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.

It's Time to Increase Online Privacy of Children

It is still uncertain as to what will happen to the “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” that was proposed by the White House. Discussions and debates persist despite the urgency of the need to provide better online protection. Many children on the internet share data which could be turned around and used against them. This was the topic that music and TV personality Nick Cannon brought out when he appeared on Capitol Hill.

Working with some legislators, Cannon endorsed the Do Not Track Kids Act. The older Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 will be amended by this one. The new bill’s main aim is to increase online privacy for children. This defines the extent of the ability of websites, advertising agencies and cellular providers to use the personal information of children. The law will no longer allow them to use targeted ads for children and prohibit them from tracking minors.

Online devices such as smartphones and other gadgets that store information on young consumers can now be easily accessed. Without their parents giving consent, these children are in danger of those who are capable of taking advantage of them. They can be simply tracked on the internet and their whereabouts can be monitored without difficulty.

Unknowingly, all online activities of children leave digital footprints - their emails, the topics they search, or pictures they post. These are then gathered by big corporations and data marketers, to be used right away or years later. No parents would be happy if their son is denied a job because of an offending picture of himself that he posted on the net when he was still minor.

There are critics who say that the bill is very broad in scope, which makes it unenforceable. They added that it might be technically impossible and very costly for companies to comply with it. It would also damage the internet because some services would not continue because of liability issues.

As to giving more protection to children online, it is still not clear even now. There always seems to be a battle between those who advocate privacy and those who defend the lifeblood of the internet. The “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” is more “favored” because it offers wider user protection regardless of age. But the final result can only be seen when the two camps can come to a “win-win” situation.

Image: Ambro / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Do You Still Resist Facebook?

Looking at the staggering number of 800 million Facebook users, one can readily say that this social networking site is really becoming a household name. This is a cross-section of many kinds of users – according to age, profession, online preferences, or even purposes in joining. This internet giant has totally reshaped the lives of these users. Many of them could not let a day pass without sharing pictures, posting comments, visiting digital links, and much more.

This trend of having the social networking experience everywhere puts pressure on those who still refuse to join. Whether they are simply technophobes or privacy advocates, they are not spared from the attraction to conform to what others are doing. Finally, there were those who, for many years would not give up, but are now excited to be making “friends”. They say that they should have discovered the benefits of having a social network account years ago.

There are several reasons why some people reject Facebook. There are those who say that it is just a waste of time. Others reason that there are so many social networking sites out there and they are overwhelmed. They could not choose which one would give the best experience, so, the best thing to do then, according to them, is to ignore them all.

Of course, privacy is another reason why some would not join Facebook. With the ongoing issues about giving users better online protection through legislation, many would opt to stay “safe”. The reality is that there is an abundant presence of online predators and scammers. Others feel that being on Facebook strips off their privacy, giving the chance for online criminals to make them victims.

It was found that among the fastest growing number of Facebook users are older Americans. Further research revealed that most of them use Facebook to stay in touch with their children. However, there are also a large number of older Americans who are not comfortable with joining the social network. Considering that they did not grow up in the information age, they have biases against taking the advantages of the new communication medium.

Image: adamr / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The Obama Privacy Plan Unveiled

The privacy plan of the Obama Administration has stirred issues among consumers and the public in general. This has also dragged the White House into the center of the debates. After the announcement of the plan last week, controversies over online privacy have once again heated up.

The said proposal aims to gather together different entities that are related to online activities in order to have them unite. It would start by calling on those internet companies, law enforcement agencies, privacy groups, and state attorney generals. To start, they are encouraged to set aside their personal interests and to collaborate. They will work for a common purpose – to come up with voluntary standards that would defend consumer data to the highest degree.

Some groups are afraid that the Obama privacy plan could intimidate the internet. According to privacy advocates, they are hoping that the plan will be a good one. Others are hopeful that the United States will soon have a privacy law; one that supports innovation and gives more user protection.

The framework of the proposed law consists of four parts. These are: the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, a multi-stakeholder process, an adequate enforcement model, and a commitment to strengthen interoperability.

The Bill of Rights framework also contains seven specific provisions. These are: individual control, transparency, respect for context, security, access and accuracy, focused collection, and accountability. With these, consumers can expect to have better control over data that they share online. The provisions of the multi-stakeholder process look into how companies can benefit from the privacy law. With the interoperability provisions included, other countries could possibly recognize and enforce the same law.

