The public is becoming more and more aware of the issue on internet privacy. Debates are building up, hotter than these were never before. Privacy laws have existed for a couple of decades and were applicable during those times. The rapid developments in information technology have enabled users to use internet with more ease. This also paved the way to the birth of companies that make use of user information to do business.

As users became more adept with internet, they have also become more spontaneous at providing their information. They have little knowledge that by such actions, they expose themselves to intrusion. They can be tracked down by companies that use users’ data to do data marketing. In no time, these companies can make profit by selling users’ data.

Existing privacy laws are already outdated. This adds to the complexity of the issue. These laws have not grown together with information technology. IT has grown in, leaps and bounds, while laws have remained old and out of date. There are many loopholes in the protection of users’ privacy. These data can be easily accessed by almost anyone. While companies would want to uphold privacy, they are incapacitated to do so by laws that are inapplicable.

There should be a balance between national security and individual privacy. As the year 2011 begins, reforms regarding privacy laws are being pushed by several groups. The Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 is considered obsolete. Critics say that today’s digital age needs a more applicable and suitable law that would guarantee individual privacy. A number of companies that collect personal information including Twitter are up for the immediate reform of the ECPA law. This they would call not only for their own consumption but more so of their customers.

One incident cited by Twitter was when government required it to turn over its users’ data to authorities. In reaction to the government’s action, Twitter openly declared its call to revise pertinent privacy laws. According to the company, the 1986 provisions are already out of date. What used to be relevant some twenty years ago, are no longer at present.

Some US government officials shared the same opinion in different statements. They are one in saying that reforms are urgent and should be done as early as possible. According to them, there should be a thorough reexamination of the presently implemented laws. It is not yet clear as to the details of the overhaul. But for sure it will solve many of the privacy issues that are being debated on.

Of late, Google seems to be receiving charges here and there. Yes, the Internet giant is up at expanding its Google Street View mapping service. The thing is, the wider it expands, the more allegations against its information gathering strategy come in. These allegations all point to the breach of privacy rights regarding private information.

By this time, it has also found its way into countries other than the US. Among these countries, South Korea was the first to formally charge the company. This action by the Korean government forced the company to discontinue its expansion in the country.

It could be recalled that recently, Google decided to expand its “Street View” area of coverage. This program uses cars that are equipped with sophisticated video-recording, information-collecting devices. Specifically, these cars are “programmed” to tape streets and landscapes on their area of coverage. However, charges came in when it was suspected that these same cars are also capable of collecting private information. Allegedly, majority of information is “stolen” through unprotected Wi-Fi networks.

Patients’ medical records are confidential documents that should not be accessed without proper permission. Many hospitals and other similar institutions in the past have taken for granted this aspect of medical ethics. Privacy rights were purposely violated. Most of the perpetrators were hospital staff themselves.

Most records that are prone to unauthorized access are those of high-profile individuals. Celebrities and politicians top the list because they create news. However, privacy violation does not recognize social or economic status of the victims. The point is, whether popular or otherwise, patients’ privacy rights are trampled upon.

In answer to the need for stricter security of these records, many hospitals have implemented policies against patients’ privacy violations. There are those that call their system as “zero tolerance policy”. This means that any hospital staff caught violating this policy is automatically fired.

Britain’s privacy laws were recently slammed by a conservative MP. He said these are “just waste of money”. This reaction from MP Heather Wheeler of Derbyshire South was triggered by Google’s standpoint over a certain photograph. Google Street View reportedly refused to show the photograph of a suspect’s vehicle plate number.

Allegedly, the photograph taken by Google Street View showed a suspect and his vehicle whose plate number was intentionally blurred. This, according to the search giant, is in compliance to existing privacy laws.

Google stood firm that they would only show the unblurred photograph if the police could produce a court order to that effect. Because of this, Wheeler said that Google should “enter into a protocol with British police forces to receive and acquiesce to police requests”.

For many years the internet has been the communications highway for almost all human behavior. Governments, corporations, individuals, etc. have used the cyberspace to exchange useful information. In small or large scale applications, the world has plainly become a small virtual neighborhood. However, lots of proof can be cited that some individuals have gone beyond the limits of responsible use.

