Symantec scandal: blocks access to NRA sites but not Brady Campaign
Bill Levinson
programmers seem to be ethically challenged as shown by this article.
Per the "American Rifleman," September 2004, page 119.
"The problem in this particular school district was created by their use
of 'Web Security' software from Symantec Corporation. This software,
when used with its default settings, blocks access to NRA websites while
allowing access to the Brady Campaign and to other anti-gun sites.
Symantec [20330 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, Calif. 95014,
408-517-8000] has been contacted about this issue and has declined to
make any changes to its software."
The article goes on to say that the user can change the settings to
allow access to NRA sites but this shows, in my opinion, that Symantec
is a dishonest organization. Blocking access to the NRA's Web site while
allowing access to the Brady Campaign obviously has nothing to do with
blocking pornography and similar inappropriate material that schools do
not want students to access. The problem goes beyond
ethically-challenged individual programmers because the problem was
brought to the company's official attention and nothing was done about it.
I can add that Symantec's technical and customer support may as well be
nonexistent and that Symantec is permanently disqualified from selling
me any software in the future for this reason alone. Earlier this year,
a Live F**kup (Live Update) apparently resulted in SYMPROXYSVC.EXE
taking over my entire CPU and making Web browsing extremely slow.
Technical Support refused me E-mail support for Norton Internet Security
because the company no longer supported the older product, although the
company was happy enough to take my money for a subscription update to
my virus definitions. A customer support representative ignored my
repeated requests to connect me to a supervisor.
This shows that, in addition to being dishonest (programming software to
be anti-NRA as opposed to achieving its advertised mission), Symantec
does not stand behind its products. I recommend against buying anything
these people make for both reasons.
--Bill
Bill Cole
Bill Levinson <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
Not one word regarding net-abuse or email.
Take your trolling to someplace relevant.
--
Clues for the blacklisted: <http://www.scconsult.com/bill/dnsblhelp.html>
Current Peeve: Just because one newsgroup is your life does not make
it right for you to post anything you want there.
Bill Levinson
Bill Cole wrote:
> In article <4_8Uc.23898$nx2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Bill Levinson <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> Not one word regarding net-abuse or email.
>
> Take your trolling to someplace relevant.
You again?
NIS is a net-abuse and spam-related product (i.e. it is supposed to
prevent both), which you deliberately overlook.
The newest Norton Internet Security also is supposed to block spam,
along with hacking, Trojan horses, viruses, and other forms of Net abuse.
Doug Jacobs
A bit OT, but it seems the creator of webcomic, /usrbin/w00t, has a few
bones to pick with Symantec as well:
http://www.w00t-comic.net/20040809.html
Bill Levinson
Doug Jacobs wrote:
Looks right on the money, from what I have heard.
I wonder when Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet, is going to meet
Symantec's products?
--Bill
McWebber
news:bill-7A98BF.1...@toaster.scconsult.com...
> In article <4_8Uc.23898$nx2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Bill Levinson <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> Not one word regarding net-abuse or email.
>
> Take your trolling to someplace relevant.
It's also and old story
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/02/1729239&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=153&tid=99
--
McWebber
"Richter points to the lack of legal action against his company as proof
that he's operating appropriately."
Information Week, November 10, 2003
Chris Lewis
> Yet another reason to avoid Symantec's computer security products; the
> programmers seem to be ethically challenged as shown by this article.
Pardon me for being slightly dense, but, I don't see anything
like that here.
We don't expect a netnanny that blocks pornography to also block
anti-porn sites, so why would you expect a netnanny that blocks
sites that promote weapons (in one sense or another) to _have_
to block anti-weapon sites too?
[And no, I'm not anti-gun.]
Perhaps the NRA site is a bit OTT for the published purpose
of that particular "rule", but if the option said "block
site that promote/sell weapons", I'd sure and hell expect
the NRA to be blocked if I clicked on it.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
Morton Davis
"Chris Lewis" <cle...@nortelnetworks.com> wrote in message
news:cftop6$22h$1...@zcars0v6.ca.nortel.com...
