I have ran Norton Internet Security since the 2009 incarnation, with generally OK results [I'm a 40-year IT veteran and was curious how a "big box" suite would perform], but when I got the pop-up pushed at me to upgrade to 2011, I was appalled to see that it refused to install unless I uninstalled Threatfire, which it deemed to be "incompatible" - that's it; no other option, no explanation, just uninstall, "trust me, I'm Symantec and know best." Guess who will NOT be renewing their subscription in 24 days? What's the difference between "Security Toolkit" [as an example] telling me I have BAD STUFF on my system, and this?

IMO, patents are nothing to do with the topic. It is an established theory that when it's "Steam Engine Time", it will surely be invented!

http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2010/10-169.html is the original source; guess JOELLE TESSLER , quoted in http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_DIGITAL_COPYRIGHT?SITE=MSJAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT couldn't be bothered linking.

DISCLAIMER: I am part of the support team of an ISP
Yes, we do hate those users who suck bandwidth via bittorrent to the detriment of the majority who simply want to read their email, keep up-to-date via a social networking site and do other non-intensive tasks. However if we were being completely cynical, the over usage charges we can collect (and which our users agreed to in our AUP when they signed up) are a nice earner. PLUS I agree, we don't have to invest so heavily and so often to upgrade our infrastructure. I don't necessarily agree with such a position, but I'm stuck with it. However, I read TFPDF and it bleats about illegal copyrighted downloads which it seems to imply is the only use for bittorrent, nowhere do I see (except after the download is complete) how this violation can be proven. I have lost count over the years of how many iso's of various Linux distros I have downloaded, how many times the kids have updated WoW.... This sanctimonious BS posturing in the guise of protecting copyright leaves me cold.

Hmm. When I go to The Consulate General of India in San Francisco, I am assured that

Strangely enough, that site [registered by Verizon Wireless] is authenticated by Verisign Inc., but that does not seem to bother your governments sensibilities. BTW, I myself am a UK Citizen and a Permanent Resident of the United States, so I don't think your xenophobic rant really applies to me.

I applied for my visa/"Green Card" in the same way that a non-citizen from anywhere must, and although the process involves vetting as might be expected, I am never "excruciatingly humiliated" [to paraphrase your comment] when re-entering the US.

The point of my post was to highlight the fact that there exists a web of trust on the internet which seems to be ignored in this particular case; is that my browser's problem? I think not. They all quite rightly caution that there can be no trust applied to this particular site and to try to turn this into a specious allegation on what happens to a non-citizen entering the US is garbage.

There are good and bad points to be made on both sides of this contentious subject. Eliminating spurious traffic/spam etc could never be bad, but given the .au government's draconian position, I wouldn't trust them to monitor the corridors in a kindergarten school. As for "How?" - tail -f /var/log/messages works for me. Pipe it to some simple filters and you have it. Want to know who's reaching out on port 445? Or spamming on port 25? There's a filter for that.

2009-06-18 15:25:37 New Apache DOS Tool (Index,The Internet) (pending)

The phenomenon is well know and described here among other places. Try living at 55N and above (where I was born) and you realize how geography can affect mental well-being.