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?
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
What good is the joke if you don't give a link to the picture (NQSFW).
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."
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.
I tried to visit redhat.com and a chair shot out the back of my machine!
Good people go to bed earlier.
I find that hard to believe. Microsoft has been spending a lot of money because they have a very small share of the search engine market.
They haven't been able to do that. Their search and crawling seems to be as bad as it's ever been. Their crawling especially.
If you can't crawl properly, why would people bother to use the search?
There's a small chance it's not intentional, but given their history of using their monopoly on the desktop to further other products, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Yuck. If she bent over, she'd resemble a cow with hanging udders. Blech. Give me natural As or Bs anyday rather than fakies.
If you're the typical Slashdot reader, you probably have natural As or Bs already.
http://www.instantrimshot.com
Sorry, how could I resist?
You could accidentally search for "Live goat Porn" on google. Microsoft's search engine doesn't index any porn (Or much of anything else,) that's why no one uses it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
>>>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!
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.
Thanks for reminding me.
http://www.google.com/search?q=food
http://www.google.com/search?q=water
http://www.google.com/search?q=shelter
http://www.google.com/search?q=people
http://www.google.com/search?q=midget wrestling