> According to Bill Levinson <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com>:
> > Yet another reason to avoid Symantec's computer security products; the
> > programmers seem to be ethically challenged as shown by this article.
>
> Pardon me for being slightly dense, but, I don't see anything
> like that here.
>
> We don't expect a netnanny that blocks pornography to also block
> anti-porn sites, so why would you expect a netnanny that blocks
> sites that promote weapons (in one sense or another) to _have_
> to block anti-weapon sites too?
>
> [And no, I'm not anti-gun.]
>
> Perhaps the NRA site is a bit OTT for the published purpose
> of that particular "rule", but if the option said "block
> site that promote/sell weapons", I'd sure and hell expect
> the NRA to be blocked if I clicked on it.
Yet, the efforts of the Brady Bunch has created the largest spike in gun
ownership in USA history.
-*MORT*-
DeepSea
@zcars0v6.ca.nortel.com:
> According to Bill Levinson <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com>:
>> Yet another reason to avoid Symantec's computer security products; the
>> programmers seem to be ethically challenged as shown by this article.
>
> Pardon me for being slightly dense, but, I don't see anything
> like that here.
>
> We don't expect a netnanny that blocks pornography to also block
> anti-porn sites, so why would you expect a netnanny that blocks
> sites that promote weapons (in one sense or another) to _have_
> to block anti-weapon sites too?
>
> [And no, I'm not anti-gun.]
>
> Perhaps the NRA site is a bit OTT for the published purpose
> of that particular "rule", but if the option said "block
> site that promote/sell weapons", I'd sure and hell expect
> the NRA to be blocked if I clicked on it.
How sure are we of the accuracy of this "problem". I have installed the
last two versions of the Symantec product, right out of the box, onto
sepate computers. I had no problems accessing the NRA websites after
installation, and I made no adjustments to the configuration.
DS
McWebber
news:WwvUc.313513$JR4.179964@attbi_s54...
>
>
> Yet, the efforts of the Brady Bunch has created the largest spike in gun
> ownership in USA history.
>
Prove it.
Morton Davis
"McWebber" <mcwe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:Qd-dnfFK5em...@comcast.com...
Easy. Check the news reports from the time of the AWB in 1994. Thousands of
people rush out to buy soon to be guns, many of whom had never owned a gun
before. Same thing happened concerning the California AWB. But, here's a
bigger clue: http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php In 1993, there were 16
shall-issue states, 15 no-issue states, 18 may-issue states and 1
unrestricted state. In 1994, the year the AWB was passed, there were 20
shall-issue states, 12 no-issue states, 17 may-issue states and one
unrestricted. Today, there are 35 shall-issue states, 4 no-issue states, 9
may-issue states and 2 unestricted states.
This has happened over the strident screaming objections of the Brady Bunch.
-*MORT*-
Bobby
Do you want proof that gun ownership in the U.S. is at historical highs?
(I'd hate trying to prove otherwise, to be honest...just from the claims
of the anti-gunners alone...we're in an "epidemic" of guns, IIRC...)
Or do you want proof that the number of guns owned are at historical
highs? And is the "historical high" you wished proven per gun owner or
per capita? (I'd hate trying to prove otherwise, in any or all
categories, per the claims of the anti-gunners themselves to be
honest...we're in an "epidemic" of guns, IIRC...)
Or do you want proof that efforts to limit gun ownership were the
catalyst of these hypothetical increases?
I'm aware of the increase in gun sales after the "assault weapon ban"
was passed preceding it's taking effect a few years ago...never had guns
sold so fast in history in sheer numbers. But in sheer percentages per
capita? That I don't know...
I'm not saying I can show proof of anything (I'm quite sure i can
"statistically" and from anti-gunner claims alone...and know I can from
pro-gunner's claims, in fact) but if I'm to try, I'd prefer knowing
exactly what you wished proved :)
Bobby
At last count (not like I do very closely to be totally honest) I carry
legally in 35+ states (TN permit). I can carry coast-to-coast and
border-to-border legally, that I do know.
