However, many privacy advocacy groups are still not buying that claim. They believe the bill falls short of protecting civil liberties. The Electronic Frontier Foundation [2] stated, “We’ve been clear that we must end mass surveillance under all surveillance authorities. We’re disappointed that this bill does not do more toward that end, but the new USA Freedom Act serves as a welcome first step and should be seen as such.” The American Civil Liberties Union [3] opposed an earlier, similar bill (the CISPA), stating that “It still permits companies to share sensitive and personal customer information with the government and allows the military to collect the internet records of everyday Americans … We urge the members to vote ‘no’.”

Robin Koerner at WatchingAmerica.com argues that privacy vs. security is a false dichotomy anyway: “Either the math is wrong. Or the morality is wrong. Or both” [4]. He insists that the best strategy is not giving up any liberties – which stems from the frequently quoted Benjamin Franklin rule, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Corporate surveillance is even more invasive But new bills on the Hill are not the only issues threatening our privacy: there is the ongoing tradeoff between privacy and personalized commercial services. Even if we limit the government’s power, the corporate world is still collecting all kinds of personal information, supposedly to provide better service. (There is that “better service” argument again!) Moreover, thanks to the social media frenzy, most of us are willingly sharing all our personal information online. A 2013 survey by Visa security [5] shows that more than 58% of consumers have shared details over social media that put them at risk of fraud or identity theft.

When it comes to digital natives those numbers are even higher. A recent PEW Research survey [6] shows that more than 90% of teens share their real names and pictures, 80% share their birthdates, and 20% share their cell numbers and personal videos on the Internet. Considering this culture of sharing, and also the governmental and industrial mass collection of personal data, some argue there is no point in discussing this issue anymore, as privacy as we know it is already dead. It has been more than a decade since the CEO of Sun Microsystems famously said that, “You have zero privacy anyway… Get over it!” [7].

The renowned futurist David Houle argues the same in his short book, [8] where he explains that the definition of privacy changed over time, and we should accept the current reality: “It is hypocritical to complain about the lack of privacy if you post information on social media, use the GPS function of your smart phone, surf the Internet, or increasingly, drive on the toll ways and in the cities of America. Don’t complain if you are constantly letting convenience and the cool factor of technology trump concerns about privacy.” Is privacy already dead? Science magazine declared “The End of Privacy” in a special January, 2015, issue. The editorial concluded, “Meanwhile, how we think and feel about privacy isn’t static. Already, younger people reveal much more about their lives on the Web than older people do, and our preferences about what we want to keep private can change depending on the context, the moment, or how we’re nudged. Privacy as we have known it is ending, and we’re only beginning to fathom the consequences” [9].

In “Risk of Exposure,” another article from the same special issue, Martin Enserink demonstrated with recent real life examples that “When new or dangerous infectious diseases strike, public health often trumps personal privacy.” He explained that, “Reigning in bloggers and Twitter users may not be easy, but even professional efforts to track outbreaks pose new threats to privacy. Information about specific patients – although anonymized – is now shared worldwide on public email lists for emerging diseases …” [10].

In another article, “Hiding in Plain Sight,” the author concludes that, “In the end, human movements are often so predictable that they are hard to conceal. Location-hiding techniques are most valuable when you want to hide one-off trips… But when it comes to protecting the location of your home and workplace, you might as well give up on privacy” [11]. Hasan Elahi, an artist at the University of Maryland, seems to be taking this advice to heart. When the US Government mistakenly added his name to its terrorist watch list, he fought back by turning his life inside-out for the entire world to see [12]. He basically made his life an open book. He documented nearly every hour of his life, posted his debit card transactions, and used a GPS device in his pocket to report his real-time physical location. “If Big Brother was watching, Elahi would bore him to death” [13]. It might have worked for Elahi, but embracing such invasive surveillance raises a common sentiment: that there is nothing wrong with such invasiveness, and only the people who act bad or have something to hide care about privacy.

Why privacy still matters

In his TED talk, “Why Privacy Matters,” Glen Greenwald pointed out the hypocrisy of the social media moguls on the issue, for while these moguls pronounced that privacy is no longer a “social norm,” when it comes to their personal lives, they do their best to ensure to have a zone of privacy [14]. It is difficult to avoid all of these social media sites. For digital natives, having an online presence on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram is an existential issue. But considering the pace and amount of data shared on these social media sites, a malicious person or corporation could easily connect the dots and draw a more complete picture of anyone than one would ever expect.

