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?
[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)
- 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)
[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)
- 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)
[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)
[edit] 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)
