Microsoft Family Safety Filter Blocks Google 332
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?
First Post! (Score:4, Funny)
Google is evil so thank you Microsoft!
Re:First Post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First Post! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:First Post! (Score:5, Funny)
We could always use Ask Jeeves
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's Ask.com to you, if you please.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
False dichotomy. I vote for none of them. In fact I do not play the game of voting, set-up by you, at all.
You do not *need* any search engine. You need food, water, shelter, other humans, and something fun to do. Everything else is optional and replaceable fluff.
Re:First Post! (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks for reminding me.
http://www.google.com/search?q=food [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=water [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=shelter [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=people [google.com]
http://www.google.com/search?q=midget [google.com] wrestling
Re:First Post! (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Way to go /., keep throwing your reputation down (n
Re:First Post! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Google is only free if your privacy is worth nothing.
Which, well, it is.
Said the Anonymous Coward.
:P
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting.
I simply make sure the tools my daughters need are in their head, namely the ability to use common sense and a STRONG sense of self-preservation.
It just seems to me that giving them a tool to make them safe makes more sense then taking tools away to prevent harm.
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [howtonotma...online.com].
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.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
> It's boorish at best and plainly poor software testing at worst.
We already know it's a Microsoft product.
Re: (Score:2)
Anomaly? No. Monopoly? Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, the DoJ only cares about those evil "pirates" and also those "ter'rists" who use this nefarious operating system called "Linux" and talk about some evil ter'rist plot called "open source."
You might consider reading some actual news at some point. The Department of Justice has already filed a motion that it be allowed to extend the period of time Microsoft has to spend being monitored per the resolution of the antitrust case against Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is most certainly not intentional simply because it's so dumb and in-your-face.
You must have never seen the Gates/Seinfeld commercials they unintentionally made.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there is a high probability that the Microsoft employees used google [cbsnews.com] until they were given their top down directions [businessweek.com].
Utilizing a monopoly position to crush competition [usdoj.gov] has worked for Microsoft in the past, why would anyone expect tactics to change now.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"It probably wasn't intentional". Yup, you are almost assuredly right. It does however show how piss-poor MS testing and QA is though. Then again, if you use their products, this is not news.
-Charlie
It operates in two modes, blacklist and whitelist. (Score:3, Informative)
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 entertai
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From TFP:
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe that's because the people you blanket label as "MS apologists" aren't actually apologists, but reasonable & rational people that actually evaluate MS products on their merits. It seems at /. you're deemed an apologist if you ever defend MS on anything.
If you want to see group think in action, look at your own post, and the posts that show up when anyone dare criticize linux.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
The GP - which is probably a troll - does betray the kind of thinking that has become dangerously infectious in the US today: utter partisanship. They think that you must either be a loyal defender of a thing, or its relentless enemy. We see it too often in politics (and yes, it's an American thing, at least to the extent you see in political blogs.)
MS is probably doing something dodgy here, something that should set off anti-trust alarms. It's just too convenient that their biggest rival happens to get caught in the filter. But I've been critiqued as being a Microsoft apologist for, for example, saying good things about Office.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The GP - which is probably a troll - does betray the kind of thinking that has become dangerously infectious in the US today: utter partisanship. They think that you must either be a loyal defender of a thing, or its relentless enemy. We see it too often in politics (and yes, it's an American thing, at least to the extent you see in political blogs.)
MS is probably doing something dodgy here, something that should set off anti-trust alarms. It's just too convenient that their biggest rival happens to get caught in the filter. But I've been critiqued as being a Microsoft apologist for, for example, saying good things about Office.
That's actually exactly what I was speaking against. If you ever wonder why that problem of partisanship doesn't just go away in spite of all its glaring and obvious flaws, this is why. It's difficult or impossible to point it out and speak against it without the assumption (and that's what it is, a baseless assumption) being made that there are only two possible "sides", so if you speak against one side you must be a member of the other side. Therefore, in the minds of several people who have responde
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's because the people you blanket label as "MS apologists" aren't actually apologists, but reasonable & rational people that actually evaluate MS products on their merits. It seems at /. you're deemed an apologist if you ever defend MS on anything.
If you want to see group think in action, look at your own post, and the posts that show up when anyone dare criticize linux.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I have seen too many truly ridiculous "MS can do no wrong" posts. The objection you raise is how you could have known that I must not have been referring to the more objective folks who merely have different software preferences. If you can see how that works, then much bickering that comes from making assumptions about the person to whom you're replying can be neatly avoided. I don't consider someone an "MS apologist" because they say something good about MS or its p
This is perfectly valid (Score:5, Funny)
Google is unsafe... for Microsoft's monopolies.