Expecting the possible consequences of the law, a researcher at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University has expressed his concern. The first problem that he foresees is the hurt that it could inflict among companies. For a long time, behavioral advertising has proven to be one of the most effective methods of gaining profits. Part of the revenue derived from behavioral tracking and data aggregation is used to offer free internet services such as web-based email and social networking. For ordinary internet users, these are the services that they use every day. The probable effect of regulation is that these services would no longer be free.

Being more responsible over what they do online is what consumers should learn more about. Many privacy issues could be solved if consumers would clean their own footprints on the internet. In this part, the Obama administration should put more weight on defending consumers by first educating them. The government should not overlook this in its efforts to protect consumers.

Image: Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Anti-Hacking Laws Must be Updated

Lawmakers are busy looking into the 1986 anti-hacking law primarily because it no is no longer up to date with the current online “culture”. Without the needed changes, the law would punish even innocent web surfers. But those concerned with its updating are very careful because changing the penalties might not sink the law’s teeth in legitimate criminals. Revising the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should not set aside the civil liberties of users while seeing to it that cyber-criminals are prosecuted.

One important revision that has to be made is in the power of government to penalize users who violate a website’s terms of service agreements. A law school professor openly said that the present state of the law is harsh. He added that it threatens the civil liberties of Americans who simply give false information on Facebook and other sites.

The professor gave some typical examples in his written testimony of how millions of users give fake information. He wrote that a user could be held criminally responsible for simply writing that he goes to the gym every day when in fact, he goes there only once a month. He added that the millions of users who supply false information about their height, weight or age could be considered criminals. He also mentioned a study that suggested 8 out of 10 users provide false information in their profiles. Incredible, but there are millions of Americans out there who are cyber-criminals!

One critic deemed it necessary for lawmakers to spell out what the law actually means, particularly with the phrase “exceeds authorized access”. This will set the limits of employers to penalize those employees who break terms of service agreements. The same critic also said that the revisions should make those federal employees who are handling confidential information answerable.

Such initial steps and suggestions would narrow down the prosecution threats to those breaches committed by government employees. A letter was co-signed by organizations that have been known to protect consumers and citizens. They laid down their common concern of defending people who break site service contracts by “accident”.

Will Self Regulation Succeed?

Privacy problems have weighed down the internet for many years. In spite of the efforts to impose privacy laws, internet technology changes so rapidly that it quickly out-dates these legislations. It only takes a year or two after implementation before the privacy law is rendered “useless” by technology. There has to be a strategy that will always keep in pace with the present situation. Among other approaches, self regulation is the best solution to privacy problems.

Self regulation is the imposing on oneself some privacy related initiatives so as to avoid privacy invasion. It is restraining, even without the law, the use of collected personal information by companies or groups that gather such information. It is a deliberate action that follows a clear set of guidelines regarding how a certain company can protect privacy. This action could be joined in by website advertisers, ISPs, data brokers, social networking sites, apps providers, etc.


The U.S. started implementing self regulation programs in 1997. Since that time, this idea has been promoted by way of spreading information about it and encouraging websites to make it their obligation. However, past experiences showed that not one self-regulatory effort sustained success. Some were initiated but failed in one or more substantive ways. Others never got the opportunity to show what they had planned to offer before they disappeared. Though it is believed that self regulation can, in fact, be the answer to privacy problems, improvements in its implementation are needed. There is a strong view that consumers themselves have the greatest responsibility in defending their own privacy.

The majority of past self regulation programs, according to observation and evaluation, were poorly designed. Most of these did not saturate the market well, which means that many consumers did not really know they were there at all. There were websites that made profit their top priority and used self regulation only as a cover up.

There was one more thing that hampered the success of self regulation in the past. This was the lack of significant and independent involvement among privacy and consumer advocates in its development and oversight. The oversight of self regulation that is financed by industry could not be successful because industry would not want it to be successful. When privacy standards are profit-driven, they are bound to fail because money becomes more significant than privacy.

Image: Salvatore Vuono / 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

Have You Committed Felony Lately?

Internet users may not be aware that they could be put to jail for falsifying their personal information on the internet. Facebook users, after knowing this, may have to think many times before providing any false information on their account. This may sound absurd, but there have been a number of cases where users were penalized for breach of the terms of use of the websites that they visit.

