Internet Related/Filtering/Firewall Thread, Bing Images SafeSearch fail (don't test this at work) in Technical; Now, I'm not a complete idiot, so I know that the various SafeSearch filters on Bing and Google are far ...
30th September 2011, 06:06 PM #1
Bing Images SafeSearch fail (don't test this at work)
Now, I'm not a complete idiot, so I know that the various SafeSearch filters on Bing and Google are far from foolproof, but I never expected it to be quite this bad. one of our pupils wanted a picture demonstrating the high temperatures in Tokyo during the summer, and so typed in how hot is it in Tokyo into Bing Images.
SafeSearch was on Moderate (default).
The resulting images were not only wholly inappropriate, but not stopped by our current filtering system (RM SafetyNet). What followed was a total block to Bing Images search on our SmartCache, and a brief phonecall to Smoothwall to get a quote for a filtering system that actually works.
If you too were under any illusions that SafeSearch helped at all, now is the time to think again.
30th September 2011, 06:27 PM #2
Safesearch "strict" is much better than moderate in this case. Any forcing of safesearch should be to "strict", as the moderate ones are often just for text etc.
A hard one to block as a search term - the presence of tokyo seems relatively irrelevant, other cities work too, though not quite as well.
30th September 2011, 06:40 PM #3
And there I was thinking I was missing out on something by never having been to Tokyo.
Strict is considerably better, but still lets through a few I'm not thrilled about in a primary. Forcing it to Strict is the first thing I'll be turning on as soon as I have a system that allows me to do so (assuming its not on by default). I do think Bing has a lot to answer for though given that Google Images doesn't produce anything near the sort of severity with the same search on Moderate.
30th September 2011, 10:34 PM #4
- Rep Power
Even the strict search mode on Bing brings up questionable results vs the moderate safe search Google being fine.
30th September 2011, 10:45 PM #5
A while ago Bing was doing a better job than google IMO, now the balance is a bit the other way. Both have caused problems for filtering folk in the past by changing things without warning, or worse only changing for some users!
We can do "deep url" scanning (usually, when the search engines are behaving) to block images from known dodgy sites, though that usually entails blocking a few odd ones like blogger.com to make it really work.
30th September 2011, 10:51 PM #6
Its better than it used to be, but at one point google image search was blocked at my old school. Searches such as 'Erica' and 'bicycle' returned some, lets say, interesting results! Even on strict. Erica or Sasha in Moderate still return some undesirable results for younger kids.
Originally Posted by stickyfoot
30th September 2011, 10:59 PM #7
- Rep Power
" Erica or Sasha in Moderate still return some undesirable results"
I see what you mean.
Obviously I'm testing all these questionable search terms for research purposes only...
1st October 2011, 06:32 AM #8
- Rep Power
Forget about images. With Google safe search on so-called strict mode, you can get obvious, radically inappropriate links, a whole page of them. Just type in "An*l S$ex" and you'll see a whole listing of sites extolling the joys thereof and offering detailed descriptions of how to go about it.
Google strict is essentially useless for child-proofing your computer. Which is a big problem because many Parental Control systems use Google's default settings and assume they work. They simply don't.
1st October 2011, 11:59 AM #9
My Bing/Google must be broken - the "Tokyo" one was the only search that brought up anything really objectionable (and thank your deity that they didn't just use "Tokyo hot").
As for tlemon's search, I only got 2 pages (mainly Google books results) and while there did appear to be some detail it could be argued that (in a school context) banning all results would be unfair to those of that sexuality.
Going off on a tangent, I do think that sometimes the staff are overly concerned when they complain about the odd "Maxim" type pose that the kids find - they presumably don't object to the kids watching "Girls Aloud"/Rihanna(sp?) videos, and for some reason "Grease" (moral: "slut yourself up to get a man") is considered wholesome entertainment for primary kids (and don't get me started on the 9 year old who once turned up in fancy dress as a "sexy schoolgirl").
1st October 2011, 01:44 PM #10
Text search is a lot simpler to filter locally, however. I don't think there's an educational filter on the market that would let the search terms in your example get through.
Originally Posted by tlemon
We have had internal discussions before about Maxim-style bikini images being returned. Our staff are fairly understanding about the limitations of automated filtering and haven't made a huge fuss; in most (but not all) cases of this we have tended towards reminding pupils of what is and isn't an appropriate thing to be searching for. Yesterday was the first time we really felt the technology had truly failed, and we reacted accordingly.
1st October 2011, 04:52 PM #11
The policy I've always followed is that of 'if it appears in the Sun, I'm not overly bothered'. There's no way to ensure perfect filtering, so its better to focus energy on blocking the bad stuff and not worrying overly about blocking every set of boobs on the web.
Originally Posted by LeMarchand
3rd October 2011, 05:44 PM #12
Interesting. We've classified the sun under "adult" as so much there is a bit dubious (particularly page3, but other images too)- totally understand that kids can legally get the same content at the newsagent, but there isn't a newsagent on every desk IYSWIM
Originally Posted by localzuk
By russdev in forum General Chat
Last Post: 25th October 2009, 01:35 PM
By Jamman960 in forum Internet Related/Filtering/Firewall
Last Post: 18th February 2009, 11:25 PM
By elsiegee40 in forum General Chat
Last Post: 23rd March 2007, 12:38 PM
By CyberNerd in forum *nix
Last Post: 29th June 2006, 10:19 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)