BC Fathers

 

problems with Norton Internet Security 2013

Symantec Shareholders Worried

Symantec shareholders are increasingly worried about the growing likelihood of multiple legal prosecutions and adverse publicity surrounding Symantec's Rulespace software.

Concerned shareholders who remain unaware of the impending problems should investigate the claims of thousands of internet users and webmasters who are currently gathering together to force Symantec to stop blocking websites and blogs simply because the Symantec management does not approve of their political content.

If these claims are true, this will be seen as a sinister development to people who are concerned about civil liberties, freedom of speech and internet censorship.

Worse, from Symantec's point of view, is that thousands of these sites have been categorised as "hate sites" by Symantec, but a close look at many of these sites clearly reveals that they are nothing of the sort.

One good example of this is the website ...

http://www.dvmen.co.uk/

... which is a site simply devoted to pointing out that men, as well as women, can experience domestic violence.

As a result of these serious misclassifications, webmasters and bloggers are gradually uniting and planning to sue Symantec for libel and defamation.

The costs of such suits for Symantec could run into millions of dollars; particularly since the management has been aware of these misclassifications for some considerable time - thus compounding the company's liability in law - but appears to have made no attempt to deal with them.

As such, shareholders might well have grounds to wonder if the company is much more concerned about the political leanings of its management and much less concerned about them.

More disturbing, perhaps, is that Symantec is being accused by some people of blocking web sites devoted to exposing child abuse. And the question is being asked, "Who is Symantec trying to protect? What is the company trying to hide?"

On a lighter note, the Fathers For Justice website was, until a few days ago, catagorised as a "Shopping" site.

 

symantec block list

 

Symantec is also likely to face intense lobbying in the UK following the revelation that, despite having made millions of pounds from its UK activities, it pays virtually no tax in the UK.

UK politicians, UK government departments and UK businesses are therefore coming under increasing attack for using Symantec products.

It is also seems likely that Symantec has been avoiding the payment of millions of tax dollars in America - where it is based.

Many people are now arguing that even if Symantec's tax avoidance measures are currently legal, American patriots should choose to use other products particularly given the current poor state of their own economy.

In January of 2012, James Gross filed a lawsuit against Symantec for distributing fake scareware scanners that purportedly, and fraudulently, proclaimed to have discovered malware issues with their computers. The solution proffered? Buy Symantec's Norton Security software.

To add even further to its woes, there has recently been the suggestion that Symantec is heavily blocking non-USA sites while allowing equivalent sites in the USA to pass through its filters.

Finally, as of June 2013, the widely respected Customer Service Scoreboard rated Symantec's customer service as "Disappointing"

All in all, therefore, it looks as if Symantec's shareholders might shortly be in for a bumpy ride as more and more questions arise over the competence and trustworthiness of its senior management.

I thought it was time to update people on the progress that we've made on the issue of O2/Symantec censoring and defaming men's human rights sites.

Firstly I want to thank everyone who had blogged about this issue, it's fantastic to see it discussed in so many different places and even in different languages. I thought this article on Trigger Alert was particularly good and Tom Golden has written a nice piece on Avoiceformen too. There's a even Youtube video helping bring the message to a wider audience which I thoroughly recommend viewing and also plenty of material over at Fathers for Life.

I've written several new articles further investigating the issue which are essential viewing, for example highlighting some extreme feminists sites that aren't blocked, how feminists get their sites unblocked, and how O2/Symantec even treat men's rights websites as more hateful than far right groups. I also contacted ISP Review who wrote a good article on the issue which led to Symantec blocking a radical feminist site.

The list of banned sites has now expanded to 109 and now even includes UK Political party Justice for Men and Boys, so we now have not just censorship and defamation by Symantec/O2 but also interference in the democratic process too. Another new addition is Fathers4Justice Quebec so which could be to our benefit in overturning this as it's such a well known name. Finally, whilst not explicitly a men's rights site, The Campaign Against Political Correctness is now also blocked as "hate", meaning a body heavily supported by two British MPs is now censored and thus they are too.

I managed to find the direct contact details for the Rulespace team and emailed them the entire list of wrongly blocked sites. Unfortunately they were completely useless and agreed to unblock just one site. However, as a result of further complaints, I'm pleased to announce that I'm now in communication with senior Symantec management who have at least promised to "look into the matter", therefore it's now more important than ever to keep up the pressure. Further good news is that Angry Harry has now joined the campaign in earnest and has some interesting strategies for applying pressure on these companies.

For those Tweeting about this issue please remember to write "@O2" and "@Symantec" in your Tweet so they are forced see it. Perhaps we can also start a Twitter hashtag for the scandal such as #SexistSymantec. Even just commenting on or "liking" other people's articles helps as it shows they're reaching a wide audience.

I'll be adding a least one more article to the Rights of Man blog later this week and I'll be in touch again once I hear from Symantec.

Regards

John Kimble

Dear Mr. Wiebe:

 

I understand you have contacted Symantec with regards to the categorization of the website, www.fathers.bc.ca, and alleged blocking of this website by O2.  We have re-reviewed your website and believe it has been correctly categorized.   

 

Please note that Symantec does provide web content categorization services which may be used by information content providers or others, including consumers, to make decisions about content filtering policies.  However, we are puzzled that you claim that the problem has been ongoing for “more than a year” as we believe that we only became aware of this website on or around May 2013.  To the extent your complaint relates to blocking by O2, you may need to contact O2 to understand its policies.  It is likely that an individual who would like to access your website need only contact his network administrator to have him change his filtering options or access the website through another internet connection. 

 

We do not believe that the categorization of your website may be the basis for a claim of defamation, and, in the alternative, we believe that we have full defences for a claim of defamation.

 

Yours truly,

 

Katie Chang

 

 

Katie Chang
Corporate Counsel

Legal Department

Symantec Corporation 
www.symantec.com


________________________________

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication. Thank you.

wordlogo