Gun Owners have the Right to Privacy, Too

Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Journal News, the leading newspaper in Westchester County, NY, requested the records for pistol permits issued in the state.  The information they received showed that there were about 44,000 registered gun owners in Putnam, Rockland and Westchester counties.  Once the information was obtained, the newspaper published the names and addresses of every one of them.  As if this weren’t enough of an invasion of privacy, along with the list was an image using Google Maps, that had each gun owner’s address pinpointed.  

New York State Senator Greg Ball was extremely frustrated and angry over this publication.  He stated, “It’s just absolutely ridiculous that the Journal News would do that and they’ve done a lot of boneheaded things in the past.”   He went on to say that he thought the act of publishing this list would give criminals a “map” to go door to door trying to get those weapons. 

Senator Ball is planning on reintroducing legislation that would make the publication of this kind of information illegal.  He said, “This isn’t only about the second amendment, this is about privacy and it’s actually boneheaded for this editorial board to take law abiding firearm owners and treat them no less than a level 3 sexual predator.”

A television news crew was sent to one of the neighborhoods that had a large amount of “red dots”.  When they knocked on doors, many people either did not answer or refused to speak, but some did express surprise and concern that there were so many guns in their neighborhood.

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

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

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

Is Strip Search a Must?

The U.S. Supreme Court might again look into strip searches in jails due to privacy concerns. Reports have surfaced that even those arrested on minor charges are being forced to strip and shower while jail guards watch. The reason given for implementing this policy is that there are prisoners who hide weapons or drugs on (or in) their bodies. However, there is no clarification on whether Justices need first to decide that there is really a cause to suspect such actions. In its present state, the law requires everyone to undergo a strip search before entering the general jail population.

People are asking about which should come first – privacy rights of people in jail or, the need to ensure safety by authorities. A lawyer stood firm by saying that the court should give a definition of what constitutes privacy intrusion. This is particularly true when there is no reason to believe that a prisoner is hiding anything.

A car dealer who was arrested when he failed to pay fines asked for legal assistance. He said that jail guards forced him to strip naked two times. He added that they told him to open his mouth and lift his genitals while they watched. To check if he was hiding something inside his body, he was made to bend over and cough.

Privacy advocates are questioning the rationale for the searches, which are primarily to deter smuggling. A justice official said that current studies show that most contraband that get into jails and prisons are brought in through the guards. If this is true, then there is no urgent reason why strip searches should be handled as invasively as they are now done. The question of “routine” strip searches following visits is not new. This was ruled on by the court more than 30 years ago.

Another aspect of the hearings that needs to be corrected is the process of questioning. It should focus less on how close guards can get to naked inmates, which is how the questioning is being conducted at present. Justices allegedly give more attention to this detail rather than on the specific case at hand. Also, there should be a clear difference defined between major and minor cases. Past records show that there were people being arrested for minor offenses while they were high on drugs. These cases need to be dealt with differently, as there is a need for closer searches than the usual.

Image: Arvind Balaraman / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Police DNA Profiling and Privacy

DNA technology has been beneficial in many fields of human society. The use of DNA in crime investigation has helped police departments for a number of years. From the unheard of to celebrated cases, identifying criminals through their DNA has made police officers’ work a lot easier. There is a recent privacy concern involving DNA profile collection. The police have cited privacy concerns about the move by officials to maintain a database of their officers’ own DNA.

Police officials have ordered the DNA testing of law enforcement personnel to rule out speculations that a police officer committed a sophisticated crime. The background of this unpopular order was the death of eight women in Louisiana in 2009. These deaths were labeled as serial killings, and the rumors spread when investigations showed the high degree of “workmanship” of the criminal. This resulted in all police officers in Louisiana agreeing to undergo testing. It finally turned out that the killer was not one of them.

To some officers, DNA collection is not something that could put their privacy at risk. They say that having a DNA file of police officers will save much time in conducting crime scene investigations as it would be easier to identify unknown genetic materials found at the scenes.

