The ongoing issues about the company’s access to private information and its advertising services prompted critics to say that Facebook should provide more. This means that it should let users know what other information that it collected and stored about them in its file. This will enable users to be aware of how much data they have shared, in order for them to have better control over it.

Facebook recently announced that it expanded the coverage of the tool, responding to the requests of privacy advocates. This time, more detailed information about their social networking activities can be downloaded by users. Some of the new categories that it will make accessible are previous names used, friend requests made, and IP addresses that they logged in from.

The abovementioned clearly shows that there are different categories of information that are stored by Facebook, which is the cause of privacy concerns. In addition, Facebook’s recent expansion did not meet the “demands” of critics. They say that more should be added so that users’ privacy becomes fully protected. Nonetheless, this expansion will help users recognize how much and what information they have shared with the world.

The company has been clear regarding the limitations as to the use of the “Download Your Information” tool. Users cannot use it to download their friends’ information such as photos or status updates and other personal information. Several complaints have been brought against Facebook, still on privacy issues while using the site. The recently added categories are another step made to meet the goals of better consumer protection. It has promised that in July of this year, more changes will be rolled out. In the meantime, Facebook users can use “Download Your Information” to back up 39 out of the 84 data categories that it stores about every one of them.

Recent developments show that companies are participating to include privacy into every venture that they have. Emphasis is given on how people’s data is kept safe and to manage how much is collected. Consumers are being empowered by giving them the option to decide what information about them is being shared. In order to make this possible, a “Do Not Track” mechanism that consumers can use to control the tracking of their activities is needed.

How would tighter online privacy rules help consumers? All these discussions started when privacy violations started to become all too common. Internet users do not exactly know that they are being tracked online. Also, they do not know that their personal data is collected and either sold to other companies, or directly used. On top of this, consumers are not aware of the ways that they can protect their privacy.

For this reason, U.S. regulators are insisting that internet companies should provide users with an easy-to-use tool that truly works for their protection. Some businesses have given positive responses and would want to start working together. However, others are still holding on to their belief that this act would kill innovation and eventually, the business.

There is a possibility that a final agreement will be reached among internet companies. The government wants to establish the idea that there should be more respect given to consumer privacy. It is not against innovation, because it promotes ingenuity and boosts the economy. The thing is, to put privacy rights at stake just because consumers do not have the tools to protect themselves, is not right. In the end, tighter online privacy rules should exist to protect both consumers and the businesses.

Today, the government is keeping a close eye on advertising companies because of privacy issues. Online advertisers are being scrutinized because of the government’s efforts to give internet users better control over their personal data. This industry now operates under self-regulation, and this is the policy that most companies endorse. This means that each advertising company would maintain its own limits as to the collection and use of consumers’ personal data.

There have been unfavorable reactions due to last year’s discovery that two of the largest companies were engaged in deceptive privacy practices. The issue is still the same, involving the unauthorized collection and sale of user information to advertisers. This situation has badly hurt the argument for self-regulation.

Heavy regulation, according to internet companies, does not encourage innovation and stifles the growth of the internet. This statement came out as a result of the ongoing talks on the so-called “privacy bill of rights” and the “do not track” system. The first one is the government’s framework to outline how consumers can protect their personal information. The second one is the industry’s proposal to give users the option whether or not to allow the collection of their personal information.

By this time, online advertisers should have learned a lesson from the blunders that happened in the past. If they want to continue on with self regulation, then they have to act accordingly. Whether the privacy bill of rights will be approved and implemented now or later, these advertisers still have to consider the privacy of internet users. They should take measures on their own to address the lack of control over the collection and trading of data among themselves. Such practices expose internet users to dangers because their online activities and real-life identities are revealed.

It is estimated that the worth of personal information gathered by Facebook is about $100 billion. This includes the chatting, browsing and buying habits of millions of Facebook users. These were deliberately uploaded by users who, by now, should have realized that they never actually did the uploading. Analysts say that nowadays, personal data is being traded among service providers just like other commodities. Users have given up their data for “free”, but service providers can make thousands of dollars out of it.

The European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) conducted a research on how service providers treated personal data. Among those interviewed, 48% admitted that they share data with third parties, while 47% of them said that they treat it as a commercial asset. In another experiment done by the agency, they found another unusual behavior among internet users. Almost two-thirds of users would opt to share their personal information rather than pay an additional 65 cents for an online purchase.

