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.

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 internet has been laden with numerous privacy problems for many years. Despite the efforts to enforce privacy laws, the nature of internet technology quickly outdates these legislations. After a year or two of its implementation, a privacy law is made “useless” by the rapidly changing technology. There has to be a plan that will always be in pace with the real-time circumstances. Privacy advocates now say that self regulation is the best solution to privacy problems.

Self regulation is the self-imposition of privacy related measures so as to avoid privacy invasion. Even without a law, it is the limiting of the use of gathered personal information by companies or groups that collect such information. It is a voluntary action that follows a clear set of guidelines about how a certain company can protect privacy. Such actions could be done by website advertisers, ISPs, data brokers, social networking sites, apps providers, etc.

The idea of self regulation began in the U.S. in 1997. Since then, this idea has been promoted by way of distributing information and encouraging websites to make it their commitment. However, history shows that not one self-regulatory effort has had prolonged success. There were attempts that were initiated, but failed in one or more significant ways. Others never got the chance to show what they had all about before they disappeared. Although it is believed that self regulation can really help solve privacy problems, reforms in its implementation are needed. There is a strong opinion that consumers themselves have the greatest responsibility in protecting their own privacy.

Meaning of words can sometimes cause misunderstanding especially when viewed by different groups. In legal standpoint, the meaning of a word can significantly affect the coverage of a law. Just like in the case of the Freedom of Information Act, the word “personal privacy” was interpreted by some to include “privacy of corporations”. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia made such a decision.

The Freedom of Information Act was helpful in making open those documents that used to be out of the public’s eyes. It has made a distinction between those documents that can be divulged and those that cannot. Disclosure of facts gathered for law enforcement would be tantamount to “invasion of personal privacy” because these are considered private. Personal privacy is protected while the people’s right to know is also served. The abovementioned provision is stipulated in the law’s “exemption 7”.

What brought about such debate on word meaning? According to the appeals court, the phrase “personal privacy” is meant to include corporations. It further added that the word “personal” is the adjectival form of “person”. Because F.O.I A. defines “person” to include “corporation”, then it follows that personal privacy includes corporations.

Setting expiry date for photos that you upload to the internet has become possible. German IT professor Michael Backes has developed X-pire that easily allows a user to set the expiry of photos. He presented the so-called “web eraser” to the Consumer Protection Ministry. It can delete pictures according to the conditions set by the user. The availability of this tool is believed to be the first step towards regaining control over uploaded pictures. So far, owners of photos lose control over the pictures that they share online so problems crop up sooner or later.

Backes explained how the tool works. Photos are first encrypted before these can be uploaded. This limits the photo’s accessibility. A special plug-in is required on the browser so that the viewer can see the image. The “key” contained in the plug-in unlocks access to the image. Using X-pire, this key expires on the date specified by the user. The picture can no longer be accessed and hence “erased” from the web. This is how the tool gives the user control over his photos.

This new system might put an end to the problem which many users encounter regarding abuse of uploaded pictures. Pictures in the net have been used with malicious intentions and this has caused unpleasant experiences. Once pictures are uploaded, they can stay there for eternity. Imagine the host of pictures uploaded in Facebook or Picasa. Having no control over them, the owner is at risk of problems coming his or her way sooner or later. Many have experienced the “Streisand effect” which up to now haunts many people.

The experience of the 9/11 attacks has caused so much terror among citizens. It has triggered the introduction of government policies against terrorism. Since then, citizens have either been suspects of terrorism or victims of privacy violation. With government’s efforts to counter terrorism, individual privacy has been taken for granted and hence freedom is curtailed.

Let us take a look at some of the policies implemented and their effects on individual privacy. In many places in the US, a number of peaceful political organizations have been monitored as “terrorist groups”. To say the least, it is a shame on the part of these groups who only wanted political reforms but are branded as terrorists. Just because they group and gather together, it is reason enough to put them in the list of “suspects”.

Imagine some environmental and union activism ending up in terrorism related databases. This happened in California where pro-environment groups are highly active. In the same place, unionism is on the rise giving way for more citizens to form groups in order to pool their resources together. But look at what happened. It is clear that efforts on surveillance do not spare even those groups who are plain and simple civilians.

One thing that many internet users ignore to give due consideration is personal information that they share online. For whatever reasons, it seems that information sharing has become very common and natural. Online users do not sense any damaging consequence that could come along with such data sharing. Too much personal information have been freely uploaded that privacy laws have to be improved. This is because many companies are taking interest on these data to be used for their own gains.

Social networking is one site where people could plainly give out their personal information. Facebook for instance has about 500 million users around the globe. This number of users has at least their basic private information open to practically anyone else online. All these data are in the custody of the networking business. These same data are what the government trying to defend in line with privacy laws.

As mentioned before, many internet users have become very careless in uploading information. With technology on the go, the government desires to put added control over data selling. Many government officials support the planned enhancement of privacy rights protection.

On the other hand, Facebook also has taken the test to redesign its strategies in the US. It has accepted the stand of the government leaning towards a stricter discharge of privacy laws. For this, the company has taken a stride ahead of the rest of its counterparts like Twitter, Zynga and LinkedIn.

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.

Just very recently in the U.S., a call for enhanced mobile data storage and self-destruct mechanism was urgently called. It was based on the premise that privacy and confidentiality of data are now at high risk. There is a big possibility that even routine searches would include mobile and similar devices and hence data stored in them.

Most of the presently existing privacy laws were applied way back before high-tech devices came into existence. In the past, a person when searched has with him no more than a wallet, a purse, a hanky, or a keychain. Times have changed. Powerful computing devices now lurk in the pockets and bags of people. These could be cellular phones, flash drives, netbooks, etc. There are yet many more and even more powerful ones to come.

These devices contain enormous amount of data. Whether for personal or business use, they contain sensitive, private, or confidential data. With the present trend of enhancing personal search, there is a need to “hide” these data somewhere else. Thus there is a need for enhanced mobile data storage. In other cases, self destruction of data is also important.

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.