However, others feel that handing over DNA should not be done as easy as that. There are a lot of privacy concerns that should be clarified before officers give in to DNA testing. Those who are not sold on the idea say that there have to be safeguards put into place. It should be made clear to the DNA owner what would happen to it, making sure that it is treated with the utmost care.

Police unions have also issued their stand regarding this matter. The union officials have reminded their members about the possible consequences of allowing their DNA to be profiled. They said that there are yet no restrictions as to the storage of the DNA, so there is a high possibility of misuse and privacy problems.

In other parts of the world, countries like the United Kingdom and Australia have been maintaining DNA files of their officers for several years. It was the U.K. government that started such a system of keeping a database of criminal suspects way back in 1995. This same system was adopted by the U.S., which is believed to have the world’s largest DNA database of criminals today.

Image: jscreationzs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

GPS Vehicle Tracking Systems - Two Sides of the Story

For alleged violation of privacy, there is another case of an employee suing his former employer. Through the New York Civil Liberties Union, a state training manager, who was fired for time sheet violations, filed a lawsuit against the Labor Department. The fired employee, in his complaint, said that he was tracked with a GPS device that was placed in his personal car. According to a NYCLU lawyer, such use of GPS technology is an “unprecedented degree of government intrusion”.

The employee was quick to explain why he was fired from his post. He said that some employees were pressured to attend a prayer breakfast sponsored by a Governor. He was punished because he was the one who stood up for these employees. The Department of Labor belied his claims and said that the real cause was his improper filing of time sheets.

Why did the employee point out the use of the tracking device as his basis for complaint? The device was placed in his car so that his activities at work could be tracked. This came about after allegations arose that he claimed pay for hours when he was not doing his job. The period of surveillance was only supposed to cover his official working time. What happened was that the observation continued during evenings and weekends. On top of this, the employee’s vacation with his family did not escape the GPS device.

Because there were hints of abuse, an assistant attorney general explained that the employee’s alleged misbehavior at work is enough to merit tracking. The main purpose was to establish proof that the employee indeed committed a continuing misconduct. He, himself, claimed that he worked odd hours at his job. In order to find out if he was working these odd hours, there was a need to track him.

There was a ruling of a top court in New York in 2009 that before tracking a suspect, police must first get a court warrant. To get it, they must establish probable cause that without such action, the truth would be hard to come out. Now the courts are asking some questions as to the legal use of a GPS tracking device. How about if the device would only be used in the duration of an employee’s work hours?

Image: sixninepixels / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

It's Better to Remain Anonymous

The issue of anonymity has not yet ended, especially for people who are placed under surveillance. It is possible that the scope will expand and include the anonymity of people in public places. The legality of using GPS devices in surveillance has triggered a controversy. This prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments and look into the possibility of expanding the range of privacy.

One of the cases that used a GPS device without warrant was that of a suspected drug dealer. The police placed the device in his car and tracked his movements for a month. Collected data was used to convict him of conspiring to sell cocaine. Because there was no valid warrant, it is possible that it was a case of unreasonable search. There is the issue of whether the police action constituted a breach of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

Americans might be expecting an end to their anonymity if the Court upholds the decision that such kinds of searches are legal. There is no need to say that people have enjoyed the privilege of, or rather the right to, privacy. Regardless of location, people can now be placed under surveillance as others would see fit, at any time. This is based on the premise that the fact that a person is in a public place, he is no longer “private”. Also, the use of existing tracking technology is not being done to curtail privacy, but to make surveillance more effective.

In August 2010, a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge issued a contradictory opinion. According to him, a reasonable person would not want all his public movements being watched all the time. He further said that surveillance technology has improved considerably, especially with the present GPS capability. Americans are expecting that the Court would accept the Judge’s logic so that they can still enjoy the same degree of anonymity.

