September 8, 2013 7:57 pm at 7:57 pm #610539
I think that keeping people of all ages safe from *dramatic pause* the dangers of the worldwide web (I reserve the term “Internet” for its true meaning,) is a good idea. BUT–
I’m a bit disturbed by the sales pitches for a certain webfilter that YWN is promoting on the homepage. They’re just too … graphic. Perhaps aggressive is also a good word to describe them. Don’t get me wrong, except for the fact that they want me to uninstall my Norton or McAfee security software to run the filter, a lot of the components of their filter sound fascinating.
The message, however, I’m getting from their latest comic strip-style advertisement is that if someone brings a computer monitor with the words “Unfiltered Internet” emblazoned on it (presumably representing a computer that does not have a web-filtering software installed on it) into their house, their house (with the kids inside) will be destroyed by a missile. I’m sorry, but those implications are a bit extreme in my opinion.
The previous one was also a bit iffy. Resorting to “bathroom humor-esque” themes for what’s intended to be a heimishe product really surprised me. Okay, if a secular cartoon character is going to use bathroom talk, I don’t care. (Heck, if it’s tastefully done – a rare art nowadays – I might even laugh!) From a religious Jewish source, however, I expect better than that.
Long story short, I think it’s possible to convey the same message without using graphic (by frum standards) imagery a toilet or a missile blowing up a house with children inside. I thought we were better than the Christian “spiritual leaders” who use scare tactics to get their followers to do stuff!
I’d love to help this web filtering service provider improve their advertising techniques. Can anyone suggest a less aggressive yet equally effective way to convey their message?
* * * *
Also, to digress, why does everyone assert that people, especially frum men, are going to give into their supposed taivos and look at … inappropriate stuff … simply because they have a computer? I think the assertion is just about as flawed as the feminist belief that ALL men are chauvinists, misogynists, perverts, etc.September 8, 2013 10:44 pm at 10:44 pm #975774LevAryehMember
Good post. In general, people do not go off because they have Internet; they go off and then they use the Internet.
I remember reading a flyer that said (in the name of some random “gedolim”) that if someone owns a computer, even if it has no Internet access and even if they only use it to type Chiddushei Torah, the Torah they type is not Toras Emes and they get no s’char.
Wondering if the same applies to any sefer typeset and printed in the last seventy or so years.September 8, 2013 11:24 pm at 11:24 pm #975775
I was a bit surprised by the advertisements as well. Although I did laugh at the transformation of the pious little boy into some scaly looking dinosaur. it happened quite rapidly. Im sure that’s what our neshamos look like after days of sitting in front of the computer screen.September 8, 2013 11:41 pm at 11:41 pm #975776
I think that you people have no clue what addiction looks like and how a shmutz addiction totally destroys someone’s life be it a man woman child… Read some real stories and then come back and post your naarishkiet.September 8, 2013 11:55 pm at 11:55 pm #975777
I don’t know if I agree with your first statement LevAryehBoy: that “In general, people do not go off because they have Internet; they go off and then they use the Internet.” Some of the stuff out there on the internet can slowly chip away at your entire belief system. And then you’re left thinking; why am I living this way again? So you stop. And then, to use the common phrase, you are “off the derech”.
I can see it happening either way.September 9, 2013 1:11 am at 1:11 am #975778
@live right – I probably look like a velociraptor. JK! And you’re probably right, it can happen any way.
Btw, just a FYI for everyone, (hey, that’s two abbreviations!) I don’t intend to start a debate, I’m just wondering if anyone has any ideas regarding alternative ways for this company to convey this powerful message. I can’t speak for everyone else, but this one wasn’t effective for me. I apologize if anything I said came out overly antagonistic – I was fasting at the time.
It’s true, any exposure to inappropriate stuff is unfortunately very damaging. What I’d really like to see filtered out are the stuff that come up by accident, like annoying (and sometimes inappropriate) popup ads on completely innocent websites. I use an ad blocker because I don’t like being annoyed in general.
