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.

An inmate in a maximum security prison was recently involved in a privacy case that went all the way to Maryland’s highest court. Usually inmates, especially those who have committed heinous enough crimes to land themselves into a maximum security prison, are expected and granted no privacy. These people have forfeited that right by taking away someone else’s rights, sometimes even through murder. This man actually killed another prisoner while already serving his prison sentence.

What happened was he wrote a letter to his dad and left it in an unsealed envelope. The letter described his confusion with his actions, and how he was disturbed that he killed another man. Prison officials seized the letter and used it as evidence against the man in a case against him. This letter provided irrefutable proof that he did indeed kill the man, and this would certainly land him a guilty charge, with no contest. This man would be in prison for the rest of his life, if not land him on death row.

In court, prison officials argued that the letter wasn’t sealed, and that all prisoners have to have all of their mail scanned and censored, both out-going and incoming. This, they argue, would have had the letter found anyway, so they would have gotten him like that. They also argue the letter is good evidence. The man argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were being violated by them reading and seizing his un-sent letter. Even though it was unsealed, they still should have not been allowed to get into it. By doing this, the evidence should be negated he said, and he wasn’t planning on sending the letter anyway, it was just a venting system.

Every Internet user knows the hassle of constantly popping up advertisements and other flashing ads on the side of their screen. While most just view this as the trade-off that they give while surfing the free Internet, some are a bit more worried. And with good reason; recently, a new practice has begun: behavioral advertising. This will actually go into your browsing history, scan it to determine your interests, and then put ads all around your page based on it. It is a bit invasive, and completely involuntary.

The premise is simple; give people ads that they might actually consider. Imagine a dainty young woman into flowers, teacups, and all things cute and cuddly. If while on a beauty website, she encounters an ad for a protein shake that is guaranteed to put on fifteen percent more muscle in one week, she probably isn’t going to even think about clicking it. On the other end of the spectrum, if a muscle-bound college kid is managing his fantasy football team, and an ad for a miracle garden solution pops up, he probably won’t think twice before exiting it out.

These may be a bit extreme, but everyone has had something like this occur. One can see two sides of the coin to this new behavioral advertising; one is good and puts ads that you may actually consider on your screen, and another is bad and completely invades your privacy without permission.

The United States have always been wary of terrorism and other threats to our national security. Other countries seem to despise us, whether it be for differences in religion or ethics, difference in cultures, or simply a strong envy of our opulence. While America has always been very conscious of our security, the 911 attacks showed us that our defenses were not infallible, and there is always a chance for disaster to strike. This woke us up so to speak, and in today’s day and age, security for our nation is top priority of the government.

You have seen the changes all around you, and they were often blatant. The medium that allowed the attacks, air travel, has been most affected by that fateful day. Many people remember before the attacks when they could go and meet their loved ones in the terminal to greet them, while now they must wait outside. Many people remember zipping through the security lines, while now you are in there forever being searched and prodded. Everyone has heard the news of the airports possibly putting in full body scanners to scan passengers even more thoroughly, and to avoid even more accidents from filtering through.