For example, in the past, the police used beepers to follow a car. With GPS technology, it is much easier and convenient to track a person. Today, anyone can be placed under surveillance 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without the need to physically follow his or her movements. It can be expected that one day, a person’s privacy will most likely be measured in terms new surveillance limits.

Image: Idea go / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Emails and Employees' Rights

In their daily work schedule, employees cannot keep from using the company’s IT facilities to send and receive private emails. This is aside from the business-related ones which are considered official. These emails could stay in an employees’ inbox for an indefinite period of time, and it is understood that private emails are only for that particular employee’s own personal consumption.

The issue with this situation is when an employer needs to access an employee’s email account when the latter is unavailable or absent for any length of time. Legal implications have been associated with employers who are opening their employee’s emails. The German Higher Labor Court early this year ruled that employers have the right to access and review an employee’s work-related email correspondence. It said that the requirements of the “secrecy of telecommunications” do not hold true in these cases. The company cannot be considered a “provider of telecommunication services” although the employee was allowed to use the employer’s email services.

A case once involved a worker who was not present at work due to a long-term illness. The employer was unable to obtain the employee’s consent despite repeated attempts. The employer then opened the employee’s email account, but only those emails that were business-related were read and printed. The owner did this in the presence of two eligible witnesses. Employee’s emails that were “private” and not business-related were neither read nor printed.

As a result, the employee tried to get a court order prohibiting her employer from accessing her email account in the future without her permission. The court denied her, and further repeated that her employer was not a “provider of telecommunication services”. The circumstances do not meet the criteria to fall under such a category.

The Higher Court made it clear that the employee’s use of the company’s email system is just a “side effect” of her normal daily routine. There is no adequate basis to decide that it actually falls under the scope of the Telecommunication s Act. With this present court ruling in Germany, employers can open an employee’s email account even without permission. The limitation would be that only business-related email messages in an employee’s email inbox would be opened, read or printed.

Image: Master isolated images / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Will the E-Verify System Curb Illegal Immigration?

Another privacy issue has surfaced along with the U.S. government’s initiative to curb illegal immigration and employment. A proposed bill is under fire because it forces employers to have new employees go through the E-Verify system. Expectedly, privacy concerns have been aired by different privacy groups. The ACLU, EFF, and other civil liberties organizations, labor and privacy groups are against the approval of the Legal Workforce Act of 2011.

E-Verify is an employment eligibility verification system that is internet-based. Proponents say that using the system will screen all those who seek employment in the U.S. It will not be difficult for the government to find illegal immigrants. Employers will be assured that they hire only those who are legally qualified to get jobs in the U.S.

Refusal to use E-Verify will mean penalties of up to $25,000 and imprisonment of at least one year for employers. If approved, the law will oblige employers to compare their employees’ records in the DHS and SSA databases with the information that these employees supply upon hiring. Aside from this, the Social Security numbers provided by the new hires will be compared with those on record. In addition, employers will be required to take the fingerprints of employees as a pilot biometric authentication program.

Those who push for privacy rights consider this as a threat to employees’ privacy. They argue that the authentication system would generate a database that holds highly sensitive data. It would be difficult to manage and protect such a huge amount of information. Undoubtedly, this data will be open to abuse and misuse by dishonest individuals or groups. Identity theft is most probable given the size, openness and accessibility of this database. Critics have said that even intelligence and law enforcement agencies might use this database for other purposes.

The civil rights and privacy groups coalition says that the risk to individual privacy is obvious. According to them, the harm that it could cause to people outweighs its benefits. Due to the various criticisms that caught the government’s attention, there is a plan to improve the E-Verify system. It is hoped that the improvements would center on reducing, if not eliminating, the risks to individual privacy.

