filtered internet is not like filtered water

Nobody objects to filtered water. It's cool, it's clean, it's got no dirty little microbes floating around in it. Filtered internet is clean, and has very few dirty little microbes (hey, no filter is 100%) but that's about where the similarities stop.

Last night I was thinking, spurned on by the shenanigans of the herd of boys staring at something fascinating and always minimized on Google Images. I couldn't quite get a look at it (nor was I sure I wanted to) but I'm fairly sure it was something, er, they weren't supposed to be looking at. That is, it wasn't pictures of shoes or Nelly, their other favorite viewing materials.

So here's my question, LISNewsterz, any one know if SurfControl blocks based on text found in img tags and in links? Such as will a Google Images page that has the links "" and the image "porn.jpg" get blocked? I am being a bad, lazy librarian and not doing a search before asking you... I honestly just haven't had the time or inclination with the Horizon problems to look on about how SurfControl physically works. Their site is a glossy marketing brochure anyway. Time to break out Google (since I have no access to any of the software myself, sigh).

I am going to test my theory that it doesn't block Google Images on Tuesday (Patriot's Day, long weekend for me!)

Of course, I don't want to block all of Google Images, because it's a great search tool. So I guess I'll have to block searches that should consistently come up with some nasty results.

Of course, you're a real stinkin' loser if you're looking up porn on Google Images. Holy crud. Buy a stinkin' magazine.

I hate limiting like this, but there are too many little kids coming through reference that can see this crap. Our library has no real walls separating YA, for instance, from the rest of the library. Makes for some noise and some insecurity. I don't think a fifteen year old would go running home to mama saying he/she saw porn on a library computer, but I don't exactly want that same kid thinking because he/she saw it it's an acceptable practice, you know?

I am taking the Win98 machines, too. They crash too often, and we've had an increased demand for word processing, which the better of the two 98 machines will become. The other is going to be retired (it's got a serial mouse).


The question was asked,
"Does anyone know if SurfControl will block a Google Images page that has the links "" and the image "porn.jpg"?


Even low-cost home filtering programs such as iProtectYou and We-Blocker will stop such pages--if they're properly configured.

The same question has been asked of Yahoo groups and the same answer applies.
Now, that's not to say that if a page has no vulgar words and images are labeled 1.jpg, 2.jpg, etc., they will necessarily bel blocked. But most filtering programs have "black lists" where specific URLs can be added if they are noticed. Someone really does need to monitor weblogs regularly to see if such pages are slipping through.
But once again, the answer is, "Yes... pages such as those mentioned above WILL BE BLOCKED by nearly every web filter on the market.
One filter that may do a particularly good job at this questionable stuff is FilterLogix. See this page FilterLogix for more information on images and filtering... "A handful of companies provide the bulk of the pornographic content to most of the websites. This fact allows filter companies to create methods and processes to identify and block pornographic websites in varying degrees of success. The Achilles’ heal of pornographic web sites is visibility." Companies distributing porn typically have to have pornographic wording on their pages to be found by the various search engines.

One more tip (which may not be practicle): Google sets a cookie to change the safesearch settings from moderate filtering to anything else. So if you have or use a browser in kiosk mode, cookies from (and any regional versions you might use like your users will be unable to modify this setting. Not too many people use the kiosk mode, but if you do, that's a possibility--assuming it's OK to disable cookies. This may, of course cause other problems, such as people not being able to use certain sites like e-mail or on-line shopping, but would likely work in the children's section.

Thanks... I have no idea even how SurfControl is configured, due to our set up, so I guess I'll still have to try it. It resides on a proxy server eight miles away, and alas, though I am the systems librarian at my library in the network, I have not the keys to kingdom. That is, the Library For Which The Network Is Named did the configuring. We just purchased the license. Judging from some of our other network problems this week, it's a fifty fifty proposition as to whether it's configured correctly. Oh me of little faith.

Thanks again! That does give me some hope that these young men weren't being totally delinquent.

Your concerns are well-founded, and I wouldn't take the provider's word for it without testing. Just go into Google "image" search and set the Google filter "Preferences" to "Do not filter my search results." Then try it with "nude" or some other likely suspect.All filtering companies have to take Google in as a special case... along with other search engines. One filtering company is definitely wrestling with this problem... TwoTrees, with their product "Shelterbelt".from TwoTreesTwoTrees is in the process of making some filtering changes effective regarding Google images. In the past, Twotrees has worked to keep this area of Google open, since many userslike this site for it’s large quantity of images. The images there seemed to be of an appropriate nature; however, the site has been reviewed again and TwoTrees is finding that theGoogle images site is not providing the selectivity in indexing it’s images as it has in the past. Shelterbelt is saying that this area of Google will be blocked until such time as theyfeel they can provide the protection needed.For more about Shelterbelt, see this link Shelterbelt They appear to be a local Kansas networking company and filtering provider.For more reviews of internet filters, see

Thanks... I will check this out. My concern began when someone did a simple search on an innocuous subject and porn came up. No way to block that, of course, without blocking Google Images, which is a hot site at the library.

Subscribe to Comments for "filtered internet is not like filtered water"