Safe and Secure

Google has long allowed parents a SafeSearch filtering setting that keeps kids from using the search engine to find inappropriate sites like those with explicit sexual images or text.

The problem was that kids could easily change those settings.

Starting Wednesday, however, the company is allowing parents to lock those settings to make it harder (though not impossible) for kids to bypass the settings.

To change the settings, the parent will have to log into his or her Google account and enter a password. Once the settings have been changed, the Google search engine will change in appearance to indicate that it's locked. The new page will have large balls in the upper right corner so that parents can see from across the room that their kids are on the safe search page.

The settings, which places a cookie on the machine, must be configured for each browser the child uses. If you set them only for Internet Explorer, for example, they won't restrict access from Firefox, Chrome, or other browsers. Also, according to a Google representative, the child can get around the settings by using the private browsing feature that is now built into the latest versions of Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Chrome. So, while this will keep kids from accidentally using Google for inappropriate searches, it will not deter tech-savvy kids who are determined to bypass the filters.

As I've said in other posts, filters are never a foolproof way to keep "tweens" and teenagers from inappropriate content. There are always ways to get around them, including using a different machine or mobile phone. Filters are effective for keeping young children from stumbling onto disturbing Web sites and they can be a deterrent to somewhat older kids who might have a momentary or casual interest in looking at material that their parents wish to block.

With all filters and controls, it's important for parents to think about how you use them to help teach your child to exercise self-control and critical thinking so that, eventually, they can safely use the Web without filters or adult supervision. Also, for very young children, say 5 and under, its remains a good idea to be with the child while he or she is online. Tools like Google's SafeSearch are helpful, but they are no substitute for close parental supervision, especially with young children.

Listen to Larry's interview about Google SafeSearch with Google's Scott Rubin

Wednesday's two big technology stories--Google's Chrome-based operating system and cyberattacks against U.S. and South Korean government Web sites are oddly related. The stories are connected because if Google does well at gaining market share for its browser, we could see fewer successful attacks. Or maybe we'll see more attacks.

The reason hackers succeeded in launching denial-of-service attacks against government computers in the U.S. and South Korea is because they were able to enlist an army of "zombie" computers to carry out the attack. And what do those computers likely have in common? The vast majority of them likely run Microsoft Windows.

Whether Windows is inherently less secure than Mac OS X or Linux is debatable, but one thing is for sure--it's more popular and therefore a more attractive target to hackers. Indeed with nearly 90 percent of the world's PCs running Windows, it's something of a "single point of failure." Figure out how to infect Windows PCs and you can stage a very successful attack.

Linux--which is the underpinning of Google Chrome--is not entirely exempt from malicious software but historically Linux machines are less likely to be infected. So it stands to reason that the more machines running non-Windows software, the safer we'll all be.

But there's another side to this story. The Chrome OS will be far more Web-centric than Windows, which means that many--if not most--of its applications will be running over the Internet. What's more, people's data will be stored "in the cloud," much of it on servers run by Google. So while Google may help reduce Microsoft's potential as a single point of failure, it increases its own. If hackers were successful in launching an attack on Google, that would affect not only people's ability to use Google apps, but the integrity of their data.

Although there weren't any reported data breaches, there was a day in May of this year when Google sites were partially inaccessible as a result of a technical glitch. On that day, millions of people were unable to use Google services, including Google Docs and Spreadsheets. Say what you want about Microsoft, but even if the company totally shut down its Web operations, its operating system and PC applications would still run.

Personally, I'm a big believer in competition and like cloud computing, so I welcome Google's entry into the operating system arena. But like almost anything worthwhile, it's not without risk.

After plenty of coverage about how its Bing search engine makes it all too easy for kids to find and view porn, Microsoft has made some changes that will make it easier for parents to block or monitor what their kids are viewing on the site.

In a blog post, Microsoft announced that it is making two changes the company thinks will help address the issue.

According to the post, "explicit images and video content will now be coming from a separate single domain, explicit.bing.net. This is invisible to the end customer, but allows for filtering of that content by domain, which makes it much easier for customers at all levels to block this content regardless of what the SafeSearch settings might be."

With this change, parents should be able to use parental control tools to block that domain and therefore block the images and videos. Almost all third-party filtering tools can be configured to block specific domains or sites, as can the parental controls in Microsoft Vista and Mac OS X.

Microsoft will also return the "source URL" information of specific images and videos, so if a filtering program blocks that site, it will prevent the video or image from being viewed within Bing. For example, if there is a video playing at Playboy.com, a filtering program that blocks Playboy would also prevent someone from viewing the content from inside Bing.

I tested this by right-clicking on a thumbnail of an explicit video in Bing and looking at properties. The URL of the image began with "ts3.explicit.bing.net." When I right-clicked on a sexual photograph, it contained "ts1.explicit.bing.net."

In an e-mail, Microsoft spokesman David Burt said the company has reached out to more than 25 filtering and security vendors to work with them to provide a solution for filtering explicit content while using Bing.