Image courtesy of:

Image: jscreationzs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Safe Kids and Their Parents

SafeKids.com is a website where parents can find resources that can calm their fears about internet safety, and to provide advice on how kids can stay safer online. Having been around for many years, SafeKids.com has been building good relationships between parents and children regarding online experiences since its creation. It has a collection of important information that parents need to know about keeping kids safe online.

Technology journalist Larry Magid created and founded SafeKids.com, which is one of the oldest internet safety sites. He has made outstanding works and contributions in internet safety, one of which is the 1994 brochure “Child Safety on the Information Highway”. His articles have helped parents maintain strong bonds with their children while maintaining their internet security.

Online safety of children has been the major concern of SafeKids.com. This problem disturbs more parents than children. Especially in these days of social networking, the site wanted to calm down the fear felt by parents. This is done by providing articles that give good advice. There is a wide variety of topics - safe search, safety tools, safety guides, social networking privacy tools, and more.

The site’s simple layout is attractive to most parents who should not be impressed with elaborate design. The straightforwardness encourages visitors to pay more attention to the content rather than just graphics. Instead of playing around the page, their attention is hooked on the different articles that are posted. Moving through the different information is made easier through the available links. Further, visitors can move from one page to another by the use of the back button on the browser.

Parents can also put a “legal” touch by entering into an agreement with their children. SafeKids.com has a Family contract template that can be downloaded. Their children can fill it out and sign it. Then parents can put this near the computer, making it a good visual reminder to children about their promises about using the internet safely.

Parents and children can easily avoid the dangers on the internet with proper rules for children and guidelines for parents. SafeKids.com has lots of related resources, and all of these come in handy. To establish a good relationship, parents just need to be open with their children about their concern over privacy and safety. Parents and guardians can use the contact information to ask any questions or report any concern. Parents and children alike can feel free to shop for internet safety materials at SafeKids.com.

Image courtesy of:

Image: photostock / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Google is Set to Improve its Privacy Programs

There is no other way for Google but to try its best to improve its privacy programs. After being swarmed by numerous charges, it is now stepping up its efforts to review its existing policies. The issue started after the launching of its new networking service called the Buzz in February 2010. The charges all point to Google’s violation of its own privacy policies and for deceiving users.

The new networking service is integrated with Google’s email service, the Gmail. Buzz can identify the most frequently used contacts by Gmail users. These contacts are automatically loaded by Buzz into its so-called circle of friends and then made public. Some users found the technology amazing, but many considered it an invasion of privacy. Users asserted that they would not want all their contacts to be in the “circle” and open to everyone else. They found out that some contacts might have privacy considerations like ex-spouses, doctors, or recruiters.

Google and the Federal Trade Commission worked on the issue and reached a settlement agreement. The search giant laid down its plan to immediately study whether its services contained privacy risks. It has as well promised to implement stricter privacy risk elimination standards before launching any new service. Consequently, it would develop relevant policies that would address the risks that may be found.

The company has also agreed to be subjected to an independent audit. This will oversee and validate Google’s privacy program once every two years in the next twenty years. The settlement agreement also required Google to always obtain users’ consent before transacting business with any third party using their information. Unlike what happened with Gmail, any alteration on its services should always be checked against its existing privacy policies.

The FTC reiterated that Google failed to obtain users’ consent with its Buzz service. This is a clear violation of its own privacy policies. The policies explicitly explain its commitment to seek the user’s permission if collected information would be used in a different manner. FTC Chairman Jon Liebowitz called for companies to honor what they stated in their privacy pledges.

The Buzz missteps had prompted Google to be more serious with its privacy program. It is hopeful that with the settlement, the current issue would also die down. It also apologized for not coming up to the usual standards in terms of user control and transparency. On the FTC’s side, this settlement would hopefully stir up greater importance placed on better privacy standards for Google and for the whole internet community.

