Talk:Internet Privacy Act

I don't understand this! (Posted by unsigned users)
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)

Why do websites outside the us use this? (Posted by Unsigned User)
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)


 * 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.154.96 (talk)
 * 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)

FUNimation Tid-bit
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)

Well, I did the ("internet privacy act + dbz"), zero hits. Then I did ("internet privacy act" and dbz), imho the correct syntax, resulting in approx. 700 hits. Even (internet privacy act + dbz) and (internet privacy act and dbz) resulted in only approx. 150000 hits each. What does this proof? I got too much time ;-)


 * lol. P.S. Please sign. Evilgohan2 23:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Search Engines?
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)

Copy and Paste?
The use of this term only shows the Aurthur(s) ignorance. Were you there? Did you witness them copy and paste it? no, So this is obliviously speculation. Then are we to speculate that all information on wiki is the same and not based on fact? There's only about 3 references to this term in the article, which is about 2 to many. How about 1 use 'something' like this: "Which was probably copy and pasted" or something to that affect. Furthermore by the Aurthur(s) on admission there are parts that have been changed. Did the Aurthur(s) use copyscape to verify that the info in question is the same. I see no reference to it. Once again it would not prove that it was. Very informative article just very poorly done. IMO

What's the point?
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

External links modified
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)