Microsoft offers unworkable solution to Bing porn
As I pointed out in an earlier post, searching for certain terms on Microsoft's new Bing.com search engine brings up videos that display hardcore porn within the Web site and because the porn is playing within Bing instead of the site where it's hosted, the videos are not necessarily blocked by parental control filters. And monitoring programs designed to tell parents where their kids have been are likely to simply report Bing.com instead of the site that actually hosts the video.
As Tom Krazit pointed out, Microsoft has responded to the issue in a blog post Thursday. That post is defensive--"we think our current search safety settings are solid"--but it does acknowledge "we also are listening to customers, and some have told us they want more control and they want it now."
The company says that it has a "short term workaround" but not only do I find the description of the workaround incomprehensible, I couldn't get it to work even while on the phone with a Microsoft executive. If you can figure out how to implement these instructions, please let me know:
So for right now, we wanted to let people know that you can add "adlt=strict" to the end of a query and no matter what the settings are for that session, it will return results as if safe search was set to strict. The query would look like this: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=adulttermgoeshere&adlt=strict (yes it is case sensitive)."
But even if this can be made to work, it might help companies prevent employees from viewing porn but doesn't even begin to address the concerns of parents who don't want their kids playing porn movies from within the search engine of the world's largest software company.
To its credit Microsoft does have a "SafeSearch" option that does not bring up porn. In fact, it's the default setting. The problem is that if someone searches for an adult term with the setting on strict or moderate, they immediately get an invitation to "change your SafeSearch setting" right there on the screen. I love things that are user-friendly but, for kids, that may be a bit too user-friendly. At the very least, Microsoft would be better off following Google's example by requiring the user to manually go into the preference area to change the settings. It wouldn't stop a cybersavvy teen from finding porn, but it would at least slow them down a bit. And it probably would stop younger users from finding it. Another solution would be to have a family version of Bing with a different URL. The best solution is probably simply not to let porn videos play within Bing.
I'm not suggesting there is a silver bullet to this problem and I understand that Microsoft may have been caught by surprise over this, but it strikes me that a solution can be found and quickly implemented.
In the meantime I did get an e-mail today from Microsoft's Chuck Cosson telling me, "today we provided filtering companies as well as network administrators with a simple solution for restricting Bing to filtered searches." And he added, "while we give some further thought to Bing, I think it's also still our thinking that safe search settings on a single search engine can't substitute for a complete parental control offering--one reason to work with the filtering companies for example, but also that will inform how we respond here over time."
I agree. I don't think it's appropriate to demand that Microsoft make its search engine entirely kid-friendly. Porn may be inappropriate for kids and distasteful to some, but the type of porn you find on Bing is legal material and adults should have a right to search for it. I think parents do have the responsibility to set and enforce rules for their kids and, in some cases, monitor what their kids are doing online. But I also think Microsoft needs to put a bit more thought into how it can better empower parents to shield their kids from inappropriate material without censoring search results for adults. This may not be easy but it is possible.
Larry Magid is a technology journalist and an Internet safety advocate. He's been writing and speaking about Internet safety since he wrote Internet safety guide "Child Safety on the Information Highway" in 1994. He is co-director of ConnectSafely.org, founder of SafeKids.com and SafeTeens.com, and a board member of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Larry's technology analysis and commentary can be heard on CBS News and CBS affiliates, and read on CBSNews.com. He also writes a personal-tech column for the San Jose Mercury News. You can e-mail Larry or follow him on Twitter @larrymagid. 
It's tough when you're on top of an industry, man the crap you have to take from sore losers!
And the competitors have done what??!?!
But they still bashed on MS's option.
Again, get net nanny or block at firewall. That's the only way to be sure anyways.
Again, get net nanny or block at firewall. That's the only way to be sure anyways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. To keep your 8 year old from stumbling on hard core porn, block bing.com.
I didn't fully comprehend the author's issue at first, but it's starting to sink in. A parent or company wants to prevent the "kids" (or employees) from sitting around watching Debby Does Dallas, or Facial Fantasies 4. They carefully create lists or configure adult filters to keep the kids/employees from those sites. That used to work to an extent (nothing is perfect of course), but now all they have to do is go to bing.com - all auditing reports show the employees doing web searches (instead of sitting around watching porn in front of customers!) and the 8 year old starts asking "Daddy, why is that guy stabbing that girl in the mouth like that?" in front of the grandparents because they accidentally got around the filters.
