Bullying VS Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying should not be equated to bullying. In the past, the schoolyards or the streets were the most common venues of bullying. It was there that they become either victims or act as bullies, depending on some characteristics.

Today, cyberbullying is becoming more common among them. What this means is that the venues are not just the schoolyards or the streets, but cyberspace as well!

What raises some privacy concerns are the results of researches conducted on “real life” bullying and cyberbullying among the youth. It started when it was observed that some schools were under the assumption that existing anti-bullying programs can also deal with cyberbullying. Contrary to this, students aged 10 to 18 that were involved in the research do not share that same belief. They say that aggressions that happen online cannot be dealt with by existing anti-bullying rules.

Studies on bullying in schools showed three characteristics. These characteristics are: power differential between the bully and the victim, a planned targeting of a victim, and ongoing aggression. These characteristics are not necessarily involved in cyberbullying. In fact, some of the findings suggest that these kids play multiple roles in cyberbullying. They can be the bullies, the victims, or the witnesses. At any time, a teenager can take the role of any one or two of these online.  In school, the above three characteristics will give an individual his or her enduring role in the bullying circle.

Another disturbing finding is that 95% of the kids asked about this issue say that cyberbullying, since only done online, is just a joke. They do not realize the level of harm that is associated with these actions. Cyberbullying can be damaging to the victim’s mental health and developmental well-being. If the victim is a student, his or her academic achievements can be negatively affected. The worst case scenario can be a suicide attempt, which can end up in an unjustifiable death. It is high time that specific laws on cyberbullying should be crafted and implemented.

Image: Grant Cochrane / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Tighter Online Privacy Rules - A Must

There are high expectations that consumers will enjoy the benefits of tighter online privacy rules by the end of 2012. Many companies have signified their willingness to adopt the final recommendations set forth as best practices in privacy protection. By backing tighter online privacy laws, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is confident that consumers’ data will not be abused. It is anticipated that consumers will be able to benefit from new services without sacrificing their privacy.

For a start, companies are already working to include privacy protection into every project that they have. Attention is being given on how people’s data is kept safe and in controlling how much information is collected. Consumers are being put in control by giving them the option to decide what information about them is to be shared. This can be achieved if there is a “Do Not Track” system that can be used by consumers in order to control the tracking of their activities.

How can tighter online privacy rules help internet consumers? The beginning of all these privacy issues is due to the large number of privacy violations. Consumers are not aware that their online activities are being tracked. They also do not know what happens after their personal data is collected. It is either used directly, or sold to other companies. Most important of all, they do not know that there are ways of protecting their privacy.

This is why U.S. regulators are insisting that an easy-to-use tool that really works for consumer protection is put in place on internet companies. Some companies responded positively and promised to cooperate. The rest are still holding on to their belief that too much control will kill innovation and eventually, the business. There is a possibility that a favorable, final agreement will be reached among internet companies.

The government wants the data miners to give more respect to consumer privacy. Innovation should not only continue, but should also be encouraged because it promotes creativity and boosts the economy. However, it is not right to compromise privacy rights just because consumers do not have the tools to protect themselves. It must be remembered that tighter online privacy rules are meant to protect both consumers and internet businesses.
Image: digitalart / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

US IP Address - How To Get One

When living outside of the United States there are a couple of reasons why you should use an anonymous proxy to surf the Internet.

1. If you need to access US-based websites, they might be blocked because of your IP address.
2. If the country you are in censors the Internet, by using a private proxy you can bypass their filters and gain unrestricted access to any website.

Here's an example of using anonymous proxy from China.

If you need to change your IP address to be a US IP address, Sign up for a free trial of Private Proxy at www.privateproxysoftware.com.

Does Online Advertising Hurt Privacy?

Revenues of internet companies are derived mainly from advertisements. It is a well-known fact that without advertisements, a company could never thrive on its own. Online advertising is a billion-dollar industry that keeps the internet going. This powerful marketing tool gives an estimated 96 percent of Google’s and 85 percent of Facebook’s revenues.

Because of privacy issues, the government is keeping a close eye on advertising companies these days. Online advertisers are under observation because the government wants to give internet users better control over their personal information. This business now runs under self-regulation, and this is the strategy that most companies support. By this, each advertising company would sustain its own parameters as to the collection and use of personal data uploaded by consumers.

Last year’s discovery that two of the largest companies were engaged in deceptive privacy practices have received unfavorable reactions. Still, the issue is about the unauthorized collection and trade of user information to advertisers. This has in some way badly harmed the argument for self-regulation.

According to internet companies, heavy regulation does not promote innovation and stifles the growth of the internet. The so called “privacy bill of rights” and the “do not track” system debates are now ongoing, and have aggravated the situation. The bill is the government’s framework to define how consumers can defend their personal information. The do not track system is the industry’s suggestion to give users the option of whether or not their personal information can be collected.

