The Cloud of Doubt Behind Google

One of Google’s newest technologies has just been introduced. It is called the 2-factor authentication process. During log in, the user is asked to provide his or her cell or landline number. This number is used as a “key” so that the user can proceed. A one-time authentication code is sent using the number. There are, however, doubts as to the real purpose of requiring the number. This has not yet been answered by the company.

A user who tries to log in is presented with an authentication requirement. The authentication “key” is sent through the number that the user would provide. Unless a number is given, there is no other way for the user to proceed further and log in. It is because of this that doubts about Google’s real purpose have surfaced.

Some users would mindlessly give out their phone numbers. They do not realize the value of this private information. Google’s 2-factor authentication that requires phone numbers is not an exception. Phone numbers, whether cellular of landline, are the user’s private “property. Google’s 2-factor verification is not an exemption. Collecting such vital data from users just for authentication is not good enough explanation. The collection of numbers provided by millions of users hold lots of information which could be abused. What about the storage life of these numbers? Would these be deleted right after verification? Would it not be stored for potential use in the future?

The 2-factor authentication process was launched because according to Google, one’s accounts have been observed for “abnormal activity”. The user can no longer go on to the next step once this page is presented. There is no other option but to provide the number asked for, otherwise the account can no longer be accessed. This is not in reality a choice because one cannot avoid the process. Google might just really want to “grab” the user’s number.

The present status of data protection laws cannot oblige any firm to delete consumer’s data in their list. Only incorrect data could be deleted; all others could stay on endlessly in the web. It goes on to say that Google’s purpose of “protecting” its customers is actually vague and suspicious. There must be an assurance that those uploaded numbers are deleted right away after the authentication procedure. Unless privacy is guaranteed, the 2-factor tool would only be seen as Google’s easy way of “capturing” phone numbers for unknown purposes.

Image courtesy of:

Image: Pixomar / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Search Me... If You Can

The informed consent law has been into the news just recently. The way it is being implemented now has pushed some groups to suggest for better ways. The Colorado Progressive Coalition for example expressed its call for improved performance. One proposal it has laid down was to educate both law enforcers and civilians on the new law. Informing the police alone and not the civilians would not guarantee the full force of the law.

According to the law, a search can only be conducted after the consent of the subject. If he or she refuses, then no search could be done. To avoid from committing privacy violation, the law enforcer should complete the required process. He or she should first clearly explain to the subject his or her rights under the law. Once the subject refuses, the officer could not go on with the intended search.

The bill known as HB 1201 was passed last year. Under the 4th Amendment, this law was passed to protect individuals against unreasonable searches. Search under this law is considered unreasonable if there is no informed consent. The many incidents of police brutality prompted lawmakers to protect both law enforcers and civilians. It is hoped that this would instill in both the police’s and citizens’ respect of the law.

The law has two vital aspects of implementation that have to be improved. This surfaced in the roundtable event hosted by the Colorado Progressive Coalition. One aspect is the development and implementation of training programs for law enforcers. The other is raising the level of public or civilian awareness and their constitutional rights. Having been well-informed, it is expected to close the gap between the police and the people. The result would be lesser privacy violation by law enforcers. There would also be less cases of assault against persons in authority.

There are a number of ways of training programs available for police officers. The one being used at present is through training bulletins sent via emails to police officers. However, the group suggests of a better way that would really inculcate “a culture that respects the law”. These other media that would facilitate deeper understanding and positive reception of the law should be included. One that would ensure appropriate implementation of the law is video webcast training.

As a complement to police awareness, public knowledge is also important. Know-your-rights classes are already available through ACLU. Its function is to teach those who are willing to learn the new Colorado law as well as their rights as civilians. Citizens who are interested in promoting the informed consent law would be given know-your-rights cards.

Photo courtesy of:

Image: Maggie Smith / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The Aftermath of 9/11, Today...

Until now, the terror and panic caused by the 9/11 attacks still haunt the authorities. Since the devastating experience, policies and laws have been passed in order to counter terrorist activities. Government seemed to have pushed these policies so hard that it has put individual privacy aside. By and large, ordinary people are subjected to undue surveillance. They end up either as suspects of terrorism or victims of privacy violation. The laws that were passed to protect them are the same laws that curtail their freedom.

A closer look at some of these policies would reveal how individual privacy is invaded. A number of peaceful political organizations in the U.S. are being monitored. Their activities are tracked because they are considered as “terrorist groups”. These are people who only wanted political reforms, but end up in the list of terrorists. The only reason for doing such extreme action is because the groups gather together. Simply put, there is no longer such kind of freedom that they used to call self-expression.

Pity also those who advocate care for the environment and those union activists who end up in terrorism-related databases. In California, pro-environment groups are being watched for the same reason. Unionism used to be encouraged because it helps people to wield a stronger force that would push for reforms. It is different now because they too are branded as terrorists. Ordinary civilians who may not even have a hint about terrorism are being place under surveillance.

