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.
I will never buy another Symantec product again, if this is true. I don't care whether you are pro-gun or anti-gun, this is wrong. Can anyone recommend a good non-symantec antivirus and software firewall? (Please, please, please don't say ZoneAlarm.)
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.
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
deserves to be shot.
It has been my experience that ultimately, a decision that affects a great deal of people or one person is usually made by ONE person.
Who would that be at Symantec? I wonder if the software blocks porn and anti-gun sites as well?
This guy is way out there
Think about it: NRA and other gun sites are about how to find weapons and use them. Anti Gun sites arent, in fact they discourage their use. what theyre trying to block is not the advocacy of gun rights, its the advocacy of GUNS THEMSELVES.
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.
Don't use Symantec Internet Security 2004. It's not a violation of anyone's rights unless it's mandated by the government.
...here comes another +1000-comment pro-gun/anti-gun flamewar :(
Kerio is great. I hate ZoneAlarm, loved AtGuard (which eventually became Norton's firewall) but got sick of the Norton bloat.
You don't want the King of England to just walk in here and start pushing you around, do you? Huh?
Disclaimer: I am an avid shooter and a member of the NRA.
If its set to block those sites out of the box, surely it can be made to unblock them or remove those sites from the 'weapons' category?
Is to fight to uphold the rights of people we really disagree with. This is exactly what went down with Hillary's biography in China - the Govt didn't have to censor it because the publisher did it on their own. Of course, the picture of the world we get still runs through the likes of "Fair and Balanced' news rooms, but blocking off net sites in a way that users might not even realize is happening just can't be allowed to stand....
It seems the paranoid folks think they're trying to sway childrens policital thoughts, but do you really want your child checking out the NRA and gun sites? It seems these companies are so inundated with lawsuits and complaints by all everyone under the sun. They probably felt it was easier to just censor the site and let the parents unblock if if they chose.
Other "nannyware" software in the past has been shown to block access to liberal political sites, now here's one that blocks conservative ones. Maybe this will wake up our elected leaders to the fact that mandating this type of software for libraries and such is bad idea.
I can see parents going to the software store in the future, asking for web filter software and having the retail-droid ask, "Would you like a liberal version or a conservative one?"
The Columbia World of Quotations. 1996.
NUMBER: 63040
QUOTATION: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
ATTRIBUTION: Voltaire [Francois Marie Arouet] (1694-1778), French philosopher, author.
[note: the first part of the following sentence is missing in the online original]
what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."
Real name Francois Marie Arouet.
7. Along the line that the quote may be spuriously attributed to Voltaire (thus explaining why none of the above attribute it to a specific work or date), is the following found at http://public.logica.com/~stepneys/cyc/l/liberty.h tm
Beatrice Hall
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-- The Friends of Voltaire, 1906
The phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is widely attributed to Voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings. With good reason. The phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude. It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.
Hall wrote:
Hall herself claimed later that she had been paraphrasing Voltaire's words in his Essay on Tolerance: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." -- http://www.plexoft.com/SBF/V02.html
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to mis-attribute this quote to Voltaire.
-- Avram Grumer, rec.arts.sf.written, May 2000
8. Finally, the pertinent section from the page Grumer cites (http://www.plexoft.com/SBF/V02.html) that purports to explain how Beatrice Hall came to attribute the quote to Voltaire:
The phrase ``I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'' is widely attributed to Voltaire, but cannot be found in his writings. With good reason. The phrase was invented by a later author as an epitome of his attitude.
It appeared in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre. Chapter VII is devoted to Helvetius (1715-1771), whom she depicts as a kindly, generous person, with a hint of more talent to raise him above mediocrity. He married and settled in the sticks, with a new wife who was unfashionably old (32), and they were happy. This was ended by his tragic aspiration, to earn some small glory for himself as a philosopher.
In 1758, he published ``De l'Esprit,'' which Hall renders ``On the Mind.'' From the little Hall says of it directly, I take it that this was a moral-relativist tract, adducing bad social conditions as the cause of immoral behavior, regarding humans essentially as animals, and skeptical of the validity of moral claims generally.