The U.S. Congress is more likely to expand the scope of laws that pertain to “cybersecurity”. The existence of the so-called Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was passed in 1986, seems insufficient. This law mainly deals with the provisions that pertain to computer hacking. Since its inception, the law has been periodically broadened, and it now extends far beyond hacking.

One of its provisions is that it is a criminal act for any user to exceed “authorized access”. This means that users must not go beyond the terms and conditions stipulated by the website’s owner. Once this is broken, the user faces a criminal liability, especially if breaking those terms and conditions are committed within an office environment.

This is a revelation to those who intentionally falsify their information for any reason. Social networking users, more often than not, lie about their names and ages. Once put in place, faking would constitute a crime and would be punishable by law. Many users would be facing penalties once Congress approves the consideration of such acts as felony.

There were a few cases in the past that involved ridiculous disputes that were filed by private parties. It was reported that a company owner sued a former employee for visiting Facebook and sending personal emails using the company’s facility. Another ridiculous case involved a company that prohibited competitors from visiting its site. It ended up with the company suing a competitor for breach of its “terms of use”.

Concerned groups suggest that Congress must plainly define those cases that involve crimes. Even if there is a need to take legal action on real offenders, the law has to be humane. No one would want federal courts to be swamped with cases that involved mere violation of a promise.

Image: jscreationzs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Are Privacy Policies Still for Real?

Internet users are asked to provide some personal information every time they sign up for a website. When they do this, they do not bother reading the privacy policies of these websites. Without their knowledge, there are different ways in which this uploaded information can be used. The users only become aware that this happens when they are affected in some way. With websites now literally relaxing their privacy policies, users might be up for some unexpected events.

It is surprising that many users do not think twice before giving up their information. Social networking companies have offers that come as freebies or added apps and services. Users who want to take advantage of these must first supply some information. Without second thought, many of them would willingly supply the data asked of them.

Some companies are careful with their privacy policies and how collected data will be treated. However, there is a move towards relaxing privacy policies. Privacy advocates say this is worrying because it is becoming all too common. With this move, users’ information will be more open to exploitation. This means that many websites are planning to use collected user data for other purposes.

It is disturbing because users’ information may be used in areas that they did not know about. Every user knows that the data they supply contains a lot of personally identifiable information. It includes date of birth, address, shopping history, location, and many other things that are freely supplied. This data can be a potential source of lucrative business. This can be used to identify individuals or groups for targeted advertising.

There are new kinds of companies that are becoming interested in using this data. When privacy policies become relaxed, these companies could possibly have access to it. Insurance companies are among those that can use this data to better know the interests of policy holders. They are interested in what clients buy, whether they smoke or not, what their favorite extreme sports are, etc. Social networks have a large amount of such information and it is readily available.

Facebook, Groupon and Linkedin admitted that they share data but are not involved in information selling. A representative said that social network users have control over the data that they share, especially photos. Facebook users, for example, can choose the appropriate privacy settings. They can opt to block those applications that they choose not to allow. Social networks say that while privacy policies may be relaxed, users are still protected. They just have to self-regulate every time they decide to share data online.

Image courtesy of:

Image: twobee / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Wanted: Eraser Tool for Online Mistakes

More than ever, the internet encompasses the lives of many people every day. Online activities are dominated by shopping and social networking. In this way, people share some of their information with people they do not even know. As users looked back at their cyber “footprints”, they wanted to remove some that they no longer want or need. After a while, they realized that there were some “online mistakes” that they have committed. At this time, they feel the need to correct those mistakes. They want especially to remove the information that should have been kept private.

Yes, many users wished that they would have been more careful when it came to sharing information. They now need an “eraser tool” to delete that unwanted data in cyberspace. If there was a law that would allow them to do so, they would remove data that is no longer wanted or needed.

The “right to be forgotten” is a new issue that demands attention. Some countries are putting their eyes on creating an enforceable law of this kind. One possibility is giving users the right to demand deletion of any information about them online. For example, it would be the right of criminals, after serving their terms, to demand removal of their criminal histories from an internet website.

Experience shows that there are search results that return websites that have incorrect or outdated information about some people. When a relevant law is passed, the concerned “victim” can then demand that such incorrect or outdated data be removed. Obviously, at present there is no such a law that could completely tackle this issue. This means that there would be a piling up and even an epidemic of inaccurate information on the internet over an indefinite period of time. This is a fact and right now, it is becoming a problem.