At present, there are law enforcers who secretly monitor and photograph people at public meetings. There is no reasonable basis for such actions, but are being done in order to prevent any untoward plans. From now on, anybody can be monitored and photographed anytime, anywhere! This is clearly invasion of privacy.

Authorities are overreacting to the situation. There is so much apprehension that only one side of the situation is given attention. Many questions have been raised regarding surveillance of ordinary citizens. The manner it is being done is becoming more intense. This would eventually strip off from people their privacy. Further, people who would lose faith in the authorities might finally choose terrorism as a better option because of prejudice against them.

A revisit of the set privacy laws and policies would greatly improve the situation. What should be done in order to strike a balance between national security and privacy? What should be done so that citizens would feel more secure and happier? What should be done so the government can guard its constituents from terrorism?

Image courtesy of:

Image: Salvatore Vuono / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

On Protecting Personal Information

A statement about the theft of some valuable hospital data was issued by the Health and Hospital Corporation (HHC) last February 11, 2011. Nearly 1.7 million electronic files were stolen on December 23, 2010. These are owned by patients, hospital staff, employees of vendors, contractors and others. This large bulk of data were filed at Jacobi Medical Center and North Central Bronx Hospital starting the year 1991 to present. In order to pre-empt future problems with those who might be affected, efforts to notify them are under way.

According to sources, these data might still remain hidden somewhere. These cannot just be used readily because of their nature. These data would need specialized technical expertise and data mining tools to be accessed. However, HHC wants to move a step ahead. It has started with its advocacy on protecting individuals. One is by offering free credit monitoring and fraud resolution for one year. For accessible assistance of information, it has also opened a toll-free phone information hotline.

HHC President Alan D. Aviles said that the theft was the result of negligence. It was GRM Information Management Service that was contracted to take care of the data. It specializes in the secure transport and storage of sensitive data. The incident is now the responsibility of the said company. According to some details, the van that was used to transport the data was left unattended and unlocked. The driver was allegedly said to be on his way to pick up other data from another customer. HHC also initiated measures to provide assistance and services to the affected individuals.

Two of the most valuable data that were stolen were protected health information (PHI) and personal information. These data belong to hospital staff, vendors, and contractors. These could include names, addresses, Social Security numbers, patients’ medical histories and occupational/employee health information.

HHC wrote notification letters in 17 languages. These letters are to be sent to those groups that were affected. The letter also explained how the recipient can avail of protective services that HHC offers. With the objective of reaching those affected as soon as possible, the letters are to be sent within two weeks. Federal regulation has a set of guidelines that each party involved in the “error” should comply with. One of which is the number of days allowed so that action could be taken on a particular case.

HHC has terminated the contract with GRM to prevent another similar incident to occur. It has held the company liable to answer the cost of notifying the individuals. In the lawsuit filed against GRM, HHC also held it responsible for other damages related to the loss of data. The data are still “at large”, and there is no sign yet that it will soon be recovered.

Image courtesy of:

Image: jscreationzs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Address It Right

Did you wish that you did not publish your home address online? Or was there an instance when out of nothing you have given out your home address? This happens especially with Facebook or Twitter users. Now it is time to clean up your profile information and trim it down only to the most essentials. This might be a rule to follow: keep private data to yourself only, or at least be careful with data sharing next time.

Users cannot be blamed when they share their home address that easily. With friends, what is there in a home address that would cause trouble? Well, maybe not with friends. But if the whole of the internet community could access this information, maybe you are up to some trouble. It is privacy that comes into the picture, and what comes next is unexpected.

Facebook was discovered that it shows its users’ home address to developers. In a post written by Jeff Bowen, he outlined how Facebook would make these data available in the development platform. In addition, users’ mobile phone numbers are available too.

Rogue app developers can make use of these data for their own purpose. With just a little amount of manipulation, rogue app developers can use these data to spread their malicious business. Two of the most common of these are spam and cold-calling. So you see how simple it is, but the results could be annoying.

There is a need to be more extra careful. When being required to supply your home address, do not just give in. Find out some more. Is it legitimate? Is it valid? Only then should you decide if you are going to share your vital information.

Cluley proposes one solution to this problem. There should be stricter policies on Facebook’s access terms. The following could be done. Before giving access to data, the identity of the user should be established. If they are valid, then that is the only time when they can access those. Another modification would be to require developers to ask users’ approval before using their data.

Image courtesy of: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1970

The Remaking Of The PATRIOT Act

Several groups of critics have staged campaign against the extension of the PATRIOT Act. Scheduled in February this year, the voting would be the deciding factor whether the bill would continue to exist. Two-thirds of the House members should vote YES so that the H.R. 514 could run for another period. This move is seen as fast tracking the process in order to gain positive results.

