Talk:Internet privacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article includes some good information. Perhaps if the ideas are combined with the digital trail article, we can have a really strong article.
This page contains a bunch of stupid stuff and just plain nonsense. Cleanup? 24.5.54.218 07:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the pronoun "you" should not be used in this (or any) Wikipedia article. One-dimensional Tangent (Talk) 03:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] External links
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)
--
I knew Wikipedia External Links, just let me cite the first two sentences: "Wikipedia is not a web directory. However, adding a certain number of external links is of valuable service to our readers.". Ok, not all of those links have been valueable but some of those definitely are. Also links to services for privacy enhancing technologies fit perfectly to this article. You were right, the internal links were placed wrongly, also I didn't know that there were some broken links, because you deleted all of them and not only the broken ones with a suitable comment.
So the following links are missing now in the current verison of the article:
1. Free: Anonymouse: anonymous surfing, emailing and posting 2. Free: Stay invisible 3. Payed: Proxy Blind 4. Free: WhatismyProxy : Test to see if your proxy is working 5. Payed: a4proxy: connects to anonymous proxies 6. Payed: TRUSTe: certification, monitoring and dispute resolution in matters of Internet privacy 7. Broken: IP Privacy Internet Privacy - Resources, Tips and Articles. 8. Broken: How To Cover Your Online Tracks
Of course the broken links should not be in the article, the free services should be in the article additionally No. 5 because A4Proxy is a very valueable service and No. 6 because TRUSTe let users file privacy complaints against (registered) websites and informs users about privacy practices of websites. Mark, 19:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
There has been consensus to remove nos. 1-3 from articles like anonymity and proxy server already, and no. 4 from IP address, so I don't see how they belong better here. Nos. 5 and 6 may be valuable to its customers, but not to Wikipedia readers in general (see WP:EL about what not to include: "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services"). As for 7 and 8, I'm glad we agree :-) I'm sure we can also agree that many potentially useful links are available already through the DMOZ link. Haakon 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
As the links are about internet anonymity it is obvious that they do not belong in the general group anonymity, but they perfectly belong here and additionaly they are valuable services. No. 5 does not sell anything unlike you said, No 6. sells seals only to website-owners but offers filing of privacy complaints for private persons therefore the target group are also Wikipedia readers. Mark, 09:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Noted cases?
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)
[edit] Fortuny prank
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)
as of oct 2007 the article needs wikified. it seems to be done now, maybe that needs to be taken off?
Badmachine (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Help reverting vandalism -- impossible!
The spam filter is currently stopping me from reverting the vandalism on this page because there is a link already existing on the page which now is on a spam blacklist meaning I can't save the reverted page. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I settled for simply removing the citation causing the problem. Replace the '0' in the URL with an 'o'.
<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.encycl0pediadramatica.com/RFJason_CL_Experiment | author = Encyclopedia Dramatica | title = RFJason CL Experiment | publisher = EncyclopediaDramatica.com | date = 2006-09-13 | accessdate = 2006-09-13 }}</ref> <ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y6LqhrdAxg | author = [[MSNBC]] | title = RFJason CL Experiment on Encyclopedia Dramatica | publisher = Youtube.com | date = 2006-09-13 | accessdate = 2006-09-13 }}</ref>
[edit] social networks and privacy
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)
[edit] Degrees of severity and risk
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)
[edit] Possible Fortuny Prank Justification: Exposure of Malfeasance?
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)
