Talk:Internet

Censorship part is not accurate at all

The article says..."Some governments, such as those of Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, the People's Republic of China, and Saudi Arabia, restrict what people in their countries can access on the Internet, especially political and religious content.". The United States and many other countries should also be in that country listing, since people can go to prison because of visiting certain web sites, namely child porn sites. If the article is going to speak of political and religious censorship, it should also speak of sexual censorship. Censorship is censorship.

Dangers of the Internet

I think we should include a section on dangers of the Internet(hence the title), going over things like spam, identity theft, lack of privacy in some cases/exploitation/spying, cyber-bullying, Internet pornography, and the like. The Internet is a wonderful resource for information, but some neighborhoods are dark and you don't want to be caught there late at night [1]. Some sites are very dangerous, and according to my beliefs, spiritually destructive. I can't seem to edit the page, even though I made an acount.TheUberhacker (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You cannot edit the page because it is semi-protected due to vandalism concerns; this means that only "established" editors can edit it (Click on the small "lock" icon on the top-right of article). The information you suggest is covered already by the computer crime article; I agree that maybe it could be linked somewhere and a very brief paragraph about the problem could be made. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how you believe pornography is dangerous at all? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.200.247 (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cybersecurity Act of 2009

Cybersecurity Act of 2009 should have its own article. I cannot create it because I have been topic banned from political articles.

thomas.loc.gov has the text of the bill.

cnet.com reports that the bill, "... appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency...." and that "... If your company is deemed 'critical,' a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network."

Mother Jones has an editorial about the threat the bill poses to civil liberties.

The Atlantic and Fox News also have articles on it.

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft NPOV

The last line in the article suggests that the 'mistake' of using WWW and Internet interchangably is the fault of Microsoft (the word "provoked" is actually used...(?)) The entire paragraph is uncited, and completely biased against Microsoft. ALso, the heading makes no sense (Mistakes)

I believe it's mentioned earlier in the artcile that WWW is not the same as Internet, so I feel this entire section at the bottom should be removed. 162.136.193.1 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's obviously biased against Microsoft and contains no information. The section should be removed. Now if only someone that can edit this page removes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.125.41 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hurrah!

Hurrah - there is an error that is frequently made, that the Internet is the same as the World Wide Web, which I see Wikipedia has very cleverly cleared up early in the article.I remember that in the early 00s, the BBC, specifically BBC Radio Four, received correspondence after making this error. Hurrah for Wikipedia - which is often more accurate than numerous other information resources! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Accountancy

"An accountant sitting at home can audit the books of a company based in another country, on a server situated in a third country that is remotely maintained by IT specialists in a fourth. These accounts could have been created by home-working bookkeepers, in other remote locations, based on information e-mailed to them from offices all over the world."

I believe that this statement should be removed. There are no references to any examples of this in the real world. How can someone in the USA audit the books of a company in China with all supporting documentation in Chinese, with absolutely no knowledge of the Chinese language, no knowledge of Chinese rules and regulations and local accounting and tax laws and standards? In addition the term "audit" is a general term that encompasses verification of assets, these would generally need to be seen in person by the auditor so to ensure that they actually exist and not "ficticious" assets. Perhaps a reference should be made to the (dubious) benefits of internet accounting software instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick1965 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say, "based in any other country in the world, chosen at random". Clearly the accountant would need to understand more than just the language the accounts were presented in, but also the local conventions, laws etc. and also be very familiar with business concerned - his client or employer - as well. It's just an example; we could change it to a scriptwriter, or a polititian, or a graphic designer. But it would be a shame to have to re-word the whole thing just because one accountant somewhere has had a bad day and is feeling grumpy. Would 'inspect' or 'examine' be better than 'audit'? Surely you're not saying that accountancy and bookkeeping can't be done over the internet, and that we need a citation before you will believe that they can? --Nigelj (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)