Mobile technology is now widely used in almost all private and public organizations. The use of smartphones or tablets has made it very convenient for people to manage data. Doctors and other health care professionals are now using these gadgets for electronic health records. These tools, as observers point out, lack the much needed, required security. Working on their own, some doctors are using these gadgets without ample knowledge on the use of encryption technology, or even passwords.

A spokesperson for the American Health Information Management Association said that there is a need for education and awareness. He admitted that there are ongoing trainings on the use of mobile technology in relation to data management. But according to him, these are not the same as education and awareness. Something else must be done if health professionals are to have the right awareness when it comes to patient data security.

At present, it is surprising to note that 4 out of 10 health care professionals surveyed are confident that patient data accessed by mobile devices is secured. It is also astounding to know that 81% of them are using these devices to collect, store and transmit patient records. But the most shocking of all is that almost one-half of the participants surveyed said that their organizations do not have a data protection mechanism at all.

There are many parents out there who do not realize the need to child-proof these devices. These open the world of the web for children to explore. Parents should make sure that their kids do not stumble upon the unpleasant side of the internet. Kids have vulnerable young minds and there are a lot of “bad” sites online that could cause them permanent harm.

Children who are left without protection might open a Pandora’s Box with their tech toys. The world online contains millions of x-rated web pages, violent videos, websites with disturbing topics from gambling to guns, and many more. Parents should take this seriously and they should look for software that could help sort out the good from the bad.

Parents can make use of available internet safety software for kids. They can choose from those that are made for PCs and Macs, or those for specific mobile devices such as iPods, iPhones, and iPod Touch. It is alright to give tech toys to kids as gifts this Christmas. The thing is that parents have to consider the safety needs that they have to provide for their kids when they surf the net.

You can make your kids happier this Christmas by fulfilling their digital wishes. But before finally wrapping up that tech toy, you should set up the software that will keep him or her safe. After all, kids today cannot stay away from being connected to the internet. Maintaining a healthy relationship between parents and children can help the kids understand why they need online protection. They have to realize that some sites on the internet are not suitable for them.

The same is true with parents who care less about being involved with their children’s online activities. Children nowadays own gadgets that enable them to get connected online at anytime, even in their bedrooms. If kids are just left on their own, these tech gadgets could lead them to become victims of cyber bullying, cyber sex, identity theft, and the likes. It is best if parents, especially mothers, have a thorough understanding of what kind of technology their kids bring into the home.

When a child asks for a new device, game, or phone, parents should get some information from him or her. Before finally giving in to their child’s request, they need to ask some questions. They can start by asking their child about what the device can do. In doing so, they can get an idea about the device and have a “feel” for it. From here, they can decide whether they would be comfortable letting their child have it. It would help a lot if parents can do their own research on the device.

This can take some time for parents to do, but it is worth the effort. The cyber world adds enormous benefits to the lives of children. But it also has its own limitations when it comes to child safety and security. This is one responsibility of parents that cannot be taken for granted. Parents need to exercise parental control over their children’s internet access. They should not be overwhelmed by technology. When this happens, they cannot do their job of protecting their children on line.

The earlier technology versions of online transactions were mostly done using desktop computers. Later, laptops and notebooks became more accessible and transactions were made even easier. Companies can easily keep track of their financial records from almost everywhere. Today, the use of smart phones is slowly becoming more popular among businessmen. In the past, these gadgets were largely used in social networking, more particularly Facebook and Twitter.

A new survey showed that more and more people are using their smart phones to transmit personal and financial information. The purposes of uploading these pieces of information are mostly for online banking, shopping or social networking. Among users, about 17% use their smart phones for money matters. This fact has attracted the interest of online criminals to take advantage of making money at the expense of companies.

Critics said that doing online transactions with the use of a mobile device is both fun and time saving. Clearly, criminals are also on their toes, ready for every chance to see how they can benefit out of the situation. That is why businessmen should not be overly confident, but should remain cautious. There is a new technique used by online criminals that is concealed under the guise of “the good stuff”.

The ongoing increase in the demand for smart phones and mobile and web applications has given online criminals the “go” signal. They have seen the benefits of using malicious software (or malware) in order to get into users’ accounts. Hiding behind online application stores, these criminals would lure smart phone users to download rouge apps. Without noticing it, the user also downloads a program that would allow the swindler to take control of his phone. With the rouge apps, criminals would eventually gain access to all personal and payment data of the phone owner.

