American Rifleman - Symantec - Irony

[Sandman]

This is just too rich...

Symantec Says No To Pro-Gun Sites

Posted by timothy on Sunday November 02, @02:17PM
from the manufacturing-antipathy dept.

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.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/02/1729239&mode=nested&tid=103&tid=153&tid=99

Maybe it's just my perception but it seemed that the pro-gun types around here also favored the laws requiring public libraries to use filtering software similar to Symantec's Internet Securtity 2004.

How do you like it now?

[Innominate]

I don't think anyone rational believes in mandatory filters at libraries.  Laws like that pass because the vast majority of the country are idiots, ignorant of the impossibility of blocking 'inappropriate' sites.

[Curval]

They are on the NRA *****list now for sure.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Maybe it's just my perception but it seemed that the pro-gun types around here also favored the laws requiring public libraries to use filtering software similar to Symantec's Internet Securtity 2004.

I'd prefer that libraries not have internet access to anything other than book related resources.

In leu of that, I fail to see how allowing access to any of the sites listed should be banned... unless you can think of a really good reason?

MiniD

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This is just too rich...




Maybe it's just my perception but it seemed that the pro-gun types around here also favored the laws requiring public libraries to use filtering software similar to Symantec's Internet Securtity 2004.

How do you like it now?

Not this pro-gun type.  I think it was just your perception, and a wrong one at that.

[capt. apathy]

must just be your perception.  I'm pro-gun, anti-censorship.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Maybe it's just my perception but it seemed that the pro-gun types around here also favored the laws requiring public libraries to use filtering software similar to Symantec's Internet Securtity 2004.

It's just your perception.  I don't think computers belong in public libraries.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
must just be your perception.  I'm pro-gun, anti-censorship.

Yeah I'm not sure how equates support of 2nd Amendment rights with being in favor of censorship.

[miko2d]

Innominate: I don't think anyone rational believes in mandatory filters at libraries.  Laws like that pass because the vast majority of the country are idiots, ignorant of the impossibility of blocking 'inappropriate' sites.

 You are wrong. Things are only impossible in public (read - government-run) facilities. Private organiations would have no problem blocking any inappropriate sites if they cared.

 Such service would have been easy to provide by a private company and probably exists already.

 miko

[lazs2]

I am anti censorship... it seems tho that liberal "free speech" types are the first to ban anything that doesn't agree with them..

In this particular case.... they are banning sites that are proven to be factual while allowing sites that are proven to be less than truthful.... but.... even taking away the fact that they are banning sites that are proven to be factual....they are banning one side of an arguement.    This would seem to be the real spirit of free speech and I would think that liberals would be appaled.
lazs

[FUNKED1]

Waiting for the ACLU to step forward on this issue.
*sound of leaves rustling*

[LePaul]

Originally posted by lazs2
I am anti censorship... it seems tho that liberal "free speech" types are the first to ban anything that doesn't agree with them..

That quote should be carved in marble....but they'd find a way to ban that statue...

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
It's just your perception.  I don't think computers belong in public libraries.

I can just picture your great great great great great grandfather railing against using that darned papyrus instead of the tried and true stone tablet.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
must just be your perception.  I'm pro-gun, anti-censorship.

Me too, I need a gun to keep my porn safe.

-Sik

[Martlet]

Originally posted by miko2d
Innominate: I don't think anyone rational believes in mandatory filters at libraries.  Laws like that pass because the vast majority of the country are idiots, ignorant of the impossibility of blocking 'inappropriate' sites.

 You are wrong. Things are only impossible in public (read - government-run) facilities. Private organiations would have no problem blocking any inappropriate sites if they cared.

 Such service would have been easy to provide by a private company and probably exists already.

 miko

Private organizations should be able to do whatever they want in that regard.