You might say I'm a criminal waiting to happen in some places I
guess...but you'll pry "my self-defense, my rules" from my personal code
of ethics long before you pry "my server, my rules" from them. You might
say I love email but love me more :)
But hey? Those that disagree with me about guns aren't very likely to
actually bother me, are they? Who runs scared of pacifists? Say what you
will, anti-gunners aren't a large percentage of the "street criminals" :)
OTOH, who here is stupid enough to think that criminals have given mucb
thought to the 2nd Amendment? Either way?
Well...some are. I know that because some here have actually stated (in
so many words -- and/or directly) that it's only criminals/sociopaths
that have any regard/respect for the 2nd Amendment, LOL!
I look at it this way: what good is an individual right (such as
self-defense) if the *means* of retaining/protecting/preserving that
right is prohibited?
McWebber
news:PJzUc.157$Hi...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> McWebber wrote:
>
> > "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
> > news:WwvUc.313513$JR4.179964@attbi_s54...
> >
> >>
> >>Yet, the efforts of the Brady Bunch has created the largest spike in gun
> >>ownership in USA history.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Prove it.
> >
> >
>
> Do you want proof that
<snip stuff which doesn't mention what I replied to>
Nothing left.
Note: I don't know how this got into NANAE, but that's the only group I
read. If you cross post your replies I will not see them again.
The Open Sourceror's Apprentice
> This has happened over the strident screaming objections of the Brady
> Bunch.
Two words: "Sarah Brady."
--
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
Who is Brad Jesness? http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/
To the spammers, my motto: FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC.
Christopher Morton
>But hey? Those that disagree with me about guns aren't very likely to
>actually bother me, are they? Who runs scared of pacifists? Say what you
>will, anti-gunners aren't a large percentage of the "street criminals" :)
They're not pacifists. They're cowards.
A pacifist abjures the use of violence. A coward abjures the use of
violence by HIMSELF, where there might be a danger of him coming to
harm.
Even were such degenerates to get a gun ban passed, they'd never
themselves participate in its enforcement.
They're like the SS men who ran whimpering from the Warsaw Ghetto when
the Jews finally started fighting back.
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"
Doug Jacobs
> Doug Jacobs wrote:
> > A bit OT, but it seems the creator of webcomic, /usrbin/w00t, has a few
> > bones to pick with Symantec as well:
> >
> > http://www.w00t-comic.net/20040809.html
> Looks right on the money, from what I have heard.
She updated her website today with the *real* story as a rant.
Apparentally she spent ~2 hours on hold, in addition to the events in the
comic strip...
> I wonder when Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet, is going to meet
> Symantec's products?
Knowing Helen, she probably wrote her own virus/adware scanner, along with
an old Pentium acting as firewall/virus/adware scanner.
Bobby Fischler
Symantec's stuff is shit. Peter Norton should tell them to take his
name off their bloatware crap. I had some spam worm that I could not
get rid of.
I have a paid version of Norton with updates. No luck. It wanted me
to go into the registry and do a bunch of manual crap.
I tried AVG - no luck.
I tried Panda - no luck.
I used Solo and it zapped the worm and no more problems. Symantec is
crap and they are anti-gunners.
Here is Solo's web site.
Sam A. Kersh
wrote:
You're spamming of tx.guns is not wanted nor appreciated. As to Solo,
it's a second rate POS compared ton nod32. See
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5648359/
and eat your heart out.
Sam A. Kersh
NRA Patron Member
L.E.A.A. Life Member
TSRA Life Member
GOA, JPFO, SAF
http://www.whoseparanoid.com/csmk
===============================================================
The pig went on vacations,
to places near and far,
For fighting wars on schedule,
is very good PR.
The generals love the piggies,
and the natives think them swell,
At least they often say so
after putting them through hell.
"The Whistling Pig"
From Robert Frezza's
"A Small Colonial War"
Alex Watterson
Inglo
>According to Bill Levinson <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com>:
>
>
>>Yet another reason to avoid Symantec's computer security products; the
>>programmers seem to be ethically challenged as shown by this article.
>>
>>
>
>Pardon me for being slightly dense, but, I don't see anything
>like that here.
