Thanks for the info, Carlos:Googling
symantec china government
produces good hits on the first result page.
It is indeed most shocking what is going on here.
If Symantech was not on the no-fly-list of every Mac-user in his right mind anyway because their products for OS X cause more problems than they solve, that would be one single reason to no longer do business with them.

The Financial Times ran an article, full quoted here (FT requires a login):

http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/f...er/026459.html

The fourth Google link is this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09...bels_freegate/

Which says Symantec retought their policy a few weeks later and removed Freegate from their malware definitions. Whether to quell a bad publicity blow up or as a revision of an honest mistake, I cannot say.

The freegate site
http://www.dit-inc.us/news.htm
seems to caution the "honest mistake"-option.
Whether those are good manners and a way to save Symantecs face or the result of whatever else remains indeed left as an exercise to the reader.

It is however highly unlikely that the mistake would have been corrected without the liberty to write about it and Symantec caring for their image.

OS X. There is no spyware that runs on X.

The Symantec products are horrible on Windows too, where they actually do something, but don't do it well. I've said it before...I've billed a LOT of time due to Symantec AV failures or damaged caused by the product itself.

Thanx for keeping this thread on a good track!!
 

Carlos: Thanks for this most comforting clarification.
Voldenuit, Kawliga & Carlos: I read all the articles you linked to. They were real eye-openers. :eek: Thanks!

It is indeed fascinating to see a major international player in its field (Symantec) turn around and admit "a technical mistake" -- and more importantly, back down and "correct it".

The technical aspects of limiting/censoring Internet access, narrowing/skewing search results on Google and similar search sites (as FatElvis pointed out), and that of adware/spyware are very interesting and deserve far more attention.

I’m grateful that we are able to discuss this thoroughly here, and bring forth enlightening examples, while avoiding any inappropriate political discussion.

Thanks so far, everyone! :)


With best regards,
ArcticStones

Hi,
Interesting thread, good to see that this has not turned in to the typical flamewar you usually see in forums when the topic brushes on highly political issues.

Being an engineer myself I have sometimes wondered, especially after reading articles such as referenced in this thread, dealing with technical means to limit free speech and anonymity, what my reaction would be if the company where I am employed assigned me to develop just such a technology. Would I stand up, hold on to my principles (and get fired :o ). Would I think: "Well, if I quit my job, someone else is going to do it". Or even worse, would I react at all.

What are the engineers at Microsoft and Symantec (the ones mentioned here, I guess most companies have skeletons in their closet) thinking when assigned to such projects? Do they consider the consequences of their work?

I guess my point is that even if you may criticize large companies for developing technology that limits the way we communicate and access information, there are still the matter of idividual integrity of the developers of such technology. I'll bet a lot of members of this forums are in my position, beeing employed by relatively large companies, some of which may be responsible for this development. Where do you draw the line? Is the notion of "stand up for what is right" worth the possibility of loosing the monthly paycheck?

-seagull

Very interesting stuff here.

Why I gave up my job
 

Seagull, quite some years ago, I was editorial secretary of a couple of magazines. At one point I was ordered to sell advertisements for one of them. The problem was that it had by then become clear that the circulation figures quoted to potential advertisers were bloated; so bloated that it was close to being a swindle.

I refused. Two weeks later I lost my job, with artificial reasons cited. (Well, I had already drafted my resignation.)

This happened less than a month after my daughter was born. I had no other job to go to. In fact, at that time the market was difficult -- and it took me three months to find a job.

But it would have been a higher price to look in the mirror each day, if I knew that I had chosen to live a lie.


With best regards,
ArcticStones

Given that the US Senate has passed this:

(from an internetnews.com article here.)

couldn't it be argued that Amazon's (and others) behaviour is not just immoral, but now illegal as personal data is obtained via the cookies without consent i.e cookies are being used as spyware.

I think this is way off. Or maybe you aren't understanding what cookies are used for (by Amazon and other retailing sites).
There is typically no info per-se in the cookies except for customer identification. The info about what you have purchased is in Amazon's databases. The cookie merely allows them to know who you are without the need for you to login. Thus there is no personal data being obtained - Amazon already has your personal data if you have been a customer of theirs previously.

Newspaper focuses on Microsoft
 

One of the top stories on Dagbladet.no (Norway’s second largest Internett newspaper) is about Microsoft.

The story reports that Microsoft has removed the words "democracy" and "freedom" from their Chinese Web portal. If users attempt to write these words in MSN Spaces, they receive the following error message: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item". (The same also applies to "democratic party", "independent Taiwan" or "demonstration".)