Better yet, isn't porn one of the more popular methods of distributing malware? What about porn run through a M$ website and viewed through some popup viewer?
No surprise M$ still doesn't understand why anyone would have issues with this, or comprehend the security issues here. It's YOUR fault for going out on the internet in the first place, it's never M$"s fault for making shoddy swiss-cheese junkware.
The only place MS is on top is where they were able to leverage an illegal monopoly, everywhere else their success has been middling to outright failure.
I guess that's better than being a marginal internet safety advocate.
P.S. isn't "Bing" the sound that Southwest airlines makes?
You are now free to porn about the country
In the end, I think they need to let it be free and open. Parents need to monitor and supervise their children, not a computer.
I agree that parents need to monitor and supervise their children and not rely on a computer, but you have to see how this bing.com idiocy makes that job considerably harder. Think of it this way - your teenage son is at the computer in the living room, in plain sight. You're keeping an eye on him, but you're not helicoptering over them constantly - you have other things to do as well. It's pretty easy to see if the browser they have open is showing a porn site, they're typically pretty gaudy - but no, the kid's behaving and only researching something on this new search engine. But why are his pants unfastened? And why does his hand keep heading to his lap? He *can't* be watching porn, you searched all the sites and did everything possible to keep that "filth" out of your home!
Sorry Dan, I know it's never M$'s fault. It's the parent's fault still. If this promiscuous parent didn't want the son having sex with himself in the living room they wouldn't have let him use a computer to begin with. Right?
Note: I'm not trying to start a commentary on how hung up American's can be about natural things like the human body and reproduction. You could replace "kid" with "terrorist" and "porn site" with "Al Jazzera" (or however it's spelled) and make similar arguments - he's just using a search engine, even according to accounting reports and filtering. It's just that the search engine is showing him terrorist videos. And no, I'm not trying to start a commentary about how hung up American's can be over radical Muslims either.
The point is it's specifically designed to thwart any and all controls or reporting procedures that might be in place. As usual, M$ can't see a problem with this.
For a person who says that it isn't Microsoft's fault, you sure pointed out many reasons why it is. Or were you being sarcastic?
Google doesn't have a porn filter on Chrome. Apple doesn't have one on Safari like that either. So if the browsers are capable of going to porn, then you should be coming down equally hard on them too.
By the way, there is no age verification or guards at freeway onramps. Kids are free to walk down those ramps and out into the traffic lanes. Blame the government, right?
In the end, you can blame everyone except those people who actually need to be responsible- the legal guardians of the children. Spin that however you want, but a computer is not a baby sitter.
I'm rather disappointed you are missing this basic and simple point. Why are you expecting Microsoft to protect you from the internet? It isn't their job- it's yours.
You seem not to get the point. MS is wrong in this case.
Not only did they make it easier to turn off the filter, they also made the porn vids play directly from the search engine. That means there's no trace for the parent, no evidence that anything at all had happened because all that shows up in the history is bing.com.
Try it out for yourself, maybe you'll get what I'm saying. Go to www.bing.com , now do a search that you know will bring up porn. Watch how easy it is to turn off the filter then hover your mouse for however long it takes for the vid to start to play.
How easy was that? Did it take more than a minute? 30 seconds?
Do you intend to stand over your childs shoulder every single second of every single day because MS can't be bothered to make it a bit more difficult for them to view illicit material?
He only has a script given to him by some moron working in MS marketing to work off of.
"He only has a script given to him by some moron working in MS marketing to work off of."
*looks up from the sheet of paper*
I said what you wrote in the script, Pentest, just like you paid me to do. Why didn't it work? :)
I agree with all that the auto preview is a problem, but people like Dalkorian is insisting that we should force Microsoft and other companies to police the internet against all things deemed offensive by him instead of just being responsible for his own actions. You search the internet for porn and guess what- you get porn. Why he finds this to be a surprise, I just don't know.
Perhaps I misunderstood him.
Try it out for yourself, maybe you'll get what I'm saying. Go to www.bing.com , now do a search that you know will bring up porn. Watch how easy it is to turn off the filter then hover your mouse for however long it takes for the vid to start to play.
How easy was that? Did it take more than a minute? 30 seconds?
======
So, how about Google? Go to www.google.com , now do a search that you know will bring up porn. Watch how easy it is to turn off the filter then hover your mouse for however long it takes for the vid to start to play.
