Too Much Laws Or Too Little Privacy?

One thing that many internet users neglect to give due attention to is personal information that they share online. For whatever reasons, it seems that information sharing has become very ordinary and spontaneous. People do not think of any harmful consequence that could come along with such data sharing. Too much personal information have been voluntarily uploaded that privacy laws have to be enhanced. This is because many companies are eyeing on these data to be used for their own profit.

Social networking is one venue where people could openly give out their personal information. Facebook for example has about 500 million users worldwide. This number of users have at least their basic personal information open to practically anyone else online. All these data are in the possession of the networking company. These same data are what the government trying to protect in line with privacy laws.

As mentioned earlier, many internet users have become very careless in giving out information. With technology on the go, the government wants to put additional control over data selling. Many government officials place their support for the proposed enhancement of privacy rights protection.

On the other hand, Facebook also has taken the challenge to reposition its strategies in the US. It has recognized the stand of the government leaning towards a stricter implementation of privacy laws. Because of this, the company has taken a step ahead of the rest of its counterparts like Twitter, Zynga and LinkedIn.

Lobbying has become the most suitable strategy. Facebook has strategized to hire additional employees who are experts at public policies. Undoubtedly, it is up to looking for some compromise between the government’s initiative and the company’s objectives. To recall, government specifically wants to beef-up legislations to protect online users. These include among others users’ identities, personal info, and online habits. In addition, policies will also be enacted regarding the tracking, collection and sale of any of this shared information.

There is an apparent indication that the government would introduce “do not track” legislation. Senator Richard Blumenthal opts for policies that would require sites to obtain specific permission to track and sell data. The same stand is taken by Rep. Edward Markey, but focuses more on protecting online behavior and data collecting and profiling.

The brighter side of the issue is that both Facebook and government have the same outlook when comes to privacy protection. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg agrees that people should be assured of their privacy. Likewise, people have to be convinced that they have full control over the data that they submit. These are the same objectives of the proposed legislation enhancements by the government.

More or less, there is a possibility that new regulatory actions would be implemented soon. This would be good news not only to Facebook but to other companies as well. It is because if ever, these new policies would benefit both the users and companies. On one hand, users could continue to enjoy the benefits of technology. On the other, companies could make use of personal data but still upholding the privacy of millions of their users.

Image courtesy of: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/agree-terms.php?pid=24154&photogname=jscreationzs&photogid=1152

When Privacy Becomes a Commodity

Patients’ medical records are private documents that should not be accessed without proper authorization. Many hospitals and other similar establishments in the past have taken for granted this side of medical ethics. Privacy rights of patients were intentionally dishonored. Most of the persons behind were hospital employees themselves.

Most records that are likely to invite unauthorized access are those of high-status individuals. Celebrities and politicians top the list because they make “gossip”. However, privacy violation does not distinguish social, political, or economic standing of the victims. The point is, whether the patient is popular or otherwise, his privacy rights are violated.

In response to the need for stricter security of these documents, many hospitals have implemented policies against patients’ privacy violators. Some hospitals call their system as “zero tolerance policy”. This means that any hospital employee caught violating this policy is automatically terminated.

The current January 8 killing incident outside an area mall in Tucson killed six people and wounded 13 others. Some of the victims including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Gifford were brought at Tucson’s University Medical Center. Three hospital employees were caught improperly accessing some of the patients’ medical records for whatever reasons. With the hospital’s standing zero tolerance policy, all three were terminated, plus a nurse under contractual status.

This event and many others that went unreported are clear evidences of people who breach patient’s privacy. Thanks to modern IT, hospitals have a better way of protecting the security of these records. There is no need anymore of overseeing these documents by hand. This is done routinely using computer software that could prevent and detect such unauthorized access.

Patient Privacy Rights Foundation founder and Chairwoman, Deborah Peel, was not surprised. She said that such breaches should be accepted as they are expected. She further commented that hospitals should ensure ironclad security of patients’ records. Without such structure in place, patients’ sensitive personal health data remain open to unauthorized access. These are good sources of big news, but a clear risk to patients’ privacy – and honor.

Image courtesy of: http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Computers_g62- File_Search_p25663.html

Privacy Laws Should Also Be Anti-Crime

Britain’s privacy law provisions were recently criticized by a conservative MP. He alleged these are useless and “just waste of money”. This reaction from MP Heather Wheeler of Derbyshire South resulted from Google’s position over a certain photograph. Google Street View apparently refused to show the photo of a suspect’s vehicle plate number.

Allegedly, the photograph taken by Google Street View showed a robbery suspect and his vehicle. The vehicle’s plate number however, was deliberately blurred. The photo could probably give the lead to the key of the crime. This stand, according to the search giant, is in conformity to existing privacy laws.

Google maintained their stand. They would only show the unblurred photograph if the police could produce a court order to that effect. Wheeler then reiterated that Google should “enter into a protocol with British police forces to receive and acquiesce to police requests”.

Wheeler further insisted that Google should identify crime as a situation that should not need a court order. Google however defended its position by virtue of existing privacy laws. It further added that should the government legitimately allow such procedures as suggested by Wheeler, then they would abide by. However, the present condition regarding privacy laws puts Google tied up to its privacy agreement with its users.

A government representative gave a hint of information related to the case at hand. According to him, the Data Protection Act does not disallow companies to provide information connected to investigation of a crime. What is needed now is official ruling from the right government agency. In its entirety, privacy laws are broad, but there should be definite provisions applicable in special cases.

Is It Time to Reveal the Identity of Sperm Donors?

