![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Yeexyc.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I removed the "information wants to be free" paragraph from the North America section. I'm not making any judgment on the validity of the opinion, just pointing out that it's an opinion and it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia due to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. If you want to add a description of the arguments that people make in favor of information freedom, and cite your sources, that would be fine. But please don't add opinions to the article. Rhobite 21:35, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see more information about salting DBs, and DB pollution in order to simulate privacy.
~ender 2006-03-07 11:14:AM MST
Given the increasing roles of India and China in global commerce, it would be useful to know if/how these countries protect privacy. More and more western corporations are outsourcing business functions to these countries. Every business function involves operations on data. Many functions require the private data of customers. If corporations aren't (secretly) doing it already, the temptation will probably grow to move private data to these countries for cheap processing and analysis. ~rkm1
We should move Information privacy to Informational privacy. We will describe three reasons below.
As of 19 February 2009, Google search estimated 6,800,000 results for " information privacy" and 29,500 for " information privacy." However, the most of the search results for "informational privacy" lacks any mention for the phrase "information privacy." Most of these results actually use "information privacy" coupled with additional adjectives. We see them coupled with "medical information privacy," "electronic information privacy," "personal information privacy," and "health information privacy." If we leave the webpages that contain any of the last phrases aside, the other webpages which uses "information privacy" contains the term used out of its official context. Then we would see occurrences of the phrase implicit in "Information Privacy Law," "Freedom of Information Privacy Act," and "California Financial Information Privacy Act," "Electronic Privacy Information Center," which does not even contain any instance of "information privacy" in this context. Because most of the results contain webpages that contain the term coupled with other modifiers, instead of phrase "information privacy" occurring independently in itself without any modifiers, we should not disregard this move. Ergo, the vast quantity of "information privacy" search result occurrences compared to "informational privacy" does not imply any evidence to favor for the the former term.
We will display a table containing the Google estimates of the search results below.
Search term | Estimated results | Notes |
---|---|---|
" information privacy" | 6,800,000 | |
" personal information privacy" | 1,390,000 | All of the occurances that we have seen does not contain "information privacy" used independently from "personal." |
" legal information privacy" | 958,000 | The results almost unianimously contain "Legal Information - Privacy Policy" or just "Legal Information: Privacy," which does not contain the term in its proper context. |
" information privacy policy" | 3,360,000 | All of the pages seem to use this term out of context. We have seen examples of this. All ten results from the first page of a search on "information privacy policy" uses this term out-of-context. We will exemplify the first five entries: "UW Electronic Information Privacy Policy on Personally," "HBO.com: Corporate Information: Privacy Policy," "Kroger - Company Information - Privacy Policy," "CPC Information Privacy Policy." |
We can now draw inferences. We can subtract 3,360,000 from 6,800,000, because 3,360,000 of the results from the search on "information privacy policy" does not use this term in the correct context. This leaves us with 3,440,000 potential webpages using the term "information privacy" in its correct context, not just in some privacy policy note.
We can secondly subtract the results containing the term "personal information privacy" from the last estimate. Subtracting 1,390,000 from 3,440,000 will leaves us with 2,050,000 webpages using the term "information privacy" in its proper context.
We can obviously go further, leaving with under one million potential results using this term correctly. We should advise that the phrase "informational privacy" does not have any ambiguities present in "information privacy", and we verified it by doing a search.
Given the above elucidations, we should move this article to Informational privacy, for the following reasons:
We arrived at the conclusion that we should move this article to Information privacy. We will appreciate any further comments, concerns, and problems of this move. Thank you. Lumingz ( talk) 00:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
We should regard Information security on a different standard. We should not move "information security" to "informational security" as we see the latter as ungainly. Google Scholar actually estimated 126,000 results for "information security" and a mere 231 for "informational security." Lumingz ( talk) 01:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
Your input on this question would be very much welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Wobuaichifan (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Wobuaichifan ( talk) 23:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)