The 2-factor authentication process has just been introduced by Google. To log in, the user has to provide his or her cell or landline telephone number. Google then sends a one-time authentication code that is used to log in to his or her account. At first glance, this new technology seemed good, but later, questions as to its real purpose have been raised.

This new tool would not allow the user to log in without first giving his or her number. Using the number provided, Google would send the “key” to open the account. A prompt box is provided where the sent code would be entered. That’s the only time when the user can continue with the log in process. It is as simple as that, but those who know about data collection have some doubts.

Phone numbers are the user’s private “property”. Mindless uploading of cellular or landline phone numbers in the internet could be dangerous. Google’s 2-factor authentication is not an exception. Collecting such important data from users just for verification is not good enough reason. The millions of numbers provided by millions of users contain lots of information which could be abused. What about the storage of these data? Would these be deleted right after authentication? Would it not be stored for future use?

The informed consent law is drawing public attention with regard to its implementation. Some groups including Colorado Progressive Coalition said that there is a need for better implementation of the said law. It has proposed that both police officers and civilians should be educated on it. According to the group, it is not enough that only law enforcers are well informed. Civilians should be properly oriented on the new law especially that they are the ones protected by it.

According to the law, consent must be given by an individual before any search can be done on him. He or she may refuse the search. It requires that any officer should inform the civilian of his or her right under the law. Refusal would prevent any officer to go on with the intended search. This means that any search conducted without consent is a violation of the law.

The law was passed last year as HB 1201. This requirement is under the 4th Amendment – protecting individuals against unreasonable searches. Unreasonable here means any search conducted without the consent of the person involved. This law is in answer to the many incidents regarding police brutality. This is usually connected with those cases when individuals would refuse police search. Above all, the law hopes to instill respect of the law. This can be better achieved if the new law is aggressively implemented.

The aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks still haunts citizens and even the government. The introduction of new anti-terrorism policies is still in response to the tragic experience. Citizens have to pay for it in terms of their freedom. Today, no one can hide from being either a suspect of terrorism or a victim of privacy invasion. So much focus is put on counteracting terroristic plans that respect to privacy is given less importance.

How do these policies affect individual privacy? Let us take a closer look at one of those. There are political organizations in the U.S. that act peacefully and for valid cause. Some of them are being monitored because they are considered “terrorist groups”. These groups only want political reforms in a peaceful manner and not by way of chaos. It is sad to observe that they are treated as potential enemies of the state. The only basis is that they group and gather together. This would imply that any group of people that gather together could end up as “suspects”.

Government terrorism related databases would now include some environmental and union activists. In California, the upsurge of pro-environment movements has prompted the authorities to include them in the black list. The same is true with union groups who try to pull their resources together for a common goal. It can be picked up from these situations that any group including civilians can be suspects for terrorism.

Last February 11, 2011, Health and Hospital Corporation (HHC) issued a statement about the theft of valuable hospital data. It was reported that on December 23, 2010, nearly 1.7 million electronic files were stolen. These are owned by patients, hospital staff, employees of vendors, contractors and others. These comprise data of Jacobi Medical Center and North Central Bronx Hospital starting the year 1991 to present. Efforts to notify those concerned and who might be affected by the theft are being fast-tracked and ongoing.

To date, there is no evidence yet that the stolen data were accessed and abused. It could be partly explained by the fact that those are accessible only by using specialized technical expertise and data-mining tools. But HHC does proactive steps in order to protect individuals who are potentially affected. It has offered free credit monitoring and fraud resolution for one year. It has also opened a toll-free phone information hotline that customers can call for assistance or information.

According to HHC President Alan D. Aviles, the theft was the result of negligence. He said that the contracting firm that specializes in the secure transport and storage of sensitive data was to be held responsible. GRM Information Management Services was contracted to take care of the data. While the driver was making other pickups, the incident occurred. It was reported that the GRM van was left unattended and unlocked. But the HHC is taking the responsibility of providing assistance and services to any affected individual.

Tired of those annoying advertisements that just pop up on your screen? Do you want more freedom and safety every time you surf the net? Do you want a better way of opting out of online tracking? Finally, privacy and safety in the internet is now made better and simpler.

For quite a long time, debates have been centered on how users can enjoy more freedom from online tracking. Regulators have, for a long time, pressured internet companies to include these features in their browsers. Finally Google and Mozilla acted positively on this. They have just announced that their browsers would use software that would allow opting out of tracking. By now, users can decide how they would behave online. One can now stay permanently out of the online tracking system. Many advertisers and data profilers used to track online behavior. From this, they can build profiles and deliver tailored ads to target consumers.

Big internet advertisers and data trackers including Google and Yahoo started this move. They would now allow users to easily opt out of tracking on their sites. Of course users are already tired of those complicated steps. Now, users could intentionally block monitoring efforts using Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.

Maybe you no longer remember that once you have published your home address online. Was it with Twitter or Facebook? It would have been better if you haven’t. But it’s not too late; you can still go over your profile and remove such vital yet critical personal information. Why? Well, you have to read on in order to find out why it is better to keep some information to yourself.

At one time or another, users give out personal information online. This is often true with social networking where friends feel closer if they share personal information. The problem with too much sharing is when information is made available to anybody online. What could happen could be worse than you ever expected.

Information was gathered just recently that Facebook shows its users’ home address to developers. According to Jeff Bowen in one of his posts, Facebook makes these data available in the development platform. Mind you, it is not only the users’ addresses that they “share” but also mobile phone numbers.

How would you react if your child was subjected to a drug-sniffing dog random drug sweep in school? A couple filed a lawsuit against a high school when their daughter went through a surprise sweep. Apparently the couple was not in favor of the practice. More so, they were not contented with the lower court’s ruling that the practice is legal. Seeking redress, they elevated the case to the high court.

Harold and Marianne Burbank said the practice is infringing on parents’ rights to guide their children’s upbringing. However, Connecticut’s Supreme Court did not believe them. It said the lower court’s ruling that the practice was legal should stand. The resolution of the high court was unanimous. The decision to this 2009 random drug sweep case would be published in the Connecticut Law Journal January 2011 issue.

According to the ruling, schools have the right to eliminate drugs and other contraband. What it did was to protect its students from undue harm. It further added that students and parents should not expect the same degree of privacy at school as they are at home. Also, it drew the difference between a “sweep” and a “search” as applied to the situation.

The Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 is sure to take a new face this 2011. With the objective of balancing legislations that promote both national security and individual privacy, the law shall be revised soon. The ECPA has been here for more than twenty years. It has gone through its best times, but times have changed. It has become archaic. The digital age needs privacy laws that are more applicable and suitable. Twitter and other companies that collect personal data have called the government to start right away with the reforms. The earlier it is done, the better it would be. When such reforms are completed, both the online companies and internet users would benefit.

Twitter at one time was required by government authorities to turn over users’ data to them. The company reacted strongly to the seemingly disregard of privacy. It announced its official call for the revision of old privacy laws and to keep these updated. It further stated that laws that were applicable twenty years ago need to be revised, if they are to be useful.

Having considered the pros and cons of the issue, some US officials took the same stand as Twitter. They are positive as to the need for reforms which should be done as early as possible. If ever this would be implemented, it should be thorough and complete. It is expected to be started soon, but details are not yet available, or at least, not yet disclosed. Everything would point to the same direction – putting an end or at least an intermission, to the debate on privacy rights.