With the internet or smart TVs capable of listening to our conversations in our living rooms [15], we maybe already be living in an Orwellian world. Therefore, reading excerpts from the classic dystopia of George Orwell “1984,” Greenwald concluded his TED Talk by saying: … a society in which people can be monitored at all times is a society that breeds conformity and obedience and submission, which is why every tyrant, the most overt to the most subtle, craves that system. Conversely, even more importantly, it is a realm of privacy, the ability to go somewhere where we can think and reason and interact and speak without the judgmental eyes of others being cast upon us, in which creativity and exploration and dissent exclusively reside, and that is the reason why, when we allow a society to exist in which we’re subject to constant monitoring, we allow the essence of human freedom to be severely crippled. How do we protect our privacy? In the aforementioned special issue of Science, a recent book by the law professor and privacy expert Frank Pasquale was spotlighted [16].

In The Black Box Society, Pasquale argues that the classic remedy that requires informed consent from an individual does not work anymore. It “at best works for the rich, who can afford pricy lawyers and reputation managers to enforce their privacy rights…” The article continued Pasquale’s argument: In contrast, Pasquale argues for a fundamental shift in privacy protection, from a focus on notice and consent at the time of data collection to stringent regulation of the actual use of data by corporations and government agencies. His reasoning is sensible, and he is not alone; a growing number of privacy advocates are in favor of data use regulation. If such regulations were to be put in place, it would represent an epic change in how we aim to protect privacy in our society. Susan Landau, professor of cybersecurity policy at WPI, concluded similarly in her Science article – we must control the use of data to protect privacy [17]. “Controlling use is complex, but combining technology, policy, and law is the best way to control incursions from business and government.”

References

[1] Thorp, F. (June 2, 2015), “Barack Obama signs ‘USA FREEDOM ACT’ to reform NSA Surveillance”, retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/nsa-snooping/senate-vote-measure-reform-nsa-surveillance-n368341

[2] Jaycox, M., Reitman, R. (2015), retrieved from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/new-usa-freedom-act-step-right-direction-more-must-be-done

[3] Boorstin, J. (2013) “Privacy vs. Cybersecurity: The Debate Heats Up”, retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/id/100632315

[4] Koerner, R (2014), “Privacy vs. Security: A False Dichotomy”retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/privacy-vs-security-a-fal_b_4698157.html

[5] http://www.visasecuritysense.com/en_US/fraud-news.jsp#OMG2muchinfo

[6] http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/what-teens-share-on-social-media-2/

[7] Sprenger, P(1999), “Sun on Privacy: Get over it!” http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538 [8] Houle, David, “Is Privacy Dead? The Future of Privacy in the Digital Age” http://davidhoule.com/books/is-privacy-dead

[9]Special Issue on “The End of Privacy” (January 30, 2015), Science Magazine, http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/privacy/

[10] Ensreink, M. (2015), “Risk of Exposure”, retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6221/498

[11] You, J. (2015), “Hiding in Plain Sight”, retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6221/500

[12] http://www.ted.com/talks/hasan_elahi

[13] Newman, Bruce. 2008. “I’m not a terrorist, says San Jose State professor who puts his life online,” The Mercury News.

[14] https://www.singularityweblog.com/glenn-greenwald-on-privacy/

[15] “Your Smart TV is eavesdropping on your private conversations” http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/09/technology/security/samsung-smart-tv-privacy/

[16] Mayer-Schonborger, V. (2015) “Connecting the Dots”, retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6221/481

[17] Landau, S. (2015), “Control use of data to protect privacy”, retrieved from https://fountainmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Controlling_Use-478.pdf

The First Period

This first phase saw a rise in conservatism, fueled by quasi-taxpayer revolts and an increasing oligarchical minority seeking to control all aspects of government and business.

As this early period of conservatism rose, it became evident that the desire by many for smaller, more responsive government and less taxes would not be met. Evidence would later surface that the oligarchy, much in the manner of the 19th century “robber barons,” colluded to gather power and wealth for themselves while using the taxpayer’s own dissatisfaction against them.