Bing raised the ire of some Internet safety advocates when it was discovered that all you have to do to watch an explicit video or view an image was to hover your mouse over its thumbnail within a Bing search. Although Bing's default settings would not bring up sexually explicit content, it did display an invitation saying "to view these videos, turn off safe search." One click later, the videos would start to play.

Microsoft's changes are likely to silence some--but not all--critics. Cris Clapp from the Internet safety group Enough is Enough said that "the steps they've taken are good," but added "it's important for them to make it more intuitive to guide parents to change filter settings."

These new features should also make it easier for schools and businesses to filter student or employee access to explicit content.

I'm pleased that Microsoft responded relatively quickly to concerns about how easy it was for kids to find and view porn. But even with these changes, parents still need to stay in close touch with how their kids are using Bing or any other Internet site. Not all families will want to use Internet filters. I didn't when my kids were younger but instead had frequent conversations with them about appropriate Internet use. But these changes should be welcome news for those parents who do choose to use tools to filter or monitor their kids' access. Without filters in place, it will still be easy for kids to access porn from within Bing, but at least parents will soon be able to block it if that's what they want to do.

Microsoft's new Bing search engine has a highly touted feature that some parents may find troublesome. Bing's video search tool has a preview mode that lets you view and listen to part of a video simply by hovering over it with your mouse. Trouble is, it works with porn as well as "family friendly" videos.

I tested this feature quickly and with great caution on board a Virgin America WiFi equipped flight, being careful to shield the screen from fellow passengers and crew.

When I searched for a word that was sure to bring up porn, I was first warned that it "may return explicit adult content" and told that "to view these videos, turn off safe search." One click later, safe search was off and I was looking a page of naughty thumbnails. And, as advertised, hovering the mouse over a thumbnail started the video and audio. Even when playing in a small thumbnail, it was unmistakably hard core porn.

Of course, kids don't need Bing to find and view porn. You can find it with Google and other search engines, and even though Google has a filtered search option, there's nothing to stop someone from turning that off. But Microsoft makes it a little too easy. If moderate or strict filtering is on and you search for a filtered term, the site simply instructs you to click a link to "change your SafeSearch setting." If you configure Google for "strict filtering," a user who searches for a filtered term on Google simply sees that the word or phrase "did not match any documents." Of course a kid can always go in and change Google's settings but they have to know how to do it and bother doing it. Microsoft makes it all too easy.

I don't know if Microsoft plans to do deal with this issue in any updates, but regardless of whether your kid uses Bing, Google, or Yahoo, or just knows the URLs of porn sites, the only ways to protect your kids from accessing porn is either to watch them, educate them, or filter them.

Watching them might work with very young children but it's not exactly practical for teens or even pre-teens. I recommend that kids under eight be supervised when using a device with Internet access. Education will work with many kids but not all. Parents certainly have the right to set rules and guidelines and impose consequences if their kids access forbidden sites. But, let's face it, hormones, curiosity, and just plain interest in things sexual can have a strong pull on kids, especially teenage boys. Besides, some younger kids could stumble on porn if they use any unfiltered search engine, even if they're just looking for innocuous terms like "Barbie."

Filtering programs (or the parental controls built into Vista and Mac OS X) will block most porn sites, but it's not yet entirely clear which ones will prevent Bing from previewing such sites. Safe Eyes filtering software "blocks all pornographic content on Bing and Google searches out of the box," according to a post on its company blog. From my perch in the sky, I wasn't able to check with other filtering companies, but I'm betting some will and some won't.

Coincidentally, I'm writing this post on the way to Washington, D.C. for the first meeting of the Commerce Department's NTIA Internet Safety Working Group, which I serve on. I have a feeling this will come up at Thursday's meeting. As one of my fellow working group members, Internet Keep Safe Coalition President Marsali Hancock, said by e-mail, "as new technologies release it is critical that industry and child health advocates explore the potential impact on young developing minds and quickly respond to health and safety concerns."

I'm going to keep on top of this issue with Microsoft and the filtering companies and will report back as this story unfolds.

Correction, 10:27 a.m. PDT: This story incorrectly described Google as a private company. It is public.

As far as I know, nothing tragic happened as a result of Thursday's but it does remind us how important Google has become to many people's lives and livelihoods.

In addition to search, millions of people rely on Google for their e-mail, calendar, and other Web-based applications including word processing and spreadsheet. With its Google Health service, the company has also branched into health care record keeping, making me worry that someday an outage could literally be life threatening.

There is also a financial impact. A lot of people and businesses depend on Google for all or part of their income. I don't know the exact size of the "Google economy" but if Google AdSense (Google's advertising program that serves ads on Web sites ranging from obscure bloggers to major media companies) were to go down, Web sites that display those ads would lose revenue as would businesses that depend on those ads to generate sales. Even search plays a critical role in plenty of people's financial well-being. Where a site comes up during a Google search for certain words can have an enormous impact on traffic and revenue.