What does it take to give up your privacy online in order to save a few bucks? It is sad, but you really have to pay a much higher price than you realize. Security breach is always possible on the part of companies warehousing the data. Your data can be exposed to the world and you would have no control over it. Companies can sell it at an estimated $5,000 in a year while you give it to them at a price less than that of a candy bar. When will that moment come when users would value their privacy at a much higher “price”?

Critics have cited that Glassmap has violated user privacy. Such unfavorable reaction was triggered by its “Post to Facebook” option in its registration process. Checking this option means that an invitation to join Glassmap would show in the user’s Facebook Timeline. According to critics, this exposes users to more privacy risks, although they might be benefited from it. Glassmap decided to eliminate this feature after Facebook instructed the company to do so.

Instead of wasting productive minds and technology on petty controversies, the founders encourage real dialog about online privacy. According to them, there are four key areas that need to be given real consideration. The issues should be real-time adaptability, transparency, the right amount of privacy, and user-service symmetry.

Privacy thresholds always change every time the user switches his or her location. Facebook, for example, has a feature of giving users the option to choose privacy thresholds to suit the situation. This, however, does not really offer real-time adaptability. To make it really adaptive, users must be enabled to switch privacy thresholds without difficulty as he or she moves from one place to another. To date, users are not yet enjoying this kind of feature.

For lack of transparency, some social networking companies are also criticized. To be transparent means that users really and obviously see their privacy settings. There must be a way to let users see which part of their data is being shared and also with whom they are sharing it with. There is a need to fine tune sharing someone’s data with “friends of friends”. This is because although you might know all your “friends”, “friends of friends” may not be that familiar to you.

If users are given the right amount of privacy, then it should be better privacy. This right amount is someplace in-between sharing everything and sharing nothing. As of now users are allowed only to choose between these two extremes. However, these extremes cannot give the right amount of privacy. This must be achieved while still preserving transparency and control.

There are lots of developmental efforts that focus at improving user-to-user relationships. A lot of privacy issues can be cleared if user-to-service relationships are also improved. To realize this, services must show the users which information they collect. It is imperative that users know what data was collected from them. Service companies act as user-to-user proxies, so they have to be more open to their “clients”.

Cannon endorsed a Do Not Track Kids Act that aims at increasing online privacy for children. This contains provisions that would limit the ability of websites, advertising agencies and cellular providers to use the personal information of children. They would no longer be allowed to use targeted ads for children and would be prohibited from tracking minors. The proposed act is an amendment to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.

There is easy access to online devices such as smartphones and other gadgets that store information on young consumers. Without parental knowledge or consent, these children become vulnerable to those who are capable of taking advantage of them. They can be easily tracked on the internet and their whereabouts can be monitored without difficulty.

Without their knowledge, children leave digital footprints from their emails, the topics they search, or pictures they post. These are then gathered by big corporations and data marketers to be used immediately or even years later. No parents would be happy if their son, who is of legal age, is denied a job because of a drinking spree picture that he posted on the net years before.

Critics of the bill have labeled it as one that is very broad in scope, which makes it unenforceable. They say that it might be technically impossible and very expensive for companies to comply with it. Consequently, it would hurt the internet because some services would need to stop operating due to liability issues.

It can be surmised that right now, it is not clear whether children will indeed be safer online in the near future. There always seems to be a tug-of-war between those who advocate privacy and those who defend the lifeblood of the internet. Here comes the “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” that is more “favored” because it offers wider user protection regardless of age. Let us see what will happen to it.

Recently, Google and online advertisers have announced their support of such technology. However, they made it clear that it was only for targeted advertisements. A lot of people expected something that is wider in scope and they are not really happy. Needless to say, Google will still collect consumer data and sell it for specific purposes.

So much talk on the issue about tracking and its implications on privacy have been around for a long time. There was one privacy analyst and attorney who said that it is really about “do not target”. To use the term “do not track” denotes the idea of a total ban on consumer data gathering and use. For countless times, companies assert that the internet depends a great deal on advertising. The idea of a total ban would prevent consumers from getting better online experiences through data tracking.

An interesting detail was revealed when a survey was conducted among internet users regarding their idea of “Do Not Track”. Eighty percent of the respondents believed that the technology will stop data collection and that tracking software in their computers will be removed. This is because the term is often misinterpreted to mean that. Only a very few get the point that it is supposed to be only for targeted ads.

Spokespersons from several organizations explained the possible effects of stopping data collection. One group contends that consumers cannot tell its effects on their online activities. One simple effect would be that special services like personalized content would no longer be available to them. For example, consumers can not have the advantage of enjoying personalized home pages without sharing their personal data.