Re:This is perfectly valid (Score:5, Funny)
It's the Os (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's the Os (Score:5, Funny)
What good is the joke if you don't give a link to the picture [fundromeda.com] (NQSFW).
Re:It's the Os (Score:5, Insightful)
Yuck. If she bent over, she'd resemble a cow with hanging udders. Blech. Give me natural As or Bs anyday rather than fakies.
Re:It's the Os (Score:5, Funny)
If you're the typical Slashdot reader, you probably have natural As or Bs already.
http://www.instantrimshot.com [instantrimshot.com]
Sorry, how could I resist?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 had actually seen natural ones at some point, you'd likely recognize that Bea Flora's breasts are anything but fake :P
Re: (Score:2)
More like this: http://www.booble.com/ [booble.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Probably intentional (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Probably intentional (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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[sic] violations over the past few years.
Yeah, but few of those have been effective at stopping MS from continuing said antitrust actions and MS has committed numerous new, unaddressed violations of the law. They're still making more money breaking the law and paying fines, than complying. Why do you think they'd comply now?
Re: (Score:2)
Compile a book of all the accusations against Microsoft to give them. Tell Microsoft that the EU is getting tired of wasting tax-payers money looking at each allegation individually so
Re:Probably intentional (Score:4, Insightful)
When Microsoft never stops doing said thing, that's to be expected.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not of images though. If you're blocking porn, as I'd guess woud be the major target of a "family safety filter", Google's cache won't help. (Though it's image search could give you thumbnails.)
Re:Probably intentional (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Probably intentional (Score:4, Interesting)
>>> [Fortunately,] 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.
Fixed. ;-)
And I'm not just being anti-MS here. The computer industry was a lot better when we had multiple manufacturers (Atari, TI, Commodore, Apple, IBM) and multiple OSes (GEOS, TOS, Workbench, MS-DOS, MacOS) because it promoted innovation. Since Microsoft became dominant circa 1998, innovation has slowed to a crawl, and I think the weakening of Microsoft so people can explore alternative companies would be a good thing ("fortunate").
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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.
Yes, it's always best to have a plausible cover story, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is Microsoft didn't want to risk Google accidentally returning adult material web pages in the search list, and hence it's blocked.
So they keep silently blocking google even after you've whitelisted it? I'm not accusing Microsoft of malfeasance just yet, but it's very shoddy worksmanship that they'd implement a "we'll block google by default" thing, then either silently override whiltelisting of it "because it can work around the filter", or botch the whitelisting implementation altogether. On top of that, such a bug/feature/whatever still had to make it past QA.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Perhaps the family filter talks to Live.com in order to filter "inappropriate" results out.
Riiiiight. And our president wasn't really bowing to kiss a king's hand, but was just stumbling (official white house explanation). Uh huh. Yep. Sure. I don't believe that or Microsoft's explanation. I'd rather hear, "Ooops we made a mistake" than a lie.
BTW the reason why it's wrong to bow to a king or queen is because it endorses the idea that some persons (nobility) are better than other people (co
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, if I had mod points you'd so be getting them, just for the great movie references alone.
Re: (Score:2)
For those who can't see through the trolling...
Non-natural born citizens are not denied the role of President due to any lower social status. The president must be natural born for security reasons, and as part of a large list of qualifications: age, and lack of criminal record some of the biggest.
Anomaly? (Score:3, Funny)
I dont't know mike.rimov but the word anomaly in the English Oxford dictionary is defined as
so no its not an anomaly for Microsoft, if thats what you getting at. No news here move along
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Rhetorical
Re: (Score:2)
Where would we be without rhetorical questions?
Cause you can google to find you way around it ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cause you can google to find you way around it (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But I was not damaged by it. You get over it.
The real problem with filters is that they don't work. There will still be some innocent looking link to a page thats far from innocent. I was not looking for porn at all when i found that picture.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really, it depends on the age of the user though.
For example, I have a 6 year old daughter who has discovered the wonders of YouTube videos on my iPhone. She knows how to do a basic search for things she wants to see, and finds all sorts of little cartoon segments and music videos for things she likes.
Unfortunately, there are also issues like her last search for "Easter bunny" bringing up a Charlie Brown Easter cartoon, overdubbed with all sorts of profanity, violent and racist remarks, in an attempt to be
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
are all your computers using your router as their DNS (as a redirector)?
I would be suprised as most routers are VERY unreliable at doing this which means usually it's set at the computer.
are they using an account without privileges to edit the TCP/IP settings?
if not, it's trivial to bypass your openDNS
Re: (Score:2)
I run my own DHCP and DNS server; the computers get their IP address along with my DNS server IP. My DNS server uses openDNS as a forwarder.
So yes, if they gain root access, they could edit hack away. Of course, this would require learning about system administratin, which is a good thing in itself. If they get to that point, I'll walk them through it if need be.