This was unpopular with everyone - secular philosophers, all of the church, the government. It certainly got him noticed, but not by all at once. Voltaire immediately regarded the work as a serious disappointment from one who had been a somewhat promising protege. He was most insulted to have been compared in it with lesser intellectual lights (Crebillon and Fontenelle). It was widely criticized by other wits
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
... why this is a bad thing at all. As the article clearly states all pro gun sites are default blocked in the category "weapons" just as well as all porno sites are default blocked under the category "adult". Just because you happen to use this software in a country where weapons are allowed this doesn't mean that the creator of the software set out to restrict your freedom of speech. Do you think the Netherlands would throw a fit when the same program bans adult sites in its default setting? Didn't think so... Just enable weapon related pages and move on.
There's nothing chilling about this matter. The NRA sites, as stated, are in the weapons category. What the heck do you expect to get censored in that area? If you want your child to visit NRA sites, uncheck the weapons box. Don't blow smoke.
The NRA (no matter what your political spin) has been around for ages, and part of its job is instruction in gun safety. Additionally there is info on personal safety. I am not an NRA member nor do I care if you are for/against the organization. Just get your facts from a blocked website...or perhaps a neutral website. BTW I know more people who were killed by motor vehicles than guns...5 to 0.
So let's keep the guns, and get rid of the people.
Check out the rec.guns newsgroup - this was brought up a while before this story broke by a poster on that group.
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte."
Martin Niemoller, 1892-1984
English Translation
I think the logic behind this (not that I think it should be applied here) essentially stems from the fact that nobody's ever walked into a school and massacred people with anti-gun rhetoric.
Actually, no-one's ever walked into a school and massacred people with pro-gun rhetoric, either.
-jerdenn
What do you actually know about the NRA, Alex?
NRA certified instructors train the police - the NRA has been emphasising safe gun use and responsible ownership for more than a century - the NRA has pushed for laws making the use of a firearm in a crime a mandatory additional sentence - which of these do you disagree with?
Most recently, the NRA is working to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, to deter the criminals (who, by the way, are already carrying concealed weapons, illegally). This has reduced crime in every one of the 45 states which allow it. Are you perhaps against that?
What, specifically, that the NRA does, are you against, Alex?
This isn't about emotions, yours or anyone else's. This isn't about gun control either. Other posts on this board are pointing to the NRA's activities as though they should matter. Should they? Maybe. I don't know for sure, I'd have to reason that out and it would take more time than I have to write this post.
However, when considering issues of this nature, people need to leave their emotions at the door and consider the basic tenet at work which is, as you stated, free speech.
Remember, free speech does *not* mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater. It does not mean you can threaten anyone's life, at least in the state of California, if it is reasonable to suppose that you may carry out the threat and you have the reasonable ability to do so.
I only point these things out because free speech does not guarantee all speech in all situations. It doesn't guarantee the right of certain organizations to be protected merely by virtue of their having been organized and created. Whatever the average American believes about free speech -- and I am, by the way, a pretty typical American, and durn proud uv it -- it doesn't mean you can say anything you want and, in fact, censorship is a daily, very legal reality in the lives of all Americans and has been for decades, whether they believe they've been able to shout from the rooftops whatever they please or not.
So, should the NRA be censored? At first blush, I would say probably not, but to tell you the truth I really don't know for sure. I'm not big on the NRA, but I'm not particularly opposed to them either. What's important to remember is that this issue *should* be about free speech and not about gun control, people's feelings, or sticking it to whomever whatever respective group feels it should be stuck to.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
I'm personally on favor of gun controls myself but I'M EVEM MORE IN FAVOR of freedom of speech and expression.
Whether you are "pro-gun" or in favor of controls doesn't matter a whit. Hopefully we can ALL agree that, though we may not always agree on each other's ideas, we need to work together to defend our means of expressing them.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
And (heheheh) if Symantic custmers can't get information on gun safety, only non-Symantic customers will have gun safety.
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
.22 or .380.
I just had to comment after all the wackos did. You did an excellent job of rounding up all the libs with that comment. But they still don't get it. Some still think that if you outlaw guns, no one will have them, including bad guys. Ironically, its not that hard to make a home made weapon anyway, especially with lower power (but deadly enough) shells like
People seem to forget that the % of people who die in wars or crime is lower now, than it was before guns. Anyone having a doubt about how you can kill without a gun should go rent Joan of Arc. Quite vivid. If a mugger can't point a gun (loaded or not) then he IS more likely to just slit your throat anyway.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Here's another one along those lines:
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State" - Heinrich HimmlerThe NRA is a great source for firearm education and are supporters of making sure that everyone who owns firearms knows what they're doing with them.
