There are high hopes that by the end of 2012, consumers will enjoy the benefits of tighter online privacy rules. This optimistic view is based on recent positive responses by companies to adopt the final recommendations set forth as best practices in privacy protection. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is confident that by backing tighter online privacy laws, consumers’ data will not be abused. Instead, consumers can enjoy new services without sacrificing their privacy.

At this time, companies are already working to include privacy into every project that they have. Focus is given on how people’s data is kept safe and to control how much is collected. As part of consumer empowerment, they should have the option to decide what information about them is being shared. This can be made possible if there is a “Do Not Track” mechanism that consumers can use to control the tracking of their activities.

What good would tighter online privacy rules give to consumers? The basis of all these discussions is the fact that there have been many privacy violations. Consumers do not exactly know that they are being tracked online. They also do not know that their personal data is collected and either directly used or sold to other companies. Most of all, consumers do not know the ways that they can protect their privacy.

Will users ever recognize the value of privacy by giving away personal information for free? Experience and observation would tell that many users readily give up privacy in exchange of a few cents that is not worth a candy bar. Research results indicate that over and above protecting their personal information, users put more value on saving a few cents. It seems that only data mining companies have figured out how to make money out of it.

It is estimated that Facebook now holds personal information that is worth about $100 billion. This includes the chatting, browsing and buying habits of millions of the social networking fans. Users who never appreciated the value of their personal data willingly uploaded it. Analysts say that the present trend shows personal data being traded among service providers just like any other commodity. Service providers can make thousands of dollars out of the information that users have given up for “free”.

Did it ever occur to you that as more mobile apps are fed into the market, more new privacy concerns are raised? Those who have smartphones find it very easy to click on any application and download it without second thought. They simply accept all of what is contained in the fine print without paying attention to the app’s terms and conditions. They have no information about the privacy implications that go along with using those products.

Most service terms and security policies are written by lawyers, and that is why they seem to be meaningless to the lay man. Many users make the extra effort to read the fine print, but they eventually give up due to the lengthy litanies of legalese. The reason of course is clear; because they are hard for the lay man to comprehend. Consequently, as more users disregard the value of understanding those terms and conditions, more privacy concerns appear.

Internet privacy protection efforts are being improved by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and this time it will be brought to a new level. Without stifling innovation on the internet, consumers can receive more protection. The set of proposals by the FTC includes innovative functions such as “do not track” and several others.

For a long time, consumers’ online activities have been tracked by the use of “cookies”. Websites send cookies to the consumer’s computer, and this makes it easy for data miners to easily discover their choices of online activities. With enough information gathered, companies can target specific products and services to online consumers. It is difficult for consumers to protect themselves because most of them do not know how to turn off cookies. They need to make an extra effort in finding out the browser’s privacy settings so that they can opt out of cookies. Now, this one is not easy even for the experienced user.

It is true that some consumers might benefit from data mining. This is especially true for those who make online purchases because discounts and other offers may be available if they wish to buy the same item again. However, most consumers find targeted advertisements annoying and threatening to their privacy. That is why authorities are continually finding ways to protect consumers from these kinds of unsolicited ads.

Everybody seems to be interested in everyone else’s privacy. Different privacy issues crop up from one day to another, and people might lose their privacy if it is left unguarded. This time, there is another issue that privacy advocates have observed besides those of online matters. Shopping cards have now been included as one of the items that pose privacy risks.

There are doubts about supermarkets collecting a great deal of consumer data via electronic shopper cards or e-cards. This vast amount of information could then be combined with other biometric technology. With some data processing, a person’s in-depth personal database could be easily built. All of this could occur without the consent or knowledge of the person concerned.

What is the big deal about shopping cards getting onto the list of items that pose privacy risks? Studies were conducted to find out how stores can attract people to use their cards. Card experts say that shoppers do not receive special benefits with e-cards, despite the good offers. There is no real savings because the prices of the items that are included in the “deals” are usually marked up.

Heated comments on a recent online newspaper editorial page regarding anonymity have drawn attention. The article asserted that in these times, the online anonymity of people should be limited. The writer argued that the internet is already polluted with too many anonymous comments. There are now suggestions that newspapers should entirely ban these types of comments. This is because these have only contributed to the mass of online garbage that is mostly full of false accusations and name-calling attacks.

Reacting to the foregoing statement, one critic reacted by saying that this kind of argument is not only wrong, but also dangerous. He admitted that in many ways, anonymity protects different groups of the population. He added that anonymity is also prone to abuses by some, particularly those who are spreading “vitriolic bile” without limits. Granting that this is true, it is not enough reason to entirely ban online anonymity. Recent surveys reveal that many online newspapers have established policies regarding this issue, while others have entirely banned this freedom.

Those who propose its banning rationalize that everyone should maintain online civility. While all newspapers should try to work on this issue, there is more to being identified online than just by one’s name. Those who work against anonymity said that identification will minimize online problems. However, this will discourage a lot of people from speaking their minds for the fear of retribution. They also pointed out that history has a lot to tell of anonymous men and women whose writings made great contributions to society.

