<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with symantec</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/symantec</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'symantec' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:35:25 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:35:25 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Mac  OS X viruses</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/40742/Mac%2DOS%2DX%2Dviruses</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5329/"&gt;Putting his money where his mouth is&lt;/a&gt; regarding the recent Symantec (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/7071&quot;&gt;Norton Utilities&lt;/a&gt;, Anti-Virus etc.)&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66989,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2&quot;&gt; Mac OS X virus claims&lt;/a&gt;...?  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/26/dvforge/index.php?lsrc=mcrss-0305&quot;&gt;Seems not to be&lt;/a&gt;, but the fellow who was sponsoring the $25,000 reward has a, shall we say, &lt;a href=&quot;http://macintouch.com/mactable.html&quot;&gt;checkered past&lt;/a&gt;.   Mac users &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baltimoresun.com/technology/custom/pluggedin/bal-mac082803,0,1353478.column&quot;&gt;are still waiting&lt;/a&gt; for the first real attack.   I could live without it, but this particular &lt;a href=&quot;http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/01/2141250&amp;tid=179&quot;&gt;religious war&lt;/a&gt; (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.themacobserver.com/appledeathknell/index.shtml&quot;&gt;however&lt;/a&gt; insane and inane it can get) does liven up our &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.flickr.com/photos/w00kie/sets/180637/show/&quot;&gt;computing&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/&quot;&gt;experience&lt;/a&gt;. If the pop-unders at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php&quot;&gt;MacDailyNews&lt;/a&gt;  get around your browser&apos;s pop-up blocker, go &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fastclick.com/v4/safe_optout.go&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.40742</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:35:25 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>apple</category>
		<category>computers</category>
		<category>dvforge</category>
		<category>jackcampbelll</category>
		<category>mac</category>
		<category>macosx</category>
		<category>osx</category>
		<category>symantec</category>
		<category>virus</category>
		<category>viruses</category>
		<dc:creator>indices</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>OMG, this is a violation of our RIGHTS!!!1</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/29338/OMG%2Dthis%2Dis%2Da%2Dviolation%2Dof%2Dour%2DRIGHTS1</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/02/1729239&amp;amp;mode=thread&amp;amp;tid=103&amp;amp;tid=153&amp;amp;tid=99"&gt;These guys are pretty upset.&lt;/a&gt; Symantec&apos;s new Internet Security suite combines a firewall, anti-virus utility, and content-filtering parental controls in one package.  And guess what?  When a user sets the filter to block &quot;Weapons&quot; sites, it blocks NRA pages!
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Internet Security 2004 isn&apos;t really the issue, however.  It&apos;s a (large) &quot;community&quot; once again overreacting, spreading &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whatis.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214113,00.html&quot;&gt;FUD&lt;/a&gt; about rights being taken away, political brainwashing, and the world coming to an end.  
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Or, this is just the best. troll. ever.  You decide.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.29338</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2003 18:29:36 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>antivirus</category>
		<category>fud</category>
		<category>internet</category>
		<category>symantec</category>
		<dc:creator>bhayes82</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Shrinkwrap, Software, EULAs and Reverse Engineering</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/23453/Shrinkwrap%2DSoftware%2DEULAs%2Dand%2DReverse%2DEngineering</link>
		<description> &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983988.html?tag=fd_top&quot;&gt;Another way around sneaky agreements&lt;/a&gt;:  A Californian is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.techfirm.com/Baker-Final.pdf&quot;&gt;suing&lt;/a&gt; (PDF) Microsoft and Symantec over shrink-wrapped agreements and EULAs that are only readable when you first install the software, making a return or refund absolutely impossible.  Many courts have &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bhlaw.com/practice/shrinkwrap.htm&quot;&gt;upheld shrinkwrap licenses&lt;/a&gt;.  Conversely, reverse engineering has been &lt;a href=&quot;http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020926_sprigman.html&quot;&gt;determined to constitute fair use&lt;/a&gt;.  If this case sets a precedent, could we see abridged legalese on the side of future boxes or a rethinking of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.batnet.com/oikoumene/softwr_licnsetrnds98.html&quot;&gt;software licensing trends&lt;/a&gt;?  Or will the cluttered tower of consumer rights, protection for software companies and code evolution and innovation topple over?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.23453</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:52:13 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>CNET</category>
		<category>EULAs</category>
		<category>FairUse</category>
		<category>licenses</category>
		<category>litigation</category>
		<category>Microsoft</category>
		<category>Shrinkwrap</category>
		<category>Symantec</category>
		<category>USlaw</category>
		<dc:creator>ed</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/12704/</link>
		<description> In lieu of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/12590&quot;&gt;Magic Lantern&lt;/a&gt; thread, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.politechbot.com/p-02851.html&quot;&gt;Symantec will be ignoring the FBI trojan&lt;/a&gt;.  [taken from &lt;a href=&quot;http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/28/173201&amp;mode=nested&amp;threshold=1&quot;&gt;./&lt;/a&gt;]  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.12704</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:35:04 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>backdoor</category>
		<category>computers</category>
		<category>FBI</category>
		<category>Nortons</category>
		<category>security</category>
		<category>Symantec</category>
		<category>trojan</category>
		<dc:creator>hobbes</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/2829/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/download.html"&gt;The bastards at Symantec&lt;/a&gt; are now &lt;a href=&quot;https://rigel.symantec.com/cgi-bin/esd1.pl?sku=07-12-00014&amp;segment=electronic&amp;subsite=us&amp;promocode=ECSALES&amp;VENICE=x&quot;&gt;charging for virus updates.&lt;/a&gt;  They&apos;ve just lost a customer, a hopefully many more.   The feedback form is &lt;a href=&quot;http://service1.symantec.com/DISCUSS/SUPPORT/feedback2.nsf/internet+services+feedback&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt; if you feel the need to bitch at them.
 </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2000:site.2829</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Aug 2000 16:19:56 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>antivirus</category>
		<category>internetsecurity</category>
		<category>norton</category>
		<category>security</category>
		<category>symantec</category>
		<category>virus</category>
		<category>virusdefinitions</category>
		<category>virusupdates</category>
		<dc:creator>skallas</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