If they're going to block the NRA under weapons, they had better also block the DNR and any hunting group or association.
What?
I disagree: I've always found pointing my fingers and somebody and shouting "Bang!" kills them as good as a gun does.
Your likely source for this accusation is "Bowling for Columbine". Why don't you find out the actual facts, not the twisted misrepresentation here.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Life in Orange County
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.
I agree with you on the historical statistics; I spent a few years of my life researching crime in pre-, post-industrial, and modern London (before getting a real job) and the past was a much more violent place.
But let me ask you one question: why does the U.S. have much higher murder and aggravated assault offences than any other Western (ie North American, Western European) nation? If not the huge number of firearms and their availability then there must be some other social factor at play, right?
I've asked that before and most responses I get are something along the lines of "cultural cohesiveness", or lack thereof. I can't really comment on that since I'm not American, and maybe I'm a little idealistic but I don't think it can be tacked up to racial issues.
...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
They've violated a humour writer's copyright [http://www.jokeaday.com], and now this. They have no sense of right and wrong. You remember that FOX show Brimstone where a condemned dead cop was charged with hunting down escaped demons? Well Symantec is that cop, from HELL, chasing other's demons. They are no better than what they hunt down.
Why slashdot? Why not?
When my kid needs to do a report on gun control issues, I'll uncheck the "weapons" box.
1. Lots of posts saying that Symantec is a private corp and can do what they want.
2. A Few retorts saying that even though Symantec is private, their software is being used in libraries, thereby censoring or applying their views to government funded institutions that are supposed to be neutral.
3. Huge flamewar about how gun control is good or bad.
4. People bitching about the ACLU and whether or not it will defend second ammendment rights and if it's a second ammendment issue or a first ammendement issue.
5. Nobody talking about how they could use a gun to go hunting and get food.
6. I hate Sementec / I love Symantec flamewar, what's the best firewall?.
7. Conservative Bashing / Liberal Bashing / George Bush = Adolf Hitler posts.
8. Are you still reading this list?
9. A LOT of posts about how the US sucks and the Euros and Japanese are doing everyting right with guns, crime, patents, and any other government regulation issues.
10. I have no sig, so I thought I'd make number 10 some kind of question on how to make a recursive post sig. How would it be done?
When governmental agencies use the Symantec product (i.e. public libraries) it's entirely plausible a first amendment challange can be mounted.
A Good Intro to NetBS
...they shouldn't have blocked these sites.
I'm anti-weapons, and my first thought was that this was a good thing. Then I realized, Hey, I'm also pro-free speech. A bit of an ethical tug-o-war ensued in my balding head.
I can't say this is a good thing, but I can't say it's bad either, at least in my own views/morals/ethics/what-have-you. On one hand, I think guns should be banned from public use. On the other hand, I wear a shirt from time to time that says "Eat Shit."
What to do...
Insert clever one liner here.
First came Symantec's Product Activation, their statement that only money matters and not their customers.
Now comes Symantec's disregard for their customer's rights of constitutional knowledge, the rights to bear arms.
Since they're pretty much 0wn3d by Microsoft, will Linux sites be blocked next?
I will never patronize Symantec again.
Sheesh... yet another twit heard from. Go read the decisions yourself, without a hoplophobic filter. The main decision cited is Miller, where the SCOTUS held that shotguns with sawed-off barrels (less than 13" in this case, IIRC) could be banned as they were not suitable for use by militia. This decision would tend to support the argument that people should be allowed to own cannons and hand grenades, so be careful in using it to support your agenda.
Since you fouled the last one off so badly, want to try again? How can you claim that the word people, when used in the Second Amendment, means something totally different from its meaning in every other amendment? You cannot, logically. And before you trot out that old cannard about militia, note that the phrase containing militia is a subordinate clause; that means it is used to support the sentence. To be logically consistent, which is more than I expect, you would have to argue that the idea of free speech only applies to organized news agencies and that individuals have no right to express their opinions.
