Is this article a joke?
People toss the phrase around online as a figure of speech, but you guys know there is no such thing as the 'Internet police,' right? Fair enough if you want to have an article about specific policing organisations reactions to the internet, but this is an encyclopedia so probably good advice to check something you are making a page about actually exists, and that you are using the correct name for what it is before you make an error.
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Law Enforcement||(Rated Start-class)|
Where did US section go?
US always appear first in "positive articles". It is immediately followed by UK. In this "less positive" article The Internet Police of the US uses a slick alphabetization trick and cuts down Canada's article. This brings China censorship on the first page. Nice job guys. However, complete removal of US censorship article is not a wise thing to do. By doing so you show that you are not proud of your job, that you are concerned about the ethical questions regarding the job that you are doing. Instead you should send the message:"Yes, we censor the Internet and we Love to censor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- IP, I'm not too sure what you're getting at. Personally, all articles should have alphabetical order be the determining factor in how a list is displayed for a group of nations. Some articles don't follow that, but then again...some articles focus more heavily on the United States and the United Kingdom. Censorship is certainly a more prevalent theme in a country such a China. That being said, it is perfectly fair to make note that there is censorship in the US/UK as well. Alphabetical ordering, however, would be more fitting for this article given the fact that it effects many countries. In regards to it being completely removed, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States is still in existence. I reverted your edits to the section on the US here on Internet police due to your inclusion of this: "US internet police does not like this section and removes it.", which has no place on an encyclopedia. As it stands now, having a redirect to the censorship is fine...but inaccurate at best. The censorship article goes over a restriction of rights, not a part of the government that actively patrols the internet (such as exists in China) - which is the theme of this article. Hope that clears some things up. 08:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I am proposing that Web brigades be merged into this article for the following reasons as that article describes the same functions that are described in this article. The article has a lot of duplicated information from this article which I have attempted to remove, only to have it put back. The web brigades article also contains a long laundry list of alleged modus operandi which should not be on that article under WP policy. If one refers to Talk:Web brigades a lot of editors believe that there is a lot of 'overkill' in the article which is not needed. Instead of taking it back to AfD, I believe that a merge to this article would be the best solution. Comments please. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Against I don't see how the internet police in India & Netherlands have something in common with these Web brigades who don't fight crime but are criminals themselves... Web brigades should be about government manipulation of the internet (that would be a better title for the article). Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
"United States" section POV issues
Internet censorship does not fall under police jurisdiction in China, and political commentators do not fall under category of police, internet or otherwise. Policing usually refers to, as the other three sections have suggested, actual police work against criminal acts, on the internet. I therefore suggest that either 1. finding actual evidence of police activity in Mainland China and post those, or 2. remove the section.Gw2005 (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
No protection against police. Discuss what that is.
Monitoring all connections to the Internet was here in Brussels, announced publicly in newspapers (eg <Metrotime.be>). Users to help identify a police program. This means - No activities in Internet without getting out of Belgium, the Belgian police dafüir an acquaintance. Publications, publications, discussion's, Chat, Forum's, blog's, preparation, organization and Koordination via the Internet to a terrorist attack, etc., transactions over the Internet - including banking as credit card information. The question of gay boy `s make this difficult job for Belgium police are subject to a secrecy about what they spied on us at the service or not ? Is this Internet Observateur's relationships with the best of Islamiste and jihadists in Brussels, the police officials, or simply <Boy`s>? A placement of a kid's porn Web Seit's or send Ciber- viruses via a Belgian provider, incognito and invisible to the police Belgique is no longer possible? "Police Kisky" drink only Uissky ?