As I don't run windows, ordinary user accounts don't have admin priveledges.
adsense too? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a really biased summary. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here! Welcome!
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that Slashdot posts such opinionated summaries at times?
Because they are good for getting /. panicking and supporting the ad revenue ;)
[/cynic mode]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can install Windows, OSX, and nearly any flavor of Linux on my Macbook, and my iMac.
But can you legally install OS X on a Dell?
Eh? (Score:5, Informative)
what about other search engines? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd imagine that they're not intentionally blocking google because they're a competitor (although it could be a contributing factor). I would think that they consider Live.com to be more compatible with family filter and google allows access to cached pages which the family filter may not be able to block.
Of course, one way that MS could show good faith would be to open up the family filter's API in some way so as to let it play nice with google and allow google to disable cached pages for users of the filter.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
How was Google added as an exception? (Score:2)
Piracy (Score:2)
They're probably just trying to stop people from downloading the new Wolverine movie [slashdot.org]
Possible related to Google filtering options? (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Anomally (Score:3, Funny)
Anomally?
Sounds like smart marketing to me. Just block your biggest competitor.
I wonder if they blocked Mozilla too?
Blogger's navigation bar was blocked (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure... (Score:5, Funny)
Filters are stupid anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Cached sites (Score:2)
Intentional or not is not the issue and problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Ballmer Family Rules (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, because Microsoft... (Score:2)
Do know evil.
You know what they say 'if you travel far enough you will meet yourself'
Works for Me (Score:4, Insightful)
And just why not? (Score:4, Funny)
Since I can use Google to find some really nasty anal porn and, what's even worse, those awful sinful bittorrents, why wouldn't the Family Safety Filter block it? Of course unless my parents lock me in the basement I can still find porn and all sorts of life-shortening stuff everywhere else. Since I'm so driven to get this mind-wrecking stuff, maybe they should lock me in the basement?
Wow, can you say "Microsoft desparation" (Score:2, Funny)
Wait a minute... This is important... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, the Summary is #1 wrong, and #2 people here have no idea what the hell they talking about.
The FAMILY SAFTEY is working as it is supposed to, as it is designed to setup for your freaking KIDS...
On Basic, it allows Google.com, and that is working as intended.
On Strict, it does not, as some parents wouldn't want their kids using Google that WILL RETURN DONKEY PORN VIDEOS because there is no way to intelligently filter the Google results.
If Google doesn't want to be blocked on Strict, they can provide RSS OPENSEARCH features, like everyone else is doing. However Google is intent of refusing to provide RSS OpenSearch features.
The BROKEN here is Google not supporting a web standard in their search engine results and method of returning results.
As for the whole MS is keeping people from Google, this is insane. They have no locks on Live search even for IE users (letting people use any search engine easily as their default Browser search engine).
MS has even had to 'code' around Google's lack of standards in the OpenSearch and other areas to allow 'Search Tips' and dropdown features from Google Search, since Google doesn't provide the standard 'hint' or 'search tip' features that ARE a standard and other search engines and even sites like Wikipedia provide inherently.
Google is the ones locking the doors here, in several ways, and yet someone the 'intelligent' people at SlashDot haven't even noticed any of this going on? Go look up Search Connector and RSS Search feeds, and RSS Search filtered results. Everyone and their dog supports them, except Google.
They are even integrated in Windows7 Explorer so users can search inside a Folder or Open/Save Dialog box and get web pages, video, images, links, etc from just about any online search engine or provider of content EXCEPT GOOGLE because they refuse to support RSS OpenSearch and RSS OpenSearch Filtering.
This time it comes down to MS doing the right thing, and Google intentionally not 'playing nice with others' and by proxy it breaks the abilities of the Live Family Safety features on the strict setting. If Google doesn't want to be excluded, provide freaking intelligent results or results that can be ensured to not have donkey goat porn, which apparently Google can't do or doesn't want to do effectively.
This time it is MS providing the standard web search technology and is the OPEN search engine when it comes to interfacing with all the OPEN standards.
Re:Wait a minute... This is important... (Score:4, Informative)
Clippy: You appear to be spreading misinformation about your competitor's products. Would you like assistance?
Umm ... you mean like SafeSearch [google.com]?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish I had the mod points to give you. As usual, circletimessquare spouts off against a particular dislike for some entity, advocates for something that nobody apparently cares about in the real world, and conveniently ignores the facts on the ground... like the inconvenient fact that nobody else (who counts) supports this supposed RSS Opensearch standard. Including Windows Live Search.
I mean, how sensible is it to pillory Google for not supporting some externally-generated standard, which would suppose
Bork! Bork! Bork! (Score:3, Informative)
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 [internetnews.com]
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)