Talk:Privacy-invasive software
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.bth.se/tek/aps/mbo.nsf/(WebFiles)/56B2933D63CAE91AC125726D00467F0F/$FILE/lic_boldt.pdf. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under the GNU Free Documentation License. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2007092810009106.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. Do not use this template to claim permission. |
How is that different from spyware? -- Kl4m T C 06:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Privacy-Invasive Software is Different from Spyware
Spyware can commonly be defined as a category of software that monitors and records user activities and that transmits the information collected to third parties. As spyware therefore is a rather narrow topic and because there are other software categories that are similar to spyware, but that does not monitor or record user activities and consequently cannot be included in the spyware definition, a new term is called for. This term, which we have suggested in a suit of papers, takes its starting point from the most clear cut definition of privacy (so far), namely that privacy is people's right to be let alone (as introduced by Warren and Brandeis in 1890) and really concerns all types of software that corresponds to this. In other words, other software types than spyware can be included in this category. Therefore, we see spyware (just as adware, BHOs, tracking cookies, etc.) as an instance of the class Privacy-Invasive software, i.e., software that ignores users' right to be let alone. Also, in contrast to most malware definitions, the definition of privacy-invasive software encapsulates a purpose or intent with the software in question (in this case of a commercial nature). Even though the addition of a purpose is a clarification to the term privacy-invasive software it also adds ambiguity to it as it is up to the user of the term to interpret the purpose behind the software. So, can we provide a better/more accurate/less ambiguous definition of software that invades users' right to privacy? How?
[edit] Copyrighted text
Although this looks like a good article idea, and the sources are good ones, I have flagged it because it looks like the majority of the content has been copied and pasted, with some formatting here and there. I verified at least one source PDF from which some entire paragraphs have been copied verbatim. This could be done correctly within a week, or else the page will be deleted. --DJ Phazer 10:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- No copyright problem, I understand your concern, but it really shouldn't be a problem since I'm the author (Martin Boldt) of this content (my licentiate thesis) and therefore have full copyrights of it. If you want to authenticate me I guess the easiest way for you is to send an e-mail to the address stated on page 4 in source PDF. I will answer your e-mail and grant the publishing of this content. --Bichon 10:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lengthy?
I am concerned that the article is rather lengthy... or at least it needs to be split up more, especially the Retrospective section (I'd suggest subsections, and maybe sub-subsections if appropriate). The daunting length has actually discouraged me from really reading the whole thing, so I may have more informative comments after doing so, as well as more editing help.
Also, I would leave the wikify notice up for a while, since wiki-links are still rather sparse after the first few sections. (Of course, this may be an indication that it is too lengthy, but I'm sure there are important words/phrases that need linking.) --DJ Phazer talk 05:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. Really good points. I will try to add some more wiki-links at relevant places in the later sections of the article. I also think it might be a good thing to split the Retrospective section into several subsections to simplify reading. I'm not really pleased with the disposition of the text as it looks right now. Mainly because the Retrospective section is introduced in the end of the article. It would have felt more appropriate to put this section just after the Background, but then there is too much text before the the most important parts of the article. As a result potential readers might drop out before reaching these parts. On the other hand I don't want to remove the Retrospective sections either, since I think it help readers to place privacy-invasive software into a context. Do you have any suggestions how to address this? --Bichon 16:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reference style
Would the more standard "reference" tags, etc. style be appropriate here? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Economic and technical articles
We have an interesting division between this article and the spyware article. This article deals with the economics and business aspects of invasive software, while the other one deals with the technical aspects. --FOo (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
