security protection and privacy.

At present, there is a proposal for a “do not track” option. This is giving the user the leeway to consciously choose how his or her data should be treated. This method gives a user more freedom and hence is not oppressive. Another possible option is that sites would be required to obtain direct permission from data owners. Even these two proposals are not contained in today’s existing privacy laws. These are good reasons for government to act on the revision of these important laws.

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.

Facebook and Twitter as social networking companies hold so much personal data. This host of information provided by their users is the responsibility of these companies. It is their obligation to protect them by keeping them confidential. With the state of privacy laws, these companies can be compelled to let loose of these data. This is true especially if it is government’s protocol. It is in this situation that conflicts of interest emerge and can be detrimental to both parties.

Different groups have pushed for the revision of these laws. Giants in the internet industry have actually joined forces to call for thorough revamp of privacy laws. Even some government officials also believe that the change is inevitable. It should be implemented soon. Actually, the government has given a hint that 2011 would mark the rebirth of privacy laws. This time, these would be more timely and relevant to the existing conditions in the online community.

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.

Lobbying has become the most appropriate approach. Facebook has strategized to hire added employees who are specialists at public policies. Certainly, it is up to looking for some negotiation between the government’s project and the company’s objectives. To remember, government in particular wants to beef-up legislations to protect online users. These would include users’ identities, personal info, and online habits. In addition, policies will also be passed regarding the tracking, gathering and sale of any of this shared information.

There is an apparent hint that the government would launch “do not track” legislation. Senator Richard Blumenthal opts for policies that would oblige sites to obtain specific consent to track and sell data. The same stand is taken by Rep. Edward Markey, but centers more on protecting online activities and data collecting and profiling.

The brighter side of the matter is that both Facebook and government have the same viewpoint when comes to privacy protection. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg consents that people should be guaranteed of their privacy. Similarly, users have to be convinced that they have full control over the data that they submit. These are the same objectives as that of the planned legislation enhancements by the government.

More or less, there is likelihood that new regulatory actions would be implemented before long. This would be great news not only for Facebook but for other groups as well. If ever, these new policies would advantage both the users and companies. On one hand, users could continue to benefit from the fruits of technology. On the other, companies could make use of personal data but still keeping the privacy of millions of their clients.

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?

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.

In actuality, a physical bill governing these privacy failures is unlikely, but the companies get the idea: shape up quick! The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been using a self-regulating system for these advertisers, but when it doesn’t work, kicks in a little regulatory pressure. Basically, the law threats make everyone get their act together.

The House is planning to use a system where first party websites (the one you are surfing) can track and collect cookies, while third party websites have to have permission from the consumer. In other words, an opt-out system for first party websites, (where you have to say if you don’t want to take part) and an opt-in system for third party websites. (where you would have to say you wish to have your information taken)
Although this seems like a good situation, advertisers are a bit nervous about it. In an already faltering economy with most companies barely afloat, this will push some over the edge by not allowing them to access their desired demographics.

What is the best solution? Some suggest that it be totally left up to the consumer to decide whether they wish to share information, but offer incentives for their participation. The solution needs to come soon though, as people spend less money on ads than another other month this year in June.

Media companies are going to have to come up with something quick. It is quite ironic that they so meticulously collect data on us as though we were lab rats, but then will share no fiscal reports or any other financial reports with the public. Something has got to give, and even in these days where privacy seems to be an idyllic memory, it probably won’t be the public.

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.

The House’s amendment says that these screenings may not be used as the primary form of passenger screenings, and those who refuse the image scanner will be given a less invasive pat down. Senator Chaffetz makes a bold statement on the House’s condemnation: “No one needs to see my wife and kids naked to ensure the security of an airplane.”

The TSA argues the power of these devices though. They insist they are safe for even frequent flyers, and that they can detect hidden threats not even the strongest metal detector could. Still, many people and organizations called to suspend the this technology until an in-depth privacy analysis could be done.

The TSA is currently employing the technology at 19 airports across the U.S. At a recent convention, TSA representative Peter Pietra defended the image scanner: “Much work has gone into this… I personally prefer them. They are much more efficient than a pat down search or a metal detector.”

The TSA is currently accepting any suggestions to improve privacy for flyers at tsaprivacy@dhs.gov.
The government is currently deciding whether to abolish the technology for good, or to keep it as an open option.