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?

Google’s reason for employing the 2-factor authentication process is that one’s account has been monitored for “unusual activity”. Once this is presented to the user, he or she can no longer proceed further. There is no other option but to provide the number asked for. This is not actually an option because one cannot bypass the process. What else could be done aside from it? None. In simple terms, Google really wanted to “grab” the user’s number.

Data protection laws, as of now, cannot force any company to delete consumer’s data in their database.
Except for those inaccurate data that could be deleted, all others could stay on forever in the web. It goes on to say that Google’s new way of “protecting” its consumers is actually in question. There must be assurance that those uploaded numbers are deleted immediately after the authentication. Unless this is in place, the new technology will just be perceived as Google’s easy way of grabbing phone numbers.

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.

This is an interesting case. People would side with the prisoner for his appeal to pathos in which the prison guards had no right to steal the letter as he hadn’t sent it, but the other side appeals strongly to their logos; the letter incriminated an existing criminal and the crime was murder, the most severe off all. The question is, are privacy laws reserved for even cold blooded killers?

The answer apparently is no. The court ruled that the guards had a strong right to take the prisoners mail, and now he will stand trial for murder with this huge piece of evidence in front of him. It is doubt able at best that the trial will be unbiased, even without this new discovery.

As long as you are out in the free world though, the Constitution protects you. Everyone has a right to privacy law’s protection, and it is our sovereign right as American citizens. No one can take this right away, try as they might in today’s society. You are a free person on the Internet as well. The only one that should be able to read your documents without your permission is you. Consider this when weighing the decision of getting an anonymous proxy server or not.