There was an interesting exercise done a few years back, where the word book was substituted for the word gun, and educated for armed. When you apply the arguments used against the second amendment to the revised one, you see how ludicrous they are and that the arguments are not about the meaning of the amendment but instead are about banning guns.
Getting back to the topic at hand, this is nothing but an underhanded attempt by Symantec to push a political agenda. The fact that it is done silently, and that CIPA mandates use of software like this, only makes it more offensive.
Bother, said Pooh, as he called in an air strike.
The real problem (as I see it) isnt the pro-gun vs anti-gun, its the average American view of what guns are. To get it out of the way, I'm "pro-gun", but anti-pro-gun people. Here's my circular train of logic. We look at guns wrong. We, as a people have a grand general misconception of what guns are. They are, in a matter of fact, an instrument of death. What I point my gun at, I intended to kill, to end the life of, to wipe out of exisistence FOREVER. Guns should be looked at for exactly what they are. The idea that you have guns for entertainment or protection is asine. I reiterate, you have guns to END LIFE. It is a purely offense weapon. Not fun, not play (well, I do hunt, but I do so to end the life of what I'm hunting, not play with the damn thing, and I do enjoy it, but the perception is the point here :P), not childerns toys. I know this sounds uniformly boring, but this glorification of guns and the people that glorify them (Heston is an unsenstive prick) need a serious reality check. This idea of giving kids toy guns and embraceing the idea that a loaded handgun in the dresser somehow makes us safer needs to end.
So by now I bet you think I was lying about the pro-gun stance. I wasn't. What people who often cry afoul of guns miss out on the big picture.
What was it like before guns? Swords? Before that? Clubs? I mean, come on. Would you really have a society where the strong literaly rule over the weak (again)? Guns put everyone, even a 8 year old boy, on a level playing feild for ending life. It takes the ability to bring death out of the hands of the strong and into the hands of everyone. Morbid? A bit, but morbidly realistic none the less. And more then that, fair.
So theres my stance on guns, but not neccesarly automatic weapons. Those i dont understand why anyone would support. The ability to end the life of multiple individuals in an extremely short amount of time is something I can't bring myself to agree with. It tips the playing field if you will.
The part I don't understand is where you think the people have the right to bare arms.
The constitution gives the individual states the right to form armed militias, not the public the right to bare arms, But the NRA suckered you into thinking otherwise and other ignorant politicians (and gun dealers after your money) made statements like your quote to manipulate the truth and keep you on their side.
Why do you let yourself be so scared as to think you need a gun anyways? You'll just end up killing your kid by accident long before you use your gun the way you have been made to think you will use it.
Symantec is blocking weapons promoting websites (IF YOU ENABLE THE BLOCK, ITS YOUR CHOICE) the NRA promotes weapons, therefore they are blocked. Thats all there is to it. There is no attack by symantec on the NRA here at all.
'From My Cold Dead Hands!' - Yes Charlton, that will happen, and not soon enough.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Listen - this is what happens when we ask someone else to make decisions for us.
If you are a parent, you have 3 choices:
1) Sit down with your child and explain what sites are acceptabe and which are not. Then either monitor their activity or trust them.
2) Assign the responsibilty of deciding which sites are acceptable by purchasing and using filtering software. Just remember that you are not going to agree 100% with the decisions made by any of these software makers as to which content is appropriate and which is not.
3) allow unfiltered, unmonitored access to the internet.
Just my 2 cents
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
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
Sorry.. but the idea of citizens owning guns in case of a corrupt or opressive state is amusing at best to us foreigners..
A $400 billion per year army against a couple of fruitcakes with some assault rifles... I mean really what are you going to do ?? stop a tank round with your kevlar vest ?? Flap your arms fast enough and you might just be able to keep up with the jet fighters...
I dont agree that guns cause violence but i honestly dont believe there is a single good reason to have guns lying around so that people with less than ideal levels of self control dont get too carried away.
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
If you really are pro gun-control you should be able to educate your children as to why you believe what you believe and respond to their questions. If your kid reads a pro gun site and has questions about the 2nd amendment that is the perfect opportunity for you to explain your views.
If you really are pro gun-rights you should be able to educate your children as to why you believe what you believe and respond to their questions. If your kid reads a pro gun control site and has questions about the 2nd amendment that is the perfect opportunity for you to explain your views.