Image courtesy of:

Image: jscreationzs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The LGBT Population Needs more than Privacy

A committee report pushed to take on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) populations in health studies. This is the gist of the report prepared by a committee at the Institute of Medicine. The details said that information on these populations should be collected beforehand. This means that these data should be readily accessible in the event that these people would need health services. This would help the health professionals and related personnel to serve them better. The most essential is that they were known so that it would be easier to understand specific health conditions that affect them.

There is very little complete data on LGBT population health status and needs as of the present. Although they are provided with medical services, the problem lies in the way they are being acknowledged. Still, these groups are not seen as different from one another. Due to the scarcity of comprehensive data, the report recommended the need for health researches that focus on how to bridge this gap. Specifically, these should give emphasis to the different stages of life among the LGBT populations. These should delineate the research strategy and data collection procedure should be put in place. The main purpose is to get a fuller grasp of these groups of population.

There should be a change of course in research from being too broad to more particular. Race and ethnic minorities used to be the concentration of health researches. It is just timely to input research efforts not only on usual collection of information. There should be more importance on the understanding of diverse health conditions that are widespread among various groups, or those that affect them in an unusual way.

When comes to health needs and services, personal privacy is not an issue. However, the shame placed by society on gender and sexual minorities can make them cautious to reveal their sexual orientation. While a few would openly demonstrate what they really are, others would think many times whether to do the same. Being a minority population is another problem that researches along this field would encounter. Extra hard work has to be done in order to come up with adequate number of individuals who would comprise the sample population.

Government should push through despite these perceived problems. These should not stop its efforts to collect demographic data on LGBT individuals. It should be supportive on finding ways to provide standardized measures of sexual orientation, at the same time gender individuality. The National Institutes of Health should provide trainings on how to conduct research with LGBT populations. In the end, the team recommends that these data should be produced by electronic means with due concern on individual privacy.

Image courtesy of:

Image: renjith krishnan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

A Little Less of Privacy Means Safety

The time has come for school bus drivers to let go of their personal privacy. This they have to do so that the safety of their passengers will be guaranteed. They have to reveal any mental and physical health issues prior to their employment. They also have to agree to undergo random drug testing and to list the medications they are on. These recommendations were written by Judge Bruce Fraser in the fatality inquiry report on the death of Kathelynn Occena in 2007.

The nine-year-old girl was killed and three others were hurt including her sister in a school bus accident on October 18, 2007. The vehicle driven by Louise Rogers swung over into a parked gravel truck then crashed into a power pole. All the four victims are studying at the Mountain View Academy, but were riding on the bus owned by the Third Academy at that time.

In his report, John Fraser also wrote that there was no hint that the driver did it on purpose. It cannot be explained why the bus driver drifted onto the shoulder. Later investigations revealed that Ms. Rogers had recently been hospitalized for mental health problems. She was then prescribed sleeping pills and antidepressants.

Fraser’s report also included the assessment of the design of the school bus that was involved in the accident. He wrote that the bus was designed such that the passenger section extends beyond the cab or engine section. This endangers passengers because they are exposed outside the “safe” area of the bus. This design flaw is often found in smaller buses and which has to be given consideration.

The recommendations presented by the judge received positive responses. In additon, he also wrote that bus drivers who went on leave due to mental or physical issues should be required to submit a report. This has to be issued by a health professional, stating therein whether the person is fit to resume work. This is one way of ensuring that drivers are physically and mentally prepared for the job.

There are proposals that urge bus drivers not to use hand-held devices. This includes, but not limited to, cellphones and musical devices while on duty, especially while driving. These devices affect the focus and concentration of drivers. A new legislation is being drafted banning all hand-held devices behind the wheel.

The lesson from this incident is that all schools should set stricter standards in the hiring of school bus drivers. There should be a pre-employment preparation that assesses the mental health of would-be drivers. It is very vital to determine whether these issues will affect their driving skills. At the end of all these, a little less of privacy would guarantee the safety of children.

