Talk:Internet Privacy Act

message: I don't understand this!  Surely in 10 years someone would have noticed, but people are using that standard disclaimer everywhere! I was even going to put it on my master password list, but now I see that it means nothing.  Is there any other disclaimer we can still use (legitimately) to enjoy the privacy given to us from the universe?  Or did Bush rape and pillage that "freedom"  in favour of his ugly, ominous version of "freedom" when he passed the "Patriot Act."  
I guess he must have been too busy playing wargames i.e Civilization II on the PC when his 'advisors' said it would be a good idea. "OK, he says, but let me pause this game first, after all, I am a war president. Didn't you see that video? And what is this all about Internet Privacy," he adds, "I don't know much about it but it looks like a tool for the evil thugs out there to spread their evil, uhh, prop...prop..propra.. thoughts around the world.  Therefore we must regulate the Internet and take their freedom away.  
After all, it's what we've always wanted, and stood for, FREEDOM.  God bless America."
He just doesn't want to see us come up!
:^^^^^IDIOT^^^^^
::Agreed.
:::Please read the article - Bush has nothing to do with it - the act never existed in the first place.  When you put something on the internet you are making it public. You want to keep it private for your own crooked purposes then don't publish it.  Why should every kiddie porn seller, Nazi propogandist or plain ol' consumer fraudster be allowed to get away with anti-social activities because of some myth of freedom?
:::God help us, the OP is an idiot. 24.247.154.96 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't understand this! (Posted by unsigned users) 

message: What is most surprising is that this is used by non-US websites.  How thaty think an American laww waould apply outside the US ... ?
::In all fairness, it is not unknown for American companies to try to extend American law to entity's operating in other countries. The Pirate Bay's legal threat's page more than makes light of this fact. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 02:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All websites with a .com or .net extension are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of if the owners are US Citizens. 15:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite a source for this claim. If it ever was true it certainly is not now  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.165.223 (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do websites outside the us use this? (Posted by Unsigned User) 

message: For simple proof of this, I invite anyone to perform the google query, "internet privacy act + dbz". I guarentee a return of no less than 220,000 results.Evilgohan2 04:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol. P.S. Please sign. Evilgohan2 23:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FUNimation Tid-bit 

message: Should be "formerly," shouldn't it? Recalcitrancy 16:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formally? 

message: From my understanding of at least Google, and the way that it does search results, the sentence "Using this and other such "disclaimers" would actually make it easier for such a site to be found via the major search engines." should probably removed, unless Yahoo and MSN still rely so heavily on page text. It just seems like out of date information.
Limefan913 00:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search Engines? 

message: OK, I know this Talk page is supposed to be for discussion of the article rather than the subject, but I don't know where else to ask this question.
What the heck is the point of putting this nonsense on your web site?  Surely the kind of people it is meant to deter -- law enforcement, content owners' copyright enforcers, etc. -- would be sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject to know that this Internet Privacy Act is entirely fictitious.  So just whom are they trying to fool?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capedia (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is used to fool themselves by saying what they are doing is right and giving themselves a way to give their users a false sense of security. Especially if they are in the practice of illegally dispersing copyrighted material. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simple. If you do not know about this being ficticious, you might believe in it by means of the typical "my friend runs a web site, and he always prints this on the index page, so I will do it too" sheep herd behaviour. Frankly, I actually did believe this was true. Until ... well until I accidentally stumbled on the Wikipedia article. So you see? If false information is not proved to be false, the majority of people WILL keep on believing in such kinds of rubbish. -andy 92.229.64.168 (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Internet Privacy Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415075245/http://www.lpconline.com/internet_privacy_act.html to http://www.lpconline.com/internet_privacy_act.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified