Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Says No To Pro-Gun Sites
cluge writes "A recent American Rifleman contained small column that said that Symantec's new Internet Security 2004 would block pro gun rights sites (i.e. NRA sites), while not blocking similar anti-gun rights web sites. Being the eternal skeptic, this claim was tested by downloading the trial version and running some tests against it. To my surprise I found the every NRA site was blocked and was in the category 'weapons.' This even included the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. Some sites that were not blocked were notable anti-gun rights sites such as The Brady Campaign, and Good Bye Guns. The only anti-gun rights site that was blocked that I could find was Hand Gun Control's web site." Read on for more.
cluge continues: "My rather informal test still raises the spectre that a large corporate entity may be clandestinely trying to sway you or your child's political views by censoring content from one side of a political debate. This is indeed chilling, especially considering that such software is required to be used in libraries to protect children. Is this political slant common in censorware? Have slashdotters found similar glitches in other 'parental control' software?"
Slashdot has certainly covered censorware before, but reports like this are still valuable as the world evolves.
The Union agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.
ZoneAlarm isn't *that* bad, but if it doesn't float your boat, there's also Sygate Personal Firewall (also free or pro) and Tiny Personal Firewall. I've used Sygate before, and found them to be pretty good. Tiny was a little weird, so I never really used it. There's also Kerio personal firewall, which is also free but I've never used.
Don't get BlackICE Defender.
And I stopped buying Symantec products after they announced product activation. I mean jeez, how much money do they honestly think they're losing in the utilities business? As much as I dislike mcafee, I'll use them as long as they don't have activation.
Totalm CRAP!!! Why do you people continue to parrot garbage like this when you obviously base your knowlege on watcing some removed-from-reallity movie??
Go read a basic book on aircraft. Aircraft are presurized by bleeding compressed air from the engines into the cabin (after cooling it first). And how does the air remain fresh ?? BY BLOWING OUT OF THE HUGE HOLES AT THE TAIL-END OF THE AIRCRAFT.
There are ALREADY big holes in the cabin, and you don't see passengers being sucked out do you?
How much difference do you think a 9mm hole or two is going to make to the air pressure?? Even if a window goes, there will NOT much more than a strong draught.
Do you think air-marchals have magic bullets???
The noise of air whistling out might be a problem, but the people who just heard muzzle blast inside an enclosed cabin probably wouldn't be able to hear that in time for it to become a big concern either. If it bugs anyone, you can always stuff the hole with a corner of a pillow.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Do you also believe your local library should stock Playboy on the shelves with Popular Science?
I don't think there is a valid arguement that justify having a system with no filtering at all. If you want to argue you should be able to verify your age to a librarian to have controls removed, fine. That still doesn't change the fact that a library has no business placing pornography within easy access to children.
I'm perfectly willing to say the way it's done probably should be adjusted to take into account the rights of adult. It's not even LEGAL for you to show those sites to your own children, so how can you justify a library doing it for you?
Speaking as a junior high teacher, I can safely say it creates an UPROAR when I sent kids to the Onion and they HAPPENED to have an advertisement with a woman in lingerie. I can't control what advertisements show up, and I'd love to have those filtered out for me, even if they site they show up on is perfectly reasonable to go to.
Never confuse volume with power.
...in the sense you're using it. I've used Symantec products for years (including Internet Security 2001, 2002, and 2003), so I have some experience here.
Parental Controls are an OPTIONAL part of INSTALLATION! I've never even had it on my computer, which means it's not an issue for anyone who isn't already interested in censoring someone using the computer (kids, etc.). Anyone installing/using the Parental Controls is sure to go through the options (how else can you determine what will be censored?), so this isn't some hidden "default" tactic to fight the NRA. Most parents (you can bet they research this stuff) will want pornography, weapons-promoting sites, etc. blocked, so it makes sense to have them checked by default.
Additionally, the reason the "weapons" filter would block the NRA but not anti-gun sites is simply the reason it exists - it's what parents want blocked - weapons-promoting sites. Symantec isn't just pulling this out of a hat, they're catering to the demands of consumers. This isn't censorship, it's not politically-motivated, and it's not an anti-gun statement by Symantec - it's economics and it's not being foisted on anyone.
GL
Symantec Personal Firewall and Internet Security are only blocking pro-weapons sites if you check the box marked "weapons". That seems to be exactly the point.
The author seems to find it double standards that it doesn't also block anti-weapon sites. That argument is plain ridiculous. That's like saying you can't block porn without also blocking anti-porn, and can't block crime sites without also blocking law sites.
No, I don't believe in censorship, but I believe even less in forcing people who voluntarily block something to also blocking something else. That smells badly of censorship too.
