The U.S. Supreme Court might look into how strip searches in jails are being done due to privacy issues. It seems that suspects who are arrested on minor charges are forced to undress and shower while jail guards stand by. It is said that the jail policy on strip searches is aimed at addressing the problem of weapons or drugs being hidden by inmates. What makes the process questionable is that everyone is subjected to such searches, even those arrested on minor charges. As it is, the law does not exempt anyone from a strip search before entering the jail’s general population.

There is an uncertainty of which should take higher priority – privacy rights of people in jail, or the need for authorities to maintain safety. An attorney took the position that the court should draw a line that defines privacy intrusion. This definition is especially needed when there is no reason to believe that the suspect is hiding anything.

A car dealer arrested due to failure to pay fines asked the help of an attorney. He said that he was forced by the jail guards to take off his clothes two times. He was told to open his mouth and lift his genitals in their presence. He added that he was made to bend over and cough so the guards could see if he was hiding anything inside his body.

With the development of DNA technology, human society has been benefited in many ways. From unheard of to well-known cases, the use of DNA has helped the police in crime investigation for the past several years. Some privacy concerns were recently brought out involving DNA profile collection. Officials have moved to keep a file of police officers’ DNA. The police have cited privacy concerns over this.

Police officials have ordered the DNA testing of law enforcement personnel. This was done to rule out speculations that a police officer was involved in a sophisticated crime. Behind this unpopular order were the deaths of eight women in Louisiana in 2009. These were a case of serial killings that showed a high level of criminal “workmanship”. This started rumors, pointing to a police officer as the suspect. All officers in Louisiana soon agreed to undergo testing with no questions asked. In conclusion, the killer was not among them.

To some officers, this DNA collection was just like leaving a specimen as they do for routine medical examinations. There was no thought of privacy risk involved. They agree to the idea that having a DNA file of police officers will save time in conducting crime scene investigations as it would be easier for them to spot unidentified genetic materials found at crime scenes.

The EFF, or Electronic Frontier Foundation, is the first line of defense for consumers’ digital rights. It was founded as a non-profit organization in 1990 and based in San Francisco, California.  It is well known for its advocacy in digital rights, as well as its work in defending personal freedoms and consumer rights. The EFF is funded mainly from individual donations, a large portion of which is then used for litigation. Since its inception, the foundation has won many digital rights cases and is still battling to win more.

Its founders were John Perry Barlow and Mitch Kapor, who at first did not know each other.  Before its formal founding, Barlow experienced how a law enforcer displayed unfamiliarity with the emerging forms of online communication.  This, according to him, would put consumer civil liberties at risk.  He posted an account of this experience to an online community.  He was then contacted by Mitch Kapor, and that started it all.

Kapor provided the initial funding for legal fees.  Then, working together, they sought the services of five New York lawyers.  The initial victories of their endeavor spread so fast that it attracted John Gilmore and Steve Wozniak to put in funding.  After the foundation was formally formed in July 1990, Kapor, Wozniak and an anonymous benefactor provided the foundation’s initial funding.

The Proposed Privacy Bill of Rights lays out a code of conduct for data collectors on the internet. This bill was introduced by Senators John Kerry and John McCain. Hopefully, this bill would prevent data marketers from abusing and misusing private information provided by internet users. If approved, this would be the first comprehensive legislation about privacy rights that would weed out unscrupulous advertisers and data miners.

With its enactment, the bill would explicitly draw a distinction between reasonable use of data and outright violation of individual privacy. Users have aired their cases when their privacy has been violated. The issue has been around for quite a long time and there have been several attempts to pass updated privacy legislation. Apparently, the right time has come for this issue to be addressed. This means that businesses can use relevant user information in advertising and marketing without violating users’ privacy.

As comprehensive legislation, the bill requires information collectors to protect the information that they gather. They also have to inform users the reason why they collect such data. In short, information collectors assume accountability that would guarantee user’s security.

Internet companies have been in lawmakers sights lately over the treatment of information they gather from their surfers, and how well protected it really is. Essentially, these behavioral advertisers track where you have been and bring you related advertisement. That wouldn’t fly in real life, and people are tired of it happening online.

Lawmakers in the House are taking action. They are writing laws and other new documents that propose to limit the amount of unauthorized snooping that goes on when Internet companies look at your browsing histories. They also wish to educate the public on how they could better protect themselves while online.

While the bill is being debated in congress, there is not enough energy to go all around, with health care and energy conservation taking up most of the floor time. The issue isn’t pigeonholed though, and it will up for consideration next year.

Google, Yahoo, and other search engines and sites to be affected by this bill are a bit torn on where they stand: they want people to have their privacy, but at the same time, they make money through these advertisers.

Long gone are the days when two warring factions would line up to face each, announce a start, and then enter the hectic fray. Nowadays, the “old war” of guns, blood, and violence is taking a backseat to a new kind of war: a virtual one.

