Internet privacy protection efforts are being improved by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and this time it will be brought to a new level. Without stifling innovation on the internet, consumers can receive more protection. The set of proposals by the FTC includes innovative functions such as “do not track” and several others.

For a long time, consumers’ online activities have been tracked by the use of “cookies”. Websites send cookies to the consumer’s computer, and this makes it easy for data miners to easily discover their choices of online activities. With enough information gathered, companies can target specific products and services to online consumers. It is difficult for consumers to protect themselves because most of them do not know how to turn off cookies. They need to make an extra effort in finding out the browser’s privacy settings so that they can opt out of cookies. Now, this one is not easy even for the experienced user.

It is true that some consumers might benefit from data mining. This is especially true for those who make online purchases because discounts and other offers may be available if they wish to buy the same item again. However, most consumers find targeted advertisements annoying and threatening to their privacy. That is why authorities are continually finding ways to protect consumers from these kinds of unsolicited ads.

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.

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.

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?

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.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 also known as 9/11 has taken away not only lives and property. It has also taken away our privacy. What do we have now nine years since the devastation? These nine years were the development period of airline laws and protocols. Now that these were approved and passed, they are rapidly maturing into killing machines. These are laws and protocols that overrun our privacy, a cherished value that is precious.

Can you imagine submitting yourself to a full-body scanner? It’s no big deal, right? But wait until you know what really happens during that brief exposure. Not a square inch of your body is hidden as the machine goes through your clothing! In short, you are not aware that unknown pairs of eyes may be feasting during that short period. You could consider it as a normal part of the process, but not when it comes to your privacy.

Some airline companies and government are working together in setting up stricter airport security. Many are still haunted by fear of the 9/11 recurrence.  As more efforts are instituted to deter terrorism, your privacy was left unguarded.

Collecting data from passengers was launched by Canadian Airlines. Full-body scanners and the no-fly list are added features. Because of these, various sectors vehemently aired their concerns.

According to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the scanner’s invasiveness and effectiveness are worrisome.  Body search or pat-down was offered as substitute by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Scanners, they claimed, should be used as second choice. In addition, a system should be maintained so that passengers’ identity would remain anonymous.

The foregoing criticisms forced a government unit to conduct an audit of aviation technology. The main target of the audit is the much talked about full-body scanner. Closed-circuit security cameras come next but equally important. When the results are revealed, the real image behind these machines would hopefully appear.

To many, privacy infringement may not be a cause for worry. The world has become so small that global neighbors could share personal information. However, many still value privacy as something that could not be given away just like that. It is worth keeping and preserving.

When you represent some sort of organization, whether it be a school, business, or a non profit, you assume the responsibility of their identity and the well being of it onto your person. When you are out there being a part of the organization in question, you become an avatar of it, and people will connect what you do and who you are with the thing you are representing. This can be a double edged sword: if you do well, your company looks good, and if not, you can be in for some hard times. If a business man is the head of a big name company and decided to hold a charity for some degenerative disease and raises a lot of money and gives it away, it brings good P.R. (public relations) back to the business. Those who believe in karma think that if they do good, they will receive good, and vice versa. On the other hand, if the business man falls into the public eye with some sort of scandal such as a DUI charge, their business could be forever associated with the crime and fail quickly.

This situation happened recently with a couple of high school football players. When they joined the team, they signed a contract with their coach saying that they would always abstain from drugs and alcohol and that they would maintain a good image, for their image reflected the entire football team’s. About halfway into the season, after a major and crushing victory, the team in question had a party to celebrate. The football players who had previously signed the contract started drinking, and actually ended up getting pulled over for underage drinking and driving under the influence. The coach immediately, even though they were the star players, cut them from the team. Ever since, many jokes and puns have been made about the team and their partying habits; they could never be taken seriously again.