Talk:P3P

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article creation[edit]

Hi, I added a P3P page because I was looking into alternatives to cookies - and felt that just listing the Brownies project wasn't enough. Instead of just adding a P3P stub - I thought I'd be bold and take a stab at researching and writing the article.

This is my first real attempt at an article, so please feel free to edit as necessary. I only ask that you list the changes here (or my talk page) so that I can learn what I need to include / leave out of future articles. Any feedback would be great. Thanks! Joeldixon66 03:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a bit of a clean up, nothing too drastic as far as content is concerned... more grammar and past/present tense stuff. --plattopus (talk) 15:35, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

How to create compact policies[edit]

Can someone add something about how to setup compact policies for IE cookies. Also there seem to be no free sites left to create policies. Are there any? And if so should they be listed?

Criticisms[edit]

This section is poorly written, reads like an unorganized, stream of consciousness rant.

This sentence should be re-written: "P3P has been known to undermine public confidence by collecting enormous amounts of information that can be used against its user." P3P should not be anthropomorphized, and I see no way in which P3P "collects information" in any way -- it is merely a protocol. How can it possibly collect information?

"Moreover, the EPIC website points out that P3Ps protocol would become burdensome for the browser and not as beneficial or efficient as it was intended to be." Would be burdensome? Is burdensome? For what reason? This is strictly an opinion without any reasoning expressed behind it.

Alternatives[edit]

the alternatives mentioned in the article are NO alternatives to p3p. they mention only methods, how to surf/communicates pseudonymiously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.130.184.90 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Yahoo's P3P policy[edit]

Yahoo's P3P policy has vanished. See Image talk:IE P3P Policy.png -- 77.103.71.10 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's back: http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/w3c/p3p_policy.xml RipRapRob (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The future of P3P[edit]

This isn't a critique of anything in the current "Future of P3P" section, but perhaps it's a data point that could be incorporated into the section: The W3C's validator is broken: http://www.w3.org/P3P/validator (click the "check" button, it'll crash) Not to mention, it appears that no one has worked on it since Dec 2002. This does not bode well for P3P. :) -- 69.236.90.90 (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:IE P3P Policy.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:IE P3P Policy.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal implications New Zealand[edit]

The opinion I give here is not authoritative as I am not a legal practitioner, however my understanding of the New Zealand "Privacy Act" it that by law information can only be used for its intended purpose, and that it is an offence to use it for some other purpose. P3P technology would have real legal teeth here. Perhaps the problem with P3P is not with the technology but with the lack of effective legislation in other juristictions.

Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes look rather non-neutral[edit]

The recent changes by Pmsyyz seem to express a particular POV, namely opposition to the P3P protocol. Valid criticism of P3P of course belongs in the article, but should probably go in the ‘Criticisms’ section, and not the opening paragraph etc. Other opinions on the neutrality of lack thereof of these changes would be welcome. Faagel (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My additions merely document the current views of P3P as documented in reliable sources. Please point out any specific thing you think I added that was non-neutral. --Pmsyyz (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)