Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Family Safety Filter Blocks Google
mike.rimov writes "I saw that part of the brand new Windows Live package is the Family Safety Filter, so I decided to give it a spin. Turned it on, set it to 'basic filtering' (their lowest level), and went to Google ... oops, it blocks Google! So I logged into the settings and added Google as an exception. Google still wouldn't come up. Just in case, I turned off the family filter: voila, Google. As we all know, 'Don't be evil' is not part of Microsoft's motto! Oh yeah — and with the filter on, Microsoft's own search engine, live.com comes up." Anomaly?
I'd love to know WTF the author has done. It's never blocked Google on the three lappies its installed on here.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
I seem to recall a much older filtering software package (I don't recall which offhand - DansGuardian, maybe?) that will block Google if you have disabled "SafeSearch" in the Advanced Preferences - that is, if you have it set to "Do not filter my search results."
The navigation bar of Google's Blogger website was blocked for me. Random things were blocked that weren't noticeable as missing, popping up every time, so it felt like spyware. I tried to turn it off through Ctrl+Alt+Delete (actually, Ctrl+Shift+Esc since I use Vista). The process would not let itself die and restarted itself over and over. Then it blocked Wikipedia, I think before or after I went to "Stop Service." I asked if the owner of the computer meant to install it, and sure enough, it was hidden in some automatic update crap. The same automatic update crap rolls back my graphics drivers to the lazily outdated computer manufacturer-approved one, rather than the newest Intel one. The former has a problem with rendering bumpmaps on 3D objects so that if you're looking at an object with a bumpmap in front of an object with a bumpmap, both bumpmaps are rendered on the object nearest the camera. The latter fixes it. It also used to replace my wireless card driver with a driver from the same manufacturer meant for wirelessly communicating with other computers in a local area network, though this hasn't been a problem since I stopped using that card.
Hmmm.... Whitelisting might work in a corporate environment where you want to tie people down to your website and a handful of providers. But it's not practical for a household; my kids do research on the web for their schoolwork. By definition, that's undefined; they're exploring.
So I use openDNS with moderate settings. We've talked the filtering in place and they've found some sites that they need access to that are blocked. (openDNS sometimes prudishly classes sites about sexuality as pornography. I disagree.) If they are skilled enough to compromise my DHCP and DNS servers, then we'll have a serious talk about a future in IT. I guess that they could get a list of IP addresses and enter those. But for now openDNS works.
Actually, FSS does have specific Google support: it's allowed by default, but counts as "Adult Content" if safe search is off. That's why it's blocked for the submitter, and why adding it as an exception doesn't work.
Way to go /., keep throwing your reputation down (not that is there any serious reputation left in this place, ow ever was for that matter).
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Windows Live Family Safety operates in two modes: basic and strict.
In BASIC mode, it uses a BLACKLIST to filter adult web content (porn). This mode is intended for teenagers, guests, etc. Google is available.
In STRICT mode it uses a WHITELIST limited to a small list of children's sites (Nick, Barney, Barbie, etc) plus custom sites the parent can add. This is designed for young children who really aren't going to care that they can't visit Google, nor CNN.com, nor Slashdot. This mode is to keep kids entertained.
The author of the post was probably running in STRICT mode and didn't realize the purpose of the software.
From TFP:
Makes sense to me since you can get around most content filters with Google's cache.
Clippy: You appear to be spreading misinformation about your competitor's products. Would you like assistance?
Umm ... you mean like SafeSearch?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Nah, they BOTH suck with the evilness. Vote for the underdog. Go Yahoo! And be sure to check out the 'more tab(it is that little blue tab just below the search box) as it makes finding related searches MUCH quicker IMHO than MSFT or Google. It is just a shame the guys that made the GUI didn't think to label the damned button.
But it gives you the "more" links on the left and related concepts on the right. VERY handy and an easy way to drill down to what you are looking for. So much better than the 'more' button at the top of Google that just gives you more Google crap like Google blogs. So support the underdog. Go Yahoo!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Remember when Microsoft pulled the stunt of changing MSN so it gave Opera users a broken page instead? Opera retaliated by releasing a version that went around Microsoft's block and rendered the MSN pages in the 'language' of the Muppet Show's Swedish Chef. http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/1584361
If Google still had a pair they could cause their search engine to detect when IE is being used and return all Microsoft related results with 'weasel weasel weasel' inserted in the summary and/or subsequent page views.
As for the earlier response that accused Google of being at fault for not following standards, we've heard that song before. It translates from MS-Marketoid to English and comes out as "not following what Microsoft says standards should be, which usually differs from what the rest of the world says." As for returning results with donkey porn, a Live Search for 'donkey porn' returns a t-short company that uses copulating donkeys as their logo, and shows t-shirts saying "You're F*cking Out" and "Jizz In My Pants". I take it Microsoft has decided that these results are suitable for kids. I don't know which is worse, the hypocrisy of allowing ads with donkeys fucking (though not of non-ad fucking donkeys; ads are too important to block I guess) or the paternalism they show in taking the decision out of the hands of parents of what is suitable for their kids and what is not.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
That's Ask.com to you, if you please.
That is all.
The EU keeps fining Microsoft for the same thing. They just make shit up and say "Ok, actually, you have to pay 70 million MORE, then you're free". The EU is treating MS like a piggy bank, regardless of any violations they've actually committed.
I disagree. Everytime the EU has fined MS it has been for either a separate incident (they've committed antitrust abuse dozens of times and only gone to trial for a few of them) or because MS was still refusing to comply with a court order for them to change their behavior with regard to a particular act.
The one you're probably thinking of is their server/desktop APIs. The EU told them to document all communication between the two products such that other server makers could compete fairly and not be at any disadvantage in creating servers that interoperate with Windows on the desktop. MS, used to dealing with the US courts, first punted on the issue, providing a meager amount of documentation which was both unusable and in many instances completely wrong. The courts told them it was insufficient. They then claimed complying with the law was too hard. The courts didn't buy it, so MS stalled and appealed and ran expensive PR campaigns and tried to get US diplomats to change the minds of the EU, all the while racking up bigger and bigger fines for continued noncompliance. Finally, they provided documentation that was adequate and the courts tallied up their fines, sent them a bill, and that has been the end of it. Mind you they are still responsible for keeping that documentation up to date, so they could be fined again if they fail to meet those legal requirements.
Basically, I think your opinion on the matter is either uninformed or completely disingenuous. I don't know if you're a deluded fanboy or an astroturfer.