Talk:Privacy-invasive software

Untitled

How is that different from spyware? -- Kl4m ^{T C} 06:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC) e behind the software. So, can we provide a better/more accurate/less ambiguous definition of software that invades users' right to privacy? How?

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)
  • Apologies for the misunderstanding... now I'm going to tag the article for wikification, to try to attract some help! We also need to plant more links to this article in relevant places elsewhere. --DJ Phazer ^talk 10:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Reference style

Would the more standard "reference" tags, etc. style be appropriate here? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes they would. The current citations look way too much like internal links. I've tagged the article as such. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Use (or non-use) of this term

It doesn't appear that the term "privacy-invasive software" is used very widely. The only sources I've been able to find who use it are a few researchers in Sweden. Most of the industry, as well as other researchers like Steve Gibson and Ben Edelman, use the term "spyware". --FOo (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-encyclopaedic sounding

This page repetitively uses "we" and sounds like a first person view. --174.118.40.209 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this article is quite terrible. "We hereby define". Probably some sort of company trying to advertise by slipping their company name in, or someone who believes that they can speak on behalf of Wikimedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moony22 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Sources and Copyright issues?

As indicated by the OTRS tag above, permission was given for parts of this article to be 'derived' (read as 'copied and pasted') from a 2007 publication by Martin Boldt. That document seems to be a degree/masters thesis.

To (possibly) complicate the issue, significant parts of that document (that are also in this WP article) were recycled into Mr. Boldt's 2010 doctoral dissertation, which has a copyright notice of its own:

© 2010

Martin Boldt

School of Computing

Publisher: Blekinge Institute of Technology

Printed by Printfabriken, Karlskrona, Sweden 2010

ISBN 978-91-7295-177-8

I don't know what the implications are for the earlier OTRS tag, WP:COPYVIO, etc, and it'll be a couple of days before I can get onto that. If anyone else knows or wants to find out what it all means ...that'd be great!

Wayne 16:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Privacy-invasive software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070713160443/http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Spyware_Report_July_05.pdf to http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Spyware_Report_July_05.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928001515/http://www.stopbadware.org/home/guidelines to http://www.stopbadware.org/home/guidelines

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Privacy-invasive software. 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/20140409013525/http://www.spywareloop.com/news/privacy-invasive-software to http://www.spywareloop.com/news/privacy-invasive-software
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001180224/http://research.spysweeper.com:80/differences.html to http://research.spysweeper.com/differences.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we need this article plus Spyware?

This article has existed alongside Spyware for many years. It's ragged, disorganized, and full of essay-adjacent and OR-adjacent content (although @Jdcooper has recently made some welcome efforts on this).

The term "privacy invasive software" is sometimes used.although this may be descriptive rather than describing a category. For example, Supriya, Yamiala, et al. "Malware detection techniques: a survey." 2020 Sixth International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Grid Computing (PDGC). IEEE, 2020 which identifies two types of PIS, Spyware and Adware. But in common parlance if you asked people "Is software that collects personal information and uses it to serve you ads considered spyware?" Most folks would say yes.

Between the two, the editor community seems to prefer spyware. Consider this:

• spyware was created in 2001. It has a wide range of editors, ten of whom are responsible for > 1000 characters (one is archivebot) and none more than 16% of the article [1]
• this article was created in September 2007 by @Bichon who over a 30 day period created this article, edited one other, and hasn't edited since. It has fewer editors, only three > 1000 (one is archivebot). 17 years later Bichon is still responsible for 57% of the text.[2]

My proposal would probably be to merge anything of value into Spyware, then make this into a redirect. Oblivy (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. At any rate, the two concepts seem sufficiently similar that any nuances in how the terms (and 'malware') are used should be explained in the merged article, rather than using a content fork. Jdcooper (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge Privacy-invasive software into Spyware and then move to Privacy-invasive software, I think there is a distinction between the two, and we should have two separate articles, however from a purely content POV, both the articles unfortunately talking about the same thing. I suggest merging the current content into Spyware and moving the article to Privacy-invasive software. Spyware can then be developed into a article that specifically talks about the "malware" type of spyware. Sohom (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)