Oh, I see, it is difficult! Google did not tell you "if you want adult video click here", but any kind knowing how to use a browser can learn this trick from his classmates at school or next door.
You call this "Google is safer than Bing"?
Hover your mouse over a vid on Google, nothing plays. You actually have to start the video manually which means that for 99.9% of videos, you have to go to the site it was found on. If you have to go to the site, that means filters put in place to stop you from viewing porn will work.
Now, when you do a search for porn on Google, it doesn't give you that pop up and this means that at least for you the younger kids, they won't be viewing porn. When they get older, they still have to find a way around the filters because Google makes you go to the site to watch it.
Bing plays porn when you hover the mouse (no need to get around a filter). It also puts the popup directly on the front page in a way that makes it more obvious than the search results.
In other words, MS did a very bad thing.
"The point is it's specifically designed to thwart any and all controls or reporting procedures that might be in place. As usual, M$ can't see a problem with this."
It's not designed to thwart anything. It's designed to create a user experience that is better is all. Unfortunately, where under aged children are concerned, ease of access becomes an issue. I believe Microsoft will fix this rather within a reasonable amount of time or suffer more bad publicity.
However, all of this publicity (as unintended, and unwanted as it is) is not without it's benefits. Imagine all the adults around the globe doing video searches as we speak, and what this is doing to bing's usage stats!
Now, when you do a search for porn on Google, it doesn't give you that pop up and this means that at least for you the younger kids, they won't be viewing porn. When they get older, they still have to find a way around the filters because Google makes you go to the site to watch it.
======
Are you kidding me and other readers here?
Turn off your Google SafeSearch and go to the following link (correcting the spelling in the asterisks beforehand)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bl**job&emb=0&aq=f#
You do not need to hover your mouse anywhere. You see the image with a woman. I do not need to describe further, directly in front of your eyes, from Google.
Fine if you call that a better Google protection for kids than Bing. I am not your kid.
You are missing tm_anon's point. If you want to play the porn video in Google u actually have to visit the site. With Bing you can just hover it in the Bing search results and play the video there without going to the site.
I think MS having SafeSearch available is good enough... I dont think Google has this.
If there us a child on the computer, you need to have something like net nanny or block it at the fiewall. A kid can simply install another browser to get what he wants.
So I have no idea why even picking on MS about this issue when they seem to be the only browser who has even bothered to do anything about it.
Moderate SafeSearch is the default on Google - 'Filter explicit images only - default behavior' (it also filters porn unless you really use some really specific search terms).
Microsoft are certainly not 'the only browser [sic] who has even bothered to do anything about it.'
What Bing does take the content from the porn site and play it through their site. Any blocking software doesn't see that there is video being played from porn.com it only sees that someone went to bing. Basically it is acting like a web anonymizer. If they don't fix this, they are just going to end up getting blocked by nanny software. My work has already blacklisted the site (like they do for all web anonymizers).
I used to volunteer at a school that ended up blacklisting yahoo for something similar. One of the kids was doing a report on breast cancer and the search results pulled up naked pics on the search page! If people click through to porn that is their right and privilege, but it shouldn't be something you can stumble upon by accident.
Why are you talking about different browsers? Bing is a site, Google is a site. Both sites are for search engines. Use whatever browser you want, you can get to either site through it.
Google does have a safe search but even better Google does NOT play porn on the search page. When you search for a term you only get text results. If you click on one of those results you get directed to the hosted website that then has to go through whatever internet filters are setup on your machine/network. If you try to get around this by using the Google "cached" option you only get text, no picture or video porn.
====
Really?
Go to http://www.google.com/ and turn off SafeSearch (any kid looking for porn on the Internet can do this), then search this link:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=f*ck&emb=0&aq=f#
(Of course you need to replace the asterik with correct spelling)
What did you see?
True, you do not see a porn video, but you do see porn images.
Let me know if this makes you think Google is better than Bing.
======
In Mike's blog
http://www.bing.com/community/blogs/search/archive/2009/06/04/smart-motion-preview-and-safesearch.aspx
he wrote
.....
To start with, by default in Bing (and in Live Search before it), we do not return explicit adult content in video or image results. In web results, we also do not include any explicit images or video content by default.
.....
Let me know if you can catch a MS general manager lying in public since you say Bing does not have this filter on.
This is a dumb article.
You're right... but unfortunately there are those like Dalkorian here who does advocate that others should protect people from seeing things on the internet that might be offensive to them. Personal responsibility for your own actions isn't even a consideration. A parent is responsible to protect their children- not the government, and certainly not Microsoft.
