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.

20 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 jareds · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh, just because the ACLU is anti-gun doesn't mean it doesn't support the free speech rights of pro-gun people. I mean, the ACLU supports neo-Nazis' free speech rights, but they're not Nazis.

    2. Re:ACLU to help out? by samantha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This makes it unfortunate that they do fight a lot of fights I consider good and thus worth supporting. Only willful misreading could get such a meaning out of the 2nd Amendment. It is utterly incomprehensible that intelligent people could believe that a group of founders who had just successfully led an armed rebellion drawing heavily on the grassroots arms and knowledge of arms against an officially sanctioned armed State could have intended that only arms sanctioned by a new State and controlled by them be allowed.

    3. Re:ACLU to help out? by beamdriver · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, if the ACLU does not fight this then it would confirm suspicions that they care more about pushing a left-wing agenda than defending the rights of all Americans.
      The ACLU has defended groups from one end of the political spectrum to the other, as long as the issues fall within their areas of concern.

      Symantec is, or course, a private company, and so may block whatever sites they wish. However, since this type of software is specifed in CIPA, there certainly could be issues there.

      ACLU on CIPA

    4. 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-
    5. Re:ACLU to help out? by Rex+Code · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh, just because the ACLU is anti-gun doesn't mean it doesn't support the free speech rights of pro-gun people. I mean, the ACLU supports neo-Nazis' free speech rights, but they're not Nazis.

      The ACLU is unlikely to see anything wrong with what Symantec is doing. How would forcing Symantec to be more "fair and balanced" support free speech in any conceivable way? Symantec is not the government, and isn't required to support any particular viewpoint. In a free society, you fight back against something like this by providing a competing alternative choice. However, consider that in today's America reading pro-gun sites in school could make your teachers nervous and/or get you suspended or expelled. It's easy to see why there's a lot of paranoia over this issue, and with people getting expelled for writing fictional stories about school shootings, I understand why Symantec chose to block these sites. I don't even think it neccessarily represents their political agenda, but rather the expectations of the user base for this kind of blocking software.

    6. Re:ACLU to help out? by Zak3056 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think I'm fairly safe in saying that "the people" in the Constitution is often referring to the country as a whole, not individual citizens.

      Consider Amendment V - No person or Amendment VI - the accused. Each time they didn't use a generic "people" because they were giving specific rights to specific people. However, notice Amendment X. Here there are clearly three general layers of government: Federal, States, and "The People".

      No body argues that "The People" of the United States should be allowed to own guns, but the amendment doesn't have to be contorted to say that INDIVIDUALS aren't necessarily uniformly given that right.


      "The people" referenced in the 2nd amendment are the same "the people" mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Your interpretation above (that the words "person," and "accused" "gave" specific rights to specific people (btw, the constitution does NOT "give" rights, it GUARANTEES them!)) would suggest that the right to assembly is not, in fact, an individual right, but a collective right.

      Imagine being told that "the people" had the right to assemble, but that individual persons (in fact, all of those who make up "the people") were not allowed to attend a political rally.

      BTW, the below is my sig and not part of this comment.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  2. Whoever is responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    deserves to be shot.

  3. Oh shit... by BJH · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...here comes another +1000-comment pro-gun/anti-gun flamewar :(

    1. Re:Oh shit... by CGP314 · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you use Symantec's product, it's only a 500 comment anti-gun rant. :)

  4. This stuff stinks by beamdriver · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm actually more on the gun control side of the fence, but this shows the real danger of these types of programs.

    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?"

  5. Re:Logic... by jerdenn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  6. Why this is a bad idea for Symantic by MBraynard · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The NRA type sites have a tremendous amount of gun safety information. The bulk of the organization's activities aren't political but training - they have certified trainers all over the country that teach people how to use and store guns safely. So by restricting access to these kinds of sites (being able to find out when the next handgun safety class is being taught, etc.), it makes the installer base less safe.

    And (heheheh) if Symantic custmers can't get information on gun safety, only non-Symantic customers will have gun safety.

  7. 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???

  8. Re:Quote I heard from somewhere.... by Elias+Israel · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "If you want assault rifles, join the army. We have lots of them" - General Clark (I think)

    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 Himmler
  9. Re:Hypocrites. by mikeswi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have to agree. If it were a site discussing how to use a firearm to wreak havoc,shoot people on street corners or wage a guerilla war, that would be one thing. According to the headline they are blocking purely political web sites and that is unacceptable. This being slashdot, I know better than to take that at face value, so I'm creating a disk image of my hard drive right now so I can test it myself.

    If this is true, I will be advocating a boycott of Symantec on my site. Slashdot it ain't, but it has a considerable number of readers and it's in Symantec's industry, security and privacy.

    About your firewall, try Kerio or Sygate.

  10. 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
  11. Why is anyone surprised? by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
  12. Re:Hypocrites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sites aren't anti-NRA, they're anti-gun.

    I could tell you that guns kill people and animals, and that's what they're designed for. Killing people is bad, so guns must be bad, right? Perhaps 20,000 people in any given year die to "gun violence," and if we got rid of guns, then there couldn't be anymore gun violence. I could also insert various statements that might sound true, but with a little investigation (that I'm not going to do for you), you'd find out that they were actually lies.

    I could also tell you that in any given year, around four billion bullets are fired in the United States. So, 0.0005% of all bullets fired in the United States kill someone. Lots of criminals use guns to do violence, but overall the number of gun owners who manage to not rob/kill someone grossly outnumber the criminals. Millions of home invasions each year are probably prevented by the homeowner having and knowing how to use a gun (note how there's no way to measure this, but you'll still see statistics about dogs "being just as effective as preventing home invasions" as guns).

    I can tell you half of any story, and if it's also impossible for you to check the facts for yourself, you have no other information to go on than what I've given you. You might understand that what you're hearing might not be true, but I can isolate your children and feed them an anti-gun story and win the war in the long run.

  13. Re:Hypocrites. by Wolfstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Try a bit hard to follow the logic. Many parents think violence, and content glorifying violence -- including not only violent video games and movies, but also content like weapon advocacy, hobbyist sites-- is bad for their children; something they'd rather they not read/see. Plus obviously information regarding weaponry can be viewed as risky and harmful ("finding sites on Internet that describe how to build bombs") in general.

    Um, have you actually BEEN to the NRA's website? You're confusing a political organization with a sales & review website. There's approximately two guns I could see on the main page just now, both of which are part of the NRA ILA seal drawing.

    The fact remains that this is political favoritism on the part of a corporation. Part of the problem with this that they do NOT state this as such. I plan on teaching my children to shoot starting around age 4, and my wife agrees enthusiastically. Being able to visit the NRA website allows kids to participate in NRA youth programs there, which all emphasize saftey around firearms.

    The NRA is a political organization. The only advantage to blocking it is purely political. Even a cursory glance at the site will tell you that.

    --
    You thought that this sig was what you think that I thought you wanted me to think. I think.