Digital privacy is an issue that has remained controversial and one whose complexity increases with the advancement in technology. The complex the society becomes as concerns moving towards the information age, privacy of information stored and that shared across networks is likely to be compromised. This, therefore, remains a crucial issue that needs to be resolved if data security is to be assured to the people willing to adopt these emerging technologies (Taylor, 2006).
There are so many ways through which one can get access to private information. Key to this is the recently common issue of cyber attacks where unauthorized people gain access to pertinent websites. Hacking is another means that has been long in use in gaining access to information that one is unauthorized to access. Related to hacking, cracking can also be done to gain access to information or social engineering mechanisms.
Access to information that is private is so much harmful, both to the person to whom the information belongs and to the people accessing such information. It is a disadvantage to the person whose information is at risk of exposure since it compromises so much on their privacy and integrity, especially if the information accessed has some issues compromising on integrity. To the researcher, getting to know so much about other people’s private issues may be so unhealthy. This is both in the fear of being caught that comes with this act, and the possibility of being subjected to a lifetime slavery of being a government spy or something like that (Taylor, 2006).
So many suggestions on the mechanisms to ensure digital privacy is made possible have been made. Some say data encryption is the sure mechanism that allows for full protection of data, especially that which crosses over networks. This is believed to protect the data from almost all kinds of attacks, and especially the so common cyber attacks. Researchers say public key cryptography is more secure than the private key cryptography, but others dispute this view as being so much biased. In examining the extent of their use, none of the two is more popular than the other, but both apply to their suiting situations and to which their unique benefits pertain.
However, better methods have been suggested and tested. By better methods, I mean biometrics. This is the use of an individual’s physical features to verify this or her assumed identity. Data used includes voices, fingerprints, faces, vascular and iris characteristics to allow one access into critical rooms and files (Taylor, 2006).
The US 1966 Freedom of Information Act is a federal law in the United States that allows the public access to information, including that which is considered private and confidential, and whose access is denied by the Privacy Act. Based on the conditions on which the privacy Act which the Freedom Act violates was made, I do not agree with this law. This is because it allows the government so much intrusion in the lives of its citizens, and in extension the public. In simple terms, the government indirectly denies its citizens of their right to have a private life (Gieo, 2003).
Some electronic privacy laws do exist; such are the Electronic Communications Act that protects transfer and use of electronic information, the Wireless Communications Act and Public safety that concentrates much on use of mobile devices and the Computer Security Act that focuses on access to and use of stored electronic information. Effectiveness of these laws remains questionable, since they are always countered by the Freedom of Access to Information Act (Gieo, 2003).
Digital privacy controversy remains persistent and is thought of to increase at almost the same rate as technology. Internet users are, therefore, subjected to a lifetime fight to ensure their private information remains private for as long as they may wish. However, the possibility of such becoming a reality lays with the lawmakers and especially as concerns federal governments.
References
Gieo, H. (2003). Federal laws and material relating to the Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C.: The Administration.
Taylor, R. W. (2006). Digital crime and digital terrorism. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall.