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.

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.

A spokesperson for the American Health Information Management Association said that there is a need for education and awareness. He admitted that there are ongoing trainings on the use of mobile technology in relation to data management. But according to him, these are not the same as education and awareness. Something else must be done if health professionals are to have the right awareness when it comes to patient data security.

At present, it is surprising to note that 4 out of 10 health care professionals surveyed are confident that patient data accessed by mobile devices is secured. It is also astounding to know that 81% of them are using these devices to collect, store and transmit patient records. But the most shocking of all is that almost one-half of the participants surveyed said that their organizations do not have a data protection mechanism at all.

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.

Americans generally believe that the familiarity they share with their doctors is one of the most intimate. However, without yet having legislation, there have already been about 500 million violations of personal privacy and data breaches in the last decade or so. These can be attributed to either federal or state governments or local officials or contractors. These violations are proof that patients’ data would not be safe in their hands.

An HHC spokesperson came onto the scene and tried to contradict the public’s fear. He started by trying to give assurance that no personally identifiable information would be collected by either the HHS or the states. He again mentioned that the present administration considers health record protection as its top priority. This is still in line with the administration’s programs to develop the protection of people’s information and put forward new ideas in health care.

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.

However, others believe that handing over their DNA should not be an easy decision. There are many privacy concerns that have to be clarified prior to giving in to this DNA collection. Those who do not believe in the idea of DNA profiling say that there have to be safeguards in place. Owners of the DNA should have a clear understanding as to how this DNA would be handled and by making sure that it is treated with extreme care.

Police unions have also given their official stand concerning this matter. Their officials have told their members about the possible outcome of agreeing to their DNA being profiled. They said that there are no controls as to the storage of the DNA, so there is a high likelihood of privacy and abuse problems.

Some countries like the United Kingdom and Australia have been keeping files of DNA of their officers for several years. It was in 1995 when the U.K. government started their system of keeping a database of criminal suspects. The United States later adopted this same system, and the country is believed to have the world’s largest DNA database of criminals today.

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.

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.

“Any such uses must not compromise or invade personal privacy,”states the document “It is important to provide clear, firm, and unambiguous protection against any uses that would compromise or invade personal privacy.

I’m sorry, but given how well the government does most things, do we really think they will get this right?  I’m not assuming ill intent or malice on anyone’s part.  I just assume that this is an area that we really don’t want them to get wrong.  If they do, and if the data is breached, this could be a privacy nightmare.

This is yet another reason why using an anonymous proxy is a good idea.  With a proxy, your identifying information, your IP address, is masked so that your specific information can’t be tracked.  However, even with an anonymous proxy, if you fill in information on a government website, they then know who you are.  An anonymous proxy can’t help you if you provide your personal data willingly.

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.

This kind of surveillance is obviously the aforementioned bad kind. It usually has one defining characteristic; it is done through technology. Somebody snoops on you using some high tech device, breaking through the meager defenses you have on your (it is oftentimes) computer. You always have to be wary of your computer; it can be a great addition to your life and make many things easier with the power of the Internet, but it can be dangerous as well. Most computer are not secured and protected properly, and surf the web “without their seat belts on”, if you will.

Don’t fret; getting a secure Internet is easy. Anonymous proxy is what you need to look for, and once you find a good one, look no further. An anonymous proxy can enable you to surf the web anonymously and keep you hidden from the prying eyes of those wishing to commit this “anti-social behavior.” Find a reliable private proxy and stick with it, and you will be perfectly secure on the Internet.

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?

The user name is not infallible however, and sometimes people can break through or decode it. Obviously if you tell a friend your name and user name this is okay, as you will have a certain amount of trust in that person and know they will not use it for ill means, but you don’t want to tell some random stranger about your life and personal details. Nor would you give them these details if they asked you directly. Directly is the key word here, as there are many ways to surreptitiously hack into someone’s computer and find out a bunch of information about them.

Don’t let this happen to you; don’t let a stranger steal your information. Use an anonymous proxy and ensure anonymous browsing through a secure tunnel of access for you and your family. By using your private proxy, you can surf the web anonymously and ensure that no one is sifting through your documents trying to steal information from you; or just trying to find out your political preferences!