Governments became, in fact, larger and more military oriented, subservient to the demands of business and the oligarchy for less and less regulation. With each increment in the reduction of environmental and other regulations came a concurrent reduction in personal liberties.

Believing there was a need for more energy, restrictions against the mining of coal, the drilling for oil and natural gas, and seeking alternative ways to obtain fossil fuels were reduced and/or eliminated. The need for more and more of these fossil fuels led to more global conflicts, as countries sought to find and secure the rapidly diminishing supplies of fossil fuel. This in turn necessitated increased military, defense, and security-based spending. Wars became the norm rather than the exception, which created an age gap, as an entire generation was squandered fighting in these conflicts.

The reduction or removal of environmental-based regulations, long proclaimed by conservatives as barriers to economic growth, led to an increase in air and water pollution levels, and the destruction of natural habitats, which in turn had a devastating impact on the planet in general. The increase in pollution levels and lack of regulations would also have an adverse effect on the general health of the world’s human population. The air quality in many cities around the world literally forced governments to shut down because people could not go outside. Infant mortality, once dropping, began to rise.

Faced with an increase in military, defense, and security-based spending, many governments had to cut back on humanitarian spending, education, and basic research. At first, this was accepted by the many who had sought the elimination of such projects.

And while attempts to resist these steps were made at the local level, they were decidedly limited in their impact. Hospitals – taken over by health insurance companies (under the mantra that businesses knew how to make hospitals work) and driven by the bottom-line mentality that suggested each hospital had to make a profit – began to close, leaving many people without any medical assistance. It quickly became apparent that only a relative few, the rich and powerful that constituted the oligarchy, would have medical care.

As businesses responded to the demands of the oligarchy, wages were reduced with the declaration that businesses could not pay living wages and make a profit. The effect of this mentality began to show towards the latter portion of this first period.

Eventually, due to the increased military spending and the falling wages of the majority, businesses began to fail. There was a sense that a Great Depression, far greater than any before, was imminent.

At the same time, loss of income and the failure of many businesses triggered a revival in debtors’ prisons, where people who could not pay their bills were jailed until someone could pay their debts for them. The false logic of this solution – that people who were not able to pay their own bills would be able to pay the bills of their friends – escaped those whose only concern was the bottom line.

Responding to other latent demands of the conservatives, laws against discrimination were also repealed. Discrimination based on race, sexual and gender identity, and ethnic origin rose precipitously.

Organized religion, already in decline as the 21st century began, saw its decline rapidly increase. Along with a rise in political conservatism was a rise in religious conservatism. Those associated with these fundamentalist movements sought a stricter interpretation of their respective Holy Scriptures (oftentimes in direct contradiction to what was the commonly accepted ideas of the Scriptures), as well as the need for greater cooperation between governments and religions.

These now fundamentalist religions began to openly push a more Calvinistic view: that wealth and power were the hallmarks of a righteous life, poverty was the sign of a sinful life, and that one’s status in life was already determined.

Educational systems, already under attack at the beginning of the 21st century, were slowly transformed from centers of creativity and thought into indoctrination academies, dedicated to teaching basic knowledge without additional thought and supportive of the discriminatory nature of society. The goal of the early 21st century school was the development of trained, unquestioning workers who accepted minimum wage jobs with limited benefits and no job protections.

Colleges which did not support the overall view of the oligarchy and conservative establishment quickly found themselves under attack and without funds.
Technology development stagnated as individuals capable of maintaining and supporting existing technology were no longer available. And with the loss of general research and support funds, there was no research being done on the next generation of technology or areas such as alternative energy research. An interesting side-effect to this loss of technologically skilled workers was that defense projects begun in the late 20th and early 21st century, almost all of which relied heavily on technology, were not able to be repaired as military units had no one to deal with the support function, leaving many of the weapons procured for multiple millions of dollars unusable.

Workers were quickly stripped of the rights and privileges, all of which had been gained through the workers’ movements of the mid-20th century. Unions, already suffering massive blows, were quickly eliminated as the conservative central government declared that businesses did better without them. As workers dealt with increasingly inhospitable working conditions and uncaring management, there was a concurrent rise in workplace violence as stress levels increased.

