# Beware of using google images



## Pergamum (Sep 19, 2011)

To guard you from a potential hole to stumble into, below is linked a very alarming article about google images.

Now that I have faster internet I put up a few blog posts (Missions - a Sovereign Grace Perspective in case you are interested) and wanted to post pics to accompany the blog posts. So I used google images for the first time on my wife's laptop without Covenant Eyes (using the phrase "missionary"). Google images displayed a few inappropriate thumbnails. It seems that inappropriate images can turn up without even deliberately looking for them. 

My laptop had Covenant Eyes but I am trying to get a new one now, and I'll be putting the filter onto my wife's laptop today (we didn't before because females don't seem to be so much image-enticed as men, i.e., it didn't seem necessary).

In a related subject, youtube is awesome, but sometimes the suggested videos to the side margin are not always appropriate and they seem to try to entice. Even facebook ads can be this way.

Also, much like some folks I know who will not even possess a television, I am starting to think that no Christian should cruise online without filtering software since what is seen cannot be unseen.


How do you others manage to search pics online or youtube safely or deal with facebook or even news feeds which have advertisements mixed in? Even internet filters sometimes miss these things.

Cyber Safety for Teachers: The hidden dangers of image searching


----------



## SRoper (Sep 19, 2011)

You can try the safe search option in Google Images. It's only on medium by default. I'm pretty sure strict only shows images from preapproved sites. You'll have to do it for every computer you use Google Images on.


----------



## Rich Koster (Sep 19, 2011)

I consider it like walking down the street. If something inappropriate gets put right in front of me, I turn away. On line, I guess we just click to close the screen.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 19, 2011)

SRoper said:


> You can try the safe search option in Google Images. It's only on medium by default. I'm pretty sure strict only shows images from preapproved sites. You'll have to do it for every computer you use Google Images on.



Got it, on strict now.

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 PM ----------




Rich Koster said:


> I consider it like walking down the street. If something inappropriate gets put right in front of me, I turn away. On line, I guess we just click to close the screen.



I'd rather choose a different street, but I know what you are saying.


----------



## yoyoceramic (Sep 19, 2011)

> How do you others manage to search pics online or youtube safely or deal with facebook or even news feeds which have advertisements mixed in?



Use Adblock plus and Google Chrome = kills all ads. 

I think general shrewdness and wisdom ought to be used when surfing the net. No filter is perfect. "You can't stop the birds from flying over your head, but you can stop them from nesting in your hair."


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 19, 2011)

I don't recall having this happen to me, but no doubt it depends on what you search for and if that term could have an association with something else. 

I agree with regard to the suggested YouTube as well, some of which really have no relation to what you're watching.


----------



## athanatos (Sep 19, 2011)

tinyFilter is free and you can add keywords and sites easily. I use this filter and it has been helpful. I have set the password to be extremely long and hard to memorize. It is written down and stuffed in some envelops of love letters in my closet, and it has scripture above it.

Just in case.

As far as filtering out what that cannot, I'd echo the stricter Image search can be good... and the wisdom about unintentional sights just passing.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 19, 2011)

> Frank Horrigan: "You could go to jail, even if you don't mean it."
> *In the Line of Fire*, Columbia, 1993


I have avoided google/internet searches for ANY images for years (not that I feel any need for pictures very often) for just the fears/concerns listed in the article.

Ask yourself the question: is my ministry, reputation, marriage, job, etc. "worth" such a search?

Many people would have been spared lots of grief, if they had just asked themselves that question before they did something they knew was wrong, _deliberately_.

Now, imagine what it's like to be ruined, for something innocent (but in retrospect, foolhardy).

Also consider the possibility/ease of being framed, either as a scapegoat, a target of convenience, or due to malice. A little paranoia isn't all bad.


----------



## Edward (Sep 19, 2011)

I've not had any problems with Google images using strict filtering. Bing can be iffy at times.


----------



## BertMulder (Sep 19, 2011)

We use an openDNS router in our household. Prevents the children from going around the blocking.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 19, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> > Frank Horrigan: "You could go to jail, even if you don't mean it."
> > *In the Line of Fire*, Columbia, 1993
> 
> 
> ...



How much paranoia do we need? I know pastors that don't facebook, and other pastors that have gotten facebooked-jacked and sent weird messages.

---------- Post added at 02:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 AM ----------




Pilgrim said:


> I don't recall having this happen to me, but no doubt it depends on what you search for and if that term could have an association with something else.
> 
> I agree with regard to the suggested YouTube as well, some of which really have no relation to what you're watching.



The term missionary turns up responses also for missionary position if strict filtering is not on.


----------



## Edward (Sep 19, 2011)

I ran the search under strict, and I see what you mean. I reported the two images which were inappropriate - don't know if it will do any good.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 19, 2011)

Thanks Edward, I didn't know you could do that.


