Talk:Forcepoint: Difference between revisions
m spam |
Your mission to improve neutrality should not, I hope, require that you remove pointers to reliable independent sources. |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
{{WikiProject San Diego|class=start|importance=Mid}} |
{{WikiProject San Diego|class=start|importance=Mid}} |
||
{{archivebox|auto=yes}} |
{{archivebox|auto=yes}} |
||
==Analyst coverage of WebSense== |
|||
Gartner RAS Core Research Note G00168012, Eric Ouellet, Paul E. Proctor, 22 June 2009, RA4 06242010 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.125.89.46|24.125.89.46]] ([[User talk:24.125.89.46|talk]]) 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== "HAEM" category == |
== "HAEM" category == |
Revision as of 09:58, 16 February 2012
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Forcepoint article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 200 days |
Companies Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||
|
Computer Security: Computing Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||
|
San Diego Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 200 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
Analyst coverage of WebSense
Gartner RAS Core Research Note G00168012, Eric Ouellet, Paul E. Proctor, 22 June 2009, RA4 06242010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.89.46 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"HAEM" category
Does anyone know what the "HAEM" category refers to? It's started coming up at work when I try to get to Google docs. --jwandersTalk 11:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Most likely a custom category from your company. There is no default HAEM category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.139.254 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Some of these complaints make me laugh...
A few people like to blame and criticise Websense it seems. In my opinion Websense is not the problem, as they simply produce a tool which their customers use to apply policy on which websites are allowed or not. It's their customers who define what their employees can and can't access not Websense.
Occaisionally Websense will categorise a site in a certain way that people may disagree with and in these cases administrators can redefine the cateogry to something they deem more suitable for their circumstances.
People also shouldn't expect that their Internet connection at work is for their own personal use. It's a business as well as educational tool and therefore people shouldn't complain if they can't access dirtyslags.com at work or school. Some websites are clearly more appropriate for surfing at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.63.210 (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Need source for Israel-Wensense link
"The fact that, according to the company's own website, WebSENSE PreciseID technology was first developed for the Israeli military (see above) now takes on a possible new significance." Removed until you find a WP:RS reliable source. The way it stands right now, it's a speculative unsourced statement based on original research. Probably some peacefore page stating this will serve as a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
links to proxy sites
I saw a link to a redirection for the ceasefitre proxy, and I replaced it with the actual direction of the ceasefire proxy [1]. I didn't remove the link altogether because it could be relevant for people to see how it works. Also, wikipedia should not be a place to get the latest uncesored link to get around websense, right? :P (Not totally sure if this the only and official proxy avoider, btw) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. Websense just launched its version 7.0 and its going to get rid of proxie sites altogether. Before, proxy sites would get block once they get categorized ( every time you visit one it gets logged by Websense reporting) and eventually there database team will categorize it. Now they have real time analysis which will see that its a proxy, and shut it down right away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.139.254 (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Removal of Ad warning
I'm no friend of the shysters at Websense, but this entry no longer reads like an ad, so I'm removing it.Wingspeed (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is being blocked too
I assume this is a universal block by Websense. I cannot access certain articles here such as "Anonymous". Are there any articles here that have been blocked?--194.80.204.106 (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I just noticed this today. It's paranoid and Orwellian to say the least.
"Controversy" section
I'm removng most of this. Websense does not block sites. It categorises sites. It is then up to a network admin in whatever organisation has installed Websense to decide what categories are browseable, or are blocked, or can be 'clicked through'. Is Amnesty an advocacy org? Absolutely. Does that mean Websense blocks it? No. Only if the software is told to do so. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV say to represent all significant viewpoints, and the viewpopints of Amnesty International and ACLU are quite significant. Also, that section includes notable facts like being used in China in its notable censorship efforts, or how a report on its inaccuracy influenced the striking down of the Children's Internet Protection Act.
- About the link you removed [2], the page has links to the english, french and spanish versions. I added a direct link to the english pdf.
- I put up a notice at the NPOV noticeboard for interested people to comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- That seems like a good idea, Enric. Apologies on removing the original Amnesty link - I didn't spot the link to the English-language reports up beside the body of text, just the foreign-language links under it. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
(As posted on the Noticeboard): I don't feel the Controversy section (or, indeed, the article as a whole) is neutral and it gives undue prominence to very minor matters.
- Websense is a software product that gets installed on web gateways - it can be done by companies (or schools, or libraries, or public service/government organisations) to stop their employees/users browsing for porn, or non-work sites, or illegal download sites, or whatever.
- Websense, the company, filters websites into predefined categories (and administrators of the software can put any site they wish into any category they wish). The categories get downloaded onto the local copy of the software at predefined intervals.
- The administrators of the installed software decided what categories get blocked, or don't get blocked. (Or, IIRC, that some categories get blocked during working hours but are fine on lunch/after hours).
So why is the article NPOV?
- Inaccuracy: The lead says "This enables its clients, businesses and governments, to block user access to chosen categories of website." Websense's clients are organisations. Businesses, schools, colleges, ISPs, libraries, voluntary and public sector organisations. Not governments. I'm not aware of any government that acts as an ISP.