Clearly, the consequences of changes begun at the beginning of the 21st century were not what its supporters had wanted or even imagined. It was a world beset by climate and environmental problems, embroiled in many different global wars, and divided by racial, gender, and ethnic identities.

The move into the 21st century instead began to look like a movement backwards in time, echoing the rise of Nazism in the early and mid-1930s.

The Second Period

The second phase of the 21st century would be labeled by some as a time of creative anarchy.

The beginnings of this phase were marked by what became known as the 4th or “Greater” Faith Revival. Frustrated by the failure of the organized church and religious groups to respond to the increasingly discriminatory   nature of society, individuals began leaving organized religions. Faced with the need find comfort in a time of need, individuals began meeting, often in secret, in the homes of believers or other non-traditional venues, such as coffee houses or book stores.

Echoing the days of the early Christian church, these small groups began ministering to the poor and needy, the homeless and sick, the persecuted and forgotten. These groups flourished because they offered solutions that the current power and social structures could not solve or ignored completely. While at first these groups were defined in the traditional sense, they quickly became places to study other faiths and find ways to utilize the common points of all faiths to change the role of society outside traditional thought. It was recognized that faith was an individual’s relationship with God and that each relationship was unique.
Groups increasingly shut out of traditional political, economic, and social structures began forming their own political, economic, and social structures. These groups no longer willingly supported the traditional organized structures. An underground economy, first begun in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, utilizing “bitcoins” and micro-banks, supported these small groups.

Despite the seeming chaos, these small groups, founded in faith and a belief in the people, began making changes that supported everyone, even those outside their small group. These changes in turn began to weaken traditional structures, both political and social.

In addition, from almost the start of these small groups, it was understood that there was a limit to the size of the group. And once that size limit   was reached, it would be necessary to split into two or more groups to maintain the innovative and creative nature of the group. This limiting principle proved a necessity for the future success of the movement.

Utilizing the new underground economy, people found ways to do what the oligarchy had long been doing, and that is to avoid paying taxes. Conflicts between the oligarchy and their political representatives arose as the political representatives sought ways to fund governments and the members of the oligarchy refused to pay. This led to multiple funding crises in countries around the world.

The graduation of the classes of 2020, the “classes of vision,” provided the critical mass necessary to transform the small underground groups into the basis for a world-wide movement that transcended traditional social, economic, political, and geographical boundaries. This paved the way for the third phase of the 21st century to begin and flourish.

The Third Period

In this third phase, small groups, formed in protest to traditional processes, began developing ways to work together. Democracy became more localized as these groups used the social media communication methods first established during the Arab Spring of 2010. These methods allowed groups to communicate and work together without the need for centralized governments.

This was typified by the change in government operations in the United States. Recognizing the efficiency of the small group approach, members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate began operating out of their home and district offices, with Congress meeting as a large collection

of town and group meetings. While there were still government offices in Washington, D. C., the bulk of the government business was conducted electronically. This in turn made government more responsive to the needs and interests of the local population and less to that of the oligarchy that had risen to power just a few years earlier.

There was also a shift, fueled in part by the underground economy but also by the change in the way government worked, in overall government spending.

Big companies, long considered the essential role-model, could not adapt to the small group mentality of the new economy and began to collapse or were replaced by more responsive local industries and businesses.

Agriculture became increasingly “community supported agriculture” with less reliance on fertilizers, insecticides, and other chemicals to bolster production.

The third period of the 21st century saw a major decrease in military, defense, and security spending. As small groups began working and communicating with each other, there was less and less of a need for a continued military presence in each country. With money no longer being spent this way, additional funds were directed towards increased spending on humanitarian and research efforts.

Healthcare became universal as individuals, having gone through a time where there was no healthcare and faced with serious healthcare-related issues, saw the need for a universal system. And surprisingly, the cost which so many people proclaimed would rise dramatically, was reduced to virtually nothing. Concurrently, great strides were made in the area of medical research, achieving goals long thought impossible to meet.

The third period of the 21st century saw the promise of space exploration, first achieved in the late 20th century but cast aside due to limited funds, again become a reality. A truly permanent presence in low-earth orbit around the globe was established and exploratory manned missions to the other planets, and beyond, were begun.

