Talk:Blue Coat Systems

NPOV

This reads like a corporate webpage. More NPOV please. 196.207.40.148 (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I've added {{advert}}. 86.132.142.207 (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added references to back up the claims on the webpage by pointing to product datasheets. Abwny (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Products section looks like ad, not an encyclopaedia page. 217.154.131.202 (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

March 2009

I'm declining the speedy deletion tag placed by a competitor; plenty of notability, not promotional enough for speedy deletion. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

no Way on Linux Code but you can find these string in the SGos Executables

/home/mohamed/p4/scorpius/main/../toolchain/linux/x86_64_host/gcc/x86_target/v4.2.1/i386-bcsi-sgos/lib/libgcc_s.so

/home/harold/sgos/toolchain/build-cross/toolchain_source/gcc-4.2.1/libstdc++-v3/libmath/stubs.c

or

OpenSSH_5.2p1

As you Wish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.236.229.52 (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Older article

An earlier version of this article was deleted for being too promotional. I have restored it ([1]) because it includes a lot more detail which could be re-integrated into the current article. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

october 2011

i wrote some stuff (again) about the companys alegged involvement in syria. any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.77.163 (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

potential WSJ resource

U.S. Restricts U.A.E. Firm for Web Filter Sale to Syria by Paul Sonne and Steve Stecklow 16.December.2011, excerpt ...

The Department of Commerce is placing restrictions on a person and a company in the United Arab Emirates for supplying Syria with Internet-filtering devices made by California-based Blue Coat Systems Inc. On Thursday, Commerce said it put Waseem Jawad and the Ras Al Khaimah-based company Info Tech, also known as Infotec, on a list of people and institutions determined to "have engaged in activities contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests."

Related video Pressure Mounts to Limit Surveillance Exports "Pressure mounted Thursday on U.S. and Western companies that sell censorship and surveillance technology to repressive regimes, with a congressman introducing a bill that would restrict such exports, Jennifer Valentino-DeVries reports Dec.9.2011

99.181.130.155 (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

According to [22], this software is widely used world-wide, including USA, France and Germany. Why does the article list an arbitrary countries selection instead? 37.192.250.101 (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the distinction is between countries where the Blue Coat Systems are used and countries where the Blue Coat Systems are used by the government. The list comes primarily from [21], but seems consistent with [22]. I just looked at [22] and didn't see the USA, France, or Germany listed as countries where the government uses Blue Coat Systems. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Request edit

The second paragraph of the History section reads as follows:

Blue Coat provides products to more than 15,000 customers worldwide. It identifies itself as a business assurance technology specialist.[10] Blue Coat products are primarily used by enterprises, schools, hospitals, governments, and public agencies to block malware and malicious threats, control access to applications and content in the workplace, surveillance, censorship, and improve the performance of network applications.[11] Usually used in conjunction with a firewall rather than in lieu of same.

The content is cited to the company blog, this blurb or is unsourced. Save for the mention of "surveillance, censorship" which is unsourced, most of it is promotional and contains indications of COI editing, such as an extensive list of industries served. I'd like to suggest trimming the entire paragraph. CorporateM (Talk) 00:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Per concerns above. Appears to be sourced to blog entry, and only in part. itp.net doesn't even touch upon claims in paragraph, rather is extremely broad generalization and marketing copy for middle-managers without specifics. "Filtering" would have been better terminology than surveillance; basically the same but without connotations. -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

POV Content

The organization has been named by Reporters Without Borders as one of five "Corporate Enemies of the Internet."

Stating that a US Corporation is an "Enemy of the Internet" from a self appointed troll organization is anything but credible. This content is inflamatory, POV, and just flat low quality and does not meet wikipedia standards. The sources quoted are self published by this troll organization and unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.213.246 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2016

