Talk:Do Not Track legislation

Internet Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merger

Can we combine this article with the content at Do not track header and put the combined effort at Do Not Track? Npdoty (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that might be more appropriate.--Chotongfui (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

There is a proposal to merge Do Not Track and Do Not Track Policy. I oppose as Do Not Track discusses the technical aspects and implementation while Do Not Track Policy discusses various proposed policies and the history. The technical header is notable enough, and expansive enough to warrant its own article.Smallman12q (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to related but separate (and overlapping) topics - 1. legal and 2. one (of possibly many) technical fixes . Articles large enough without merge, and tech articles is in keeping with other http header articles. Widefox; talk 23:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Widefox; talk 12:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Globalise / US

Would benefit from more countries being covered in this article. Widefox; talk 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

This article mentions IP address at the beginning but only focuses on specific user information in the main body. Thus leaves the reader confused. I'm new on the subject so can't make an edit on that. I do agree that the Right to be Forgotten needs to be a separate article.

Separate the section "Right to be forgotten" as a new article in wikipedia

The Right to be forgotten section should be a separate article, it has nothing to do with the do not track issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabloandrespalazzi (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea: in light of the new court decission in Europe regarding google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.64.91 (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]