This new modern warfare occurs on the Internet, and the winner isn’t the one with the least dead or the last standing; he is the one with the enemy Intel stored away nice and safe. In order to protect itself, the U.S. will need a vast and in-depth monitoring system, and we might find an extension of the Patriot Act in the works.

Last month, President Obama unveiled this huge new Internet security overhaul. He insists that all civil liberties will be upheld during any surveillance the system will be doing. His senior officials however, think that the complete upholding of all privacy laws will be difficult to do, when scanning every virtual nook and cranny to scout out terrorist activity.

The National Security Agency (NSA) is the branch that is going to spearhead the virtual protection of the U.S. This agency has been in a bit of controversy in the past for supposed privacy invasion. The nation’s security is not a matter to be taken lightly though, and they can justify every action they make. Some have just felt that they have been a bit more invasive than they need to be.

With recent blog posts about the Virginia Watchdog and PulaskiWatch, it was only a matter of time before someone had their identity stolen due to the negligence of county clerks posting sensitive information. Computerworld reported on a Ohio woman suing the county clerk after her identity was stolen. An image of a speeding ticket, containing her personal information, was posted on the county website.

Computerworld reported that an upset Arkansas man has posted sensitive information on his website, PulaskiWatch. The information was found via public records and consisted of e-mails between nine government officials, including the county clerk. This privacy issue may seem a little familiar as the Virginia Watchdog (which, coincidentally, does not seem to be working) also posted sensitive information on government officials in Virginia.

TechCrunch (via the WashingtonPost) has recently published an article stating what should be the Digital Bill of Rights to protect consumers. With the Internet age in full-swing, and Election ’08 in the near future, what better time than now to present a plan of action for laws and regulations regarding the Internet? Many laws governing the Internet are quite outdated and can’t keep up with the daily advances in technology…as food for thought: What if laws had never been changed with the inception of modern mail carriers? Imagine the same laws were still completely intact even with the transition from the Pony Express to the modern-day United States Postal Service. Could that work? Could a law regarding the Pony Express still govern the actions of USPS?

Issues such as copyright infringement, net neutrality, and digital privacy are difficult to govern, mainly because they are creations of the modern era of technology. Maybe it is time to dust off the books and create some new laws that can maintain a degree of control and consistency over rapidly expanding technology. Many laws do not protect users’ Internet privacy and allow companies to spy on us and record our information so they can build a profile of our web surfing habits. The Digital Bill of Rights would be a step in the right direction to create updated laws that can protect consumers from ISPs, marketing companies, device manufacturers, and even the government itself.

Presented in the article is the author’s own Digital Bill of Rights, which he asks users to help further refine. Maybe our candidates can use this as a starting point and get the ball rolling in the right direction.

Well it is more than an Internet Service Provider, but Cable One, the 10th largest cable operator, has recently admitted to conducted a six-month study on their Internet users’ surfing habits. Cable One joins Charter Communications (as reported in a previous post) and a slew of other MSOs (multiple service operators) who spy on their customers for behavioral targeting purposes, and ultimately sell that information for big bucks to advertising companies.

Cable One revealed the information on August 8 to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which had previously expressed their concerns on cable operators using advanced technology to invade privacy. So if I decipher this correctly: Cable One tried to defend themselves against these allegations by providing information and stating they invaded their customers’ privacy. Cable One stated that spying on 14,000 of their 700,000 customers was a better way to provide “more relevant advertising” to their customers.

Bresnan Communications and Knology also came out of the woodwork to say they spied on customers throughout a similar time frame. WideOpenWest admitted to doing this, in cooperation with NebuAd’s service. WideOpenWest stopped the program after five months because of the privacy concerns. All efforts to surf anonymously have become null and void for many Internet users, and for no apparent reason other than having better online advertisements. Shouldn’t these companies help protect personal information, not jeopardize it?

Cable One argues that they were not breaking any laws by conducting this research, and had made the information available to their users via the acceptable use policy they read when signing up for services. The information was also found in Cable One’s yearly privacy notice, which is sent to all customers. They provided users with appropriate notice, BUT did not allow them to opt out of the research, “because doing so would stifle our ability to test new technologies that have the potential to offer significant benefits to our customers.” Wow…

In essence the companies are arguing that because they put it in writing it is alright to spy on users and completely ignore any type of Internet privacy laws. It seems a bit ridiculous that my privacy rights are in jeopardy and I have no way of opting out. I can’t even choose to say “No.” In other words, even if I know it is happening I have no say in the outcome. The companies are not just able to record information for advertising purposes, but can use this technology to track and record ALL information being transmitted and received through their network. Hopefully when the Committee drafts a new law they remember to add the clause that we, as paying customers who want to feel safe, should have to opt-IN to this research–not be forced into whatever absurd money-making scheme the companies are up to.