>
>We don't expect a netnanny that blocks pornography to also block
>anti-porn sites, so why would you expect a netnanny that blocks
>sites that promote weapons (in one sense or another) to _have_
>to block anti-weapon sites too?
>
>
>
Actually Norton productivity control blocks http://www.csicop.org/ for
"occult" content.
--
History shows again and again
How nature points up the folly of men
Steve å…Ingloå’«
Randolf Richardson
news.admin.net-abuse.email:
[sNip]
> Actually Norton productivity control blocks http://www.csicop.org/ for
> "occult" content.
Then they'd better block all the religous and atheistic web sites as
well then to avoid appearing biased.
--
Sir Randolf, noble spam fighter - r...@8x.ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Please do not eMail me directly when responding to
my postings in the newsgroups.
Sending eMail to other SMTP servers is a privilege.
Bullwinkel J. Moose
"Bobby Fischler" <franc...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ae681794.0408...@posting.google.com...
Bullwinkel J. Moose
but it has no political agenda.
"Bill Levinson" <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:4_8Uc.23898$nx2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Bill Levinson
Bullwinkel J. Moose wrote:
> I just can't resist. Part of what he says it correct. The software is crap
> but it has no political agenda.
The latest from Symantec is that I should consider re-formatting my
entire hard drive periodically as a form of maintenance; they told me
this when I expressed my reluctance to install NIS 2004, due to
complaints about it permanently messing up people's computers.
thediecastpage
Who is the idiot who told you that ? I can just see you having to reinstall
all your programs, drivers, games,intenet setting and all your files that
you will loose when you do it........
The guy would have to be a complete moron to even suggest that... Maybe some
day they will solve my current problem....
"Bill Levinson" <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:LIPVc.31508$nx2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Bill Levinson
thediecastpage wrote:
> RE-FORMATING THE HARD DRIVE ?
> Who is the idiot who told you that ?
A Symantec rep.
> I can just see you having to reinstall
> all your programs, drivers, games,intenet setting and all your files that
> you will loose when you do it........
>
> The guy would have to be a complete moron to even suggest that...
Like I said, a Symantec rep. :^)
Bullwinkel J. Moose
from India I suppose and has no idea what a computer is used for.
"thediecastpage" <thediec...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:VIRVc.33580$Fg5.24000@attbi_s53...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
Seth Breidbart
Bullwinkel J. Moose <quinc...@verizon.net> top-posted:
>What he said. This shows just how stupid this company really is. The rep was
>from India I suppose and has no idea what a computer is used for.
Suresh on line 1 and he's sounding rather sarcastic.
Seth
Keith A. Flick
> Who is the idiot who told you that ? I can just see you having to
reinstall
> all your programs, drivers, games,intenet setting and all your files that
> you will loose when you do it........
>
> The guy would have to be a complete moron to even suggest that... Maybe
some
> day they will solve my current problem....
>
We were having windows problems at work and
when I called the Microsoft tech he told me that
the official MS position on system maintenance was
to reformat and reinstall windows (95 or 98 at the time)
every year. I haven't heard anything 6 or 7 years
about this though.
Donald McDaniel
wrote:
I don't know what this brouhaha is all about. I have Norton Firewall
2004 and Norton Antivirus 2004, and have absolutely no problems
accessing the NRA sites.
It sounds like a lot of right-wing paranoia to me.
Donald L McDaniel
Keep the thread intact
Post reply to original newsgroup
=======================================================
The Open Sourceror's Apprentice
news:iiuri0poe3omo3j1i...@4ax.com:
> I don't know what this brouhaha is all about. I have Norton Firewall
> 2004 and Norton Antivirus 2004, and have absolutely no problems
> accessing the NRA sites.
I believe the original comment was regarding Norton Internet Security.
Your comment is akin to telling a Ford Explorer driver that the problems he's
having with his factory tires must be imaginary, because you aren't having
problems with your Fiesta's transmission.