The article quotes Microsoft’s company guidelines "forbidding the posting of content that is in conflict with local or national law".

I assume the technology required for Microsoft to comply with Chinese law is fairly simple, and that this did not demand particularly much time of those Microsoft employees who implemented the filter.

But it is duly noted that Microsoft’s choice is (at least partly) receiving appropriate press coverage.

Best regards,
ArcticStones

The nature of cookies
 

I believe Hayne is right. The personal information stored by Amazon (and others) is usually gained with the consent of the customer. Just like I have consented to the use of cookies here on MacOSXHints. These are coupled with the information that I have chosen to provide.

All very legit.

But would it be legitimate for a record store to offer two customers different prices, based merely on how many times they have walked through the door? And should the frequent customer be penalised?! The use of data mining technology to differentiate price offers, raises very serious questions, indeed. One of these is whether such a practice should be legal.

I would be very interested in hearing if anyone can quote a specific law that such a practice transgresses.

With best regards,
ArcticStones

Not only the dagbladet, also the Financial Times has an article about that, most appropriately syndicated by Microsofts very own msn last friday:

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/pri...610&ID=4884671

and got slashdotted:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/11/1946230

It is remarkable that it slipped through...

Absolutely brilliant! There are anonymous people out there that deserve a standing ovation. Well, if he/she reads this, please know that I’m grinning for ear to ear in deep appreciation.

:D

David Pogue throws in a word
 

In his regular tech column in the New York Times (nytimes.com), well-known author David Pogue finds it worthwhile to focus on Microsoft/China.

"Pogue’s Posts" requires that you’re a registered user (free).

It's a good question. I've had to face something similar, and refused to lie. I wasn't fired over it, but given a lot of harrasment. I was too valuable to the company in other ways, but the owner held a personal grudge over this. He was a scumbag in general, which I eventually figured out, and left the company.

The question gets more complicated with things like the Chinese laws. We think, under our standards, that they are wrong. But it is the current law of a country which we don't fully understand, and who are we to judge them and enforce OUR view of morality on them? It's a double-edged sword.

I was born in a communist dictatorship myself (Cuba). While I firmly believe in the founding principles of this country, I see the double edge of trying to enforce that view upon another country. Those very principles say that the other country has a right to be what they want to be.

If it is illegal for code to execute on a machine, without knowledge or consent, that retrieves "personally identifiable information from consumers," because it may be used to financially disadvantage them (amongst other things), then it must (or should) also be illegal to retrieve information from a consumer's machine that identifies the consumer so that information entered purely to complete a previous purchase is used, without knowledge or consent, to financially disadvantage them.

Clearly, there are technical differences in how the information is obtained - but since that information is used to achieve the same purpose, the differences are surely academic.

I suppose that's the nub, isn't it? Certainly from a UK perspective, consent has not been given, as the Data Protection Act states that the purposes for which data is to be used must be explictly stated. I understand there is no US equivalent, which might explain the contrasting privacy policies of the US and UK Amazon sites (the only sites I checked.)

Getting questionable legislation on the books
 

About 15 years ago, I received a letter from the Postal Bank requesting my Identity No. (= social security number). That info was not mandatory when the account was opened. In their letter the Postal Bank stated that they were required to have that information for their reports to the Tax Authorities.

Naturally, I sent them a letter back :) . I requested their confirmation that this information would be used only for that purpose; and specifically that my Identity No. would never be used by an external party as a search key.

I never did receive a response. :rolleyes:

* * *

By and large, Norway has very strict laws regulating personal information stored in databases. In fact far stricter than corresponding law in the European Union.

* * *

A few months ago, I downloaded a copy of the so-called Patriot Act. I must confess that I was utterly astonished that such an stew of judicial texts, with profound implications on IT and technological aspects of society, could be politically approved -- as far as I know with only a dissenting vote. (Never mind the fact that no one had time to read, let alone study it, before it was enacted.)

The real issue that I want to point out is this: There is an awful lot of legislation being enacted on both sides of the Atlantic that can be grossly misused. And some of this legislation directly concerns the Internet, digital storage of personal information, and other technical aspects of our right to live a free life.

This is happening internationally, and it is highly systematic.
And that is reason for grave concern.

With best regards,
ArcticStoned

Hmmm. Sounds pretty darn political to me.

yikes...someone say Patiot Act??? this thread could go on for ever, and ever