Hindi maipagkakailang lalong nagiging tanyag ang pag gamit ng mga mobile devices. Sa kabila nito, lalo din namang nadadagdagan ang bilang ng mga cyber crimes. Sa ngayon, ang internet ay accessible o bukas halos sa lahat, gamit ang smartphones at iba pang digital devices. Ito ang isa sa malalaking dahilan upang ang mga maykapangyarihan ay maghanap ng makabagong paraan upang labanan ang ganitong uri ng mga krimen. Hindi na umuubra ang mga nakagawiang paraan; kailangan ang maparaang pagharap dito, gamit din ang teknolohiyang gamit ng mga cyber criminals.

Sa state ng California sa United States of America, itinatag ang bagong eCrime Unit upang manghuli at maglitis ng mga internet crooks. Ang team na ito ay binuo ng isang state attorney general at kinabibilangan ng dalawampung abogado at imbestigador. Bihasa sila sa mga makabagong paraan upang matunton at matukoy ang mga maysala. Kabilang sa mga tinututukan ng team na ito ay mga email scams, piracy, child pornography, online fraud, at marami pang iba. Kawawa lamang ang mga taong nabiktima at patuloy na nabibiktima mapa-offline man o mapa-online.

Naipakulong na ng team ang isang lalaking nahatulan ng guilty sa kasong hacking ng mga email at Facebook accounts. Marami nang nabiktima ang lalaking ito na ang karaniwang modus ay pasukin ang account ng ibang user. Pagkatapos ay maghahanap siya ng mga kontrobersiyal na larawan ng may-ari ng account. Tatakutin niya ito na ikakalat sa internet ang mga larawan kapag hindi sinunod ang gusto niya.

Ang internet ay napakahalaga sa ekonomiya, sa mga tao, at sa mga negosyo. Dahil dito, hindi na kailangang maghanap ng biktima ang mga cyber criminals. Napakaraming maaaring maging biktima ng pagnanakaw ng mga impormasyon. Ang taong 2012 ay nakikinikinitang magiging taon ng matinding pakikipaglaban sa online crimes. Naranasan noong isang taon ang napakaraming mga scams at inaasahang marami pang darating ngayong taon.

Ito naman ang dahilan ng pagpapaigting ng kampanya laban sa ecrime. Ang bagong eCrime Unit ay naglalayong makagawa ng isang bagong trend ng pakikipaglaban sa online crimes. Sinabi ng attorney general mula California na gusto nilang manguna sa makabagong paraan sa paghahanap at paglilitis ng mga maysala. Gamit ang internet technology na siya ring gamit ng mga criminal, mapatutunayang ang batas ay mangingibabaw sa lahat ng oras.

The continuous increase in data breaches at health care providers has raised privacy concerns. There were some studies conducted in order to find out the main cause of these breaches. Some of the hospitals surveyed said that it is due to insufficient funding for security. Others said that lost or stolen devices contributed greatly to the sudden surge in data breaches. The first reason could be attributed more to the government’s priorities in dispensing funds, but the second one seems to point to human error, or the lack of knowledge on the part of the health care professionals on how to secure patient data.

Mobile technology is now widely used in almost all private and public organizations. The use of smartphones or tablets has made it very convenient for people to manage data. Doctors and other health care professionals are now using these gadgets for electronic health records. These tools, as observers point out, lack the much needed, required security. Working on their own, some doctors are using these gadgets without ample knowledge on the use of encryption technology, or even passwords.

Health care in the U.S. is under scrutiny as health records of patients need to be disclosed, which would mean exposing these patients to privacy problems. With this comes another issue. The issue involves claims that the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary uses a double standard when it comes to defending patients’ privacy rights. The present administration has always claimed that it never takes health privacy for granted. Will it be compromised this time because of this issue?

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.

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.

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.

Here we go again.  More on Big Brother.  The US government announced in June that US government agencies may track traffic and online behavior so that they can better provide information and services for the people who visit their websites.

The stated purpose here is two-fold. First, the Obama administration wants  the government’s websites to be easier to navigate, and to become useful. Secondly, it wants to monitor your behavior on its websites to figure out what information was accessed the most and hence, potentially the most useful.

Privacy issues are crucial to the topic of government tracking and targeting, so much so that the government memorandum the Obama administration issued discusses it in the introduction. The government is assuring  people that they shouldn’t be concerned about the US government watching their every online move.

Do you ever get that feeling that someone is following you, someone is watching you? Don’t quickly jump to the conclusion that you are crazy; many others feel the same way. The fact is that you are often being watched, and not just by other people. In Britain, and as being tested in some undisclosed parts of the United States, people are being held under surveillance by discreet video cameras mounted on houses. These video cameras can watch passerby and record everything that they see and or do. The cameras can be accessed by local law enforcement, federal law enforcement, or any other criminal agency at any time, with a live feed able to be brought up. These cameras are supposed to watch for “anti-social behavior”, and when detected, the police are to be dispatched and the situation taken care of.

While the idea of being watched sounds bad, it really is not. It depends clearly on the type. When you are being watched for your own safety, as these video cameras are doing for the citizens, sometimes it is necessary to make some privacy sacrifices to ensure your protection. The only question that arises is what exactly is “anti-social behavior”? If this anti-social behavior means a man waiting outside someone’s house looking to see if anyone is home, and then trying to break the door down or open a window, then it goes without saying that we would all be okay with these cameras. Sometimes these cameras can snoop into places we don’t want them too, and they then abandon their public service. This is the bad kind of being watched, a voyeuristic viewing of your life and its details. It doesn’t have to be the actual watching of your person though or what you are doing; this illegal type of surveillance expands into the extension of your self, except online: your social security number, your documents, your emails, etc.

Anonymity is important and is present everywhere in life. You can be anonymous in a figurative manner, like just one person in a crowd of thousands on the populous streets of New York City, or you can be anonymous just as a voter in a United States election. Can you imagine not being anonymous while you are voting? What about everyone seeing you pick your candidate of choice, and then having your name and choice broadcasted to the world? Voting is a highly personal act; no one can tell you how to vote, and only you can make the final decision of who to choose. People do not go around asking each other who they voted for; in fact, teachers and other educational staff are under oath not to tell for whom their sympathies and opinions lie, for they might influence their impressionistic students. If everyone knew who you voted for, life could be a bit dangerous. There are extremists of everything, and the political battle is no different. On both sides, there are people who might even kill to further their candidate and lower the opposition’s forces by one more. Voting is just one thing though, and anonymity spans a wide strata of daily life.

Think about being online; for most things and applications on the computer, you have a screen name, user name, log in code, call it what you will. This combination of numbers and letters is supposed to be a mask to hide you from the rest of the Internet, this is why you are advised or even forbidden to use your name or any other identifying details about yourself in your online name. Imagine if every one online knew everybody’s else’s real identity; the Internet would not run correctly! Who would sign onto the anonymous comment sites and share their real or dissenting opinion on some highly controversial issue if they knew everyone else knew who they were and they could be judged or get in trouble for their words?