The transition to the 22nd century

As Earth’s population moved into the 22nd century and beyond, the boundaries of the earth’s gravity that had for so long, figuratively and actually, bound mankind to its surface, there was a renewed human spirit that transcended political and geographical boundaries.

There was an increased focus on faith as it became evident that, without faith, the outcome of the 21st century might have been something terribly different.

And while there were those who would continue to proclaim that it would be better to be bigger, the evidence showed that there was a greater sense of security and stability, of health and happiness, in the small group model.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, people sought ways to establish peaceful communities by withdrawing from society. Such communities were always doomed from the beginning because one can never truly escape from society. But as the 21st century came to a close and the 22nd century began, people found a way to come close to those Utopian goals. And while there were and will probably always be differences between individuals, both in small groups and across the planet, the understanding of how to work between groups to resolve differences without violence, destruction, or warfare, helped humanity achieve a lasting peace.

The following day journalists, writers, columnists, newscasters, academics, members of think-tanks, and politicians announced that this day had been a milestone. The term “milestone” marks the beginning of new things; what was about to begin now? As time passed we understood what they meant. Nothing in America was the same as before. On September 10, 2001 it had been the land of liberty; on September 12 the situation totally changed. Due to the religious identity of the members of Al Qaeda, who were declared to be the perpetrators, the USA, indeed almost the entire world, had become uninhabitable for anyone with the same religious identity. Liberty had been replaced by constraints and accusations. Not only the USA, but indeed the entire world had shrunk for Muslim people.

It is possible to understand the anger of Americans who lost their loved ones in this tragic incident, one in which almost 3,000 people died. It is also possible to understand people insulting Muslim women wearing headscarves and Muslim men in their beards and turbans. Attacks on mosques during this time could even be considered tolerable. However, what is difficult to understand is the long-lasting discrimination against Muslims and the perception of each and every Muslim as a potential terrorist. For the USA, a country with multicultural politics it cannot be reasonable to formalize changing attitudes with legislation. Something was happening to this country, one which had been advocating peace not war, one that had been known as the land of freedom and diversity. However, all this has happened because America was undergoing a period in which wisdom had been abandoned, something noted by many people.

I want to tell you about two of my memories. One of them occurred in 1999. I and several friends were going to the southern region of New Jersey. When we landed at JFK, we had another 2 hours to drive to our destination, if the traffic was light. Because it was time to pray and we would not be able to get to our destination before the time to pray, we decided to pray on the way. We performed ablution in a rest area. We laid our prayer rugs on the ground and we prayed in public, on the grass. We did not notice anyone glaring at us. We did not encounter any quizzical expressions nor were we treated in any disparaging manner. People in the USA would ask Muslims to mention them in their prayers when they came into contact with God. They also used to show us places to pray. But today? Although some claim that attitudes have not changed, Muslims cannot pray without worrying about somebody calling 911. This is not just an empty claim or remote possibility. There have been many examples of this kind of situation.

Another memory is from the USA of 2002. I was at an airport, getting ready to fly to another state. Although I passed through a number of security checkpoints along with other passengers, the security officer pulled me over. This had happened many times after 9/11, but this time I could not resist asking, “Why?” I had become exasperated with such acts of discrimination. I was fed up with being treated like a terrorist and a man to pity under scornful eyes. Angrily I asked “Why me?” I suppose he had undergone training in psychology. He held my arm, smiling, which made me feel comfortable. He showed me my boarding pass and the 3 S on it. He explained that it means extra security check. He said that the computers put these letters there because I have a Muslim name. He also told me that I should not take it personally because the computer program adds this to all names entered into the system. I realized that my name, which I have always been proud of, was now a reason for discrimination. I am sure that this was only because of 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

Are such precautions appropriate? Many authorities, in particular, politicians at that time agreed they were necessary. There were some people who did not agree, but their number was less and they could not speak up. 10 years after this horrific incident many people now say that all such actions were inappropriate.

The past stays in the past. It is ridiculous to try to carry yesterday’s issues to today. However should we not learn from the past? I Religion, language, ethnicity, creed, and profession are our secondary identities, coming after being human. These were differences that gave us a sense of belonging. In the same way that capital has no religion, terrorism cannot have any religion. If there is a list of words that cannot go together, “religion and terrorism” takes first place. We can neither relate to religion nor explain by religion what the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh or the Norwegian terrorist Behring Breivik did. In the same way that we cannot relate what they did to their religious identity as Christian terrorism, we cannot do the same with the events on 9/11 as Islamic terrorism. However, sadly this has not been the case.

