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.

4 of 1,716 comments (clear)

  1. ACLU to help out? by mr.henry · · Score: 5, Informative
    I doubt it. Check out ACLU policy statement #47:

    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.

    1. Re:ACLU to help out? by e-gold · · Score: 5, Informative

      Agreed 100% (but why do I NEVER have mod-points when I need 'em?). Oh well.

      For some real second amendment fun, folks should check out http://www.jpfo.org the guys who had the temerity to place the 1968 Gun Control Act next to a translation of pre-WW2 Nazi-era gun control laws, and let folks see the similarities for themselves. Although the JPFO site doesn't advocate violence, I'm sure the censorware blocks it if they blocked the NRA (and believe me, JPFO & NRA aren't exactly buddies even though they're both "on the same side of the issue"!).

      The ACLU is wonderful on freedom of speech, but there are various other rights (not just self-defense, either) they desperately-need to start thinking-about, or they'll continue to be pigeonholed as irrelevant leftists IMO. Economic liberty, for example, should not be just for the rich, and the ACLU could set a few examples to that end almost-effortlessly (while simultaneously tweaking the fans of that "Patriot" act nonsense which is sweeping the USA at the moment).
      JMR

      Speaking ONLY for Jim Ray and NO other company/individual/entity/etc.

      --
      Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
  2. Re:Obligatory... by PhilipPeake · · Score: 5, Informative

    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???

  3. THIS IS NOT "DEFAULT"! by Angram · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...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