Online mistakes could be amplified several times in a social networking scenario. There are cases when inaccurate information is copied and posted or used somewhere else. This adds to the complexity of the situation and makes forgetting even more difficult. There are also policy and technical challenges even in a simple case of online mistakes. On the other hand, there are cases when using another person’s information can be helpful. As long as data is not abused, using another’s data could be interpreted as freedom of expression and not a defiance of law of any kind.

Image courtesy of:

Image: ningmilo / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Fine Tuning the FBI Rules

Some changes in the rules will give F.B.I. agents more latitude to search the lives of those people who attract their attention. Once enforced, they can use these new powers to search databases or go through household trash. A watch team can also be used to look into the lives of people who behave unusually. These changes are part of the bureau’s new manual called the Domestic Investigation and Operations Guide.

With the revised rules, F.B.I. agents can act with greater degree of “freedom” to foresee any criminal or terrorist activity. Their authority is enhanced, empowering them to investigate suspicious people. However, there are some unfavorable reactions from some individuals, especially those who advocate privacy. One of them said that the decrease of restrictions on agents’ powers was rather unwise. There is a possibility that agents might use intrusive techniques on innocent people. There were abuses that occurred in the past and these can still occur. Problems involving “national security letters” that allowed agents to obtain information without a court order were once controversial.

To support the F.B.I.’s action, a spokesperson said that problems involving national security letters have previously been fixed and would not recur. There was a clarification regarding it, stating that changes in the bureau’s manual do not need any consent. Adequate studies were made concerning the risks and the benefits that such changes will bring bout. The counsel further stated that there were no changes made but only fine tuning.

The “assessment” category was one of the areas that needed fine tuning, considered as the lowest category of investigations. The new rule allows agents to scrutinize persons and organizations even for just a feeling of doubt. The old rule required that agents needed to have an inquiry before conducting a search for information about a person. The new rule does not require them to submit a report of the results of the process. An ACLU lawyer said that the new changes cannot detect those who have personal purposes to have easier access to databases.

A bureau spokesperson explained that F.B.I.’s purpose for the new changes is to simplify the process. It would be cumbersome for agents to oblige them to open formal inquiries every time they do a quick check. Agents have to present an assessment report before using the information they have gathered from the search.

There are other changes that give additional leeway to loosen the grip on the hands of agents that were tied for a long time. These changes are aimed at granting them wider latitude to perform searches. These can be done even without a firm reason to affirm that there is suspicious activity. The increase of privacy bounds is a topic that creates different reactions from critics and the public.

Image courtesy of:

Image: jscreationzs / 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

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

Beware Of Being Unaware

Yasir Afifi was dismayed when he discovered that he has been under surveillance for quite a long time. Believing that he did not do anything wrong, he filed a lawsuit against some FBI agents. Afifi found a GPS device on his car when he brought the vehicle to a mechanic. The 20-year old American-born student of Egyptian descent was surprised why he was put under spying eyes.

The mechanic was about to change oil when he found the device. Using magnets, it was securely placed between the right rear wheel and exhaust. Both of them could not identify what it was so they posted its image online. Instead of receiving responses or comments identifying the device, another sad thing happened. While he was driving two days later, agents who were wearing bullet-proof vests pulled him over. They demanded that he return the device.

Afifi was assisted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations in filing the lawsuit. He claimed that there was violation of his civil rights because the FBI agents did it without warrant. His lawyers surmised that his Middle East roots and frequent travels there might have triggered such action. He has two brothers in Egypt whom he supports. His father was a well-known Islamic-American community leader who died last year.

An FBI spokesperson decided to keep the details of the lawsuit and how the agency kept watch of Afifi. According to him, the FBI works under well-established Department of Justice and FBI guidelines. It should implement the most appropriate investigative steps or techniques as provided by law. It goes without saying that guidelines have been set to protect civil and constitutional rights.

Afifi is pursuing a course in business marketing at Mission College while at the same time working as computer salesman. He announced at a news conference that agents did not give clear answers as to the reason why he was watched. He did not deny that he makes frequent phone calls overseas. This could be the reason for such FBI action, but he insisted he did not break the law.

Privacy violation issues center on how the monitoring was conducted. Washington appeals court ruled out that the gathering of GPS data from individuals is considered a “search” hence it requires a warrant. The Obama administration in defense to FBI’s action said the court’s decision was “vague and unworkable”. Further it argued that government could no longer use GPS as a valuable tool in surveillance if the court would not reverse its ruling.

Image courtesy of:

Image: pal2iyawit / 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 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

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