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?
It probably wasn't intentional, most likely they pushed developers to focus first on microsoft based search engines, but really, I also find it hard to believe not a single person would have tried google first. I doubt it was a big conspiracy, but rather they knew about it but didn't want to spend anytime fixing it.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
This is a classic filter issue, and a prime example of why using filters like this is a retarded waste of time.
A simply Google search probably will tell you how to work around the filter completely, as such Google is a banned website.
This isn't anything new, all of the filters out there do this sort of thing, this one just seems evil since its Microsoft blocking Google, but it happens with all of them.
The real solution is to realize that the person you're trying to prevent from seeing stuff on the Internet is going to find a way to look at it anyway. If you're doing this to stop kids from looking at something then you better keep them locked in a basement cause they'll just go somewhere else to find what they want. You can bet one of their friends doesn't have a porn blocker.
The solution to these problems for parents is to actually be a parent and remember that YOU are responsible for your children. Not Microsoft, not the computer, not your ISP, not the Internet, YOU. You can spend an entire lifetime trying to stop them from doing something and they'll spend their entire lifetime showing you how you can't. Unless of course you just ignore anything they do when you aren't watching them. Perhaps you should try a little education instead.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
That does make a lot of sense, it is probably the most likely explanation next to "Oops, we made a typo."
It doesn't make sense that whitelisting Google still results in it being blocked, as the summary said.
I'd be very surprised if they block other search engines out of competitive reasons, because they've been getting hammered by the EU for various anti-compition violations over the past few years. In IE7, the startup wizard gave the user an easy way to select something besides Windows Live search as their default search engine if desired, so its not like these concerns are foreign to Microsoft.
Other search engines not owned by Microsoft don't support this integration, so the filter blocks them as they would otherwise be a trivial way around the filter.
This seems reasonable. So it wasn't a devious attempt to block a competitor, just a very rigid safety feature that is unmotivated to integrate competitive products. Unfortunately, this will very likely drive a large chunk of people away from using it, and will make a lot of users think that MS is just being a dick.
Unfortunately, some parents may just turn it on for their kids without testing it thoroughly and not realize what their safety filter is locking their kids into.
Yuck. If she bent over, she'd resemble a cow with hanging udders. Blech. Give me natural As or Bs anyday rather than fakies.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Between Microsoft and Google, I vote for the lesser evil. Go Google!
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
>>>If you're doing this to stop kids from looking at something
I don't understand the big deal. So kids see nudity? So what? The human body is nothing to be ashamed of. Although I don't want my kids to see porn (sex), if they did would it be so horrible? By the time they're 13 they'll know what sex is anyway, and even if you shelter them completely, they'd better have SOME idea what they're supposed to do on their wedding night else I'll never get grandchildren! ;-)
American society seems to be built on the notion of keeping kids ignorant ("innocent") which is exactly the opposite of what our jobs as parents is meant to do. We're supposed to be teaching children about the world and preparing them to deal with it, not hiding it from them.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
They should rename it the "Parents That Can't Be Bothered To Pay Attention Filter" instead. The question "Do you want the government raising your children?" has already been put to the public, and the answer is obvious: a resounding "No!". Now I put this question to you all: Do you want Microsoft raising your children? Turn off the damned net-nanny and actually pay attention to what your kids are doing, damnit!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
We have been led to believe Microsoft does extensive testing of products and features. Even if the blocking was unintentional, certainly they must have noticed it and the fact they don't block there own server. As a result, they should have either, white-listed Google or at least expressly and clearly stated Google was being blocked. Given Microsoft's past history, this kind of "aw shucks look it blocks Google but let's just mirk and ignore it" behavior is not acceptable and is predatory in nature in keeping with past behavior. Convicted monopolists are held to higher standards than average companies because they are on parole.
I tried it on my own machine. On Web Filtering Basic, it allows www.google.com, and on Strict, it does not. It logs my access to Google if Activity Reporting is on. It looks like Strict uses a white list, so blocking Google can be reasonably expected by a user.
When Microsoft never stops doing said thing, that's to be expected.
Yet we use the site. Is that because the reputation is perhaps not so much embedded in the top-down editorial process as in the bottom-up moderation process? I came to this story trusting that I would find, within the first few top-rated comments, something indicating whether this anecdote was factually verified, and then plenty of discussion on the usefulness of filters and somewhere below a meta-discussion about the place of authority (Microsoft) in filtering. I did not, however, open up slashdot expecting to see nothing but stories whose summaries I could read and trust to be factually correct at first glance, the way I might (incorrectly) with hard news sites.
I'm suprised that nobody has pointed out the obvious: If I were a Microsoft marketing drone, I would post this sort of viral story on Slashdot, knowing that a large portion of the curious, tech savy crowd would immediatly run out, install said application, and test it. Great way to virally market the product, and then get a reversal on the negitive view point to some positive reaction.