Image courtesy of:

Image: Arvind Balaraman / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Violate My Privacy at Your Own Risk

A 23-year-old man was accused of violating the online privacy of women. George Bronk pleaded guilty to charges including computer intrusion, false impersonation and possession of child pornography. He is about to serve a six-year sentence as promulgated by the state attorney general’s office. A probation officer recommended that he should serve four years instead.

With ample technical knowledge he was able to intrude into the Facebook accounts of some women. He then searched for nude or seminude photos and videos of his victims. After finding some of these materials, he forward the materials to the women’s contact lists.

According to the prosecutors, Bronk was "stalking the women". He changed the email passwords once he intruded their accounts. Having control over their accounts he was able to have some online exchanges with them. There were instances when he intimidated at least one woman to send him some more of similar photos. He also threatened his victims to distribute the pictures that he already had if they would not give in to his demand.

These women come from England, Washington, D.C., and 17 other states. Investigators were able to track them when they searched Bronk’s computer. They also found 172 email files containing nude and seminude photos in the same computer. The women said that their privacy rights were violated. They found out that their photos were distributed to co-workers, families, employees and friends.

Attorney Monica Lynch stood in defense to George Bronk. She gave explanation why her client was able to do such offense. She said that he was immature, unemployed and killing time as he took care of his ill parents. Having nothing else to do, he found trolling women’s Facebook pages as his way of “buying time”. He was able to look at their emails, gleaned enough personal information that he was able to answer basic internet questions to access their accounts.

The lawyer further added that Bronk was a naïve, young person who was into alcohol. He was not conscious that he was causing public embarrassment. His leisure time was spent sitting in front of his computer and doing these things. She also argued that the victims themselves should be blamed for what happened. They put themselves at risk by taking and uploading those explicit photos and videos.

Image courtesy of:

Image: Salvatore Vuono / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

More Color, Less Privacy

Now you can set aside privacy and share photos with friends and even with strangers. The newest photo-sharing network Color developed by Bill Nguyen is here! After just two weeks of exposure, it promises to capture a fairly good market share. Nguyen is the former owner of a music-streaming company Lala that he sold to Apple in 2009 for around $80 million.

Color is a social networking app intended for iPhone and Android devices. It lets you share your pictures with any person within 150 feet. One would find this photo-sharing application very similar to other mobile apps like Instagram or PicPiz. The unique advantage of Color is its proximity-based sharing functionality. Observers say that it holds a far greater potential.

Two persons need only to be near each other and use the same application in order to enjoy. Color automatically records the frequency of these “friendship” events. The more frequent you hang up with a person, the higher his contact details appear on your list. The reverse happens when you hang out with him less often. Take note that it doesn’t matter whether you know these people you get close to most often. As long as they are within the 150 meter area of influence, Color will treat them as friends.

In spite of the big potential of this new app to create a new group of users, some are scared. As it has been said earlier, Color does not present any privacy settings. All photos that are uploaded are completely unrestricted, shared with all other user’s phones within 150 feet. Although the company has asked users to respect individual privacy, the danger of abuse is not impossible.

A sizeable amount of investment totaling $41 million has been inputted by Sequoia Capital, m Bain Capital and Silicon Valley Bank. This large funding from such companies, considering that the app is very new, is a sign that Color has an enormous marketing potential. Logically, advertisers would pour in and become the biggest source of revenues for the company.

The likelihood for Color to attain popularity in a short period is not remote; in fact that could be out of the question. Its potential to create an “elastic network” facilitates the user’s chances of finding more friends from strangers. Color has won the race in presenting a choice to those users who find complexity in using the different older social networking applications.

Photo courtesy of:

Image: worradmu / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The "Pirates" Party - Privacy and Transparency

The Massachusetts Election Division has granted approval to the Massachusetts Pirate Party as a political designation. This gives the go signal for its members to finally take their place in the state.
The long-awaited time for voters to register as “Pirate” has come at last. Way back in 2006, it could be recalled that the United States Pirate Party was organized. It also took a long time for it to be officially recognized by some states.