With the blunders that were experienced in the past, online advertisers should by this time have learned a valuable lesson. The policy on self regulation can continue if the companies can act accordingly. It does not really matter if sooner or later the privacy bill of rights will be approved and implemented. Still, they have to consider the privacy of internet users. On their own, they have to take measures in order to address the lack of control over the collection and trading of data to advertisers. Because users’ online activities and real-life identities are revealed, such actions expose internet users to dangers.

Image: digitalart / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Mobile Apps and Privacy Concerns

Are you aware that more new privacy concerns are raised as more mobile apps are available on the market? It seems very effortless for many smartphone users to click on any application and download it without any concern. However, they do not pay attention to the app’s terms and conditions; they simply accept all of what the fine print contains. The thing is that they do not know about the privacy implications that go along with the products that they “buy”.

Mostly written by lawyers, service terms and security policies make little or no sense at all to the lay person. Many may have tried to read that fine print but end up abandoning the idea because of the lengthy litanies of legal terms. The explanation for this is simple - because they are too extreme for the lay man to understand. Eventually, more privacy concerns emerge as more users ignore the importance of understanding those terms and conditions.

Reading and understanding the terms and conditions, however, do not guarantee privacy. A user has to agree on giving up some of his or her personal information in exchange for the product. The bottom line would be how much information the user is willing to give up. The user’s willingness would also depend on how open the data mining company is about how the data will be used. Sad to say, there are users who care less about privacy just to have the benefits and convenience of an application.

The number of mobile apps is growing fast, reaching beyond the almost 600,000 sold by Apple alone. Think about the privacy implications generated by each of these apps. There have been bad reports in the past about personal data being downloaded by gaming apps without the user’s knowledge. Users get to know about this when they are being haunted by targeted ads and other aggravating tricks.

Because of their usefulness, popularity and attractiveness, it would be impractical to stop the flood of new apps. Users are expected to be interested in, be curious about and eventually use them. Except for the very few, most users would dive into the sea of apps without any hint of the repercussions. However, the availability of these products adds to the force that pushes users to download them.

Those less informed users are now trying to be reached by several privacy groups. They are being educated on how they could preserve their privacy. One of the efforts that the groups are undertaking is how to make users aware of the information that they share. They are trying to find easier ways for users to know what information is being gathered about them. At present, less than 50% of the apps have their privacy policies posted, which makes the job difficult to do. Nonetheless, the issue of privacy concerns raised by mobile apps needs to be resolved quickly.

Image: Idea go / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Glassmap Suggests Privacy Dialog

A new real-time location sharing service called Glassmap is now available. Its founders have made their company’s stand when comes to privacy very clear. Observers claim that many online users are becoming more involved with software services and applications. Some of them admitted that their day would not be complete if they could not share pictures, post comments, or add friends. This may be due to a force that links a user to a certain software service or application.

Glassmap had the “Post to Facebook” option in its registration process, which solicited unfavorable comments. This has been criticized for alleged user privacy violations. If the user leaves this option checked, his or her Facebook Timeline would show an invitation to join Glassmap. Critics say that this exposes users to more privacy risks even if they might be benefited from it. This option is no longer available because Facebook told the company to eliminate this “feature”.

The founders are pushing for a real dialog about online privacy rather than wasting creative minds and technology on insignificant controversies. Instead, those concerned should start an investigation on important areas that need to be given real attention. There are four of these areas: real-time adaptability, transparency, the right amount of privacy, and user-service symmetry.

As often as the user changes his or her location, privacy thresholds continuously change. There are social networking companies like Facebook that offer their users the option to choose privacy thresholds. But this is still far from real-time adaptability. If this is to happen, users must be enabled to adjust privacy thresholds without difficulty as he or she moves from place to place. This kind of feature is yet to be experienced.

Other social networking sites are also shown disapproval due to lack of transparency. The definition of being transparent is that users clearly see their actual privacy settings. Users have to see not only which part of their information is shared but also with whom they share it with. There is a need to fine tune sharing someone’s information with “friends of friends”. It might seem alright to share with “friends”, but not with “friends of friends”.

Users deserve the right amount of privacy in order for it to be better privacy. This right amount is found in-between sharing everything and sharing nothing. The two extremes cannot give the right amount of privacy. Ideally, this can be found somewhere between these two. While this must be sought, transparency and control should still be preserved.

Different sectors are focusing their efforts at improving user-to-user relationships. But many privacy issues will clear up by enhancing user-to-service relationships. To realize this, service companies must present back to users the information that they gather. This is necessary because users must know what information is being collected from them. Finally, since service companies act as user-to-user proxies, they have to be more open to them.

Image: Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net