He is right though- we don't get it. I'm one of those people who believes in taking responsibility for my own actions. I don't expect someone else to protect me from the internet. Perhaps responsible people are in the minority?
A parent is responsible for their childs actions. That doesn't mean the guy at the end of the street who gives your child candy in exchange for sexual favors is off the hook. Although, by your arguments, it does.
After all, shouldn't the parent be there at all hours of the day, supervising their child all the way through the 17th year until midnight on the 18th birthday when that child is legally an adult? Otherwise something bad might happen, some pervert might take advantage or Bing might show them porn.
There's a reason the law doesn't punish the parent if their child is molested and there's a reason MS should be held responsible for making it so easy for children to view pornographic material.
"A parent is responsible for their childs actions. That doesn't mean the guy at the end of the street who gives your child candy in exchange for sexual favors is off the hook. Although, by your arguments, it does."
Your analogy doesn't work in this case I do not believe. What Dalkorian is doing is blaming the City for paving the street and putting up street lights which make it easier to spot that creep at the end of the street giving out candy to children. He's blaming Microsoft for making the tools, but not acknowledging that he was out looking for porn in the first place. It's a distinct difference and one that I think is being overlooked.
I'm fine with that though- some people will always live to be offended and not be willing to own up to their own responsibility for their actions. Thankfully there aren't a lot of them and the rest of the world knows that by sticking your hand in the fire that you might get burned.
In this case, the City is represented by the internet (or at least by the segment of the internet corresponding to your part of the world), the man on the corner is still represented by MS.
Unless you're trying to claim that MS is the internet, my analogy holds.
The ice-cream man is corrupting kids, the street is the internet, the ice-cream man is the smut peddlers and the music he plays is bing.
And yes my kids will get in trouble for approaching an ice-cream truck without me or their mother.
Enough fun with analogies, there is a fine line between censorship and safe search, Microsoft isn't on that line yet with bing, though I am sure they will get there. I just hope that all this attention doesn't make them over-react and cross it.
Tags: micorosft, bing, chuck cosson, porn, video
And clicking on "porn" brings up another page that says "Read all 'porn' posts in Larry Magid at Large"...
(Clicking on "micorosft" only brings up this article, at least until the typo gets fixed.)
Looks like mavi22 is going to get a raise for increasing productivity by decreasing slack in the workplace.
That means MS is responsible for allowing porn to get through.
It definitely should be filtered in the workplace.
You're right. The company's network connection should only be used for business purposes. Now then I expect you to go right up to your CEO on monday morning and demand... yes, DEMAND that they shut down all non-company access to the network and that will include the CEO's own email and web browsing. Tell them that it is for their own good that they should not be allowed to have any connection to the outside world. They should all only be doing company work 100% of the time. The CEO will no doubt reward you richly for your good deed. He might give you commodations in the form of a special piece of paper too.
It's pink.
Exactly right. Bung is playing porn right in their webpage.
That means MS is responsible for allowing porn to get through.
It definitely should be filtered in the workplace.
=======
So, what did you see when you turn off SafeSearch and go to
http://images.google.com/images?q=f*ck&emb=0&sa=N&hl=en&tab=vi
(Of course you should replace the asterik with the correct spelling)
Time to block all search engines at work spaces.
By going up to your boss and demanding something, you are, in effect, claiming to be the boss. You wouldn't be fired for giving a good idea, you'd be fired for how you went about bringing up that idea.
Now, most companies already do block all non-work related sites, what mavi22 is doing goes right along with that idea.
Do I have to make up another example for you to see why this is a typically idiotic M$ idea?
Do you find the concept of being responsible for your own actions really so difficult to comprehend? Why do you expect someone else to protect you from your own actions?
It sounds like you're in the minority here. Perhaps it's only you that needs this sort of protection from yourself.
Dalkorian made a very good point and you want to bring this to "personal responsibility"?
MS, in his example, is aiding and abedding a would be terrorist by hiding his footprints online through their own site. He's not talking about you being an idiot, he's talking about a guy who is looking up how to videos on making bombs and being hidden from the authorities who usually are able to catch the activity based on the web site viewed.
You really should stop commenting and start thinking.
MS, in his example, is aiding and abedding a would be terrorist by hiding his footprints online through their own site. He's not talking about you being an idiot, he's talking about a guy who is looking up how to videos on making bombs and being hidden from the authorities who usually are able to catch the activity based on the web site viewed.