The availibility of information (or misinformation) and viewpoints on the web is supposed to make us think about and challenge our beliefs. If you don't want your children to challenge your beliefs and think for themselves what kind of parents are you?
Stuart Eichert
The NRA promotes a number of things. gun safety among them.
The MPAA promotes a number of things. Among these are vivid depictions of people killing, maiming, and otherwise behaving in an anti-social manner with weapons. I dare say that there have been more murders, mayhem, and such inspired by products of the MPAA than products of the NRA.
But let me ask you one question: why does the U.S. have much higher murder and aggravated assault offences than any other Western (ie North American, Western European) nation?
All I can offer is an opinion, based on being an American, and a former criminal defense investigator. First, the US is no longer the murder capital of the world. Our crime rates compared to the rest of the world are not as high as myth has it, but I can accept that it is higher than many.
The vast majority of crime in the US is non violent (simple theft or burglary). The majority of these crimes are "crimes of opportunity", ie: You see an unlocked car with a package in it, so you open the door and steal the package. There is more chances to steal here than in Somalia, for instance, but similiar to Western Europe, so that would explain higher theft in the Western world in general, but not compared to Europe.
Reporting of crime and prosecution is actually high here in the US compared to many places. In all places, some crime goes unreported, but I can see the US having at least a slightly lower unreported crime rate. This is conjecture, but its based on the fact that the higher the likelyhood that reporting a crime will get your stuff back, the more likely you are to report it. Crime here is highly reported and public record, by law. You can access most data on most crimes here by simply looking and asking at the Courthouse.
Culturally, there is a difference as well. Some of the most popular TV shows here in the US would be "America's Most Wanted" and "Cops", and historically, Adam 12, Dragnet, etc. In these shows, the cops get the bad guys, and I DO believe there is a certain amount of conditioning that if you report a crime, they will get them. This ties in with the above, since it would make you more likely to report a crime, even if minor (stolen lawn mower, for instance)
There are other cultural influences that are not necessarily positive, but here not the less. Many people simply want something for nothing, and the higher availability of "stuff" can lead to more crimes of opportunity. We DO take things much more for granted than many other countries. In America, the average person that qualifies as legally "poor" will have two TVs, VCR or DVD, Playstation, at least one car, phone services, air conditioning and heat, and 3 meals a day. Yes, there are some homeless people, most of which are self inflicted by drugs or alcohol. But American's EXPECT to have stuff, as if its a RIGHT. This does lead to lots of petty theft, and was much of what I dealt with as an investigator: poor people stealing from their neighbor.
This is sure to piss off a few readers, but before they reply, keep in mind that theft is least common where everyone is in the same economic class, ie: poor. You won't have as much theft (the most common crime there is) where everyone is in the same situation, having little. If you compare England and the US, for instance, you find that similar results in crime statistics for both, which have similar cultural systems, although quite different political systems.
In a nutshell, my opinion is it is mainly cultural due to wanting something for nothing by people who still have a decent amount to begin with, and the fact that we are a more violent culture in many other ways. And higher reporting of crime, also because of cultural influences. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson: "Only in America, if you suck a tit in a movie, its rated R, but if you shoot it off with a shotgun is rated PG". Our history started with a bloody revolution and we have always had a fairly high tolorance for it.
Found an interesting linkhere.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Well, pro-guns means pro-weapons, regardless of how you sugar coat it.
But perhaps there should be another category, labelled "pacifism" or something, that blocks anti-gun and peace activism sites. Then those people who wish to censor those deviants can use that category, and leave 'weapons' unbanned.
I think you're missing the point, actually. Ascribing some political agenda to some software corporation is ridiculous. They simply reflect desired censorware categories, which they have implemented in order to cater to a politically wider range of customers. What if you want to block pro-gun sites? Then add 'weapons' to the ban list. And if you don't... well, don't. They're just making a tool, and you can use it however you want.
"It is easily disabled/configurable as any blocking software is."
No, its not configurable; that's the point.
Good blocking software would allow you to view the list of sites being blocked and then enable individual sites or add your own.
No blocking software does this primarily because the only thing of value this software brings to the table is a list of objectionable sites.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
You know, it's stuff like this that constantly reminds me of how much more politically tuned I need to be. I'm a news junkie, but that usually means watching a lot of mainstream media and not keeping up with bills going through congress nearly as much as I should.
