Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : NET NANNY SOFTWARE NNS-V -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gator who wrote (1499)	12/2/1998 6:30:00 PM
From: philip trigiani	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1681

I was the one who mentioned NASDAQ. But, as I posted, NASDAQ lisiting has criteria to be met before they would even be considered. Any company needs to meet 1 of the following 3. 1. Minimum revenues $300M 2. Minimum share cap. 3. minimum value per share. NNS is not close yet to any of these, but, NNS surely is looking in this direction. European listing could be an idea. Most of the recent buying has come from Europe. NNS has a huge presence and growth potential in Europe. IMHO!

To: Gator who wrote (1499)	12/4/1998 1:19:00 PM
From: Jon Warren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1681

Here is an excerpt from an WinNT Magazine newsletter I get. There is both pro and con in these paragraphs. ============================================ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Want to sponsor Security UPDATE? Contact Vicki Peterson at 877-217-1826 or 970-203-2952 or vpeterson@winntmag.com. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi everyone, As you know, a significant part of securing an Internet-connected network is controlling which sites you let your employees visit. You must control access to sites of questionable ethics and morality to avoid offending some employees. In several cases, employees have sued their employers after accidentally viewing offensive material while peering over a colleague's shoulder. The courts seem to think it's the company's responsibility to prevent this type of accidental viewing. However, for public places, court decisions are the opposite. For example, one Internet-connected library in Virginia had planned to filter Web content to prevent children from accidentally viewing pornographic and other material of questionable value. Several groups got together and sued the library for violating First Amendment rights, thereby blocking the use of content-filtering software in those public facilities. In my opinion, the decision seems fair. I believe in curing problems at the root--not simply patching them with a moral Band-Aid. A child's desire to view questionable material is usually driven by curiosity, and the child's parents, not librarians, need to appropriately address this curiosity. But for an adult working in a private company, the situation is different. A firm's "acceptable use policies" need to govern what sites employees can and cannot access using company resources and company time. I'm not an attorney, but it seems logical that not employing acceptable use policies and content-filtering controls would leave a company vulnerable to lawsuits based on incidents of accidental content viewing--and that certainly must be a risk to overall business security. Mark Joseph Edwards mje@winntmag.com ===================== HOT OFF THE PRESS ==================== (contributed by Mark Joseph Edwards, mje@winntmag.com) * JUDGE SAYS NO FILTERING ALLOWED A US District Judge has ruled against Loudoun County Public Library, determining that the library may not filter Internet content. The Virginia-based library had planned to use X-Stop content-filtering software to prevent access to sites deemed harmful to minors. Judge Leonie Brinkema, a former librarian, said "[the library] has asserted a broad right to censor the expressive activity of the receipt and communication of information through the Internet with a policy that is not necessary to further any compelling government interest; is not narrowly tailored; restricts the access of adult patrons to protected material just because the material is unfit for minors; provides inadequate standards for restricting access; and provides inadequate procedural safeguards to ensure prompt judicial review. Such a policy offends the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment and is, therefore, unconstitutional." The American Civil Liberties Union, Banned Books Online, Safer Sex Page, American Association of University Women Maryland, and San Francisco Examiner columnist Rob Morse brought the case against the library. lcpl.lib.va.us