=====
Don't worry. On the first request MS will pass the log information to the authority, who sought this video, when, from where, so the police can catch the bad guy right away.
And another company will resist giving out this information.
Now tell me which one is helping the bad guy.
I'm glad it's only a minority that believes that we let children run out run out in traffic too. Don't bother teaching them to look both ways- traffic will take care of that and even better- when they get hit, we can blame the city. Excellent advice!
Right. Sure. Whatever.
MS is hiding the would-be terrorist from the authorities in the first place. With Google, he'd have to actually go to the site which sends up a red flag that the authorities can easily see.
In other words, if he's using Google, there's not even a need to ask.
@Vegaman_Dan
Yes, people should be held accountable for their own actions, now let's start holding MS responsible for aggregating porn to minors and for hiding potential terrorists from the authorities.
MS is hiding the would-be terrorist from the authorities in the first place. With Google, he'd have to actually go to the site which sends up a red flag that the authorities can easily see.
In other words, if he's using Google, there's not even a need to ask.
=====
Not at all. The authority will ask MS "who searches video on Bing.com in the past 6 months with keyword bomb" and MS will give the authority a list. And then the authority will ask Google the same question and receive nothing.
Indeed. If the bad guy is using Google, the authority does not need to ask because they know Google will send out all the lawyers to fight the request in courts. You are right.
(But honestly, we are discussing porns on Internet. There is no need to switch topics)
Hmm... since my employer has a legal responsibility to make a "best effort" to provide a "harassment free" workplace, I guess we'll be blocking bing.com.
======
Turn off SafeSearch and then go to this Google link
http://images.google.com/images?q=f*ck&emb=0&sa=N&tab=vi
Then I am sure your company will block all search engines.
This is business, not a track-n-field event. If doesn't matter who's first or how late one is to the starting line, it's who's still running the race and making the most that matters.
Do you really think we'd all be better off if Google was the only one in the search and advertising space? People like you only vilify Microsoft for no other reason then because they're a huge company or they're not aligned with some product you buy or use. (Is dumb but it is human nature) Inevitable you will not use Google for something, when can we expect you to vilify Google the same?
We all know you are an idiot and an MS shill.
You don't need to shout those facts out every 2 seconds.
And you, good sir, do not need to be afraid of the truth. I know it hurt and it's uncomfortable, but it is what it is.
By the way, if you are going to accuse me of being a shill, please provide the group here with the evidence. I don't appreciate having imbeciles (please look up the word) like you making up lies like this so I am challenging you to expose me. Go ahead. Bring forth your evidence that I'm being paid to be here. Penguinisto tried and failed. You are up to bat. Back up your claim.
You made the challenge. I'm calling you on it.
Put up or shut up. I can guess you will likely do neither, and instead not have the courage to back up your comments with anything like the truth.
Here's your opportunity.
GO MS! All the porn watchers (and beleive me, we ALL do it at one point or the other...) are grateful :D
I have three children ages 2 -13 that my wife and I raise to a certain level of ideals. I am not religious in any way, but i have a defined sense of what is good and what is not. My children attend a private catholic school, not because of religous beliefs, but because in our area it offers a far superior education than any of the puplic school systems.
Our teenager already knows about sex, we had this talk this year when he started dating a girl in school and attending school sports events and going to the movies etc. (both supervised). but our 7 year old girl we have chosen to shield her from these type of things until she too is a teenager.
Her school, like i said previously has very high education levels and she does allot of school work on computers already in first grade. Being a catholic school they of course have alot of filters and controls added to thier computers to protect the very young children from explicit launguage and pictures/video. what microsoft did though was on one day switch the IE search from being one that was covered by the filters to one that wasn't, even worse they basically provided a work-around to the filters to get the content past them by hosting it themselves. At the very least the bing site and any other pages hosted at those same IP addresses, even if its the entirity of the Microsoft company web presence should be rated to the highest level of content available, and all the companies involved in this type of filtering industry should block them as an adult site.
Spelling does not prove intelligence. These day, spell check is everywhere, including on these comments. puterhead most likely was too busy actually making sense to go back and fix a few words spelled improperly.
The way the filters work now is a problem, and one that will be fixed I expect.
- by OhReallyNow June 5, 2009 4:06 PM PDT
- This may be a computing first: IT/Software development people not thinking about porn.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (126 Comments)