In the United States, there is a continuous increase in the number of hospitals that are adopting electronic medical records. However, according to a study from the Ponemon Institute, there is also a surge in patient data breaches because of insufficient funding. There is a recorded 32% increase in data breach incidents from 2010 to 2011. To ensure patient privacy, hospitals say that there should be enough funding from the agency concerned.

Translated into cost, the health care industry lost an estimated $6.5 billion in the span of 1 year alone. Almost one-half of all health organizations that were surveyed said that lost or stolen devices were the major cause of this loss. The survey covered 72 hospitals and health providers, but the organizations were not named.

The Congressional bill entitled “The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011” was already presented to the committee concerned by legislators. According to privacy advocates, this would be the biggest threat to civil liberties, and that is why it has raised concerns. They say that many people would believe that this legislation is important and timely to address child pornography. This reaction is predictable because every rational person would always despise such a crime.

What could be the reason why privacy advocates seem to react so disapprovingly to the proposed law? Thinking deeply on the matter, such legislation would turn every person who uses the internet into a victim. The advocates contend that passage of the law would require all internet service providers, or ISPs, to track all of a user’s internet activities and save it for 18 months. Aside from this, ISPs are supposed to store this information together with the user’s name, home address, bank account and credit card numbers, and the assigned IP address. Does this sound threatening?

One of the arguments is that tracking all of the user’s internet activities is not the solution to the problem of internet child pornography. Why track the behavior of everybody just to look for the very few child pornographers who hide online? Among the millions of internet users, there are a handful of criminals, but why make everyone a suspect? Its final effect would be oppressive to the free speech rights and menacing to the online privacy of every American.

The world seems to always be interested in everyone’s privacy. There are many privacy issues that crop up, and people are apt to lose this one essential part of their lives. Today, there are other areas that have summonsed the interest of privacy advocates. Shopping cards have just become an addition to the list of items that pose privacy risks.

For quite some time, rumors have spread that supermarkets are collecting a wealth of data via electronic shopper cards, or e-cards. This collected information is used to link with other biometric technology. With just a little data processing, a person’s in-depth, personal database could be formed. This can all take place without the permission or knowledge of the person concerned.

You might ask how these shopping cards got onto the list of items that pose privacy risks. Investigations were conducted to find out how stores can tempt people into using their cards. Card experts say that e-cards do not have the big advantage of giving savings benefits to shoppers. They do not get real savings because the prices of the items that are included in the “deals” are, in fact, higher.

Day after day, new internet technology is being developed in order to improve the online experiences of users. Webcams and microphones are always there to make online communications complete with audio and video, and users enjoy every new feature that is being introduced to them, whether for free or for a fee. Social networking gives people the chance to share their thoughts, likes and dislikes.

Unfortunately, online criminals are always aware, looking for ways of how to use these new tools to their advantage. Legitimate programs and features are now under attack by these crooks under the guise of similar helpful tools. The recently launched attack by criminals is called “clickjacking” or, in technical terms, known as user interface (UI) redressing. It is a kind of trick that discretely lures users to initiate some unwanted actions.

One good example is Facebook’s Like and Share features. These two buttons are made transparent and superimposed over legitimate looking pages. Thinking that the page is “real”, users are tricked into clicking on those buttons. Unknowingly, what they are doing was actually “liking” rogue pages or posting spam on their walls. Another strategy that criminals employ is using invisible iframes where users are tricked into clicking some buttons that enable access to their webcams and microphones. An incident of this sort happened sometime in 2006 and was called the “webcam spying attack”. Now this one is more serious because it could produce devastating results.

Facebook has made a name as one of the giants in social networking. It continuously makes changes in its features that are aimed at improving the users’ experience. Without neglecting to consider the privacy of its users, Facebook does not stop thinking of new ways to satisfy millions of people. There have been different criticisms, but the company always tries to resolve every issue promptly. A lot about building a large group of online friends has received disapproval from some people. However, it did not stop Facebook from venturing into new user experiences, and it is succeeding.

This time, users are given the chance to create their own “vanity” or customized URLs. What makes this feature more accessible is that users can register their URLs in an easier way. Before, Facebook required at least 25 “Likes” on the newly created page before it could be registered. Supposedly, this was to make sure that the page is “liked” to guarantee its acceptability in terms of appearance.

The vanity URL is an option offered to users who want to create a new page, but do not want a unique URL which may be difficult to remember. This used to be a concern to those who wanted to promote a cause or a brand. With this better option, the user can select a shorter and easier to remember unique username.

Up till now, people are still being disturbed by the issue of anonymity, especially those who are unknowingly placed under watch. There is a possibility of expanding its range to include the anonymity of people in public areas. The use of GPS devices in surveillance has started the question as to its legality. To look into the matter, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the extent of privacy to include those people in public areas.

There was one case that involved the use of a GPS device, without a warrant, to track a suspected drug dealer. After placing the device in his car, the police tracked his movements for a month. The collected data was used and he was convicted of conspiring to sell cocaine. Critics reacted by saying that this is a case of unreasonable search because there was no valid warrant in place. The police action could also be construed as a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

The impending decision of the Court will have a critical implication. If it upholds the decision that such kinds of searches are legal, then Americans might expect an end to their anonymity. There is no doubt that people have enjoyed the advantage of, or rather the right to, privacy. Now, people can be placed under surveillance without being given any notice. The premise is the fact that because a person is in a public place, he can no longer be considered private. Further, the use of sophisticated tracking technology is not to curtail privacy, but to make surveillance easier.