With the party having been given its legal status, it can already start working toward its vision and mission. The party is known as one having its own set of ideals and tried to live up to these. It aims to “increase government transparency, promote personal privacy, reinforce the spread of knowledge through copyright reform, and abolish patents.

The party strives to make major reforms in the area of personal privacy. It said that government should not use of the 9/11 incident to increase its surveillance and control over citizens. The PATRIOT ACT, wiretapping, surveillance cameras are only some of the government’s ways of curtailing privacy of people. Also, in order to get more work out of their employees, corporations increase their spying activities.

The party also is trying to look at the area of government transparency. The party believes that citizens should have more control of their democratic destiny. This can be achieved if people have knowledge about what government does. Government has reduced its commitment to abiding by open meeting laws. It has also increased closed door deals that favor mostly corporations. Furthermore, it enters into deals involving public information being sold to private interests. These are injurious to democracy and privacy.

The Massachusetts Pirate Party has criticized government for not giving people the opportunity to live up to the old ideals. These ideals are those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With government expanding the powers of corporations, they have already overpowered the people. The party says that all efforts should be put in so that these ideals should be lived once more and be real for all.

As announced by James O’Keefe, the party’s organizer, the party is in the process of training activists. Once finished, they will work for organizing and building local chapters. The first move is killing the Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act (COICA). Government should not be empowered to “take down any web domain found to host copyrighted material without permission”. Next, it will be looking at legislations that it should support and should oppose. There is so much hope that the party will find its bright future in Massachusetts.

Image courtesy of:

Image: graur razvan ionut / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Making Privacy More Private

Secretaries at the University of Iowa suspect that there was violation against their privacy. A supervisor attempted to use a hidden baby monitor to find out whether secretaries talked too much. Medical privacy law considers such action illegal, but supervisor Pam Snider said that she had the basis for doing so. The secretaries at the urology department presented their grievance with their union regarding privacy violation.

Supervisor Snider said that she received complaint from another worker about too much talk. She decided to use the baby monitor as her way of finding out if the claim was true. She secretly placed the gadget in the secretaries’ work area without their knowledge. On Monday morning of the following week, a worker discovered the hidden device.

Not long after the discovery, employees heard of the incident and top University of Iowa officials wasted no time to call a meeting. They felt sorry at the supervisor’s “attempted use of a hidden baby monitor to determine whether secretaries were talking too much”. However, they stated that “the device did not pick up any conversations to violate medical privacy laws”.

During the meeting, University officials announced that internal investigations are going on. Previously, they assured employees that no conversations were transmitted before the gadget was discovered. They added that the device was right away removed when it was found at the Department of Urology clinic. Furthermore, no time was wasted by officials so that corrective steps could be done.

A statement was promptly issued by UI Vice President for Medical Affairs Jean Robillard and Associate Vice President for Health Care Human Resources Jana Wessels. They wrote about how they felt sorry for the “unfortunate situation”. They acknowledged that the action by the supervisor was contrary to their organization’s values. Neither was it part of what they uphold as good supervisory practice. The almost 10,000 employees received a copy of Robillard and Wessel’s written statements. To reach out to a wider audience, the statements were also later released to The Associated Press.

Union president John Stellmach of AFSCME 12 acted as the workers’ representative and spokesperson. He said that statements issued by the management were in disagreement with reports from the employees. He firmly believed that conversations were intercepted. He also claimed that the device was not removed instantly after it was found. With the pictures as proof, it can be surmised that officials are trying to sweep the issue under the rug.

The union claimed that Snider at one time told employees that the device was not yet completely installed. Before setting up the receiver, she wanted to find out first where the chatting problem is coming from. Secretaries are firm not to withdraw their complaint. UI Vice President for Strategic Communication Tysen Kendig said that inquiry is continuing. However, he said that there is no proof yet of any infringement of the medical privacy law known as HIPAA. The union stands firm in their complaint since “any conversations overheard could have included confidential patient information”.

