http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8303982.stm

Latest security scanner that produces "naked" image of air travelers is now being tested at Manchester Airport.

Air travelers no longer have to remove their jackets and shoes as the scanners are able to scan through these layers with ease. However, the scanner is so powerful that it is also able to make out the contours of the body. This implys that intimate parts of the body is outlined.

Apparently, the testers have ways to protect the privacy of the person being scanned. Firstly, only one person will be looking at the images at all times. Secondly, images cannot be downloaded or saved by any means. Thirdly, the room which the computer sits in, prohibits anyone from bringing in handphones or digital recording devices. With all these measures in place, can we say that the privacy of the air travelers being scanned is justified?

This give me the impression that the privacy of the public is sacrifice at the expense of security for the greater good of everyone. Which takes on a very utilitarian viewpoint. However, it also makes me ponder: Would this test then trigger off the upgading of other public devices, such as security cameras to be able to use x-ray on public areas to scan for potential criminals?

http://media.www.csucauldron.com/media/storage/paper516/news/2009/09/06/TheMeltingPot/Technological.Freedom-3759993.shtml

Digital Rights Management (DRM) or should it be called "Digital Rights Mismanagement"? It has been said that big corporations like Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo and Adobe refer to these schemes to take impose restrictions on users "digital rights management (DRM)," but the reality is, no one computer user's rights are being protected in the slightest bit.

Most of Apple iTune users and Adobe software users wish to share their songs or software with their friends or families but with DRM, sharing is prohibited and restricted. Where then, is the sharing spirit that communities ought to have? From a communitarian viewpoint, it is only fair that these users are given the autonomy to share whatever file that they are currently possessing to people that they wish to share with. After all, sharing is for the greater good of the community. In addition, sharing helps to spread the word. For example, after listening to one song by a particular band that has been recommended by a friend through file sharing, he/she may then go out to purchase the cd in stores. How often is it that fans of a particular band became fans by randomly going to the store and shelling out cash for a CD? That's not how it works - we become fans of music because friends share their music collections with us. What then is the true purpose of DRM? Is it to protect the invention or to gain profits from this exclusive distribution right? Would it not be better if sharing was made possible?

http://www.mmail.com.my/content/10370-ngos-say-no-internet-filtering-government

The plan to implement an Internet filtering system, specifically for pornography, has not been received well by the general public in Malaysia. Some suggest that this censorship by the government could be just an excuse to restrict certain information (which the government feels is unsuitable) for public viewing.

How then can we justify whether the action of Internet filtering, which is controlled by the government, should be considered a responsible or "selfish" act of the government?

The Malaysia government claims that restricting pornography on the Internet would be able to help the children from being exposed and corrupted by such "indecent" content. (Note that what is art may be considered pornography to another.) However, critics have say that "filtering such sites would only force them to look for other channels to access such smut." Censorship is not the most viable option to help these children. The government needs to dig down hard on those that are the propagators of pornography in the real world and not in virtual land. Only then can children be truly protected.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32467318/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

How often do people read the terms and conditions that are available on the website? Were you one of those that joined a Facebook petition group to protest against the unannounced changes to its term and conditions that allowed them to use your details however they wished?

This boils down to the debate of whether the responsibility lies in the user to read the terms and conditions and understand what Facebook can do if they join the social network service or the responsibility of Facebook to protect its users' private information.

Companies who request for their customer's private information may in turn distribute these confidential particulars to others. As such, cases of fraud and identity theft have surfaced, with fraudsters using these distributed identities to apply for loans or credit cards. Unlike other countries, no privacy law to safeguard an individual's data against unauthorized commercial use has been put in place. As a result, fraudsters are able to ride on this loophole. Ethical Question: Is it right for companies to request for their customer's private information for certain reasons? Is it even fair that they distribute these information to third parties, perhaps as a way to make money? Problem: I think the main problem is that there isn't a law in Singapore that safeguards an individual's data against unauthorized commercial use. Even though the Model Data Protection Code scheme tries to do the above, it is after all, still a voluntary scheme. Companies can opt to adopt the scheme, but whether they choose to apply it regularly, is another issue. As long as a privacy law is not in place, this issue will continue to recur in Singapore.