Talk:Information privacy

message: There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
:Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.
Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC concerning the Lavabit email service 

message: This concept, individual, personal information privacy, once considered sacrosanct, has been sold down the river by the U.S. Congress.  Within the last week, ISP's have prevailed in passing legislation through both houses allowing them to freely "datamine" or "harvest" and sell personal information regarding the usage of the net by their subscribed and paid users.  Our newly-minted President indicates his intention to sign the bill, despite his former "Libertarian" lipservice to individual freedom and right to privacy.  I feel the rug has been pulled from under my feet.  What use to clear history and cookies, private browsers, TOR network, etc, if your own provider is recording (we already knew they were) and profiting from every keystroke.  Out goes the baby with the washwater.  Rue the day.  Rags (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacred? 

message: It appears that one of the citations leads to a source that is no longer available, specifically the first reference. The statement rendered "source-less" in question, "...it is important to keep abreast of any changes in the law and to continually reassess compliance with data privacy and security regulations," almost seems to blur the line between a neutral statement and a bit of a biased one given the language and lack of a traceable source.
Qewel (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unavailable Source 

message: The last two paragraphs of this section have an almost commanding language about them, most notably is the repeated use of "should." These paragraphs can be worded better with more neutral descriptions that don't imply any kind of opinion. In addition, there are no sources for any of the information in these paragraphs, which also makes it seem as though the ideas in them are based more in opinion than fact. 
MooCow1 (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information Types - "Internet" wording and sources 

message: The claim concerning caution about the things that people post on social media, either by themselves or by others, from which that information can allow access to private databases needs a reference in my opinion since it seems like that information was obtained from somewhere that was not cited on this article. The cable television section of this article does not include any citations that corroborate the information in that section, which is something that can be added to strengthen this article. The medical records section includes information that is also not cited about people not wanting their medical information to openly available to others, with claims about insurance and employment worries that stand out as non-neutral. At the end of the medical records section there is a reference to HIPAA and the HITECH Act which I believe should be hyperlinked. Also, Link 8 seems like an unreliable source to use for a Wikipedia article. From then onward, I believe everything else is properly cited minus the only sentence in the legality section which has a "citation needed" superscript note on it already. -- Xicanxchick (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims and Citations 

message: I recall I contributed to digital privacy myself, long ago, before the general public recognized this as a mainstream issue. 
On a Venn diagram, information is bigger than digital information, though lately, these circles almost seem to touch.  
I yet oppose this distinction being lost completely, but it seems to be from this vantage point that we might be better served by merging these overlapping articles.  — MaxEnt 15:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merge with Digital privacy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Information privacy. 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/20150925093457/http://www.a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/Data%20Protection%20Law%20in%20the%20USA_0.pdf to http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/Data%20Protection%20Law%20in%20the%20USA_0.pdf
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) 02:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It appears that reference number 20th now links to a website displayed in Japanese. Is this the right website relating to the relevant Information Privacy section?-GloriaGu2018 (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks for pointing this out  (I have also changed a few more occurences in various other articles, found via external links search). My Japanese is lacking, but these 2 domain usages have nothing in common apparently - I have replaced the link with an archived version of the original article (using Internet Archive, you can usually check the origins and authenticity of such links when an archive was created in the past). GermanJoe (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on one of the citations 

message: Hi, I just wanted to suggest adding some in-text citations on the first couple of sentences. I don't know if you used these sources but I feel like the first sentence should have a reference to  “Uberveillance and the Social Implications of Microchip Implants: Emerging Technologies”. I also believe that the bullet list and the sentence preceding it should have a citation from the book “Programme Management: Managing Multiple Projects Successfully”. --Class20 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You can edit Wikipedia! If you have an idea for improvement please edit the article directly because this is the clearest way to express your idea and get feedback. See Help:Referencing for beginners for help with references.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional In-text citations 

message: Bit concerned that Data Protection redirects here … to my mind Information Privacy is a subset of (total) Data Protection which also includes need to ensure data is not lost or becomes unavailable due accidental or malicious attempts … e.g. loss or corruption of on-line and backup copies.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data Protection 

message: Under the Cable Television section, a quote was posited with a seemingly unreliable source. The source comes from a free patent website rather than a peer reviewed source. The quote seems to be a little unnecessary to state (could be summarized potentially) in order for the reader to understand the idea easily. Also, it seems as if more could be added about niche advertising practices of cable TV companies and how audience data is collected and sold to advertising companies. --Breadyornot (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cable Television 

message: I believe the internet portion of this article could use greater information in terms of social media platforms and the research done on information in regards to this. Additionally, some historical background on web 2.0 and how this created shift in informational privacy and the laws in place could be a great addition to this page. Any feedback in regards to if people think this could be a good addition or if it is best linked to another page would be much appreciated. Breadyornot (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Social media is a huge impact when it comes to information privacy today. I also see potential in writing about social media company breaches (Facebook Cambridge Analytics for one example) and the effects it brought to data privacy legislation today. Let me know what you think.--Minhyyuk (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Media Privacy Inquiry   

message: Hello, I would just like to suggest a clarification of the introductory sentence. I think the lead overall is appropriate, but the syntax of the first sentence makes the definition of "information privacy" itself unclear. I'm a little confused as to what the relationship is supposed to be between and also how the items in the list should be divided and read. --GlossomathisRabbit (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction Syntax 

message: Is there any way that the article could include more legal interpretation (from legal scholars) under the "Authorities" section of the article? The general public should have a better understanding on what impact these laws would have + the constraints of privacy protection within these laws. 
Lilmeowmeow3161 (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Scholarship  

message: Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. However, I think the article could be improved by adding another section for the United States Safe Harbor program. The topic section would be beneficial. 
IntheHeartofTexas (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Safe Harbor program 

message: Overall, the article is very well developed and in good status. The article's strengths lie in its neutral and objective stance on the topic, which allows readers to form their own opinions on Information Privacy. The article could use more relevant sources, since most sources date back to the 2000s and the early 2010s. The article is very well organized, but could use some more sections on topics like implications of Information Privacy concerns on individuals and society, as a whole. Imakespaghetti29 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Impressions  

message: — Assignment last updated by Wobuaichifan (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 202 - Thu