“What are the pros and cons of each?”
Filter (K9 is an example, and in my experience has the best, though not foolproof, information about and detection of inappropriate sites):
Pros – You are forced to define your standards before any use of the Internet, and cannot access anything problematic
A) accidentally or, for that matter, B) intentionally.
Neither of those is fully prevented from occurring by a monitoring system, and I assume this is important from the viewpoint of halacha.
(You can get many filters – K9, for example – for free*.)
Cons – Your access to something necessary may be restricted, and at times, it may not be possible to reach a technician to allow the necessary access. Speaking of which, you obviously cannot have control of your filter. Have someone else – TAG, perhaps? – set the password (K9 has an option to allow you to block specific sites without needing the password).
Filters are not foolproof, of course, but that hardly seems a con – I don’t know if anything is absolutely foolproof.
“Well, I can first hand tell you that I had K9 and I broke through it so well that it was under my own password and I could unblock any site for like an hour and no one would know.
I found out how to break thru on the internet, but if you think whoever it is won’t go through the required steps to break through that took a half an hour, go ahead and install it.”
This does need to be addressed.
1. Categories including sites that might inform one as to how to disable their filter should be blocked. Failure to do so is failure to properly filter. (If the user has non-filtered
Internet access in another location, the purpose of having a filter may be somewhat defeated, especially considering the possibilities for saving or creating access to objectionable content.)
2. The last 3 days of administrative actions in K9 cannot be deleted (unless perhaps one can locate the file they are stored in – I don’t know). This includes enabling specific or general access – and any sites visited during all-access sessions. Inspection every three days, or perhaps at random, should deter any such actions by users who have somehow gained control of the
settings. (If such inspections cannot be carried out because the password has been changed, there is obviously a problem.)
Monitoring program:
Pros – If you access something problematic, you will have to account for it. This is useful both for prevention and, if necessary, intervention. Just be sure to choose the right person to act as supervisor.
(I don’t know anything about the availability of free monitoring.)
Cons – This does not technically prevent access. Multiple users may thus present an issue. Unsupervised use by someone other than yourself would be a definite no-no.
(I don’t know if these generally record the times at which sites were visited, or if they can be set up to distinguish between user accounts on one computer.)
Now, there are two points to be made here:
The first is that sites which are not objectionable on the whole may nevertheless feature inappropriate images or advertising. To deal with this, you can add ad-blocking and image-blocking plugins/extensions/whatevers to your browser. Mod-42 recommends
“adblockplus, flashblock, and […] imglikeopera.” I don’t know if ImgLikeOpera works with the current version of Firefox, but ImageBlock definitely does, although its function is limited to
being an on/off switch.
These will likely remain under the user’s control, but turning them off shouldn’t be much of a temptation.
Nativ offers, as part of their services, the filtering out of skintone from images – I don’t know if this is available elsewhere, whether for free or not. Speaking of which…
The second point is that these options – filter and monitor – are both client-side solutions – that is, they’re programs you install on your own computer. Some might prefer a server-side solution – buying your Internet service from a company which does their own filtering. However, devices with wireless access to service from other companies would still need a client-side solution (in this case, this could be removing the wireless capability from the device). Additionally, service could be surreptitiously purchased from a second company and used to access problematic content, likewise necessitating a client-side solution.
*
I am aware of a certain ad campaign urging people to buy Internet safety products rather than rely on free ones, with the implication that free products can be presumed not to be as reliable as paid ones – in common parlance, “you get what you pay for.”
To anyone familiar with the phenomenon of open-source software, this is ludicrous. Perhaps the readers have heard of such products as the Linux operating system, the Firefox browser, or VLC Media Player? They’re free.