Google has just presented its users the 2-factor authentication. This requires the user to provide his or her cell or landline telephone number. This is done so that Google can send the user a one-time authentication code to log in to his or her gmail account. This new service has raised apprehensions and doubts on consumers as to Google’s real purpose.

Once a user tries to log in to his or her account, he or she will be given the option between a cell or a landline number. After which Google will send through the provided number an authentication code. This code will be entered in the prompt box provided for the purpose and sent to Google. Only then will the user be able to log in. It is a simple process which seems harmless, but a closer look at it would raise some doubts.

Phone numbers are private properties. In the internet, uploading of cellular or landline phone numbers could pose danger. Doing such with Google’s new technology is not an exception. Collecting such valuable data from users just for authentication is not good enough reason. It can be imagined how much numbers can be collected from the millions of users even for one-time use only. Where would these data be stored? Would they be immediately deleted? How sure can the user be that these data will not be stored for future use?

An inmate in a maximum security prison was recently involved in a privacy case that went all the way to Maryland’s highest court. Usually inmates, especially those who have committed heinous enough crimes to land themselves into a maximum security prison, are expected and granted no privacy. These people have forfeited that right by taking away someone else’s rights, sometimes even through murder. This man actually killed another prisoner while already serving his prison sentence.

What happened was he wrote a letter to his dad and left it in an unsealed envelope. The letter described his confusion with his actions, and how he was disturbed that he killed another man. Prison officials seized the letter and used it as evidence against the man in a case against him. This letter provided irrefutable proof that he did indeed kill the man, and this would certainly land him a guilty charge, with no contest. This man would be in prison for the rest of his life, if not land him on death row.

In court, prison officials argued that the letter wasn’t sealed, and that all prisoners have to have all of their mail scanned and censored, both out-going and incoming. This, they argue, would have had the letter found anyway, so they would have gotten him like that. They also argue the letter is good evidence. The man argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were being violated by them reading and seizing his un-sent letter. Even though it was unsealed, they still should have not been allowed to get into it. By doing this, the evidence should be negated he said, and he wasn’t planning on sending the letter anyway, it was just a venting system.