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.

Even if someone is not yet under investigation, the law would allow the tracking of that person. The simple reason of doubt would be sufficient enough so that his or her internet history can be accessed by the police. One state representative said that the law would create several risks that far outweigh the benefits that it would give. He is not convinced that it would have a major positive effect in protecting children. But since these are only arguments, it is still possible that the law could be the real solution to the problem of online child pornography.

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.

Those who go up against the court’s resolution argue that the ruling was based on faulty analysis. The term person is not in the relevant part of exemption 7 although it is found in F.O.I.A. This section does not identify “person” to include corporation. It also goes to show that Congress did not mean to have this analysis.

Such faulty view by the appeals court is a serious issue. This would eventually lead to the making of corporate privacy. If this remains as is, federal agencies and the courts would not be able to clearly define the bounds of the law. For example, the term “personal privacy” would encompass wide latitude of groups such as local, state, and foreign governments. The battle between individuals and groups trying to block the release of records would not end.

What is significant for now is the truth that efforts to defend personal privacy are alive. Government should satisfy the limits and conditions set forth in laws and policies. The general public is the end user but they can end up either as winners or losers.

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.

Add to this those law enforcers who secretly monitor and photograph people at public meetings. For what purpose you might ask. Actually it is for no reasonable basis at all. Putting this situation in a particular place, this could mean that anybody can be monitored and photographed anytime, anywhere! Is this not privacy invasion?

Such over reaction in implementing preemptive measures against terrorists downgrades the essence of individual privacy. Many arguments have been aired, questioning the validity of excessive surveillance of private citizens. Little by little, individual privacy is stripped off from people who do not even have any idea of what terrorism is. On the contrary, those with positive activist orientation could end up as real terrorists because of prejudice set against them.

It would help to revisit policies that are intrusive of a person’s privacy. As previously emphasized in discussions, government should strike a balance between its efforts to protect national security and individual privacy. Citizens could feel more secure and happier if they can act without being watched. At the same time, they want a government that safeguards them from any terrorist attack.

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.

The real problem is with rogue app developers. Graham Cluley was very specific when he pointed out the possible results. These rich data could help rogue app developers to spread their malicious business. This could take the form of spam or cold-calling.

From the simple example above, it is clear that one should be extra careful when comes to uploading his or her home address. When there’s a need to supply this information online, it is best to find out if the application is legitimate or valid.

Cluley also suggested that stricter policies on Facebook’s access policies should be implemented. For example, developers should not be granted access to information. Access would be granted only when they could prove that they are valid. Another alternative would be to require developers to ask users’ approval when using their data.

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?

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.