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.

Americans generally believe that the familiarity they share with their doctors is one of the most intimate. However, without yet having legislation, there have already been about 500 million violations of personal privacy and data breaches in the last decade or so. These can be attributed to either federal or state governments or local officials or contractors. These violations are proof that patients’ data would not be safe in their hands.

An HHC spokesperson came onto the scene and tried to contradict the public’s fear. He started by trying to give assurance that no personally identifiable information would be collected by either the HHS or the states. He again mentioned that the present administration considers health record protection as its top priority. This is still in line with the administration’s programs to develop the protection of people’s information and put forward new ideas in health care.

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.

A differing opinion was made by a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge in August 2010. He said that a reasonable person would not want all his public movements to be watched all the time. He further argued that surveillance technology in the past is different from the present GPS capability. People are expecting that the Court will not reject the Judge’s logic so that they can still enjoy the same degree of anonymity.

Applying GPS technology to track a person is much easier than it used to be. For example, the police used to use beepers to follow a car. Today, anyone can be put under surveillance 24 hours a day, seven days a week without a lot of effort used in following that person’s movements. Indeed, one’s privacy will most likely need to be redefined in terms new surveillance parameters.

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.

For users who do not want their data to be collected, this proposal also directs data collectors to give users an opt-out option. This is especially true with very sensitive personal data. Data collectors are also obliged not to collect data that is not needed to deliver their service. Data that is collected for research purposes should have a specific expiry period that must be provided by the company. In other words, the data should be automatically deleted after a specific date. The same provisions would apply in the event that they planned to market this data to a third party.

The State Attorneys Generals and the Federal Trade Commission would take charge of law enforcement. This makes the bill really complete and not just a kind of an “overseer”. Users would have to submit their grievance through these enforcers because the law would not provide for private lawsuits.

Some internet giants aired their support to the bill including HP, Intel, Microsoft, and eBay. They made clear that such legislation would encourage the growth of businesses, promote innovation and build consumer trust in online technology. On the other hand, some consumer protection groups stated that they could not support the bill in its present form. They explained that the bill needs a do-not-track mechanism, contains prejudice towards social media marketers, and suppresses private legal actions.

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.

Some of the other items in the settlement require an independent audit to oversee and validate Google’s privacy program. This will be done once every other year in the next twenty years. It also requires the company to obtain user consent before giving away information to any third party. Any alteration in Google’s services should always consider its privacy policies and see to it that these are not violated.

The FTC reiterated that Google broke its own privacy policies. It explained that users’ information provided for Gmail was integrated into Buzz without their consent. The policy clearly states that Google must seek users’ permission if collected information will be used in a different manner than that in Gmail. FTC Chairman Jon Liebowitz called for companies to honor what they stated in their privacy pledges.

Google is serious about correcting its missteps with Buzz. The company expects that the settlement will put an end to the issue. It also apologized for falling short of the usual standards in terms of user control and transparency. An FTC spokesperson also said that this settlement will hopefully step up the quality of privacy standards not just for Google but for the whole internet community.

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.

Another area of concern is on government transparency. The party also strives to uphold citizens having control of their democratic destiny. This can be achieved if people know what government is doing and which special interest are influencing public elected officials. There seems to be a decreasing openness by government in abiding by open meeting laws. There are closed door deals that favor mostly corporations. Public information is also sold to private interests; all of these are detrimental to democracy and privacy.

Massachusetts Pirate Party has issued a statement emphasizing that government no longer gives people the opportunity to live up to the old ideals. These are supposed to be the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today, corporations have overpowered the people with government expanding their power. To the party, these ideals should be lived once more and be real for all.

At present, James O’Keefe, the party’s organizer, said that the party is in the process of training activists. These are the ones who will work for organizing and building local chapters. It is on the look out to killing the Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act (COICA). Approval of this bill would empower government to “take down any web domain found to host copyrighted material without permission”. It is also looking for legislation before the Massachusetts General Court that they can support and should oppose. O’Keefe is hopeful and positive that the party will find its future in Massachusetts.

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.

The so-called health data record business has been debated for some time. It actually involves marketing of prescriber-identifiable material. This is done by data-mining corporations that buy online data. What they do is collect data about which doctors prescribe what medicines to patient. This information would then be matched with those from American Medical Association’s databank. The matched results would then function as bases in developing the necessary software. This would help the pharmaceutical companies in increasing their sales. How? Simply put, they can identify which doctor would likely accept a specific new drug in the market.

The states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are implementing the new “prescription privacy” laws. Among its provisions is prohibiting data-mining companies from collecting prescription data of doctors. It is documented that these collected data are used in drug promotion purposes.

Current developments on this case exposed that the states of New Hampshire and Maine favored the existing privacy laws. The state of Vermont however took the contrary position. These two conflicting positions urged the Vermont Attorney General to raise the case to the Supreme Court.

The verdict on this case would have direct consequences on online privacy laws. There is a probability that protocols would be passed. It would cover regulating online tracking and sharing or marketing user browsing data. If this occurs, the so-called corporate free speech rights would become futile.

However, if the high court would sustain the free speech rights, then prescription data will become hot commodities. These companies would then flourish by using medical records to find doctors who will most likely become sales targets.

The central issue here is privacy, but the judgment could go either way. The bottom line is that decision should always defend the constitutional rights of both parties involved.

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.

While many support the idea of the plan, it is only the principle  that they support. The actual implementation of the plan is questioned. Obviously installing all of this technology would be quite expensive, and seeing as we are already cash-strapped, people wonder if their taxes will rise to accommodate the new addition. Then there is the matter of people actually using it. Employers might have to pay employees more every day to go through an austere and arduous sign in process that would take up some of their working time. There is still the likely possibility that employers will just start to play employees under the table, and not have them on the registered payroll.

The U.S. already fingerprints all immigrants into their data banks that income into the country. This would eliminate the need of gathering up all legal immigrants, but they still would have to convince petrified illegal immigrants that they can come out of the woodwork and register; many would probably think it’s a sting to try and pick them up and deport them.

With so many citizens fleeing from own country to escape to the U.S., we now have strained relations with these nations, and many problems in our own economy. These illegal immigrants will be scared of the law for a while, but after being more confident, they won’t have the pathos most citizens feel towards our law enforcement and cause a lot of trouble.

There are privacy concerns with this as well. A fingerprint is just like a social security number, and if this information falls into the wrong hands, can lead to tracking and harassing. Something just seems a bit fishy about having so much information on store about you too. Privacy advocates are completely opposed to the idea of cornea scanning or fingerprint scanning, and feel it is a step towards an authoritarian world a la 1984.

I think it’s safe to say Orwell would be turning in his grave right now though.

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.

Our government representatives would be wise to take a look at TechCrunch’s article and Digital Bill of Rights.  It would be an excellent template and jump-off point to getting out legislation we sorely need in the digital world.