For some silly reason, I'm not even sure I've ever heard of CIPA (the Children's Internet Protection Act), even though it's been overturned and taken to the Supreme Court and upheld. It's obviously not very newsworthy, or I just wasn't paying attention.
Something unusual about this law is that you can read it in a single sitting. It's simple and short. I'll share with you what I learned in about a half hour, just in case you didn't know about it either. You're aware of the Universal Service Fee on your phone bill, of course. Well that goes into an FCC fund that enables discounts on phone lines and internet access to eligible schools and libraries. Well, this law threatened to take that assistance away (and, in my interpretation, threatened to force schools and libraries to pay back all money they had ever received from the Universal Service Program) if they don't install some sort of software to filter material deemed harmful to minors.
That's essentially it, although the law goes on to say that the federal government won't establish guidelines about what to filter and won't approve or dissapprove any local guidelines. That's certainly a good thing. But I was impressed by how incredibly short and sweet the law is. But I still found myself disagreeing with it, for the same reason that the law was challenged in court, on the grounds that filtering is an imperfect science and that these measures would block genuinely useful information, which is, of course, protected by the First Ammendment, from reaching users in schools and libraries.
Now then, it didn't take long in my Google searching to find ads from all sort of companies, touting "CIPA Compliance" in their software. Ha! Well that's not very hard, considering the government specified only one requirement with which to comply... the software must be capable of filtering. Even a simple web proxy that allows the administrator to enter URLs one at a time of websites that are "deemed to be harmful to children" is complaint with CIPA. And, of course, this was a great opportunity for the software sales snakes of America to capitalize on a new law requiring their software. So you think this software is cheap? Ha! Guess again. When the government makes a law requiring something to be bought, that something goes up in price.
Sheesh.
Oh, and the original topic.... about filtering NRA stuff and not anti-gun stuff. Yeah, I completely agree. The NRA, as largely a political organization, should absolutely not be filtered. There's nothing there at all harmful to children. The NRA and its members are the very most responsible advocates of gun ownership you will ever run across.
RP
The Israelis take great pains to avoid injuring bystanders. Indeed.
Take for example, shooting unarmed UN workers inside the UN compound.
Or using 1000 pound bombs on a residential buildings in order to get one guy.
Or hellfire missles to take out a car and several other people walking on the street.
Or crushing a peace protestor with a bulldozer.
Or using bulldozers to "widen" a street by plowing through homes on both sides - regardless of whether they are occupied or not.
These might be isolated incidents, but your "free democracy" isn't exactly a shining example of folks who are "taking great pains to avoid injuring bystanders".
I'm not saying that the terrorists aren't trying to kill as many as possible, but it is pretty safe to say that the folks in the IDF and other on that side of the illegal fence aren't making many new friends.
Being in a shitty situation shouldn't make them immune to criticism either.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Do you really think you would do that if you owned a gun? How do you trust yourself to drive down the street without mowing down pedestrians in your daily bloodthirsty rage?
Oh, I get it, you must be talking about the mind-control rays that all guns emit, urging their owners to KILL KILL KILL!!!
When I carry in public, it makes me feel a little different; a lot more careful about not getting into dangerous situations, and avoiding potential arguments with strangers, because I most certainly do NOT want to shoot anyone... but I will if my life is threatened.
You really should try it some time. Hold a loaded gun at a target range, pointed in a safe direction, of course. Shoot a few melons or water bottles to get an idea of the destructive power at your fingertips, and then deeply consider turning and shooting into the head of the guy standing next to you. If you are a normal human being (e.g. not sociopathic) the very thought will sicken you. You will think of his family, of his lifeless corpse twitching on the ground, and the utter horror of the witnesses around you.
Having a gun is a responsibility, and one that a morally fit adult can handle. To not trust yourself with weapons is to admit that you are nothing more than a small child or a dangerous animal. A free man (or woman) absolutely has the natural right to defend his life, his loved ones, and his property, else the whole concept of freedom and individual worth is a sham, and the State is no longer a representative of its people but a hypocritical tyrant (for the State WILL defend itself with lethal force). Is your government really more wise than you and your neighbors? Is it really more deserving of the right to self-preservation? Or do they just want you to think that the citizens have been disarmed for their own safety?