The end is not in sight over what “Do Not Track” should really be. The two ideas need to converge into one feasible whole so that it can settle onto something that is concrete. Will companies and consumers ever reach a point where they can find a middle ground? There are two factors to consider. First, companies need to be open and honest about how they would use the data collected. Second, consumers need to keep an open mind regarding the implications of technology on their privacy.

The said proposal calls on different bodies that are related to online activities to work as one. It hopes to gather together those internet companies, law enforcement agencies, privacy groups, and state attorneys general. Forgetting their individual objectives, they are encouraged to pool their resources and to collaborate. All of them are expected to come up with voluntary standards that would defend consumer data to the highest degree.

Despite its good intentions, the Obama privacy plan is met with apprehensions that it could threaten the internet. The side of privacy advocates hopes the best for its full implementation. If approved, the United States will soon have a privacy law. It is a kind of law that supports improvement and gives more user protection.

The framework of the proposed law is presented to consist 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.

There are seven particular provisions in the Bill of Rights framework. These are individual control, transparency, respect for context, security, access and accuracy, focused collection, and accountability. Each of these provisions gives consumers better control over their different shared data. The multi-stakeholder process looks into how the business sector can benefit from the privacy law. Interoperability deals with how it can also be recognized and imposed by other countries.

Fears of having unfavorable consequences of the law were expressed by a researcher at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. According to him, many companies would be hurt in terms of cost. It is common knowledge that one of the most effective methods of getting revenues is through behavioral advertising. Part of the earnings derived from behavioral tracking and data mining is used to provide free internet services such as web-based email and social networking. These are the services which are used by many ordinary consumers on a daily basis. With the law, there is chance that these services would no longer be free.

Consumers need to know more about being more responsible over what they do online. Privacy issues will not be that complicated if consumers would preserve “cleanliness” in the internet. The Obama administration can give more consumer protection if it concentrates first on educating them. This should be one of the important features of the new privacy plan.

Pew said in its report that two out of three of all internet users are hooked on social networking. In 2009, there was an increase in the number of individuals who have deleted “friends” from their lists. There were more women than men who did so, while more young people than older people tend to do this. These were some of the findings that the study gathered in a span of one year.

A representative of the Associated Press said that users tend to be more conscious about comments posted by other people. This is supported by an increase in the number of users who deleted comments on their profiles. Another proof comes from Pew, saying that a large number of users said that they “untagged” themselves from photos. This tendency shows that they do not want themselves to be exposed on other people’s pages.

When it comes to privacy settings, only twenty percent have set their profiles to public, while fifty-eight percent set theirs to private so that only their “friends” can see the information. In connection with this, there is still a large percentage (48%) of users who have some difficulty in managing their privacy controls. Another 49% said that they can manage their privacy without any difficulty. This means that more social networking users are getting stricter about their privacy.

The Obama administration is seeking improved and stronger privacy protection for social networking site users. It has recognized this need, considering that technology for tracking users is becoming more sophisticated. If not regulated and controlled, this becomes more of a threat to privacy than a protection to users.

Google’s new privacy policy  will go into effect as of March 1, 2012.  The new policy will be the same for all Google products and services and affects all the information Google has stored for your accounts.  It also includes any information that will be gathered from March 1^st forward.

To date, all of your searches and records of every site you visit stayed in your Google Web History.  This Web History was kept separate from all other areas of Google.  Everything will now be combined with the new privacy policy.  If you want to keep your personal life private, you want to be sure to clear your Web History.  If you don’t do this, your searches could tell everyone things like your hometown, age, health issues, sexual orientation and so much more.

The only way to stop Google from merging your Web History with your Google + or YouTube usage, you need to delete all searches in your Web History.  You also must stop any future activity from showing up on your Web History.

You can do this by following these simple steps:

Start by signing in to your Google account.

After that, go to https://www.google.com/history

Next, click on the “Remove all Web History” button.

Now, all you need to do is click on “OK”.

Take note that not only are you removing information from your Web History, but you are also pausing it.  The Web History will remain paused until you physically enable it again.

If your Web History is active, Google will keep all the information in it for an indefinite amount of time.  However, when you pause the Web History, most of your information will be cleared within 18 months.  Further, when the Web History is disabled, the search results that are customized for you will no longer appear.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation (or EFF) has a guide entitled Six Tips to Protect Your Search Privacy that offers suggestions on how to reduce the amount of information Google stores on you.

Most people have more than one Google account, so you must remember to follow the above steps for each one.  Two other things you need to remember are:   1.  Removing and disabling your Web History will not stop Google from storing your information for their internal use, and, 2.  If a law enforcement agency requests any information, Google will supply it to them.