Talk:Information privacy 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.

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"The European Union, (EU), has defined privacy principles are generally more protective of individual privacy than in the United States. Because of this, the tranfer of personal information from the EU to the US is not prohibited when equivalent privacy protection is not in place in the US."

Is the above correct? It seems a non sequitur. --agr 01:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Census#Germany|census]] The anchor (Germany) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

merge

A large section of the article on information privacy deals with laws in various countries. That section should be moved to the information privacy law article, and a summary included in the main article. Also the safe harbor sections should probably be merged, with one having the main material, the other just a summary. Zodon (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Information privacy law. 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/20080516052148/http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/ to http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 06:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with Privacy law

There are two overlapping articles, Privacy law and Information privacy law. Neither is fully up-to-date, each have their strengths and weaknesses:

Privacy law has barely been updated since December 2020[1]. For example, the United States section doesn't capture the many state statutes that have been passed in the last decade. On the other hand this one captures some of the international structures and may be better written.
Information privacy law is not as well structured as this one, but has been updated. It's got a huge U.S. section (a bit more up to date) but a threadbare international section which isn't comprehensive or up to date.

In my opinion, these articles should be merged. It may be appropriate for editors to try to harmonize the two and then bring an AfD to merge one or the other. Is there a preference of one article name over the other? Oblivy (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are from 2012, need something more up-to-date

Any more recent paper or data? This has probably changed a lot in recent years. Thanks! Syced (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]