Smart phone users have to take full control when deciding to use their device for accessing the web. Furthermore, they should be careful about applications they are going to download. They should learn lessons from those previous victims who suffered unauthorized charges against their accounts. Some were made to pay for premium calls that they did not make. As smart phone users, you are expected to be smarter than the online criminals, right?

MyYearbook is a relatively new social networking site that is now gaining wide popularity among teens. This site was created for teens ages 13 and up who want to meet new friends online. Its creators were two high school students, brother and sister David and Catherine Cook, and started in 2005. The two asked the help of their older brother, Geoff to help them with their project. This site was finally launched at Montgomery High School, which was the school they attended.

But there is now an indication that the site is being abused by some users. A parent reported how his 12-year old daughter, who uses the site, was endangered. She was receiving messages from older men that contained vulgar language. This caused him to suspect that the site is being used by some older men who are looking for sex. According to the parent, older men can fake their ages the same way and just as easily as younger children can just so that they can register on the site.

This occurrence is not entirely different from what other social networking sites have experienced. More intense efforts have to be made so that the online safety of users is not compromised. A spokesperson for the company said that the online safety of its users is taken very seriously. A monitoring team is always working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week just to keep watch. The point that needs to be stressed is that parents should take an active role in defending their children against online predators.

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.

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.

Observation and evaluation of past self regulation programs reveals that a majority of them were poorly designed. Most of these had poor market penetration, which means that consumers did not really know what they were all about. There were websites that used self regulation only for show, but profit was still their number one priority.

There was another issue that hindered the success of self regulation in the past. This was the lack of meaningful and independent participation among privacy and consumer advocates in its development and supervision. Self regulation supervision that is financed by industry will not be successful because obviously, industry would not want it to succeed. Also, privacy standards that are profit-driven will not do well because money becomes more important than privacy.

To rule out speculation that a police officer committed a complicated crime, police officials have ordered the DNA testing of law enforcement personnel. This unpopular order was issued after the deaths of eight women in Louisiana in 2009. These were cases of a serial killer that showed a high degree of “workmanship” in committing the murders. Rumors spread that a police officer was involved in the killings. Consequently, all officers in Louisiana agreed to undergo testing. The final outcome showed that the killer was not among them.

Some officers feel that this DNA collection is not something they should give much attention to. They say that having a DNA file of police officers is important in conducting crime scene investigations because it would make it easier for them to recognize unknown genetic materials found at crime scenes.

However, others believe that handing over their DNA should not be an easy decision. There are many privacy concerns that have to be clarified prior to giving in to this DNA collection. Those who do not believe in the idea of DNA profiling say that there have to be safeguards in place. Owners of the DNA should have a clear understanding as to how this DNA would be handled and by making sure that it is treated with extreme care.

Police unions have also given their official stand concerning this matter. Their officials have told their members about the possible outcome of agreeing to their DNA being profiled. They said that there are no controls as to the storage of the DNA, so there is a high likelihood of privacy and abuse problems.

Some countries like the United Kingdom and Australia have been keeping files of DNA of their officers for several years. It was in 1995 when the U.K. government started their system of keeping a database of criminal suspects. The United States later adopted this same system, and the country is believed to have the world’s largest DNA database of criminals today.

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.

In addition, the idea of a “web eraser” was again brought up. This is an older proposition, wherein businesses used to provide the mechanism for teens to erase their online tracks. With this, any personal information teenagers leave when they browse, especially in social networking sites, would be deleted once they log out.

At their age, teenagers usually commit the online mistake of giving too much personal information on the sites that they visit. They don’t know that these mistakes can haunt them months, or even years, later. The premise of a privacy advocate group is this: kids need more protection than they have right now.

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.

Those who go up against the court’s resolution argue that the ruling was based on faulty analysis. The term person is not in the relevant part of exemption 7 although it is found in F.O.I.A. This section does not identify “person” to include corporation. It also goes to show that Congress did not mean to have this analysis.

Such faulty view by the appeals court is a serious issue. This would eventually lead to the making of corporate privacy. If this remains as is, federal agencies and the courts would not be able to clearly define the bounds of the law. For example, the term “personal privacy” would encompass wide latitude of groups such as local, state, and foreign governments. The battle between individuals and groups trying to block the release of records would not end.

What is significant for now is the truth that efforts to defend personal privacy are alive. Government should satisfy the limits and conditions set forth in laws and policies. The general public is the end user but they can end up either as winners or losers.