Talk:Internet privacy

message: Under the heading of "Teachers and Myspace", there is a coherence problem in the second paragraph (about Stacy Snyder). 
*"The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote an article on April 27, 2007 entitled "A MySpace Photo Costs a Student a Teaching Certificate" about       Stacy Snyder[15]. She was a student of Millersville University of Pennsylvania who was denied her teaching degree because of an unprofessional photo posted on MySpace, which involved her drinking with a pirates’ hat on and a caption of “Drunken Pirate". Due to this, she was given an English degree." 
The funny inference from this paragraph is that due to her picture on Mysapce, she was given an English degree. (as a conciliatory prize)
Without knowing the case any more than the article, I suggest someone with more knowledge rectify this situation. I would separate the fact the MySpace experience from the information about her receiving an English degree. I suggest rewriting the last sentence, to "Because of the community's reaction to her MySpace picture she was not granted her teaching degree." Scrap the whole idea of her English degree.
Writerz (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing one section

message: Ok, since anons keep reverting my external links cleanup, let's discuss it. You may be aware that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. There are guidelines regarding what to link to. Specifically, we link to sites that are either necessary for verifiability, or links with topical material for those interested in a deeper insight or more perspectives than what the article gives. We normally discourage adding links to mere "services" or "tools", and especially if those are for-pay, commercial entities. The external links section insisted on by the anons is ripe with those. In addition, external links should, obviously, be external. The external links section the anons insist on, contains four internal links, which should be at "See also" instead. Further, external links should work. The current section includes two links that turn up the HTTP Forbidden message.
I believe I have Wikipedia policy (and common sense) on my side, and I'll revert back to my link (which contains many, many links to services and tools through the DMOZ links). I hope the anons will discuss my points here before reverting again. Haakon 11:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Why is it necessary to highlight these two particular "Noted cases" (AOL data & Craigslist thing). Seems there have been many internet privacy cases over the decades, and these just happen to be recent ones. (I hate presentist biases). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noted cases? 

message: I've trimmed the section on Jason Fortuny's Craigslist prank; it's still a bit too long, I think, but I think getting it any shorter would require an actual rewrite of the section. 
I know that Fortuny referred to the prank as an 'experiment', but I don't think the article itself should follow suit, at least not without sarcasm quotes, as there was nothing in Fortuny's methods that resembled an experiment in the scientific sense.  So I've changed one 'experiment' to 'prank'.  -- Vary | Talk 15:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortuny prank 

message: I added a fact tag to the assertion that social networking websites provide 'adequate' privacy measures. I don't necessarily disagree, and often counsel friends who hype the perceived privacy problems of sites like myspace and facebook that such pages cannot reveal information that they as users do not provide, but nevertheless, I think that it is clear that such a comment fails to satisfy NPOV. Who says that the privacy measures of Facebook (for example) are 'adequate'?
additionally, I was encountering difficulty with the spam filter on this page because of the inclusion of one of the links in the 'broken links' section above. I reformatted the spelling of the website so that this edit would go through. Cuffeparade 16:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: social networks and privacy

message: I found that in terms of expressing the concept of internet privacy, there was a lot of straightforward statements about the "strength" of some forms of privacy as well as "legitimate" uses of information. I feel it's difficult to nail down in a fashion that is agreeable by everyone as to what is a valid use of people's information and what isn't. I tried to clean up some of the more blatant issues I felt were there, but I do still feel there is a leaning in this article.
Roadm (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Degrees of severity and risk

message: Although some online exposures of personal information have been seen as justified as exposing malfeasance, many commentators on the Fortuny case saw no such justification here.
What's malfeasance got to do with semi-random private citizens?  This sentence seems irrelevant as phrased currently.
If you want to talk about justification for exposing misbehavior of some kind, that idea is remotely plausible.
—63.249.110.32 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Fortuny Prank Justification: Exposure of Malfeasance?

message: This article is too US specific. It gives place names without indicating what country they are in. 78.149.219.203 (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a world outside the US 

message: I had a friend check for domain names, and somehow someone grabbed it after several days. This has also happened to me once. How does the law approach this issue? Obviously someone sniffed our IP packets and recovered the domain name we were checking. Who's liable for this? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about the privacy of IP packets? 