All rational Muslims have exclaimed that it is in no way justified to identify Islam and Muslims with terrorism. Many authorities, scholars, politicians, academics, and opinion leaders have also said that this was a grave mistake. Even though a terrorist may have a Muslim identity, you cannot generalize and scrutinize such behavior from an Islamic perspective. On that day the newspapers published full-page condolence messages. Muslim scholars and academics also penned letters that condemned terrorism. This period, as it was one in which wisdom did not exist, prevented people from seeing all this, perhaps because it was Islam being accused and they didn’t really care about it, or because they did not want to change their foreign policy which they based on these attacks, or because they were prejudiced, or because they wanted to ease public opinion. What did happen was that common sense was ignored and people behaved as they wanted to.

Thank God, this lack of wisdom did not last long. As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the mood has changed. Not all Muslims are considered to be potential terrorists anymore. People who have Muslim names do not get extra security checks at airports. The terrible slaughter in Norway has made the authorities start to reconsider their policies. Religious and cultural diversity projects and models for living together with peace are being reviewed. Projects that cover all areas of life, such as world brotherhood, coexistence while preserving differences, making the world a place for togetherness, preventing the otherization of other people have all started to take place despite the existence of some people who still see “others” as the enemy. We sincerely hope that those who are for peaceful coexistence will dominate over the second and the world will never experience a new 9/11, Oklahoma, Madrid, London, or Oslo attacks again.

But sometimes messages can lead to malicious results. Some carry viruses, defined as unwanted and sometimes harmful computer codes. Others are hijacked and spill their secrets without a fight, or seem to come from friends who “decided” to send you false news.

Given today’s reliance on e-mail, any security gap is a problem. Fortunately, such gaps are filled easily and can keep important e-mail safe and secret.

Is E-mail Privacy an Illusion?

The most common fear is prying eyes. Just as standard mail may not be private, e-mail is not entirely private, for it is easy to intercept e-mail messages. However, the risk of this occurring is often overstated.

Surveys show that many employers occasionally read employees’ e-mail. If the messages are on company-owned computers, such “snooping” is legal. If you send and receive e-mail on your own computer, you will face a similar problem: hackers. You cannot ignore the small chance of nosy hackers at servers along the way. Even worse, it is easy to make e-mail look like it came from someone else.

How can your e-mail privacy be protected? Fortunately, suitable tools are available. One is encryption, which prevents any message modification or disclosure. Digital signatures can be used for authentication purposes. While these may seem to aggravate the problem, they are proper steps to take if you are concerned about your e-mail’s privacy. Reliably identifying the message’s sender is even mentioned in the Holy Books, as in: O believers. If a wicked person comes to you with news, ascertain the truth, lest you harm people unwittingly and afterwards become full of repentance for what you have done (Qur’an 49:6).

Many other solutions, most of them free, also are available. For example Microsoft’s Outlook, the leading e-mail program, includes several built-in security features to protect your sent e-mail. Outlook can “digitally sign” messages with a special code to show that the message is from you, and also verify the sender’s signature. Second, you can encrypt messages and attachments to ensure privacy.

To sign or encrypt messages with such e-mail programs as Outlook, you need a digital ID (also known as a certificate or key). Digital IDs consist of a public key and private key. The private key is stored on your machine and is never sent to anyone. You can e-mail the public key to correspondents, or they can access it from a central server. When you send a signed message, your private key generates a code that only your public key can decode. Thus your public key verifies that you sent the message with your private key. When you send an encrypted message, you use their public key to encrypt it so that only their private key can decrypt it. If you follow this procedure, only the recipient with the correct private key will be able to read the message.

Digital IDs are available from such third-party companies as VeriSign. Once an ID has been imported, you can use the features on the Security tab in your e-mail program’s Options dialog box to establish a standard security procedure. Alternatively, individual users can download a free program based on the Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) standard for noncommercial use. PGP integrates itself with several e-mail programs and allows users to generate an ID for signing and encrypting e-mail or files. PGP also works with Web-based e-mail systems by allowing you to select text in any program and then sign or encrypt it.