Perhaps more so than the banks and auto companies that are getting government bailouts, Google has become "too big to fail." While it's not in jeopardy of any financial collapse, this latest outage reminds us that it's not invulnerable to being taken down by technical glitches or possibly even sabotage. The reason we worry about big companies like General Motors failing isn't just because of the impact on the company's stockholders, employees, or even customers, but on the thousands of businesses whose well being is tied to that of the giant automaker. If GM is a giant, Google is gargantuan, especially in terms of the number of people who make all or part of their living on activities that are dependent Google.

On its blog, Google said that the outage, which went on for about an hour, affected 14 percent of its users. That's millions of people. I'm not sure how much money was lost during this period, but I'm sure it was substantial. A longer lasting or more widespread outage, which is hardly out of the question, could have a severe economic impact.

I'm by no means suggesting that Google should be regulated by government, but I do think that it's gotten to the point where it has become a vital part of our infrastructure--as important as our airports, highways, and utilities. That's a mighty big responsibility for a single public company.

Google's new Google Voice has a few rough edges but for many users, it could be a life-changing experience.

The service, a relaunch of GrandCentral, which Google bought in 2007, allows you to choose a local number, which will simultaneously ring up to six phones such as your cell phone, home phone, office phone, and the phone at that vacation home that most of us can only dream about.

In addition to forwarding your calls, it also takes voice messages that you can listen to on the Web, from a phone, or read, thanks to a new feature that transcribes voice messages and sends them as e-mail and text messages.

If you have multiple phones, having a single number to reach them all can make you and your callers' lives a bit easier, and it can save space on your business card by not having to list separate numbers. The concept is simple: people are trying to reach you--not one of your phones--and Google Voice lets you decide how to route the calls.

The simultaneous ring feature can also be used by groups. Team HOPE, a support network for families of missing children, gives callers a GrandCentral number that rings the phones of several staff members to ensure that calls are always answered.

I've been using a very similar "simulring" feature on Vonage for several years and like the fact that I get to control where my calls are forwarded. Both Google and Vonage let you configure forwarding from the Web, but Google also allows you to assign a temporary forwarding number directly from the phone. That could come in handy, if you suddenly find your cell phone out of range but have access to another number where you can be reached.

The call-recording feature is very cool. At any time during an incoming call, you can press 4 to start the recorder and 4 again to stop it. That can be handy if you're driving and someone is about to give you a phone number, address, or something else that you can't write down.

The recording feature can also be used by podcasters to record phone calls that can be exported as MP3 files. And yes, there is an announcement to inform the other party that you're recording the call.

You also get free conference calls. Up to four people can dial your phone number and can be patched into the call.

Cheap international calls
People who make occasional international calls from a cell phone will get incredible savings, compared to what the carriers charge. Using Google Voice to call a landline in London, for example, costs 2 cents a minute, compared to the whopping $1.49 that Verizon Wireless and AT&T charge, if you don't purchase an international calling plan.

Even with a calling plan, the carrier rates, though much cheaper, are still higher than what Google charges. Making calls could be easier. You dial your Google number, press 2, and then punch in 011 plus the country code and phone number.

Bugs and rough edges
I have encountered a few annoying bugs in my day 1 experience with the service. For one, I'm not able to delete voice mail from my cell phone, despite following the instructions to press 7 to "archive" messages. Every time I call my voice mail, those messages are still there, as if they were new. Although the voice mail transcription service works, the message isn't always delivered promptly. Sometimes it arrives in a few minutes, but at other times, it's taken up to 20 minutes.

Although not a bug and not Google's fault, it's unfortunate that you can't use your Google number as your outgoing caller ID when you dial directly from a cell phone. Although there are ways to spoof that, for security reasons, phone companies don't allow it.

The problem is that people are in the habit of you calling back on your caller ID, which makes it harder to train them to dial your Google number. Your Google caller ID will show up correctly, however, if you initiate the call from your Google Voice Web page or if you dial your own Google number and then press 2 to dial out and type in the number. This process, I suspect, is more of a hassle than it's worth.

There also isn't yet a way to transfer an existing phone number to Google, so you're stuck having to give out the new Google number. The service works only with U.S. phone numbers; you can't forward calls overseas.

Because it's an incoming service only, you can't record outbound calls, and you can't use Google Voice to add people to a call. They have to call you.

The service is currently available only to people who had previously signed up for GrandCentral. Google hasn't announced when others can sign up.

Still, despite some flaws and limitations, this could turn out to be one of Google's most beloved services. Being able to read your voice mail and having one number that rings all your phones is terrific, especially at the amazingly low price of free.

(This post has been updated to note that your Google caller ID will display correctly if you dial via the service's Web site or use the service's dial-out feature.)

Listen to Larry's interview with Craig Walker, Google Voice guru and co-founder of GrandCentral

Listen now: Download today's podcast

In 2007, Google acquired GrandCentral and just re-launched it as Google Voice. The service, which gives users an incoming number that can be forwarded to as many as six phones, allows you to screen calls and record them, and transcribes your voice mail into e-mail and text messages. I spoke with GrandCentral co-founder and now Google executive Craig Walker about the service's features as well privacy issues and whether Google will ever make any money from it.

Listen now: Download today's podcast