One “desperate” woman from New Jersey committed another not-so-unusual case of identity theft just to get even with her ex-boyfriend. Her “ingenuity”, a case of impersonation, has nearly succeeded in ruining another person’s image online. She was able to create a fake Facebook page using her ex-boyfriend’s name, photo and some personal information. After creating the page, she then posted inflammatory comments. While a judge ruled that she can be accused of identity theft, legislators have to think further about the case’s wider implications for cyber speech.

The woman took the identity of her ex-boyfriend, who works as a police narcotics officer. The posts that were mostly self-destructive appeared to be made by him. There was one comment that talked about his being “high all the time”. Others mentioned his disreputable activities like frequenting prostitutes and escort services, and that he had herpes.

Impersonation, however it is done, is aimed at obtaining a benefit for one’s own self or to injure or defraud another. Way back in 2006, the issues of online impersonation and cyber bullying came out and quickly spread. It all started with the suicide of a 13-year-old girl who became a target online by a fictitious 13-year old boy. The case concluded with the “boy” being identified actually as the mother of another teenage girl.

A majority of the world’s population today is connected to the internet for many different purposes. There are those who find that social networking can be an effective tool for individuals, organizations, schools, institutions, businesses, governments, etc. Along with this are the billions of devices that are interconnected via an array of wired and wireless networks. These devices come in a wide range of sizes, including those that are small, hand held gadgets to bigger devices that are powerful enough to get connected to the whole world. It is much easier now to communicate with anybody, anywhere in the cyber world.

Behind the scenes of the beneficial effects of internet technology are those unscrupulous criminals who use that same technology to carry out their own agenda. There is a very high risk of cyber attacks, coming in different forms. There is espionage, malware, denial-of-service, cyber war, and terrorism that lurk behind the interconnected systems. This is one concern that needs to be addressed not only by individual networks, but by the cooperative effort of all.

Network protection is becoming more and more important, and researchers in Germany have proposed a new approach to it. They believe that the risk of cyber attack could be reduced by rewarding those organizations that support their own network security. They have observed that those organizations who have implemented this strategy have greatly reduced the spread of malware and other problems. Today, communications that are internet and computer-based are, for the most part, done anonymously. This results in systems becoming ever more vulnerable to cyber attacks and harassment.

If the plan to update the U.S. online privacy rules for children will be approved, it will include teenagers, aged 13 to 17. Because of this, debates during hearings in Congress started as the House does not have a common stand on this issue. Parents of children under the age of 13 are given the right to decide what information about their children can be collected by websites and other providers. These parents will still hold the same power if the rule would be revised, but this time that power will extend to an older age group.

Supporters of the revision say that there is a need to update the law’s provisions. They say that today’s breed of teenagers is not mature enough to evaluate and be aware of the dangerous aspects of the internet. They observe that children are becoming more technologically advanced. This makes it possible for them to effortlessly cope with the fast changing technology. What they lack is the ability to self-regulate in time with existing technology. This can result in privacy problems, thus the need to include children in the higher age bracket.

Websites and other providers are required to obtain verifiable approval from parents before they can collect information from children. This means that the consent must be proven to have been given by the parents. The revised consent will use more sophisticated verification methods. Examples are video-conferencing and electronic scans of consent forms, which would be signed by parents. Lack of this evidence will prohibit the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information of children.

Many areas of human society have been benefited by DNA technology. In crime investigation, the use of DNA has helped the police for a number of years. From the unheard of, to notorious cases, the use of DNA to identify criminals has made officers’ work less difficult. There is a current privacy concern involving the collection of DNA profiles. The police aired their privacy concerns about the move by officials to keep a database of the officers’ own DNA.

To rule out speculation that a police officer committed a complicated crime, police officials have ordered the DNA testing of law enforcement personnel. This unpopular order was issued after the deaths of eight women in Louisiana in 2009. These were cases of a serial killer that showed a high degree of “workmanship” in committing the murders. Rumors spread that a police officer was involved in the killings. Consequently, all officers in Louisiana agreed to undergo testing. The final outcome showed that the killer was not among them.

Some officers feel that this DNA collection is not something they should give much attention to. They say that having a DNA file of police officers is important in conducting crime scene investigations because it would make it easier for them to recognize unknown genetic materials found at crime scenes.

Collecting personal information from users on the internet is not a new issue. It has been around for a long time, and it started out as something that was commonly done. For example, it was normal to provide your name and email address when you registered on a certain website. Social networking sites would even give users the option to provide even more sensitive personal information. Users willingly shared data with different web companies, not thinking about any privacy implications.

Then, targeted advertising was popularized by companies that use this collected personal information. They have accumulated so much of it that they could build profiles of users, especially when it comes to their product preferences. Immediately, privacy advocates cautioned users to be more prudent when sharing their personal data. Despite intensive consumer education, privacy issues got worse, and problems cropped up.

Heated comments on a recent online newspaper editorial page regarding anonymity have drawn attention. The article asserted that in these times, the online anonymity of people should be limited. The writer argued that the internet is already polluted with too many anonymous comments. There are now suggestions that newspapers should entirely ban these types of comments. This is because these have only contributed to the mass of online garbage that is mostly full of false accusations and name-calling attacks.

