SOPA (Stop Internet Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act) are two bills that came to a vote in Congress in January 2012.  These bills were supposed to help fight copyright infringement on the Internet, but, if they passed, the government would be able to block certain websites for most Internet users.  This gave the government far too much control.

At first, there didn’t appear to be a problem and it was thought that both bills would pass in the Senate and House.  A protest staged by some popular websites showed Internet users what their Internet would look like if the bills were passed.  Sites like Wikipedia blacked out their sites for a day.  This got people to understand that giving the government full Internet control was a dangerous thing and a letter-writing campaign began.  Thousands of letters were sent to state representatives telling them to vote “No” on both of these bills.  The campaign worked and in October 2012, the bills were taken off the table.

With that threat out of the way, Internet users thought it was safe.  Then, an international treaty, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) came up.  ISPs (Internet Service Providers) would have to “monitor and censor online communications” under ACTA.  Not only was this seen as a threat to privacy, it was also seen as threatening to our freedom of speech.  During the panel discussions on this, some of the points were leaked out to the public.  Citizens of quite a few European countries took to the streets to protest the passing of this treaty.  The protests worked.  In July, the treaty was voted against by the European Parliament and was taken off the table all over Europe in December.

During this time, lawmakers in Washington, DC didn’t give up on their plan to remove copyright infringing content from the Internet.  The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) and the Cybersecurity Act (CSA) were brought up.  Though both bills caused concern, the one that was considered most dangerous was CISPA.  This was because so many who were set against SOPA were now supporting CISPA.  The bill was supported because companies found that under it, they could share personal information with the government without consent and not have to worry about litigation.  Even with this support, both of these bills were taken off the table by the middle of November.

Law makers have submitted to the appropriate committee a Congressional bill entitled “The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011”. Concerns have been raised by privacy advocates who said that so far, this would be the greatest threat yet to civil liberties. According to them, many internet users believe that this legislation is necessary and relevant to address child pornography. Such line of thinking is expected because every person in their right mind would always detest child pornography.

But why are these privacy advocates reacting negatively on the proposed law? The reason is that such legislation would turn each person who uses the internet into a victim. They argue that this law, if passed, would oblige all internet service providers, or ISPs, to track all on line activities of every user and save the information for 18 months. As an additional requirement, ISPs are supposed to store this data together with the user’s name, home address, bank account and credit card numbers, and their assigned IP address.

An argument raised says that tracking all of the user’s internet activities is not the solution to the problem on internet child pornography. Compared to the millions of internet users, there are only very few child pornographers who are hiding online. So why place everyone under “surveillance” where all internet users would become suspects of a crime that most of them would not even think about? Its final effect would be detrimental to freedom of speech and threatening to the online privacy of every American.

Meaning of words can sometimes cause misunderstanding especially when viewed by different groups. In legal standpoint, the meaning of a word can significantly affect the coverage of a law. Just like in the case of the Freedom of Information Act, the word “personal privacy” was interpreted by some to include “privacy of corporations”. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia made such a decision.

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.

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.

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.

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?