message: I'm not convinced that the case studies make a valuable addition to this article. Several commenters above have questioned the neutrality of this article in various ways. These examples are interesting, but seem rather arbitrary and not particularly illustrative of the breadth of the internet privacy topic. So far the examples consist of a case study which has its own entry (Jason Fortuny), an incomplete history of the use of search engine data by law enforcement, and two cherry-picked court cases. I recommend removing this content, though perhaps linking to the Fortuny article. Since this is a large change, I thought I would post here first to see what people think. Judd (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The article's becoming a coatrack for detailed discussions of cases that don't merit their own articles.  Anything in the Fortuny's section that isn't already covered in his article should be moved there, but the rest can go, imo. -- Vary  Talk 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I also agree. Unless a specific case sets a precedent that informs the nature and scope of Internet privacy, I don't believe case studies lend much. I do think that specific ways in which laws, etc. contour online privacy, and a recounting of the laws responsible, add another, needed dimension to the article. To this end I added the "Legal Threats" section, and two such legally sanctioned mens in which online privacy (for better or worse) is curtailed by the state. I view this information as similar, but distinct and more useful than a potentially endless enumeration of case studies. I would love others thoughts on this angle.   
--SoulSyndicate (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  That material is better organized by moving it to a "list of" type article or just using a category or links to any notable incident.  The article needs improvement and clean-up in other ways but narrowing the focus is a good start.Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Case Studies? 

message: "She was a student of Millersville University of Pennsylvania who was denied her teaching degree because of an unprofessional photo posted on MySpace, which involved her drinking with a pirates’ hat on and a caption of “Drunken Pirate". As a substitute, she was given an English degree."
I simply cannot get over the fact that people are being treated unfairly in their PROFESSIONAL lives, simply because they have a PERSONAL social networking profile, and are judged by it, ie - what it looks like, what pictures, music, etc, are on it.  WHY are professional employers and schools even going on these sites searching for people anyways?  I've heard about a clinic denying a patient because of what her Facebook page has on it.  Are you FREAKING KIDDING ME??!!!?  [Enter profanity here] those people who judge others like this and deny them professional equality.  Seriously. Viperpulse (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MySpace?  Seriously???? 

message: Not filing this as a WP:RM just yet, since what to rename it is an open question. This article should obviously be at either online privacy or electronic privacy.  The name Internet privacy is too narrow.  Just for starters, the most crucial legal case in the field had nothing to do with the Internet at all, but rather BBSes (namely Steve Jackson Games v. U.S. Secret Service).  Very little (other than technical details) can be said about Internet privacy in particular that does not also apply to all other electronic networking technologies, past, present and almost certainly future. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 06:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: Browser and device(as in computer, smart phone, etc.) fingerprinting should be added and have a substantial discussion because this is the latest method of tracking. Editors should look at websites like Panopticlick, BrowserSpy, and http://ip-check.info/ (Anonymity Test). Apparently there's a lot of money to be made in user-specific(?) or targeted advertising on the internet, which seems to be what's driving this invasion of privacy. 107.36.164.74 (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browser Fingerprinting 

message: *EU Unveils Web-Privacy Rules; Proposed Changes Aim to Cut Red Tape, but Some Tech Firms Fear Added Burdens.  January 26, 2012 page B9.  "Companies could be fined up to 2% of global annual turnover if they breach new data protection rules proposed Wednesday by the European Commission that aim to simplify the laws and reduce red tape.  The changes, the first overhaul to the data protection rules since 1995, when the Internet was used by just 1% of Europeans, would also mean that European Union rules would apply if data are handled abroad by companies that offer their services to EU citizens, such as Google Inc., Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Facebook."
22:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WSJ]] resource 

message: The article doesn't read like it's in an encyclopedia. It reads more like an essay on the topic. It goes into too many specifics, and I feel that it isn't encyclopedic overall.
Inglonias (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't read like an encyclopedic article 

message: Upon quick glance not a single of those is familiar to me as a trustworthy resource. Please feel free to add them back, with explanation here and preferably backed by a statement by http://eff.org or similar. -- 10:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Lots to clean up here... but the references need a lot of work in particular. Better overview references would be super. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  overview references 

