Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Analysis Of Symantec's Stance On Censorship

Posted by timothy on from the please-register-with-the-authorities dept.

robochan writes "According to this report in the Sydney Morning Herald, Chief Operating Officer of Symantec, John Schwarz, was quoted as 'calling for laws to make it a criminal offense to share information and tools online which could be used by malicious hackers and virus writers.' This article takes a look at the negative affects and also a couple of recent examples of "censorship legislation" backed by the COO of Symantec, and what little effect it has had on criminals, while having a substantial affect on responsible citizens."

2 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. OT: Don't look now, but Jennifer Ringley is naked. by B747SP · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... right now. I know so, 'cos I saw so in my slashbox.

    --
    I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  2. It's "effects", dumbass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeesh. Why is it the slashdot community, some of the brightest people around, cannot grasp this simple concept?

    "Effect" is the noun form. "What effect will it have if I punch your smug, stupid face in the mouth?"

    "Affect" is the verb form. "Would it affect you negatively to have your tongue removed?"

    GET IT RIGHT ALREADY!