Today, the cyberspace is plagued with defamatory remarks. These are thrown at anyone – the well-known people and even the simple unfamiliar individual. Even worse, those who do such things can choose to remain unidentified. Or if ever, available information cannot identify the writer because they use fabricated data.

This deteriorating scenario has pressed some people to ask lawmakers to put an end to internet anonymity. They assert that to many, internet serves as protection for cowards. There is an increasing number of internet users who write in order to destroy people.

There was a time when millions of Americans were plagued by unexpected phone calls. That was the time when telemarketing started creating its niche in cyberspace. In the middle of an important family concern, the phone would ring. When answered, you would be dismayed once the caller started asking about lots of personal information. That was clear invasion of privacy.

Eventually Americans were able to put an effective solution by signing up for the Do Not Call Registry. People signed up and the tool was installed. Somehow, that was the wisest way to get rid of unwelcome callers.

Technology became more and more sophisticated. Internet tools are being developed, each one with a specific target. With these tools, new ways of marketing were developed. A newer, subtler type of privacy invasion is online tracking of your internet behavior.

Marketers are able to keep track of your keystrokes. Sooner or later, they would be able to draw a picture of your internet activities. For example, they would know the kind of sites that you often visit. Finally they will know your internet fingerprints. You would fit into one or more of their categories.

By then, advertisers would consider you one of their targets. This would be to their advantage, and, as usual, to your annoyance. Once more another cycle begins.

From the Do Not Call Registry campaign, here comes the “Do Not Track” tool. This was proposed by the Federal Trade Commission early of December last year. With this in place, marketers can no longer keep track your web browsing activities. However, there are issues for and against its effectiveness.

You would recall that in 2005, the New York Times exposed the existence of warrantless domestic wiretapping. It was started in 2001 by the National Security Agency. It took nearly 5 years for the government to admit that it is indeed operating. Since its inception, NSA had been monitoring overseas phone calls made by Americans.

This time it’s not the government stepping into private lives. Lots of corporations prosper by gathering personal information. Some do it for good reasons, others for their own selfish motives. However, the main concern is not much the purpose. It is in the manner information is “stolen” from innocent citizens. It is the issue of internet privacy that matters most.

The recent move by the U.S. Commerce Department might be able to create a favorable environment for internet users. It has called to develop a “privacy bill of rights” intended for people in the cyberspace. One of the main sections would be to set ground rules for telemarketing and online advertising companies among others.

Personal and other information that are gathered online must not be used without permission from the owner. The Internet proved to be an effective tool in almost all areas of human activity. However, users must be conscientious enough when comes to privacy. This is an issue that cannot be solved by any tool that can be developed. It is more than skill, even more than intelligence. Internet privacy is respect for human freedom.

Warrantless domestic eavesdropping in the U.S. was publicized in 2005. It goes without saying that millions of Americans suspected that their private communications through phones and e-mails were illegally tapped. This resulted into filing of court complaints against telecommunications companies by about forty groups and personalities.

In 2008, revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Act of 1978 were approved. In principle, it tried to give balance between two important concerns. These were privacy rights and the government’s determination to protect citizens against violence.

Still haunted by the 9/11 atrocity, government needed to toughen its laws and foil any strategies of another attack. There was burden on the government to protect the whole country by all means and in any way possible.

Criticisms related to privacy got into the picture because of at least two effects of these revisions:

First, it granted exception to telecommunications companies against court complaints. According to opponents, this would further worsen abuses of power and illegal activities against privacy. Actually, even before the 9/11 violence, they contended that such activities had been going on.

Second, it allowed government to conduct warrantless surveillance. Again, condemnations were directed to further abuses against privacy.

For up to one week or 160 hours, any suspected person could be put under observation. This was a change from the former 48-hour period. The only prerequisite was that FISA should be informed at the time the surveillance begins.

To see the bigger picture, it appeared that government was given more freedom to conduct mass untargeted surveillance. Any person could be eavesdropped just with the simple reason of not losing vital intelligence. Picture out how the privacy of millions of Americans would be violated. External communications by Americans would not be sufficiently protected. Government would not need court approval to tap foreigner’s calls. It is clear that the probability of invading innocent conversations is possible.

As more and more laws and procedures are passed to spoil terrorism, privacy is even more compromised. Mere claim of intent even without the existence of fact could put one under surveillance. Come to consider better ways of combating terrorism without so much violation of privacy.