Image courtesy of:

Image: Chris Sharp / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Full-Body Scan Or Pat-Down?

Some airports in the U.S. are now using Automated Imaging Technology or AIT. Also called full-body scanner, it is here where passengers have to go through before boarding. In addition to the usual pat-down, the use of this device spares passengers from “body contact” with the airport security officer. Some argue that AIT is “better” compared with the pat-down, but privacy advocate groups think otherwise.

An advocacy group approached the Washington Court of Appeals judges. They object to how the technology invades the privacy of passengers. They called the use of full-body scanners as “unreasonable search” and in violation of a passenger’s civil rights. These machines are now being used as first line of defense at some airport security checkpoints.

A passenger’s naked image is shown as he or she passes through the machine. This is the main point of objection of the group. They imply that while passengers are spared from body contact, they are subjected to a more invasive technology. The EPIC considers the policy “in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution”. Aside from the foregoing, it also violates “laws protecting privacy and religious freedom”.

The government in defense of the use of this new technology responded that systems are in place to protect the privacy of passengers. It explained that passengers’ identity is never shown to the “viewers” who are generally agents at airports. Government says this makes the search reasonable and “minimally invasive”. However, the truth to this contention is yet to be ascertained.

EPIC has also advised the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to postpone the use of such technology. According to TSA, almost 98 percent of passengers go through full-body scanning without any problem. Only about 2 percent of passengers would choose pat-down instead. Atty. Marc Rotenberg of EPIC said it is likely that passengers do not know that they still have the pat-down as their option.

Even the judges themselves also expressed apprehension on the way TSA has been given the power to use the technology. One is the effect of the body scanner on individual passengers. It is possible that it is too late to discover its damaging effects on passengers. There should have been public consultation for inputs before it went into primary use. Its use should only be selective especially when the level of security threat is too low to warrant.

Image courtesy of:

Image: luigi diamanti / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

How Private Should Privacy Be?

There is an odd connection between missing children cases and tax returns. This was found by Washington Federal treasury officials. Out of the more than 1,700 cases they examined, more than 1/3 of the children had been declared on tax returns. They were declared by relatives that are suspects for their abduction. Many domestic cases of child abduction remain unsolved and children are yet to be found.

The partners Sen. Amy Klobuchar and missing children’s advocate Patty Wetterling knock at law enforcement groups. They said tax returns of suspected abductors hold data that might lead to the solution of the cases. They suggest that, law enforcement agencies should be permitted to gain access at the tax return data of these “suspects”. Granting this flexibility might help in locating missing children across the country.

Klobuchar argued that the state should give a leeway on the privacy of those tax return records. They contain data that could potentially lead to the solution of these cases. These should be made available. Klobuchar is a former Hennepin County attorney who describes that there is no sense in overprotecting tax information data. The state would protect privacy as it should also exhaust all possible means in trying to find out where the kids are.

Divulging tax information to law enforcers would create more problems. Of the many privacy laws, those that revolve around taxes are one of the strongest in the US. Breaking the privacy of tax information data would also invite other compelling interests. Those of health care information and other government services are good examples.

Wetterling has lost a son an 11-year old son named Jacob. He was abducted neat their St. Joseph home in 1989. He is still one of the missing children. The missing child supporter said that they don’t “care about jurisdictional boundaries”. As parents they are only interested in getting their child back. In support to Klobuchar’s bill, Wetterling said this in a statement during the congressional panel hearing.

The senator noted that IRS allows disclosure of tax information data in some situations such as overdue student loans. This is part of a list of exceptions in the tax involving privacy. She further added that missing children shouldn’t be excluded from the list. It is clear that there should be a balance between protecting privacy rights and finding missing children. This is the real case.

Image courtesy of:

Image: photostock / FreeDigitalPhotos.net