Health care in the U.S. is under scrutiny as health records of patients need to be disclosed, which would mean exposing these patients to privacy problems. With this comes another issue. The issue involves claims that the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary uses a double standard when it comes to defending patients’ privacy rights. The present administration has always claimed that it never takes health privacy for granted. Will it be compromised this time because of this issue?

This started with the comment of a state representative who said that the present HHS Secretary’s stand on patient privacy rights is opposite to her previous actions while she was still working for Planned Parenthood in Kansas. In order to defend the abortion clinics there, she is said to have used privacy as an excuse. She was successful in preventing the disclosure of anonymous abortion information to the state.

There is a current plan by the HHS program to create a national database of health records of all Americans. This has stirred diverse reactions from several groups, but the main issue is still privacy. They doubt the security of the manner in which health records would be made available to the state. They believe that such availability would constitute a violation of personal privacy.

The issue of anonymity still haunts people. This is especially true for those who are placed under watch. This time, the scope is expanded to include the anonymity of people who are in public places. The use of GPS devices in surveillance has triggered a controversy as to its legality. This resulted in the hearing of arguments by the U.S. Supreme Court to look into the possibility of expanding the scope of privacy to include those people in public places.

One of the cases that involved the use of a GPS device without warrant was that of a suspected drug dealer. The police, after placing the device in his car, tracked his movements for one month. Using the data collected, he was convicted of conspiring to sell cocaine. However, this is a possible case of unreasonable search due to the absence of a valid warrant. There is the question of whether the police action constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

If the Court upholds the decision that such types of searches are legal, then Americans should be expecting an end to their anonymity. Needless to say, people have enjoyed the privilege of, or rather the right to, privacy for quite a while. Now, people can be placed under surveillance as others would see fit, at any time. There is an argument going that states that if a person is in a public place, he is no longer considered “private”. The use of available tracking technology is not directed to curtail privacy, but to make surveillance easier.

The proposed Privacy Bill of Rights sets out the powers and limitations of data collectors on the internet. This bill was sponsored by Senators John Kerry and John McCain. This bill will hopefully stop data marketers from abusing and misusing private data owned by internet users. This would be the first comprehensive legislation about privacy rights that would address deceitful advertisers and data miners.

With its passage, the bill would clearly draw a distinction between reasonable use of data and clear violation of individual privacy. Users have heatedly aired their cases due to repeated privacy violations. The problem has been around for quite a long time and there have been a number of attempts to pass modernized privacy legislation. It seems that the time has come for this issue to be laid to rest. This means that businesses can use important user information for their services without violating users’ privacy.

As an all-inclusive legislation, information collectors are required to provide total user’s privacy protection. They also have to inform them the reason why they gather such data. Simply put, this bill makes information collectors accountable for whatever data they pull out from users.

After numerous users filed charges against Google, the search giant agreed to improve its privacy program. The charges started to pile up after the company launched the Buzz, its new networking service in February 2010. Details of the allegations showed that Google had to answer legally for violating its own privacy policy and for deceiving users.

Buzz was designed to automatically create a group called “public circle of friends” using the users’ Gmail contacts. The circle of friends was created based on the user’s most frequently used Gmail contacts. However, many users did not like the idea, opposite to Google’s intentions and expectations for launching Buzz. Users pointed out that they did not want all their email contacts to be included. Because the group was public, anyone could see it and have access to it. They would like to exclude those “blacklisted” ones like ex-spouses or recruiters. In short, users complained about privacy issues.

After some deliberations, Google acceded to the requirement set by the Federal Trade Commission. The company will spend time studying its existing services in order to find out if any of those pose risks to privacy. The company will implement thisant to any new services that it plans to launch. If risks would be found, policies will be developed to address those.

The “Pirates” are finally taking their place in Massachusetts. Yes, the Massachusetts Election Division has approved the Massachusetts Pirate Party as a political designation. With this development, a voter in the state can now register as a “Pirate”. It could be recalled that the United States Pirate Party was formed in 2006. However, time passed without the party being registered or officially recognized in any state.

Having been given the official approval, the party can already start working toward its vision and mission. The party has always openly voiced out its ideals and tried to live up to these. It endeavors to “increase government transparency, promote personal privacy, reinforce the spread of knowledge through copyright reform, and abolish patents.

One of the major reforms that the party strives to have is in personal privacy. It has criticized the government’s use of the 9/11 incident to increase its surveillance and control over citizens. It has mentioned the PATRIOT ACT, wiretapping, surveillance cameras as some of the government’s ways of curtailing privacy of people. It has also mentioned how corporations increase their spying in order to get more work out of their employees.

Are you aware that some pharmaceutical and data-mining companies make profit out of a doctor’s prescription? Yes, sale of health data may not be very common, but is a multi-million dollar business. Despite standing privacy laws some companies involved in this business manage to get into the core of it – and succeed.

With the latest government move to enhance laws on online privacy, some of these companies are bound to disappear. There is a plan to control the sale of prescription data, these being considered part of health records. Hence the action of health data sellers to force back against proposed government regulations.

The case between William H. Sorrell and IMS Health Inc. has been elevated to the Supreme Court. This is a health data case which is slated for hearing soon. Many pharmaceutical and data-mining companies are up to the decision. The result could influence the unending debates on online privacy. The first of its kind, whatever pronouncement the high court would have would turn into precedence.

Illegal immigration is a big problem in the U.S. today and is growing worse by the day. American citizens are losing jobs everyday to their illegal counterparts who will work for much less than they will. While minimum wage is what the lowest income Americans live with, for people of less developed countries, this money is unlike anything they have ever seen  before. Think about it from an employer’s perspective; you have two workers, and one will work for less money; who do you pick? The answer is obvious, as money is everyone’s number one concern.

The public has remained quiet about this problem for some time, but the downturn in the economy has made getting a job and holding one much more difficult. The U.S. is discussing the implementation of biometric cards to verify that all employees are legitimate citizens. They propose to use iris scans or maybe fingerprint scans that would require every employee to sign in at the beginning of every day and especially for job interviews.

The plan also proposes to step up immigration security and make it more difficult for someone to infiltrate the U.S.’s borders. For workers who are illegal but have been in the U.S. for some time, they will offer naturalization processes that are normally only available to legitimate immigrants.

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.

With the digital age going strong and a new administration in the White House, now is the perfect time to enact legislation and regulations concerning the Internet. TechCrunch recently published (courtesy of the Washington Post) an article outlining a Digital Bill of Rights to protect Internet users and consumers.  Most of the laws that govern the Internet are in need of a major overhaul due to all the advances in technology.  Basically they need to keep up with the changes.  If laws weren’t changed concerning the United States Postal Service, we’d all still be waiting for our mail to be delivered on horseback.  Imagine what it would be like if those old laws were still being used even with our modern delivery service.  Mail service would be unreliable, chaotic and ineffective.  The same situation we face digitally today.