--
*Art
scripsit eericson:
Um, the discussion was about murder. So let's look at murder numbers, not total crime. (BTW, Interpol doesn't have anything for England/Wales in 1995 -- they start in 1996 -- so I'm not sure where you got your figures from).
OK... using 1996 and 2001 murders per 100k population (the widest span on which they have data for all these states) -- U.S.: 7.41 to 5.61; Germany: 4.32 to 3.21; France: 4.11 to 3.91; England/Wales: 2.60 to 1.63.
Wow! That's interesting. Every one of these has a decline from 1996 to 2001 -- including England and Wales. In fact, England and Wales, where that handgun ban supposedly made murder rampant, looks like its murder rate is about 30% of the U.S.'s. Fascinating...
Thank $deity we have all those guns here in the States keeping us safe...
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
The ACLU is too busy defending the right to promote child molesting.
In self-serving fashion, the ACLU notes that the father of the murdered boy -- who is suing NAMBLA -- praises the ACLU for defending NAMBLA
Wired puts a different spin on it:
The ACLU interprets Roe v. Wade as meaning that minors must be allowed to get an abortion, without having to even notify their parents (much less get their permission), and that taxpayers must subsidize abortions.
But "the people" in the Second Amendment means "the government," because a 30 year old woman is apparently too stupid to weight the risks vs. benefits of owning and/or carrying a firearm for self-protection, and can be denied the right to make that choice.
If the ACLU supported the Second Amendment in the same fashion that they do abortion, then they woudl be demanding taxpayer subsidies for poor children to buy guns, without having to notify their parents, so they can shoot the child molestors who prey on them.
Constitutional scholars who have bothered to write about the issue in various law review journals do not agree with the ACLU's position. You can read the law review articles for yourself at the Second Amendment Law Library. Much better than stuff put out by any pro- or anti-gun special interest group.
In justifying the ACLU's position on gun control, ACLU President Nadine Strossen said that
Britain's gun ban was instituted in the late 90s after a bunch of kids got killed at an elementary school by a loony armed to the teeth with guns. This recalls the spate of school shootings in the US during the same period. But Britain's astronomic explosion in violent crime and gun crime began after the gun ban, while the US, which didn't institute a wide-ranging gun ban, has seen crime rates stand still or fall.
What kind of bullshit is this?
I grew up in England. I lived there for 23 years. At no point during that time was owning a gun legal, unless you were using it for hunting, and even then, only under very specific rules and regulations.
What kind of crack are you smoking? Where do you get this idea that guns were generally available in England before the late 90s?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
What the ACLU didn't tell you there is that the Supreme Court has only touched one 2nd amendment case, and that was some 60 years ago (forgive me if the dates are wrong - I'm doing this from memory). However there are 2 cases coming through the pipeline that the SCOTUS will likely grant cert to (this means they will hear the cases). One from a conservative 5th circuit, and one from a liberal 9th circuit.
There are two interpretations of the 2nd amendment: The first says that it is a 'collective' right, that only state militias are given the right to bear arms; The second theory holds that this freedom is extended to individuals. If and when the SCOTUS hears these cases, many legal scholars expect the court hold the "individual rights" theory (please note that every other freedom spelled out in the Bill of Rights is extended to the individual). You probably have already figured out quite obviously that the 5th circuit takes the "individual right" theory and the 9th circuit holds the "collective rights" theory.
Also, Judge Reinhardt from the 9th circuit, one the most liberal judges on the 9th circuit (and perhaps the most liberal judge in the entire country), concedes (and correctly I might add) that ex-military and ex-law enforcement officers are not "super citizens" that are allowed to bear arms while the rest of the country is not.
For you legal eagles out there, here are the cites for the two cases:
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (2002) - this is the 9th circuit case
U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (2001) - this is the 5th circuit case.
The 9th circuit case is great because there is are EXCELLENT dissertations on both the collective and indivual rights theories. I'm glad things like this are on slashdot, we as geeks need to be more informed at the voting booth. Whatever side you take on this issue, just remember to vote!!
Thanks,
--Matt
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Historically you may have earned the right to carry a gun, but if you feel this has made the US a safer place to live and have children, you might find it interesting to learn that in the US more children are killed by gunfire than in any other western country. In fact, the amount of people killed by gunfire (%) compares favorably to a country in war.
That's pure propaganda. Here are some facts from Guy Smith
A note about suicides, countries make handguns illegal experience no change in suicide rates... people simply find other ways to kill themselves.
I've lived in the USA all of my life and been all over the country. I've never witnessed a shooting, intentional or accidental. I've never known anyone who was killed by a gun. I do have a single aquaintance that was shot in the face with a .22 revolver during a car-jacking, years before I met him, but he was lucky and barely even has a scar.
Here are some more facts.