Donald McDaniel
<Morel...@spamblocked.com> wrote:
>Donald McDaniel <orthocro...@cablespeedDOTcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:iiuri0poe3omo3j1i...@4ax.com:
>
>> I don't know what this brouhaha is all about. I have Norton Firewall
>> 2004 and Norton Antivirus 2004, and have absolutely no problems
>> accessing the NRA sites.
>
>I believe the original comment was regarding Norton Internet Security.
>
>Your comment is akin to telling a Ford Explorer driver that the problems he's
>having with his factory tires must be imaginary, because you aren't having
>problems with your Fiesta's transmission.
Norton Internet Security = Norton Firewall + Norton Antivirus +
Integrator Wrapper, you blooming idiot!
If the Firewall in Norton Internet Security is keeping a page from
loading, the page will also be kept from loading in the stand-alone
product. Since I have no problems loading this particular page (and
ALL NRA sites), I say the problem is in the mind of the user, or his
inept handling of the software, rather than the product.
Morely 'I drank what?' Dotes
McDaniel <orthocro...@cablespeedDOTcom.invalid> wrote in
news:22qmj05u4md1l53vb...@4ax.com:
> Norton Internet Security = Norton Firewall + Norton Antivirus +
> Integrator Wrapper, you blooming idiot!
So long, Bozo.
--
Solid Web hosting, responsive support, effective spam-blocking.
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
Brad Jesness FAQ: http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/
Harold Robbins
Chris Lewis wrote:
> According to Bill Levinson <wlev...@NOSPAM.stentorian.com>:
>
>>Yet another reason to avoid Symantec's computer security products; the
>>programmers seem to be ethically challenged as shown by this article.
>
>
> Pardon me for being slightly dense, but, I don't see anything
> like that here.
>
> We don't expect a netnanny that blocks pornography to also block
> anti-porn sites, so why would you expect a netnanny that blocks
> sites that promote weapons (in one sense or another) to _have_
> to block anti-weapon sites too?
>
> [And no, I'm not anti-gun.]
>
> Perhaps the NRA site is a bit OTT for the published purpose
> of that particular "rule", but if the option said "block
> site that promote/sell weapons", I'd sure and hell expect
> the NRA to be blocked if I clicked on it.
The point is that it shows an anti-gun bias that is unwarranted to set
the default to block NRA sites as a default. I find that offensive too.
The point about not blocking anti-gun sites as well amplifies the
point of the anti-gun bias. Not that they should block the anti-gun sites.
Harold
Harold Robbins
concealed carry of hand weapons has exploded since then. Nothing
attracts like sugar, or banning something. Especially something that is
guaranteed to them by the Constitution.
Harold
Morton Davis wrote:
> "McWebber" <mcwe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:Qd-dnfFK5em...@comcast.com...
>
>>"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
>>news:WwvUc.313513$JR4.179964@attbi_s54...
>>
>>>
>>>Yet, the efforts of the Brady Bunch has created the largest spike in gun
>>>ownership in USA history.
>>>
>>
>>Prove it.
>>
>
>
> Easy. Check the news reports from the time of the AWB in 1994. Thousands of
> people rush out to buy soon to be guns, many of whom had never owned a gun
> before. Same thing happened concerning the California AWB. But, here's a
> bigger clue: http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php In 1993, there were 16
> shall-issue states, 15 no-issue states, 18 may-issue states and 1
> unrestricted state. In 1994, the year the AWB was passed, there were 20
> shall-issue states, 12 no-issue states, 17 may-issue states and one
> unrestricted. Today, there are 35 shall-issue states, 4 no-issue states, 9
> may-issue states and 2 unestricted states.
>
> This has happened over the strident screaming objections of the Brady Bunch.
>
> -*MORT*-
>
>
Quaestor
> The point is that it shows an anti-gun bias that is unwarranted to set
> the default to block NRA sites as a default. I find that offensive
> too. The point about not blocking anti-gun sites as well amplifies
> the point of the anti-gun bias. Not that they should block the
> anti-gun sites.
I lost all respect for symantec years ago when their AV software turned
out to be merde, and their business attitude was all about grabbing
money and then arguing about whether they owed anything for it. That
they are also anti-gun-nuts just adds fuel to the fire upon which I say
let them burn.