- Bias: A screenshot is captioned "Having been set up in this instance to filter the category "advocacy groups," Websense is seen preventing access to the human rights organization Amnesty International at http://amnesty.org/" That would be because Websense (the company) correctly placed the Amnesty site in the category "Advocacy groups". Some admin in the organisation where the screenshot was taken decided that the category "Advocacy groups" should not be available from that organisation's web connection. I.e., not the fault of Websense (the company). A fairer screenshot and caption might be of Websense blocking access to some adult/porn site...
- Undue weight: From the reference, Norman Finkelstein's blog was apparently placed in some category that got it blocked - by some unspecified organisation. A user complained to Websense that the blog was in the wrong category. They fixed it the next day. Websense categorise thousands of sites every day - I'm sure they'd admit they're not 100% accurate, but when it was brought to their attention, they changed it. How is that noteworthy? They've mis-categorised several sites I've needed for work, and an admin either changes it themselves, or gets Websense (the company) to do it - no real hassle, or conspiracy. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- About "innaccuracy", Opennet reported in 2006 that Websense was used by Yemen (reported in Usa Today[3], NYT[4], [5] International Herald Tribune (same story as NYT) [6] Yemen Times (complete detailed account, google cache), and other newspapers, and Electronic Frontiers Australia [7], link to report, the Yemen government was using Websense and Antlabs and something about "BlueCoat"), and in "state-controlled service provider in Iran, ParsOnline" (see NYT link), one of the non-profit links explains its usage in China, the "Case studies" page in websense.com lists three non-bussiness entries[8] (2 schools, 1 city). Their "industry solutions" page talks about "Government and public sector agencies" [9]. I'll add to the article that websense states in its legal info that it doesn't give service to governments or ISPs that implement government-imposed censorship [10].
- P.D.: It appears that websense has really cleared its act: it would seem that the Australian Communications and Media Authority is not using them in their "Great Firewall of Australia". (although it's one of the filters that people can use because it's in the Internet Industry Association "family friendly" list, but that's a different matter)[11]
- About "bias", I agree. Months ago the image had a neutral caption, and was placed out of the controversy section:
- "Websense classifies websites and allows customers to block access to certain categories of websites. Here it is restricting http://amnesty.org/ because it was setup to filter the category "Advocacy Groups"." (emphasis added)
- I readded this caption with a bit of modification. Feel free to take a new screenshot of the software blocking a porn site. (can you make a screenshot of websense blocking slashdot.org because of being in the category "time wasting"? lol, just joking :3 ) (hum, maybe we can use the cisco.com screeenshot from the The Register link below, but that would be to illustrate the mistake)
- About "bias", I agree. Months ago the image had a neutral caption, and was placed out of the controversy section:
- It's notable because the dumb frequency-of-certain-words based websense software had classified an Norman Finkelstein's and frigging Noam Chomsky's websites under "Racism/Hate Speech", which is just the most remarkable of the multiple blunders made by this software. I think I should reword that with more sources, like websense filters cisco.com as a "hack site" (The Register). Something like,
- "the filter has mislabelled and blocked notable sites in occasions, like blocking Filkelstein and Chomsky's websites under 'racism/hate speech' category for a day until the israeli intellectual complained and it was fixed, and briefly classifying router company cisco's website under 'hack sites'. Errors are solved in short time, but they illustrate that the problem of false alarms is not restricted to antivirus software."
- I added the text above with minor tweaks. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- "the filter has mislabelled and blocked notable sites in occasions, like blocking Filkelstein and Chomsky's websites under 'racism/hate speech' category for a day until the israeli intellectual complained and it was fixed, and briefly classifying router company cisco's website under 'hack sites'. Errors are solved in short time, but they illustrate that the problem of false alarms is not restricted to antivirus software."
- Indeed, if you google for "wensense mistakes", the first 33 hits are for the cisco.com mistake (lol) John C. Dvorak also complained that his blog "Dvorak uncensored" had been blocked as a sex oriented website[12], he later complained in his famous column[13] saying "Countless companies use Websense. Apparently Wall Street likes the company because it's lean and mean.". Mind you, none of those errors come from some IT guy blocking a website at their company, they are all from websense itself incorrectly blacklisting a site and then propagating the error to all their clients when they update their lists through the internet. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's notable because the dumb frequency-of-certain-words based websense software had classified an Norman Finkelstein's and frigging Noam Chomsky's websites under "Racism/Hate Speech", which is just the most remarkable of the multiple blunders made by this software. I think I should reword that with more sources, like websense filters cisco.com as a "hack site" (The Register). Something like,
Remark
...but the Websense robots themselves disregard any robot.txt files and META TAGS that are supposed to exclude robots. 93.135.98.31 (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Kriwis
- Start-Class company articles
- Unknown-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- Start-Class Computer Security articles
- Unknown-importance Computer Security articles
- Start-Class Computer Security articles of Unknown-importance
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Computer Security articles
- Start-Class San Diego articles
- Mid-importance San Diego articles
- WikiProject San Diego articles