Critics are questioning the manner in which the bill is being pushed. It appears that there is no significant difference between the old and new bills. Before the law should merit extension, there should be changes that would strengthen the provisions. As is, there are no oversight and accountability measures that are incorporated in the bill.

Debates were done and proposals were presented last year. Among the areas that were debated on were on checks and balances. It is said that the new proposed version is full of these provisions. However, the debates went on for so long that it did not meet the deadline. The first extension was approved in February last year. There is another proposal to extend it until February of this year. There was a promise to resolve the issues before granting another extension.

The apprehension with the impending extension is that no debates are possible. Given until December 8, 2011 to extend, there is no genuine reform that could be expected. The expected amendments would not be carried out because no one is given the opportunity to present changes. The result would be the same PATRIOT as it was a year ago.

It can be presumed that there is something about the bill that raised such reaction. For one, the law allows the government to place anybody under surveillance. Secret court orders can be given under Section 215. With this, access to private data could be granted. These include internet, phone and business records.

Under this law, foreign intelligence wiretaps could be allowed. Anybody, even those without connection to any foreign power or terrorist group, could be tapped. Whenever government “feels” there is a need to do so, any phone number, email account or other communications facility can be accessed.

Those were the provisions that critics say should not be included in the renewal. In order for it to be meaningful, genuine reforms should be done. Weak points should be eliminated, and more checks and balances should be included. This could be done if debates are allowed. This is the only way to ensure that civil liberties are protected.

Image courtesy of: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1701

Dogs: Sniffing Away Privacy In Schools?

Drug-sniffing dogs to conduct random drug sweep in schools? Yes! However, not all parents are happy with this practice. Consequently, a couple brought their complaint to court. When the lower ruled out that it was legal, they elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

On the grounds that such practice is infringing on parents’ rights, Harold and Marianne Burbank filed a lawsuit against a high school. It stemmed from the incidence when their daughter was “illegally searched”. They said schools should uphold parents’ rights to guide their children’s upbringing. But even the high court did not favor them. It said the lower court’s ruling should stand – that the practice is legal. This unanimous decision for the 2009 case would be published in the Connecticut Law Journal this January.

Some details of the ruling indicated the right of schools to protect its students. The duty to eliminate drugs in the campus is one of those. It also added that privacy in schools should not be equated with privacy elsewhere. Furthermore, the drug-sniffing sweep as conducted was not a search as contained in the law.

Giving less weight to the Burbanks’ case was the fact that their daughter already graduated. This means she is no longer in the said school. The court used this fact to say that the couple can no longer challenge the school policies. They could only do so if they are still affected, but this time they are not. The Burbanks asked the court to either disallow the random sweep or inform parents before conducting it.

The parents also questioned the manner the random sweep was conducted. According to them, the practice had some violation of students’ rights. Lockers and cars of students were checked using drug-sniffing dogs. Some students were pulled from their rooms to watch officers as they conducted the activity. While this was being done, students were kept in classrooms. The whole school was locked down. This, according to the parents, was illegal restraint.

It seems that there is a need to revisit the policies on school drug testing policies. With such allegations as to privacy rights violation, should the courts think again? However, schools are places of developing character. School authorities have the responsibility of maintaining a drug-free environment. Above all else, this should be supported by all stakeholders.

Image courtesy of:

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Lights... Camera... Privacy!

Have you ever lived a day with a spy camera to capture your every move? Yes! Surveillance cameras are soon to be installed in your neighborhood. Does it sound intimidating? Of course this is for good reason. With criminals trying to get every chance at their victims, something unique has to be done.

Mayor Gabriel J. Campana of Williamsport City, Pennsylvania is up against the previously approved resolution by City Council specifying the surveillance areas. He said he will do what he can so that the city can be more aggressive against crime. City officials are busy working for a wider area of coverage other than parks and other public utilities. With the resolution, the cameras shall be installed in places such as Memorial, Elm, Brandon, Youngs Woods, Newberry and Shaw Place. These areas were identified by police. Other areas are expected to be included if agreements could be reached.

The Mayor hopes that cameras would also be installed in those places that are considered high crime areas. The budget could be used well if these facilities are spread over a larger area. Diverging opinions were aired for and against the idea. Some contend that by increasing the area of coverage, effectiveness is diminished. This is because the same number of cameras will be distributed over a wide area. Concentrating over a smaller area would mean thicker coverage.

Campana assured his constituents that he would continue to work for additional budget for the cameras. At present, the federal budget comes from a U.S. Department of Budget grant amounting to $450,000. This is part of the Department’s COPS Technology program. The project is now ready for bidding. Once the lowest responsible bidder that meet the technology specifications would qualify, it would start rolling.

Police Chief Gregory Foresman said the installation of these cameras would be the same as police visibility. Maybe the only difference would be these machines could capture moments on film. A bonus would be these machines could “see” 360 degrees at once. According to specifications, these cameras should have the capability to pan, zoom, and tilt.

Image courtesy of: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=151