AVAST! www.avast.com/ is much better virus protection, and they don't
try to rip your pocket off, or shove an anti-gun agenda at anyone.
Socks the white house cat
> The point is that it shows an anti-gun bias that is unwarranted to set
> the default to block NRA sites as a default. I find that offensive
> too.
> The point about not blocking anti-gun sites as well amplifies the
> point of the anti-gun bias. Not that they should block the anti-gun
> sites.
The point of not blocking anti-gun sites with a rule that blocks sites that
promote or sell weapons is that an anti-gun site is neither promoting nor
selling weapons and therefor wouldnt qualify.
what you're complaining about is the equivalent of a site configured to
block spammers that isn't blocking spamhaus. that makes no sense.
I don't use net nannys. I dont like them and I dont think they work right,
but blocking accurately to rule is not in my definition of not working
right.
Usenet text
possible... I'm hoping they stop blocking pron sites too.. so I don't have
to talk to them about the birds and the bees..
"Harold Robbins" <her...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:bPZ8d.1844$Al3...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
The Open Sourceror's Apprentice
@text.usenetserver.com:
> I defineitly want my kids getting as much information about guns as
> possible... I'm hoping they stop blocking pron sites too.. so I don't have
> to talk to them about the birds and the bees..
What are you jabbering about?
--
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
Usenet text
Exactly what are you using the net nanny for?
"The Open Sourceror's Apprentice" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns957B8BC36E3CMo...@216.99.211.247...
The Open Sourceror's Apprentice
@text.usenetserver.com:
> Jabbering.. nice
No, jabbering is not nice.
Notice where your quoted post ends? Notice where mine begins?
Chris Lewis
> > anti-porn sites, so why would you expect a netnanny that blocks
> > sites that promote weapons (in one sense or another) to _have_
> > to block anti-weapon sites too?
> > of that particular "rule", but if the option said "block
> > site that promote/sell weapons", I'd sure and hell expect
> > the NRA to be blocked if I clicked on it.
> The point is that it shows an anti-gun bias that is unwarranted to set
> the default to block NRA sites as a default. I find that offensive too.
They block porn. Failure to block anti-porn sites means that they have
a bias against sex?
I don't buy it.
They're simply catering to what their customers ask for.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
slate_leeper
(Chris Lewis) wrote:
>They're simply catering to what their customers ask for.
Doubtful. That might apply to sites on how to make pipe bombs or zip
guns, but should NOT include sites that contain political thoughts or
advocate certain views, especially when that blocking is obviously
one-sided. That is censorship. If a parent wishes to censor their kids
thoughts, that is their privilege, stupid as it may be, but should NOT
be the default setting for a publically sold product.
Note that Symantec/Norton has never responded to this issue, although
it has undoubtedly cost them lots of sales. I personally now use NOD32
for antivirus and will never again purchase any Symantec product. The
fact that they neither respond to the issue nor care about lost sales
pretty much shows their attitude toward customers.
-dan z-
- -
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
Bill Levinson
slate_leeper wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 04:41:37 +0000 (UTC), cle...@nortelnetworks.com
> (Chris Lewis) wrote:
>
>
>>They're simply catering to what their customers ask for.
>
>
>
> Doubtful. That might apply to sites on how to make pipe bombs or zip
> guns, but should NOT include sites that contain political thoughts or
> advocate certain views, especially when that blocking is obviously
> one-sided. That is censorship. If a parent wishes to censor their kids
> thoughts, that is their privilege, stupid as it may be, but should NOT
> be the default setting for a publically sold product.
>
> Note that Symantec/Norton has never responded to this issue, although
> it has undoubtedly cost them lots of sales. I personally now use NOD32
> for antivirus and will never again purchase any Symantec product. The
> fact that they neither respond to the issue nor care about lost sales
> pretty much shows their attitude toward customers.
>
> -dan z-
Symantec's customer support may as well be nonexistent. They have a
lousy attitude toward their customers and I will never buy a new virus
protection program from them again.