message: Monitoring all connections to the Internet was here in Brussels, angekundigt publicly in newspapers (eg <Metrotime.be>). Helps a user identify speziäle policing program. This means
- Get internet from any activities in Belgium out without the Belgian police for a Kentnis. Publication, Veröfentlichengen, discussion, chat, forum's, blog's, preparation, organization and Koordiniation a terrorist attack, etc., transactions over the Internet - Internet - such as banking, including credit card information. The question - Young Gay `s (obgemagerte Cruchon's) erlädigen this difficult job for Belgian police are subject to a secrecy about what they do or can they also Dinst auserkundschaft pralen free to express his opinion and so on? If the police or simply <Boy`s> mùit best connections to Islamist circles? A placement of a child porn Web Since Ciber or - send viruses via a Belgian provider, incognito and invisible to the police Belgique even impossible, right? <Police Kisky> -- Drink only Uissky .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.58.10 (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO PROTECTION AGAINST POLICE ! Or, 99999999 Cop's no job's. 

message: The ratings for this article aren't particularly good. 42 to 47 people have rated the page and the ratings on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (good) are: 2.3 Trustworthy (47), 2.0 Objective (42), 2.0 Complete (44), and 2.0 Well-written (47). What needs to be done to make the article better? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page ratings 

message: One link that could be included in this article is National Conference of State LegislaturesThis website could help in supporting information in regards to cases that refer to privacy laws. Many people may not know exactly what their state's laws maybe in regards to internet privacy and this site definitely helps in clearing up information. I feel that cases should be decided off of the laws that have been set instone but the laws can be bended to intiate rightful Justice. -Jmckella16 (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: . I added this. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Laws Related to Internet Privacy 

message: It seems that User:Waveclaira moved a lot of material to the 
talk page (see above), without discussion, and has been blocked.  Quite a lot of the 
moved material was US-specific, so it would have been better to move it to a new 
US-specific page rather than to the talk page. LittleBen (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved material needs review 

message: This article needs a massive rewrite & editing. I started to do a little but gave up b/c I don't have the time. It reads like it was written by someone with an extremely dysfunctional grasp on the English language. Sentences are jumbled, words are missing, clauses conflict & repeat, & much of it reads like a poorly worded scare tract.75.73.11.164 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a rewrite is needed. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite Needed 

message: I just spent some time editing the sub-section on Sentinel Advanced Detection Analysis and Predator Tracking (A.D.A.P.T.) within the Device fingerprinting section, but am now wondering if the material is really appropriate for this article or if it should be removed as being too specific or as WP:Spam. Here is the current text:
:Sentinel Advanced Detection Analysis and Predator Tracking (A.D.A.P.T.)
:Sentinel Advanced Detection Analysis and Predator Tracking (A.D.A.P.T.) is device fingerprinting software technology that identifies the device (computer, tablet, smartphone, …) being used to access a website. This information in turn can be used to help differentiate legitimate users from those using false identities or those attempting to work anonymously. A.D.A.P.T. uses only HTTP and JavaScript to identify a device and identifies devices without requesting any personal information entered directly by the user. It makes an accurate “fingerprint” of the device by using many different pieces of information including, operating system, browser, and PC characteristics. A.D.A.P.T. is concealed in that the user of the device has no idea that the device is being “fingerprinted” and there is no actual tagging of the device.Sentinel Advanced Detection Analysis & Predator Tracking (A.D.A.P.T.), Eschell Hamel (Sentinel Tech Holding Corp), a paper submitted to the Internet Safety Technical Task Force, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University, July 30, 2008
----------
:--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the sub-section on "Sentinel Advanced Detection Analysis and Predator Tracking (A.D.A.P.T.)" be removed? 

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) 05:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC concerning the Lavabit email service 

message: The introduction characterizing this article is exceedingly disparaging. It does give an overview of an important subject and enough links to enable further study. 
Yes, it is long, detailed, and does elaborate on US experience. The subject matter is also large, and many key players in both the open and the closed net tracking business are US based, hence labelling it in a way that makes it look tedious and ethnocentric seems unfair.
Conclusion: while encouraging knowledgeable people to contribute with later than 2012 info, structuring the text with "sattelite" themes to make it shorter and other improvements, the introductory "consumer beware" label should be made more supportive.
p. (Paul hofseth (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The four cleanup templates at the top of the article had been there for 17 months. That is long enough for improvements to have been made, so I removed them. The templates removed were: "update", "globalize", "overly", and "essay". I left the "Globalize/US|date=September 2012" template that appears at the beginning of the "Levels of privacy" section since it hasn't been there quite as long and isn't as prominent as the other cleanup tags. None of this should prevent editors from making improvements to the article or discussing possible improvements here on the talk page. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling for a more positive editorial "label"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Internet 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/20131017033653/http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hallambaker-prismproof-req-00.txt to http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hallambaker-prismproof-req-00.txt
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) 05:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Internet privacy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "reg":
From Privacy law: 
From Bomb-making instructions on the internet: The Register, EC wants to suppress internet bomb-making guides, Julye 4, 2007
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Internet privacy]] 

