Talk:Video Privacy Protection Act

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The PATRIOT act, as enforced, renders the VPPA moot. Not that this article should be removed, but that an expansion of the stub should take into account the clearly-related impact of the PATRIOT act. drone5 09:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HR6671 will change this[edit]

If passed, HR6671 will change this bill to clarify that "a video tape service provider may obtain a consumer’s informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet." http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6671 Mentiro (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Video Privacy Protection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090116033037/http://computerworld.com:80/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=standards_and_legal_issues&articleId=9078938&taxonomyId=146 to http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=standards_and_legal_issues&articleId=9078938&taxonomyId=146

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible COI?[edit]

I'm concerned that this article has been edited by someone with a conflict of interest, possibly for the purposes of self-promotion. Specifically the editors 47.37.78.181 and 162.237.132.145

These IPs have edited only a handful of articles, all of which were changed to include multiple references to a single attorney.

I'm not quite sure what to do about it, since I have no special knowledge relevant to the articles involved, and thus am unable to clean them up properly. 68.32.115.118 (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately just ran across this one. But I agree and have edited it to remove conflict language and focus on factual history.

I am an expert in and work in the area, so have not removed the maintenance flag due to potential COI. But I believe the issue has been resolved and invite others to remove the flag if appropriate.

Thanks for flagging. Thewikieditrix (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes were added back today by 199.168.200.5, I'd hold off 2-3 weeks before removing it. Avlie (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]