Reacting to the foregoing statement, one critic reacted by saying that this kind of argument is not only wrong, but also dangerous. He admitted that in many ways, anonymity protects different groups of the population. He added that anonymity is also prone to abuses by some, particularly those who are spreading “vitriolic bile” without limits. Granting that this is true, it is not enough reason to entirely ban online anonymity. Recent surveys reveal that many online newspapers have established policies regarding this issue, while others have entirely banned this freedom.

Those who propose its banning rationalize that everyone should maintain online civility. While all newspapers should try to work on this issue, there is more to being identified online than just by one’s name. Those who work against anonymity said that identification will minimize online problems. However, this will discourage a lot of people from speaking their minds for the fear of retribution. They also pointed out that history has a lot to tell of anonymous men and women whose writings made great contributions to society.

Others would feel conscious, but others for sure would enjoy “acting” in front of cameras.
Now are you thinking of actors and actresses? Well, it’s just your own neighborhood, with those surveillance cameras placed somewhere. And of course they’re not for you but for those criminals around. This is part of government’s plan to reduce incidence of crime.

Mayor Gabriel J. Campana of Williamsport City was both eager and hesitant about the plan. He knew it cannot be implemented in full swing. An approved City Council resolution has been passed, limiting its area of coverage. According to the ruling, these spy cameras would only be placed at parks and other public utilities. The Mayor pushes for a wider area, one that would include the larger portion of the district. Being hopeful, he said that he would do all he could to draw support for his idea. With the present resolution, the area of exposure would be places such as Memorial, Elm, Brandon, Youngs Woods, Newberry and Shaw Place.

Campana’s proposal is based on the idea of increasing the area of exposure. This, he asserts, would result to the best possible use of the funds. According to the mayor, places considered as high crime areas as recognized by the police should be integrated. Some would not favor this idea. Others say that a wider area makes the coverage thinner. It is better to concentrate efforts over a smaller area. With the present resources, the same number of cameras would be used not considering the area.

Lately I’ve come across a number of websites that are promoting anonymous proxies.  These sites are filled with nonsensical articles and are designed to drive traffic to one or two anonymous proxy websites.  I guess I have to ask the question, if they are creating garbage websites just for the purpose of spamming the search engines, how good can their products be.

The proxy marketplace is filled with lots of companies.  We have a number of quality competitors that I know and respect.

Unfortunately, the anonymous proxy world overall is a scary place.  Many of these proxy companies are out to take your money one way or another.  Remember that when you are connected to an anonymous proxy server, everything you do goes through that server.  Do you really feel comfortable putting your personal information through a server owned by a company that may not be legitimate?

Before you buy anything online, make sure that you know who you are doing business with.  That is especially true with proxy companies and even software companies.  If you install something on your PC, then you are granting that program access to all your information.  Again, maybe this is not a big deal, but I like to know the source of anything I install on my PC.

One way to learn more about a company is to read their privacy policy or terms of service.  Then you can look up the company to learn more about them.  If you can’t find company information, run, don’t walk away.

On a related note, we get a lot of phone calls from people before they sign up for our service.  I think this is mostly to reassure them that we are indeed a real company with real people who stand behind our products.  Think that’s silly?  Try calling some of the other proxy companies out there.

Stay safe by knowing who you are doing business with.

Terrorism has always been a big concern of the United States, and the main job of the most powerful person in the world, our president, has been to try and counter it. While many people are not worried about terrorism or the threats it brings to the American people, the government has always been concerned with this matter and done the up most to try and prevent it. There are many safeguards and agreements in place; even though many countries and nations hate the United States out of religious and cultural differences or perhaps just a strong feeling of envy, we have successfully been able to negotiate many cease fires between enemy nations. No matter how strong our diplomatic skills are though, there will always be some countries that are inconsolable and will try and attack us no matter what.

We were able to fend them off for some time, and did so quite well. It wasn’t until the 911 attacks that we faltered. These terrorist attacks jaded our nation and knocked down our confidence. It was similar to the Titanic; the impossible and the impenetrable was broken down. America seemed like a huge fortress, but some ramshackle terrorists were able to infiltrate it and deal us some swift damage. This woke the government up, and made them protect America even more diligently, and think of many new ways to do so.

Video surveillance is utilized by many people in the United States today. Regular people use them to keep a watchful eye over their property; if they leave for work or go on an extended vacation they will flip it on to get evidence of any attempted break ins. The police are the main proprietors of these security cameras though, as they use them in pretty much everything they do; they are mounted to the front of every police car and kept rolling all of the time so the crook (or the cop!) can’t get away with any funny business. Businesses also employ these cameras services quite regularly. They might do so for security reasons, such as mounting one outside of their office building to try and catch any crooks on video who might be breaking into their building. They could also do it for a more controversial reason; watching the employees. Many businesses use these cameras to monitor unknowing employees, and make sure they aren’t doing anything illicit.

There are two sides to this argument; one says yes to the cameras, and one says no. The side supporting the video surveillance says that the threat of cameras watching employees will stop them from doing anything the company would not support. Also, it takes out the risk of trusting an employee with too sensitive of a task. The other side says that this trust is exactly what makes an employee loyal; if they are being watched all of the time, they won’t feel trustworthy themselves. Also, it just isn’t right to perform monitoring of someone without them knowing, and you know the employees wouldn’t know.