message: This week there's discussion about whether to delete or keep the Index of Articles Relating to Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which I created in early August. That index helps readers find:
* this article
* articles on different aspects of privacy policies
* articles which cover privacy at specific companies
Wikipedians are welcome to improve the index, and/or  discuss if it should be deleted or kept available. Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete or keep an index to this subject? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Internet 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/20111005203739/http://www.atg.wa.gov/InternetSafety/FamiliesAndEducators.aspx to http://www.atg.wa.gov/InternetSafety/FamiliesAndEducators.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101018071436/http://lippmannwouldroll.com/2010/08/02/privacy-privacy-where-for-art-thou-privacy/ to http://lippmannwouldroll.com/2010/08/02/privacy-privacy-where-for-art-thou-privacy/
*Added  tag to http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.sculib.scu.edu/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=%2Fhww%2Fresults%2Fresults_common.jhtml.35
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113003519/http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2000/Trust-and-Privacy-Online/Summary/Findings.aspx to http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2000/Trust-and-Privacy-Online/Summary/Findings.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100802122230/http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/120/may07/Note_4397.php to http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/120/may07/note_4397.php
*Added  tag to http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.sculib.scu.edu/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=%2Fhww%2Fresults%2Fresults_common.jhtml.35
*Added  tag to http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.sculib.scu.edu/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=%2Fhww%2Fresults%2Fresults_common.jhtml.35
*Added  tag to http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.sculib.scu.edu/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=%2Fhww%2Fresults%2Fresults_common.jhtml.35
*Added  tag to http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.sculib.scu.edu/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=%2Fhww%2Fresults%2Fresults_common.jhtml.35
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) 15:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under "Search Engines" it reads:
"Google had publicly stated on January 24, 2012, that its privacy policy will once again be altered. This new policy will change the following for its users: (1) the privacy policy will become shorter and easier to comprehend and (2) the information that users provide will be used in more ways than it is presently being used. The goal of Google is to make users’ experiences better than they currently are.[58]
This new privacy policy is planned to come into effect on March 1, 2012. Peter Fleischer, the Global Privacy Counselor for Google, has explained that if a person is logged into his/her Google account, and only if he/she is logged in, information will be gathered from multiple Google services in which he/she has used in order to be more accommodating. Google's new privacy policy will combine all data used on Google's search engines (i.e., YouTube and Gmail) in order to work along the lines of a person's interests. A person, in effect, will be able to find what he/she wants at a more efficient rate because all searched information during times of login will help to narrow down new search results.[59]"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandrocamus (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seemingly outdated information 

message: One of the sources (126) is from a website called "The Rumor Mill News", which seems to be some sort of conspiracy tabloid. On the page itself is a link to a Washington Post article, which would probably be the much better source to choose here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.12.7.141 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rumor Mill News, Really? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: In the beginning of the article, the word "Physical address" is used, which in this context refers to a person's address (the location of their house). But the hypertext links redirects to the physical address of a memory cell in a computer 80.214.127.225 (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Physical Adress" is a wrong link 

message: It is said that : "Privacy settings are also available on other social networking websites such as Google Plus and Twitter", as though Google plus were still available, while the service stopped a few years ago. 2A04:CEC0:100E:25A5:0:6A:E852:7A01 (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google plus does not exist anymore 

message: Please include date, time, and latitude/longitude location in the Exif data of a photograph in the photo internet privacy part. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:526:FAD:2:ED24 (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo should include information available via the EXIF data 

message: I get no privacy 2600:1002:B02A:CA96:7467:4D7:FEBC:6DD5 (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  4325 Chippendale Street 

message: Why does the article have this cleanup tag? Jarble (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article's neutrality disputed?