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.

Goodbye to those unwelcome advertisements that are annoying. Surf the net feeling more secure. Do not worry about someone tracking your online behavior. This time, you can always choose to remain private and safe. The time has come for online users to determine how they would behave online.

Better times for internet users are slowly gaining higher ground. After much of debates and proposals, regulators are now expecting for some positive effects of their crusade. Google and Mozilla, two of the largest names in internet announced the availability of new software. Users would now have more freedom as their web browsers would use this. What is the most significant feature of the software? It is its capability to allow users to permanently stay out of online tracking system. Many advertisers used to follow online activities. With correct profiling, they can build profiles and deliver tailored ads to target users.

Large internet advertisers and data trackers including Google and Yahoo initiated this move. They would now enable users to easily opt out of tracking on their sites. It used to be that opting out was rather complicated and more demanding. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer would add a feature where users could intentionally block monitoring efforts.

Did you ever remember publishing your home address online? Was it with Twitter or Facebook? Well, if you did not, that’s good for you! And better bear in mind not to – ever! If you did, then it’s time to polish your Facebook profile information. You would be asking why the fuss. Read on and maybe you would really say to yourself that some personal info is still worth keeping.

It is understandable that online users often casually give out their home address. There’s no problem with it with friends whom you want to be close with. However, if your home address is opened to millions of other online users, there is the problem. Privacy problems may be worse than what you would expect.

Just recently, information was gathered that Facebook shows its users’ home address to developers. Jeff Bowen in one of his posts wrote that Facebook makes these data available in the development platform. Actually, it is not only the users’ addresses but also their mobile phone numbers.

Others would feel conscious, but others for sure would enjoy “acting” in front of cameras.
Now are you thinking of actors and actresses? Well, it’s just your own neighborhood, with those surveillance cameras placed somewhere. And of course they’re not for you but for those criminals around. This is part of government’s plan to reduce incidence of crime.

Mayor Gabriel J. Campana of Williamsport City was both eager and hesitant about the plan. He knew it cannot be implemented in full swing. An approved City Council resolution has been passed, limiting its area of coverage. According to the ruling, these spy cameras would only be placed at parks and other public utilities. The Mayor pushes for a wider area, one that would include the larger portion of the district. Being hopeful, he said that he would do all he could to draw support for his idea. With the present resolution, the area of exposure would be places such as Memorial, Elm, Brandon, Youngs Woods, Newberry and Shaw Place.

Campana’s proposal is based on the idea of increasing the area of exposure. This, he asserts, would result to the best possible use of the funds. According to the mayor, places considered as high crime areas as recognized by the police should be integrated. Some would not favor this idea. Others say that a wider area makes the coverage thinner. It is better to concentrate efforts over a smaller area. With the present resources, the same number of cameras would be used not considering the area.

One of the purposes why privacy laws exist is to give adequate protection to personal information. Today, millions of users share their personal data in social networking. These data are then collected in the database of these companies. Without adequate protection, these data could be abused. The results could be detrimental to these data owners. To avoid such consequence, users need to set limits as to which information is to be shared and which is not.

Privacy laws remained the same for more than twenty years. Considering the present status of technology, these laws have been outdated. They can no longer give full protection to personal information. If ever, these laws would have loopholes and thus could be questioned.

Just recently, Twitter disclosed an incident that illustrates the inapplicability of existing privacy laws. It received a federal order requiring it to submit its stored users’ data to authorities. Although the company questioned such action, it cannot say “no” because privacy laws would “allow” such. Users of the digital age would always be violated if the same incident happens continuously. Internet users of today need more protection that those in the past. It is because today, there are many ways that these data could be used for self-vested interests. One more thing about today’s users is they have lesser limits in data sharing. This fact validates the need for a revised implementation of privacy laws.

There is a growing public interest in the issue over internet privacy. In no other time has there been like today’s heated debates over it. In the past, privacy laws were there, and were applicable during that era. Then technology became more sophisticated but at the same time user-friendly. This gave rise to internet companies that collect user’s data to build their own marketing niche.

Here comes the privacy issue. Users became open to providing their personal information to these companies. Unknowingly, they are also opening their “doors” to intruders. Using their own supplied information, users are being tracked by companies that thrive on data marketing. Some of these marketers could abuse and take advantage of using this to push their own purpose.

Adding complexity to the issue on privacy is the fact that existing privacy laws are already outdated. Information technology has grown very rapidly, but privacy laws have remained dormant and hence obsolete. Users’ privacy could no longer be fully covered. It is very easy for an interested party to gain access to personal data or behavior of online users. Companies that have possession of these data cannot simply say “no” whenever they are called to turn these over to authorities. This is because existing privacy laws “allow” such access to records.

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.

In Canada, there are about 16,000 people who were conceived from donated sperm. In many parts of the country, the privacy of sperm donors remained undisclosed as provided by law. In British Columbia, sperm donor records are either shredded or incinerated after six years. Clearly, their children can no longer have access to these records when they become adults.

For a long time, children of these anonymous fathers did not ask about their fathers’ details. Some children do not know that they were conceived from donated sperm. Others know this truth but do not want to know more. Still others know this truth but do not know what to do to know more.

Not with the case of Olivia Pratten. She is leaving no stone unturned to know more about her father’s identity. Pratten does not know much about her biological father. She was born in 1981 after her mother sought the help of a fertility specialist in Vancouver. All she knew was that he is Caucasian, with a stocky build, brown hair, blue eyes and type “A” blood.

Now a journalist working in Toronto, the 28-year old Pratten is determined to know more about the sperm donor. She is now hoping that the British Columbia Supreme Court will favor its ruling for her. Never before has this court granted to reveal the identity of sperm donors. If ever, this will be the first of its kind in North America.

North America has maintained its ruling of maintaining anonymity rights of donors. Sweden, the U.K. and some other European countries, however, have legislations that force donors not to remain anonymous.

With Pratten’s case now in the B.C. Supreme Court, she is just awaiting for the court to rule in her favor. She asked for the court to include offspring conceived via egg and sperm donation in a new Adoption legislation. She also wanted a new law that would force physicians to maintain donor records indefinitely. If this is granted, children of donors could access these records once they become adults.

The issue at hand is not much about Pratten wanting to know her father’s identity. Rather, it is whether the anonymity of past sperm donors should be revealed.

A critic contends that granting a positive decision by the court would imply two things to future donors. First, donors would need better financial incentives. Second, they would think of themselves as helping other people build families by donating sperm. Either way, the issue remains the same: should the anonymity of sperm donors be kept intact?