*Sigh*... there is something of a cultural gap here, as Americans have always been free men with rifles, while the peasants of Continental Europe have only recently been allowed (for a short time) to carry weapons by their "betters" who preside over them. My words will probably not make a difference in your world, so...
Don't worry, the State will take care of you... one way or another. Go back to your business.
> Do you also believe your local library should stock
> Playboy on the shelves with Popular Science?
Have you looked at an issue of Playboy lately?
The "pictures of naked girls" parts of the magazine take up only a VERY small portion of the whole. And as far as nudie pictures go, they're QUITE tame compared to the bulk of the rest of the "nudie magazine" rack (pun unintended). And let's not even get STARTED compareing them to the bulk of 'net porn. Playboy's pictorals are no more, and sometimes less, risque than the nudes you'll find in the art/photography section of the library.
And when you come right down to it, there's some damn good writing in Playboy. I'm not going to lie, and say that I "JUST read the articles". But I *do* ALSO read the articles. Many of them are very good, and quite worthy of being in a library.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
>The stupid fact is that guns do kill people. They know it, I know it, you know it as well.
Cars kill people too, every day. In fact, I'd be willing to bet more people were killed by automobiles today than by guns.
The stupid fact is, lots of things kill lots of people for lots of reasons, every day. Singling out guns when there are other things that cause more deaths is just a bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
Regardless of the anti-gun nuts mistaken beliefs, for every crime committed with a gun in the US, there are tens, hundreds of thousands of gun owners that didn't commit a crime with a gun, nor in general commit any crime at all.
A little perspective is a good thing, I've found. And, knowing that, all the hype aside (from both sides of the gun control issue), there are far more decent people owning guns than there are criminals owning guns makes me, at least, feel better.
Regards,
dj
P.S. While I'm thinking of it: Does anyone have any statistics on the number of gun owners in the US that have *never* committed a crime with a gun? Or, for that matter, never committed any crime at all?
I don't suppose anyone tracks that kind of information.
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.
You, and a lot of other people apparently, seem to be missing the point. We don't care if they block anti-gun sites also. I don't want them to, and the poster probably doesn't either. What we're outraged about is that sites solely dedicated to promoting true information and political discussion about legal gun use (hunting, target shooting, self-defense, etc), and promoting the defense of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (yes, we still have one), are lumped together with sites that may tell you how to build a bomb or homemade gun and may promote the uses of such for nefarious, illegal purposes. This is what is unacceptable to us. They are censoring only one side of a political discussion.
When it comes right down to it, the NRA and similar websites talk about the same things that that anti-gun sites talk about, i.e., guns and gun rights (gasp!). Thus if they (Symantec) followed their own insanity properly they would also lump anti-gun sites into the "weapons" category. So in the end, this really is a case of blatant anti-gun bias. The filter creators want your children to see anti-gun information even when you've told the filter you want to block "weapons" sites. They've made the political decision for you that it's OK to show your children "weapons" sites as long as they are anti-gun sites.
All I know is, Symantec products are crap, they're implementing activation features, and now this shite. It's the straw that broke this camel's back. I'll never buy or recommend another Symantec product.
Other people have made recommendations for alternatives, but here's mine anyway to help increase the signal-to-noise ratio:
Firewall: Kerio Personal Firewall
Anti-virus: AVG
(Both free for personal use.)
As a parent, I also want add that it is a lot easier to protect my daughter from guns, porn, drugs and whaever other devil that they are likely to conjure up than it is from a system that becomes more and more like a police state.
Why arn't people discussing how to protect thrir kids from that?
Calling a child "virii" pretty explains everything thing I need to know about you.
I also thing the sam thing goes for Pro and Anti-Drugs sites
Anyone have an objection to that ?
Same goes for Hacking Anti-Hacking, Porn & Fight-Porn sites ..
Why shouldn't Pro-Gun sites be classed as such ??
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Well, lets see.... drugs use is illegal unless prescribed by a doctor, so blocking pro-drug-use sites is a no-brainer. Porn obviously should not be viewable by minors, so those sites should also be filtered. But pro-gun sites? Nothing illegal about owning a gun, unless your a felon. Our founding fathers thought the right to own a gun was pretty important, in fact, they thought it was so important they put it into our Bill Of Rights, second only to the freedom of speech. So, your sarcasm about being shocked that those sites are blocked, only shows your not thinking the issue through.