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.

A campaign to vote against the extension of the PATRIOT Act was called for by several groups. The voting was scheduled February 8, 2011. The so-called H.R. 514 is about to be extended, but it needs a YES vote by a full two-thirds of the House’s members. The reauthorization was seen as being fast-tracked to the House floor.

Contentions were aired questioning the manner the bill would be extended. One point that was raised was that there were no significant reforms to the old law that would merit its extension. According to critics, there is no provision for oversight and accountability. If ever, it is very weak and would not hold water.

Last year yet, the bill was proposed and debated on. Among the proposed reforms were on the areas of checks and balances. As the old version was criticized as lacking of these features, the new one is “ripe” with those. But the debates and deliberations went on until the deadline was already close. The move for extension of the old version came up when the amendments could no longer make it to the deadline. In February of last year, the extension was moved until this February 2011. In addition, there was a promise made to fully consider the raised issues before the next deadline.

There was a time when millions of Americans were beset by sudden phone calls. That was the time when telemarketing started creating its place in the net. While doing an important chore for the family, the phone would ring. When answered, you would be disappointed once the caller started asking about lots of private information. That was obviously invasion of privacy.

Finally, Americans were able to put an efficient solution by signing up for the Do Not Call Registry. Disgruntled people signed up and the tool was put in place. Somehow, that was the best thing to do to get rid of annoying callers.

Internet technology becomes more and more invasive. Tools are being improved, each one with a specific market. With these tools, new ways of behaving online were developed. Here comes a newer, cleverer type of privacy invasion – tracking the behavior of internet users.

Corporations are able to monitor and study your keystrokes. After some time, they would be able to draw a picture of your online activities. For example, they would know which sites you frequently visit. Finally they would have a clear idea of your internet profile. You would fit into one or more of their targeted customers.

By then, marketers would consider you one of their prospects. This would be to their benefit, and, as usual, to your disturbance. This is the beginning of a new cycle of unwanted online advertisements and the likes.

From the “Do Not Call Registry” crusade, here comes the “Do Not Track” campaign. This was recommended by the Federal Trade Commission in December of last year. With this in place, corporations can no longer keep track your internet behavior. However, there are pros and cons as to its usefulness.

You would recall that in 2005, the New York Times uncovered the existence of warrantless household wiretapping. It was laid on track in 2001 by the National Security Agency. It took nearly 5 years for the government to acknowledge that it is indeed working. Since its setting up, NSA had been keeping an eye on overseas phone calls made by Americans.

In the recent issues, it’s not the government meddling into private lives. Lots of corporations make money by gathering private information. Some do it for good cause, others for their own selfish reasons. However, the main issue is not much why data are collected. It is in the way information is “stolen” from innocent people. It is the question of internet privacy that is on top of this.

The current move by the U.S. Commerce Department might be able to create a positive environment for internet users. It has called to develop a “privacy bill of rights” proposed for people who divulge information in the internet. One of the major sections would be to set guidelines for telemarketing and online advertising corporations among others.

Private and other kinds of information that are gathered online must not be used without consent from the owner. The Internet is, without question, a useful tool in almost all areas of human activity. However, users must be careful enough when comes to using personal information. This is a question that cannot be solved by any tool or gadget. It is more than expertise, even more than brains. Internet privacy has more to do with human freedom and social justice.

Online advertising has been around since the dawn of the Internet, and is more or less prevalent on pretty much every site you visit. MySpace, FaceBook, and other social networking sites are especially populated with them, and they are propagated to every user who has to navigate to a different page. Ask any FaceBook user and they will tell you; there is an ad on every page. Some may protest and demand an explanation to why FaceBook is subjecting them to these incessant advertisements. The answer is simple though: the site is free, how do you think they make money? It is a brilliant idea; take a service people will flock to, and make it free, but charge advertisers top dollar to put ads on your site due to the high volumes of traffic. While FaceBook has to pay to keep their domain name and maintain servers that hold all friends, profiles, and other system information on them, they are not hurting for cash. Every time you click on an ad they make some money, and it adds up.

While these ads are seen, who can be sure they are clicked on? Everyone has had an instance where an ad pops up on their web browser that has absolutely no interest to them. Let’s take the stock example of a stereotypical avatar of masculinity: this man loves football and all day meticulously surfs and updates his fantasy football page, making trades and offers. Then he heads over to ESPN and watches some online football to see how the players and teams are doing to decide where to take his team, then an ad pops up. The ad consists of a new flower product that “will make your garden bloom like never before.” After considering for a moment what the ad is, and asserting that “flower” has nothing to do with “pig skin”, the man would quickly exit out the pest and be on with his negotiations.

Things have changed recently though. When this man would get ads of flower products, sweet smelling detergent, and other emasculated items, it was a completely random affair. Now this same man might be seeing ads showing off awesome football strategies, or trying to sell an in-depth guide on all of the major players. While this seems like a good thing, it isn’t. The information is pulled right from your surfing, and without your knowledge.