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.

The FTC wanted to simplify the “opt out” issue through the proposal that it has issued. If approved, consumers can opt out of cookies more easily and, if they wish, turn it off permanently. In the past, users were presented with very lengthy privacy policies. Aside from this, the terms used are difficult to understand except for those who have some background in law. In the FTC’s proposal, consumers would be allowed to know who is tracking their online activities. More importantly, they will be given the power to permanently refuse cookies.

From this proposal, consumer watchdogs and companies that maintain websites can come together. They could then come up with guidelines for consumer protection without prejudice to innovation on the web.

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.

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.

Tech companies decided to do something to protect themselves and their users. Lobbying is the effective strategy that they have discovered. Through lobbying, they can talk with lawmakers and privacy experts to propose their ideas. The purpose is not to totally influence decision, but to offer a wider venue for deliberation. They would like to see privacy laws that are favorable both to their business and users. They would like to see a balance between national security protection and privacy.

At present, there is a proposal for a “do not track” option. This is giving the user the leeway to consciously choose how his or her data should be treated. This method gives a user more freedom and hence is not oppressive. Another possible option is that sites would be required to obtain direct permission from data owners. Even these two proposals are not contained in today’s existing privacy laws. These are good reasons for government to act on the revision of these important laws.

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.

Lobbying has become the most appropriate approach. Facebook has strategized to hire added employees who are specialists at public policies. Certainly, it is up to looking for some negotiation between the government’s project and the company’s objectives. To remember, government in particular wants to beef-up legislations to protect online users. These would include users’ identities, personal info, and online habits. In addition, policies will also be passed regarding the tracking, gathering and sale of any of this shared information.

There is an apparent hint that the government would launch “do not track” legislation. Senator Richard Blumenthal opts for policies that would oblige sites to obtain specific consent to track and sell data. The same stand is taken by Rep. Edward Markey, but centers more on protecting online activities and data collecting and profiling.

The brighter side of the matter is that both Facebook and government have the same viewpoint when comes to privacy protection. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg consents that people should be guaranteed of their privacy. Similarly, users have to be convinced that they have full control over the data that they submit. These are the same objectives as that of the planned legislation enhancements by the government.

More or less, there is likelihood that new regulatory actions would be implemented before long. This would be great news not only for Facebook but for other groups as well. If ever, these new policies would advantage both the users and companies. On one hand, users could continue to benefit from the fruits of technology. On the other, companies could make use of personal data but still keeping the privacy of millions of their clients.

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.

The so-called health data record business has been debated for some time. It actually involves marketing of prescriber-identifiable material. This is done by data-mining corporations that buy online data. What they do is collect data about which doctors prescribe what medicines to patient. This information would then be matched with those from American Medical Association’s databank. The matched results would then function as bases in developing the necessary software. This would help the pharmaceutical companies in increasing their sales. How? Simply put, they can identify which doctor would likely accept a specific new drug in the market.

The states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are implementing the new “prescription privacy” laws. Among its provisions is prohibiting data-mining companies from collecting prescription data of doctors. It is documented that these collected data are used in drug promotion purposes.

Current developments on this case exposed that the states of New Hampshire and Maine favored the existing privacy laws. The state of Vermont however took the contrary position. These two conflicting positions urged the Vermont Attorney General to raise the case to the Supreme Court.

The verdict on this case would have direct consequences on online privacy laws. There is a probability that protocols would be passed. It would cover regulating online tracking and sharing or marketing user browsing data. If this occurs, the so-called corporate free speech rights would become futile.

However, if the high court would sustain the free speech rights, then prescription data will become hot commodities. These companies would then flourish by using medical records to find doctors who will most likely become sales targets.

The central issue here is privacy, but the judgment could go either way. The bottom line is that decision should always defend the constitutional rights of both parties involved.

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 California, the Supreme Court has ruled out the detailed searches of an arrested person’s phones. This also authorized search of the suspect’s other devices during the time of the arrest. Even without a search warrant, authorities can comprehensively look into all data in these devices. Imagine them going over your photo, address book, Web browsing history, search history, and many more. This is alarming especially for innocent and law-abiding citizens.

Anything could happen during this inspection. There is the risk of data copying, deletion, and other intrusive acts. This would then be clear invasion of privacy.

Open-source systems of enhanced data storage and self-destruction mechanisms were proposed. He enumerated among others five of the initial attributes that should be included. These are options such as:

1. It should enable users to have continuous and automatic back-up in a secure off-device location.
2. It should enable users to specify the degree of data security that they want on a per-item basis.
3. Enhanced data encryption should be secured for all communications between the mobile devices and remote data storage data facilities.
4. Self-destruct mechanisms should be user-friendly especially during emergency and unusual situations.
5. Deleted data after self-destruct should be resistant to reconstruction using forensic technology.

It is true that government wants equal protection of the law for its citizens. One way to ensure this is to uphold their privacy.

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?

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.

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.

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.

While these players directly violated a contract they had forged with their coach who had trusted them, often times the circumstances have some mitigating factors that are rarely considered. Whether or not this is the case is not important, it is the principle of the matter. While these guys did something wrong, many people are illegally “searched” via their computers every day for information.

While the Patriot Act is something started by the government, spy ware is not. These programs are used by hackers who are trying to break into your system for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they want to find out what you do in your spare time, try and steal personal information from you, or try and find something to incriminate you with. Don’t let these hackers hurt your reputation unjustifiably; use an anonymous proxy server and browse anonymously to prevent being hacked and stolen from. These criminals are skilled and it will take more than average defenses to keep them out, but an anonymous proxy server will do the job and then some.