I'll let you 'non Americans' in on a little secret.... we have guns just in case those fucking British try to take back the colonies. You guys should get some guns too, just in case the fucking Brits show up on your door step demanding you pay them a tax for that shovel you made in your garage with materials you found in your backyard. Thats what they used to do to us. Until we got guns. You know how those damn British can be.
I think that banning access to sites from a software privace control centre in a package is insecurity and politics. One would have to question the selection of this issue by Symantec, and also what *bad* industries that they have neglected to ban in the process of putting guns on the list? People who are into guns are people that would always have been prone to loving guns. Another poster said that if they were giving lessons on how to shoot someone, then OK, perhaps theres a genuine reason to ban it, but this is not the case here. If I managed to see the NRA site (which I haven't), I would not expect anything other than myself to be fueled with anger at the face of charlton heston. It would make me hate guns even more. The same for anyone else I think. So, yeah ! This is wrong and we really do have to question the moral highground of Symantec here. Why do they feel that they have the right to do this and what sort of business decision is this on their part? Also, while in some places you can't change the privacy control, on many machines you can overide the settings - so I suspect that people like me will always have nearly uncensored content allowed. Unfortunately, the kids won't be able to hate the NRA yet because many of them won't have access to their site !!!!!
If your site is anything like the site I admin, I agree. The gun nuts look at NRA/gun related sites and the "normal non-gun nut" people surf porn.
Conversely, the Swiss are armed to the teeth and gun violence there is very rare. It's just that Anglo-Saxons will fight with whatever they've got - fists, knives or firearms - over pretty much any disagreement, but your average European will just make a rude gesture and forget about it.
I'm always amazed by how many posts gun stories attract on Slashdot though!
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
You know, I really want to agree with you (and I do, to a certain extent), but there's this thing people are saying that simply is NOT true - that way back when, parents were responsible for their children.
Way back when, I could go to my friends house by myself when I was four years old. Way back when, we may not have sat their watching TV unattended, but we sat there in our finished basements or family rooms (where the toys were) and played, unattended. When we were older, we went to the schoolyard and played, unattended. When we were older still, we walked to all the "dime" stores and so forth and looked around, unattended.
Our parents didn't follow us around making sure that, at every waking moment, we were protected from material they didn't want us to see.
This whole notion that parents now aren't doing what they did 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago - it's just not accurate. There certainly IS a lot of apathy, and a large number of people who grew up in a nanny state expect the nanny state to take care of the kids, too, but parents were not as involved as people like to fondly remember.
In fact, that is one of the GOOD things about my childhood - they were there when I needed them, and I had restrictions that I followed or I was punished, but I was mostly free to go to friend's houses and play. We could have been doing anything, our parents didn't know. We are probably more well adjusted now BECAUSE of the freedoms we had to actually grow up on our own. That's not to say my parents weren't there and weren't great parents - cub scout den mothers, little league coaches, boy scout troop leaders (my parents did all of the above) as well as trips and family outings together, but our parents didn't watch over us like Hawks.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
-------------------
"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. "
-------------------
So you're saying that censorware blocked one side and not the other? DUH, what part of CENSORWARE did you miss when you fired it up? Censoring weapons does not NECESSARILY imply censoring ALL text about weapons else you block news sites discussing a murder by gunshot. So obviously you draw a line in the sand somewhere and only block the 'bad' side of the line. Oh yeah, did I mention that line drawing/definition of 'bad' aren't terribly objective operations.
So let's block porn. That means sex right, so let's block all the sites related to birth control too. Oh, yeah and nudity, so let's block the mamagram sites and any reproductive health/anatomy related medical sites.
What everyone wouldn't draw the line there? Someone MIGHT disagree, damn how strange. Gee, MAYBE the guy writing/supplying the DB for the censorware product is using his/her own viewpoint on where the line goes and JUST MAYBE that view is slightly biased, at least from your view (then again, maybe not).
Danger Wil Robinson Danger, using subjective software written by others may not provide the same subjective filtering you want.
DUH!
My god people isn't that the ENTIRE reason that the discussion of censorware vs. freedom of expression has reached the pitch it has. Isn't that one of the main issues with CIPA type laws. Am I the only one who's reality check hasn't bounced?