There are some free Christian clip art sites to get images for blog postings, but most of these are cheesy and cartoonish. Plus, lots of pics of Jesus (usually white and with blue eyes) abound.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Sep 20, 2011)

Ad Block Plus works with Firefox, too---I see very few ads anywhere, and none on Facebook. I can individually allow sites I trust where clicks are a moneymaker for a private blogger, friend, etc.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Sep 21, 2011)

It's a matter of the heart, you can't feel sanctified letting some filter protect you from what you desire

I got fed up with it blocking the most mundane things, sermons were stopped, sports board forums were blocked for no reason.

I know that if my wife were to catch me watching ... it would seriously hurt her. I love her too much to do that, so I won't look.


----------



## ac7k (Sep 21, 2011)

We also use OpenDNS... works great.


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 21, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > > Frank Horrigan: "You could go to jail, even if you don't mean it."
> ...



Hence my statement above "no doubt it depends on what you search for and *if that term could have an association with something else*." 

Compared to web searches, I've found Google Images to be iffy at times unless you really know what you're looking for and enter very specific terms that are likely to yield that result. For example, a search for C.H. Spurgeon is likely to be less problematic than the search for the term missionary. But even then past the first page or so you sometimes tend to get into irrelevant and seemingly unrelated images. Sometimes it happens sooner than that. Also, some pics that are rather innocuous themselves could be associated with some kind of unsavory site.

The old maxim of a picture saying a thousand words certainly applies here. It's sometimes difficult to find what you're looking for if you're just sort of fishing for an interesting pic to put in a blog post or whatever and are putting in somewhat vague search terms hoping that something appropriate will come up.


----------



## JoannaV (Sep 21, 2011)

I haven't had any issues leading me to tighten the controls I currently have in place. I wouldn't want to go OTT with filters because it would become as silly as the internet at my high school and hometown library: I once wanted to check the clarinet fingering for a particular note but apparently "clarinet fingering" is dirty 

_However_ once we have a child who has any kind of personal access to the internet (ie where they can click on a link) I will create a separate user account with super strict controls. Doesn't matter if they are supervised and doing a very specific task online, there are still odd things that can turn up. No reason for a young child to have to see that. Those controls will loosen as they age and, for example, aren't likely to just randomly click on stuff.


----------



## AThornquist (Sep 21, 2011)

Yes, one must be very careful when Googling for images. In fact, that's one of the ways that some people get around internet filters--by searching for seemingly innocent things and finding perversity there. Also, as others have mentioned, AdBlock with Firefox is great for things like Facebook. I haven't seen an ad on Facebook for a _long_ time because of AdBlock, which I am thankful for; it's simply not helpful to have "Single Christian Girls" staring at me, especially when they aren't dressed like Christian girls...


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 22, 2011)

How do I get adblock is I don't use Firefox?


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 22, 2011)

I think many of the anti-malware programs block a lot of the junk because inappropriate sites are a haven for spyware, etc.

We haven't run into many problems with Google, likely because we have layer on layer of firewalls, software etc. Also, the only time I use their images would be if they come up in a general search rather than a specific image search. That has never been a problem, but it is wise to be cautious.


----------



## JoannaV (Sep 22, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> How do I get adblock is I don't use Firefox?



Which browser do you use? There is an AdBlock for Chrome too. Internet Explorer has something, but not sure if it works so good: the way that browser works makes it harder to create something similar to adblock.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 22, 2011)

I use internet explorer.


----------



## JoannaV (Sep 23, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> I use internet explorer.



Googling "adblock ie" will give you two or three options. I'm not in a position to confidently recommend one. I do have some kind of adblocking thing on my IE8, but I don't use IE enough to say if it is the best option and um quite honestly I don't remember what it is or where I got it. I just know my ads are blocked  I is so helpful :B


----------



## Scottish Lass (Sep 24, 2011)

IE is considered by some to be weaker in terms of virus accessibility, etc. You could download Chrome or Firefox, see if you like it, especially with the adblock extension and switch. If not, just go back to IE as your browser.


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Sep 25, 2011)

If anyone is using filtering software (or uses it for your kids), make sure you put Google Images and Bing Images in your blocked lists because of this. I don't have the links because I have them blocked myself, but a quick general image search (preferably a puritan book title and author to reduce the risk of running into these pics) should give you the core of the URL to get it blocked.

EDIT: Do the same thing with Google and Bing videos. While they're unplayable since you'll have to go to the site, which is likely blocked already, it can still cause problems.


----------



## gordo (Oct 5, 2011)

yeah Google image search can be iffy. I use it quite a bit for finding pictures and you will usually get a few oddball images no matter what you search for.


----------