• This is not how WP:NPOV works; RSF are permitted their position and opinion. They've editors, a Board, are an internationally recognized organization etc. If one has concerns with source, address them at WP:RS/N. -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and posted it at RSN here with what I believe to be a neutral notification. I am not familiar with that particular organization, but do observe that this article has a tendency of citing inappropriate sources like Twitter, Buzzfeed and The Register, for controversial information and bold claims. The Register is known in the tech industry (@Jehochman: might be able to verify as someone that works in the tech field) as basically a gossip rag. As disclosed above, I have an affiliation with the company; ideally disinterested editors might be able to hash it out and reach a consensus. CorporateM (Talk) 13:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've included additional sources where these publications are used; sans Twitter, the only "inappropriate" source. BuzzFeed do long-form and in-depth journalism--this is not one of their listicles. The Register's reportage is fine, particularly in these instances; I've reviewed them and discovered no problems. Is there a specific objection or concern which may need to be addressed further? -- dsprc ^[talk] 18:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's unbalanced and weighted and a patently false statement Blue Coat is an enemy of the internet. Blue Coat Systems is not an "enemy of the internet" because a trolling group simply says so. Blue Coat is a reputable corporation. I hate to say it Dsprc, but you seem to have drank the reporters without borders kool-aide. It seems almost like a vendetta because this company does deep packet inspection and you don't like that. If anyone is an enemy of the internet its the governments using Blue Coats technology. I mean, you don't hold the gun manufacturer responsible for the Orlando Pulse club shootings, Mateen is responsible since he bought the guns and used them. This designation is unfair to the subject of the article, and flat inaccurate. Blue Coat makes network analysis tools -- how these governments use the technology has nothing to do with Blue Coat, it's all on them. Please stop being so myopic and step back and think about it. It's POV and unbalanced. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP. It is better to avoid statements like "you seem to have drank the... kool-aide. It seems almost like a vendetta... Please stop being so myopic." Etiquette on Wikipedia is to focus on content and sources and avoid ad hominem attacks against other editors. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says the Lead should include "any prominent controversies," and there is a significant controversy with better sources (WSJ, NYT, etc.) about their devices being smuggled into countries that use it for censorship, just maybe not specifically about this attack of being a "corporate enemy," which is also not very descriptive. Since it doesn't make sense to remove any mention of censorship from the Lead, my suggestion would be to come up with a proposed replacement that is more neutral and descriptive from your perspective and is more representative of the total body of literature and share it with dsprc here. CorporateM (Talk) 23:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. How about you take a stab at it as an unbiased editor. I am typically very neutral about stuff, but I think I could use the help. I am still learning about WP though. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The organization has been subject to controversy due to its products being used to conduct mass surveillance and censorship of the Internet by governments that engage in human rights abuses. Because of this, Blue Coat have been named by Reporters Without Borders as one of five "Corporate Enemies of the Internet". Perfect, now its not POV, lay the blame at the feet of the folks doing it, these governments, not Bluecoat. Thanks. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

(←) If you relax, don't make assumptions—except assuming good faith—and not let your own biases get the better of you, it is easier to collaborate. Is exact same content, just expanded. Now, if you want to help buff the history section we took a chunk from, or to trim the sales brochure of a products list, that is cool too. -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes Sir. Assume good faith. That's something all of us need to do including me. Thanks dude. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice work! Throughout Wikipedia there is often an excessive focus on controversy, because it's interesting and gets people fired up. However, most articles should focus mostly on boring stuff. For example, the Lead doesn't even mention the company's early history (venture funding), its IPO, the failure of the Cacheflow concept, or summarize the reception of its products in lab tests/reviews (which is mostly very positive from what I've seen). It describes how their products are abused, but not their primary intended purpose. I agree with Dsprc regarding the Products section. Almost any long list like that tends to be an indiscriminate collection of information and in this case a product brochure. Though, like the controversial sentence in the Lead, I wouldn't delete it without replacing it with a proper paragraph style summary description that just summarizes product categories/families, rather than listing out each one individually. Just a couple random comments about other areas for improvement... CorporateM (Talk) 12:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• CorporateM: So make the improvements. If concerned about COI or 'pedians biting your head off, can dump proposed changes to Blue Coat Systems/sandbox, CorporateM/sandbox or something for review. -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• CorporateM: Have any feedback or suggestions on this? Would like to see improvements here. I've not time to research in detail but if those privy could provide sources, content can be worked in. Can of course include it by your lonesome; no prohibitions against affiliated parties making contributions. -- dsprc ^[talk] 08:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! As you hinted at, usually on articles where I am conflicted I put content in draft space and request an editor consider it, though that doesn't stop editors from biting my head off if I happen to disagree with them, they dislike COI participants, or have a strong opinion about some subject covered in the article. No promises, but yes I should get some content to share here in the future. CorporateM (Talk) 15:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft

@Dsprc:, please feel free to take a look at Talk:Blue_Coat_Systems/draft and take whatever you deem appropriate from it, or make modifications as you deem fit. It might be a bit drafty, but should have plenty of sourced material to fill-out the rest of the article a bit more. CorporateM (Talk) 18:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Thanks, and will do. Should have it worked in Soon™ -- dsprc ^[talk] 13:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Dsprc:. Just wanted to see if this was still on your radar. All the best. CorporateM (Talk) 17:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 CorporateM: Lighting up radar like a Christmas tree (guess I own this now too). Have been swamped with life but should be able to work in changes sometime this month. Happy Trails. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Is File:CacheFlow 1000.jpg noted in draft available? -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dsprc: Sorry for the confusion - I think that was a placeholder for an image I never got permission for. CorporateM (Talk) 14:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The changes in question seemed to be addressed as per discussion above. Closing edit request. Regards, VB00 (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bluecoat sales of equipment to North Korea

Solera Networks was acquired by Bluecoat Systems in 2012. Solera had a KK branch in Japan called Solera Networks KK which sold a large number of units into North Korea in direct violation of US/UN Sanctions. I located the info from one of Solera's Quarterly reports to investors. I am attempting to run down a reliable source for this, a man named Fumi ran Solera KK for over 6 years and from the quarterly reports to investors I reviewed it looked very fishy. The equipment was installed in DPRNK Nuclear sites for surveillance. I located the Solera KK pages in Japanese, and Solera's position was that the Solera KK unit was a separate business and could sell to North Korea. Be on the lookout for sources about this. I found some in Japanese but none in english about this. Anyone runs across it post some links here. My info is unquestionably original research but I know there are some sources other than reports to investors. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The former head of Solera Networks KK/Bluecoat. The investors report identifies Fumi as the person selling Solera/Bluecoat units to DPRNK. [2] 166.70.213.246 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blue Coat Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219041631/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/121813-blue-coat-norman-shark-277032.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/121813-blue-coat-norman-shark-277032.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

April 2013 Guardian allegation

In April of 2013, on a secret contract with Eric Holder's Department of Justice, Blue Coat Systems was encharged surreptitious intelligence in the monitoring, tracking, and cross-walking of all commenting to Glenn Greenwald authored articles related to the Edward Snowdon scandal, the posted to The Guardian news website.

The citation links to a section on the Glenn Greenwald talkpage. Shtove (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shtove: I concluded it was fake after a quick Web search, and removed the paragraph. Thank you. Notrium (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What are we going to do about the massive technological oppression that lyes before us?

It makes me absolutely sick to know that everyone around me and even my immediate family is getting robbed of their own human autonomy and civil rights simply because google and other tech giants find a way to warp common knowledge by making each user agree to a privacy policy or terms of use that without question, always begin with a “mission statement” about how google is attempting to give the users more privacy control (which is a complete lie) and that it is in their best interest to agree and update their “old” and non-private operational systems. EVEN IF someone decides to read it, that is by mass majority where each and every person stops. Once they hear that, it’s a definite agreement on their part. The unnecessarily long text then may later disclose to them that the way google intends to keep their information more private is by storing it on their own servers instead of your own device. ( hence: the exponentially growing iCloud based virus). If you spend enough time reading every single passage they ask of you (as I have), your eyes will be opened so wide to the absolutely evil conspiracy to keep the public ignorant about what is happening with their digital fingerprinting.

  Lying about your businesses’ true goals and execution of their services allows the entire world to believe in their “Devine mission” to keep their customers safe from criminally responsible violations to their privacy allowing the industrial system to keep ticking as our worldwide global economy slowly destroys not only the planet, but the very minds of human individuals being exposed to such rapid changes in sensory stimuli that reality becomes fiction, once was tradition becomes historical myth, and man becomes such a cog in the futuristic system of technological oppression that feeds into a small Percentage of individual capital gain. 2600:380:A834:A0F9:489D:F82D:2DE0:3A6A (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)