In Canada, there are about 16,000 citizens who were conceived from donated sperm. In many areas of the country, the personality of sperm donors remained anonymous as provided by law. In British Columbia, sperm donor records are destroyed after six years by either shredding or incinerating. Evidently, their children can no longer have access to these records when they attain legal age.

For many years, children of these unknown fathers did not ask about their fathers’ whole story. Some children do not know that they are products of sperm donation. There are those who know this fact but do not want to know more. The remaining others know this fact but do not know what to do to discover more.

Olivia Pratten wants to be one of the few who want to search for more. She is willing to get what it takes to know more about her father. Pratten has very limited details about her biological father. She was born in 1981 after her mother visited a fertility expert in Vancouver. Her mother only told her that he is Caucasian, with a solid build, brown hair, blue eyes and type “A” blood.

Pratten is now 28 years old working as journalist in Toronto. She is determined to continue the fight in order to know her father. She is now hoping that the British Columbia Supreme Court will give in to what she pleaded. Never before has this court settled to disclose the identity of sperm donors. If this is granted favorably, this will be the first of its sort in North America.

North America has upheld its ruling of maintaining secrecy rights of donors. Sweden, the U.K. and some other European countries, however, have laws that force donors not to remain unknown.

With Pratten’s case now in the B.C. Supreme Court, she is in anticipation of the court’s decision. She asked for the court to include children conceived via egg and sperm donation in a new Adoption law. She also wanted a new law that would oblige physicians to maintain donor records for an indefinite period. If this is approved, children of donors could ask for these records once they become adults.

The matter at hand is not much about Pratten wanting to know about the donor’s identity. Rather, it is whether the secret identity of past sperm donors should be exposed.

According to a critic, granting an affirmative judgment by the court would mean two things to future donors. First, donors would need enhanced monetary incentives. Second, they would think of themselves as serving other individuals build families by donating sperm. Either way, the current concern about sperm donors' identity remains the same: should their anonymity be kept intact?

Privacy Laws In Action

For many times, criticisms were hurled at government’s alleged inaction to protect internet privacy. This time, Facebook cites privacy law so as not to disclose a subscriber’s posts, thus protecting his privacy.

The name Killa Mobb is unheard of, but attained instant popularity just very recently. Way back in Halloween of 2008, Mobb together with co-members of a street gang, attacked a San Francisco man This happened at a gas station near Arden Fair mall. Mobb and six other gang members were convicted on June 25 of last year.

A new-trial motion was filed by Mobb’s lawyer Mike Wise. The defendants this time were Mobb and four other members. It was during this time that Facebook got involved.

Juror Arturo Ramirez has a Facebook account. It is here where he posted his thoughts about the just concluded Mobb trial. The giant social networking company refused to turn over the postings to the defense lawyers’ team that included Wise. Purposely, Wise and company were trying to find out if Ramirez was fair in his decision.

Despite two subpoenas issued by Wise, Facebook lawyers did not lift a finger to produce Ramirez’s postings. Wise even went to the extent of attaching to each subpoena orders signed by Judge Michael P. Kenney of the Sacramento Superior Court.

Due to inaction, Kenney ordered the company to show cause in order not to be charged for contempt of court. In response, Facebook lawyers acted with a motion to quash. However, it still asserted that it cannot turn over the postings to anybody. Under the Stored Communication Act, only a governmental entity with a search warrant or a court order could be given such documents.

On Ramirez’s side, he said his postings included nothing that would affect the merits of the case. Finally he expressed his willingness to turn over the said postings.

On one hand, this is an example of how privacy laws can protect the privacy of a person. In this case it is Juror Ramirez. On the other, Wise sees the law as interference to Mobb’s constitutional rights. He insisted that those postings might contain some evidence that would help his client’s case. Whether favorable to a person or otherwise, privacy laws are critical to his freedom.

Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping Violates Privacy

Warrantless domestic wiretapping in the U.S. was publicly revealed in 2005. Needless to say, millions of Americans suspected that their private communications through phones and e-mails were illegally monitored. This resulted into filing of lawsuits against telecommunications companies by about forty groups and individuals.

In 2008, amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Act of 1978 were passed. In principle, it attempted to give balance between two important considerations. These were privacy rights and the government’s effort to protect citizens against terrorism.

Still haunted by the 9/11 experience, government needed to strengthen its laws and foil any plans of another attack. There was pressure on the government to shield the whole country by all means and in any way possible.

Privacy issues got into the picture because of at least two effects of these amendments:

First, it granted immunity to telecommunications companies against lawsuits. According to critics, this would further aggravate abuses of power and illegal activities against privacy. Actually, even before the September 11 attack, they contended that such activities had been going on.

Second, it allowed government to conduct warrantless surveillance. Again, criticisms were directed to further violations of privacy.

For up to one week or 160 hours, any suspected individual could be put under surveillance. This was an increase from the former 48 hours only. The only provision required was that FISA should be notified at the time the surveillance begins.

On a much larger scale, it appeared that government was given more leeway to conduct mass untargeted surveillance. Anyone could be wiretapped just with the simple reason of not losing important intelligence. Imagine how the privacy of millions of Americans would be invaded. Overseas communications by Americans would not be adequately protected. Even without court approval, government could tap foreigner’s calls. It is clear that the likelihood of invading private conversations is possible.

As more and more laws and protocols are passed to thwart terrorism plans, privacy is even more compromised. Mere allegation of intent even without the presence of fact could put one under surveillance. Come to think of better ways of fighting terrorism without so much violation of privacy.

Proxy List

Looking for a proxy list?

Proxy List-Download
Latest Worldwide Proxy List