Talk:Veriato

message: IMHV this article is faulty to a degree that could be considered dangerous to most of it's target groups with very little exaggeration.
1. It promotes certain software products as valuable tools to enhance computer security but lacks any discussion of the basic general concepts and any links to existing relevant articles covering that topic.
2. The approach towards the legal aspects of running monitoring software are covered in a misleading way. The article proposes there were fields or use cases that were per se legal or illegal but fails to mention several legal risks involved. (E. g. it sounds as if educators were practically required to run monitoring software by several laws but fails to mention the legal risk the unrestricted use of some of the advertised features might bear for users from that filed - see "Lower Merion School District" for some real life examples). The same extends to the risk for parents and employers breaching the privacy of their kid's or employee's communication partners (E. g. in the case of data loss).
3. This gets especially controversial where the article seems to say that parents were per se entitled to use "Spy Software" (only quoting the company's website) on their children "since minors have no legal right to privacy from their parents". Of course the use of spyware for the secretive acquisition of minor's private pictures (a direct sale proposition) later used for sexual stimulation or for other illicit purposes is highly illegal no matter if the offender is the kid's mother of father. As about 90% of sexual child abuse offenders have been found to be the child's family/friends/teachers/babysitters etc. this is dangerous misinformation to give to kids.  
4. Apart from the legal downsides of running software with spyware capabilities no other downsides are mentioned as well. (E. g. all data loss scenarios extend to the secretly collected data as well.) (78.52.128.91 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion tag

message: I re-wrote most of this article a little while back, but forgot to put an explanation:
The article had been tagged, and re-tagged several times for cleanup, reading like an advertisment, neutral point of view, essay prose and lack of references. Please refer to the discussions above and also see:
,
,
, 
, .
I removed all the essay like prose, which was overly complimentary to the company, and which read like a company history from a stock prospectus. Now the article has only cited information in it, and I have added sourced negative viewpoints about the products. I think I kept the most pertinent information from the old article, and provided citations for it. --Ozhiker 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite/Content Removal 

message: This article has previously been nominated for deletion, with no consensus to delete: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spectorsoft
I don't know if it was originally written by spectorsoft employees, but it has been *completely* rewritten since then by non-employees, as per the outcome of the deletion review.
Notability: There are multiple external media references establishing notability. - What specifically is lacking for notability?
--Ozhiker 11:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion 

message: I read somewhere that one of SpectorSoft's first projects was a game for the Sega Dreamcast in 1998, but they cancelled the project sometime around 99/00. Is this true? Someone who claims to have worked for them has video game concept art, as well as music from this scraped game. Going from video games to security software seems like an unusual change of company focus. Can someone please clarify?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.126.125 (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Game Company