Encryption keep messages secret. Even people sending e-mail at work can count on a PGP-type system to keep unwanted readers locked out, as long as both sender and recipient encrypt.

Things to Remember

Keep Passwords Secret: Web-based e-mail, such as Yahoo! Mail or Hotmail, presents another security concern: Subscribers can use any computer to check their messages. User IDs and passwords protect unauthorized access. But going somewhere without logging off lets someone else read your e-mail and send e-mail under your name. To avoid this, Yahoo! Mail or Hotmail automatically clear sensitive information from the browser’s cache when you log off. In addition, after you log off someone else cannot log on by clicking the back button.

Another strategy is to choose an unusual password and keep it secret. A simple e-mail password is easy to remember-and easy to crack. Many password cracking applications are online, and most use a dictionary of common words to search for your password. Your best bet is to use an alphanumeric password.

E-mail Viruses: New viruses, some of them quite harmful, pop up almost daily. One of the fastest ways to spread them is via e-mail. Recent examples are the Melissa and the so-called “I love you” viruses, which could copy and mail themselves to the first 50 people in your Outlook address book. To avoid this, learn the basic limitations of viruses. Receiving, opening, or reading an e-mail message will not infect your system. Viruses are not that wily yet, so you can open the messages. However, be careful about any attachments. Attachments are usually displayed as file icons at the message’s bottom or perhaps as hyperlinks that you need to download. Opening an attachment can allow a virus to escape and infect your system.

Some attached files are more virus-friendly than others. Watch out for files with .exe .com, and .bat extensions, for they can contain viruses. The fastest growing category of viruses today ride Microsoft Office Document (.doc) files as macros, executable files that record common keyboard and mouse actions to a single key with word processing, spreadsheet, and other documents.

One way to protect your computer is not to open attachments from strangers. A better and easier solution is to get an antivirus program that scans attachments before they can run. Such programs can hunt continuously in the background for macro viruses, as well as for the more traditional executable foes. Such virus-fighter sites as McAfee or Symantec allow you download a free demonstration version of their leading programs. Virus checkers cannot keep up with new viruses, so it is still smart not to open attachments from unidentified sources. Beware of an attachment that appears out of nowhere, even if you have loaded a virus program.

Misleading Links: Another threat is hyperlinks to odd Web sites. Many e-mail programs allow users to send Web links within a message so that recipients can click and begin loading the page in their browser. However, Web pages can contain scripts (a sequence of executable commands) designed to weasel through the browser’s security measures and infect your computer with virus-like programs. This is more a matter of browser security than e-mail security. Although you probably will not encounter a Web page sophisticated enough to take advantage of browser security problems, you should be prepared by ensuring that your browser’s security options are set appropriately. Also, keep your browser current.

You ‘ve Got E-mail: Although most security problems could strike anyone, most of us do not need to turn e-mail habits into something out of a spy novel. Just be aware of the possibilities and take a few steps to see that your e-mail is protected.

Try not to create e-mail security holes. Almost everyone sometimes sends an e-mail message to a wrong address. When addresses are no more than initials, numbers, and meaningless gib berish, this is easy. Often the results are slightly embarrassing-sometimes almost catastrophic.

Consider the case of the Illinois man who left Chicago’s snow-filled streets for a Florida vacation. His wife was on a business trip, and was planning to meet him there the next day. He sent her a quick e-mail upon reaching the hotel. Unfortunately, he missed one letter and his note reached the elderly wife of a preacher who had died the day before. When she checked her e-mail, she took one look at the monitor, screamed, and fainted. Her family rushed in and saw this note on the screen:

To My Dear Wife:

Just got checked in. Everything prepared for your arrival tomorrow.

Your Loving Husband

PS. Sure is hot down here.

References 

• http://email.about.com/internet/email/.
• www.emailtoday.com.
• www.lv.psu.edu/ojj/collectn/humor/dead-email.html.
• www.macafee.com.
• www.messagingonline.com/mt/html/feature031400.html.
• www.pgp.com/.
• www.publicdoman.com/email.html.
• www.smartcomputing.com/email.asp?emid-11018.
• www.symantec.com.
• www. timrichardson.net/misc/security.html.
• www.verisign.com/client/index.html.