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.

Re:Hypocrites.

>> Can anyone recommend a good non-symantec [...] software firewall? (Please, please, please don't say ZoneAlarm.)

Linux.

Re:Hypocrites.

Parking that thing would be a pain; I'd recommend a Harrier Jumpjet instead.

Re:Hypocrites.

"Yay! I can stop viruses and render all my games useless! All that, and I still get the privledge of installing patches regularly. Sign me up!"

Heh. Sarcasm aside, NG's got a point. Switching OS's to solve one problem will eventually lead to new problems opening up. I know lot of you would marry Linux given the choice, but the dude wants a simple solution to the particular problem, not a solution that'll be painful for him. If you tell him to switch so he can avoid viruses, then EVERY little problem Linux has will turn into reasons not to use it. As NG pointed out, your games stop working. (Well that's not really true, you can get a lot of Windows games working in Linux, but without trying it first hand I'm not sure how far I'd trust it.) If Linux doesn't have an app (or he can't find it) and he can't do something he could once do in Windows, he's going to turn around and say "why'd I even switch in the first place? All I wanted was an f'in virus scanner!"

Long story short, don't shout Linux every time a Windows user wants to fix a problem. Unless things go just right, you risk making them a Windows user forever. That's what happened to me. Everybody shouted at me about how great Linux is, didn't take me long to go back to Windows 2000. (I do plan on trying again in a year or so.)

Re:Hypocrites.

But if you unplug it, doesn't that leave open ports in the back of it?

Re:Hypocrites.

If you object to laws that prohibit certain types of objectionable content AND you object to programs that give parents controls, then YOU'RE the hypocrite. You can't have both.

Re:Hypocrites.

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.

Re:Hypocrites.

If it was a library that had everything, i.e., something similar to the Library of Congress, then stocking Playboys would be appropriate. Though, of course, it still would not be appropriate to place them right beside the children's books.

But given that libraries cannot generally carry every book, they must make decisions as to what would carry more social value. Thus the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, etc. ar all going to be purchased before Playboys or Penthouses. It's not that Playboys don't belong, it's that they have less value than other alternatives.

Providing access to the Internet is providing access to a wealth of information. Librarians don't have to make a conscious choice for every site. Including all sites is just as easy as including any. It actually takes more effort to filter than simply allow everything, and so the reasons why Playboys are not in libraries is disanalogous to Internet filtering.

What would be more analagous is if a library bought an extremely large encyclopedia, and actively ripped out pages containing offensive content. Most encyclopedias, of course, don't have anything as objectionable as what you can find on the Internet, but the principle is still the same.

protecting children

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?

Re:Hypocrites.

Huh? How is objecting to a law that unsuccessfully attempts to prohibit objectionable content while requiring tax payer money be spent to achive that end and objecting to a program that fails miserably at allowing parents to control said content (by design, in this case, unless you're an anti-gun parent who couldn't care less if pro-gun legislation sites get censored while anti-gun legislation sites somehow slip under the radar) make the poster a hypocrite?

Re:Hypocrites.

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.

Sites that are "anti-gun" oriented generally do NOT have much to do with actual guns and their usage (except for statistics regarding fatalities, crime rates), ergo they are not different sides of a coin in the sense that's relevant to censoring the content.

I just get the feeling that people are way too lazy to even try to see rationale between different handling. I doubt Symantec is trying to censor discussion regarding "gun rights" and gun control laws, but rather blocking access to sites that have lots of gun (not gun LAW) content.

Above is just general idea, however, and it is likely that actual distinction between political sites, and gun hobbyist/nut sites is done as inefficiently as distinction between porn sites and sites with non-sexual nudity. But it shouldn't be THAT hard to see why blocking could divide sites, even without company commenting on gun legislation itself.

Re:Hypocrites.

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.

Re:Hypocrites.

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.

Re:Hypocrites.

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.

Re:Hypocrites.

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.

Re:Hypocrites.

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

Missing the point entirely...

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 [kerio.com]
Anti-virus: AVG [grisoft.com]

(Both free for personal use.)

Re:Hypocrites.

This isn't about private handgun ownership, it's about a company deciding that you don't need to read articles and opinions they don't like.

Re:Hypocrites.

What do handguns have to do with this particular thread? The point is not *what* is being censored, but it's that non-obscene websites showing only one side of a political debate are being censored. One's views on gun control are irrelevant on this topic. I wouldn't want the NRA's site censored any more than a vehelment anti-gun site. (Okay, that's not true, but I don't like either.) The ends don't justify the means.

ACLU to help out?

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.

Re:ACLU to help out?

Basically anybody who I can predict what they are going to say before they open their mouth (Charles Heston or Michael Moore) just bores the shit out of me.

You must be seriously disappointed with the state of Slashdot these days!

Re:ACLU to help out?

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 [aclu.org]

Re:ACLU to help out?

[the ACLU] care more about pushing a left-wing agenda than defending the rights of all Americans.

In point of fact, it is the "left-wing" of American politics which has been the champion of people's rights. "Right-wing" politicians have been on the wrong side of these issues for over thirty years. At least since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And incidentally, the ACLU does fight for the rights of all Americans. They have fought right along side Republicans in the past. Such as when they fought the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law as a violation of the first amendment. Conservatives everywhere had to STFU about the good ol' ACLU on that one. But everyone forgets so quickly. Especially as the ACLU is often at odds with Conservatives...but this is primarily because conservatives are so often at odds with the Bill of Rights. Go figure.

Re:ACLU to help out?

In point of fact, it is the "left-wing" of American politics which has been the champion of people's rights. "Right-wing" politicians have been on the wrong side of these issues for over thirty years. At least since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Bull. It's been about power, who has it, and who wants it. Left/right wing has meant pretty much nothing in terms of who votes for what bill that infringes civil rights, except that the right wing will tend to fight for freedoms in certain areas that the left wing won't and vice versa. Neither will stand up for something like free speech if that gets in the way of some other agenda.

Re:ACLU to help out?

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

Or they may simply disagree with your interpretation as to what the rights of Americans are! *SHOCK*

I very much doubt the people in charge of the ACLU sit in a boardroom going:

ACLU 1: Haha! Now we may destroy the rights of the common man in pursuit of the international communist conspiracy!

ACLU 2: I agree! It's a good thing we don't need to think about actual interpretations of anything and only need to determine what a left wing stereotype would do!

ACLU 1: Yes, the world certainly would be difficult if there were more than two political positions!

Re:ACLU to help out?

Or they may simply disagree with your interpretation as to what the rights of Americans are! *SHOCK*

They may disagree with the content of the web sites, but they should defend the rights of those with whom they disagree to have their say--especially when this sort of stupid blocking software is mandated by the government for use in schools and libraries.