And to put out a suggestion to all web filtering services, frum and frei alike, does anyone have a solution to hiding YouTube’s related videos? About 85% of the time, YouTube blocks out the really schmutzdik stuff, but you know how people can spend hours watching cat videos? Even tame things (like cat videos) can be addicting in an innocent but time-consuming way. Y’know?September 9, 2013 11:02 am at 11:02 am #975779just my hapenceParticipant
I think that you people have no clue what addiction looks like and how a shmutz addiction totally destroys someone’s life be it a man woman child
Actually, I have a fairly good idea what addiction looks like, in fact I’m in the middle of an assignment about it for my psychology degree. As addiction is currently defined (which is fairly loosely actually), the internet is not addictive. Addictions are defined as having the following characteristics:
1. Excessive, disruptive, compulsive behaviour caused by the activity or substance. All these terms are, however, subjective.
2. Craving the activity or substance in its absence. Again, this is fairly subjective.
3. Tolerance – the amount of substance or performance of the activity needed to achieve the same level of ‘high’ increases over time. This is objective and observable.
4. Physical withdrawal symptoms. These are actual, physical symptoms such as headaches, nausea, vomiting, ‘the shakes’ etc. upon prolonged cessation of the substance or activity. Again, objective and observable.
The internet may, at the very most, qualify for two of the above. It certainly does not qualify by either of the objective, observable criteria. It doesn’t appear in the DSM as an addiction. I know you will google up some studies but the issue really is a lot more complex than a quick internet search. It may be that, in the fullness of time, as more research is conducted internet abuse may come to be classified as an addiction but at the moment it isn’t.
Furthermore, you fall foul of the self-selection bias when you ask us to
Read some real stories and then come back and post your naarishkiet.
The problem here is that you only ever hear stories of when things go wrong because things not going wrong is not a story. Nobody ever went to their rabbi completely broken at the fact that they got the internet and then nothing bad happened. Nobody ever sent a story into a magazine or newspaper which went “I got the internet and it was fine”. “Nothing happened” doesn’t sell. Sure, completely unfiltered internet is a dangerous thing but when it gets blown out of all proportion as in these ads then all that happens is that people get skeptical about the whole issue.September 9, 2013 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm #975780LevAryehMember
Pop-up ads have generally not been relevant since the early 2000s. Every browser blocks pop-ups. You will not see advertisements for adult sites unless someone using your computer has visited adult sites in the past, saving cookies in your browser. Try clearing your cookies and seeing if it helps.September 9, 2013 3:27 pm at 3:27 pm #975781
Just my happence
I don’t know if Internet is an addiction per se. Its a machlokes. Either way most psychologists agree that using the Internet to look at shmutz (I’m sure you know the English word) is a serious addiction with terrible consequences.September 9, 2013 3:30 pm at 3:30 pm #975782
Just my hapence
Theres a very big yetzer hora called “it’s not so bad” or “what’s the big deal” that’s basically how the yetzer hora ruins people on the Internet. You look at this then you look at that and then you look at that and before you know it you are hooked and all you want to look at is that and all your thoughts are about that….September 9, 2013 3:30 pm at 3:30 pm #975783
@LevAryehBoy – I don’t believe anyone has visited adult sites on my computer. I’m just saying that theoretically popup ads or just ads in general are annoying. But thanks for the tip. I do that from time to time. 🙂September 9, 2013 3:34 pm at 3:34 pm #975784akupermaParticipant
All filters are inherently problematic since the filters’ AI can’t tell whether the words in question are respectable or not. For example, if you target the word “naked” you block out halachic discussions about what one wears in a mikva, married women’s hair, and how much clothes you need to wear when davening.
The best solution is to remember that Ha-Shem is monitoring at all times (not to mention your boss, the NSA, perhaps the Mossad, and that any clever teenager can hack your computer to see what you’ve been looking at).September 9, 2013 3:36 pm at 3:36 pm #975785
Just my hapence
Did you ever read the guardyoureyes advertisement? “15,000 active registered members, 400,000 unique visits!”
This is for the people who looked themselves in the mirror and faced up to the fact that the shmutz is killing them. Do the math it’s a very unacceptable number. The fact that 15000 frum Jews felt the need to sign up to that website should tell you just how scary and dangerous the shmutz is to a frum yid.September 9, 2013 4:36 pm at 4:36 pm #975786RedlegParticipant
WIY, re: ‘shmutz” on the internet. Are you speaking from experience? You know, I’ve heard lots of horror stories about the evils of the internet, how it drives kids (and adults too) OTD, how it destroys marriages, ruins lives, etc., but I have never actually met anyone or knew anyone so affected. It’s always, ” heard it from a friend of a guy who knows someone…”. I’m sure that some folks, somewhere have a problem with Internet obsession (not “addiction”. See Just My hapence above) but I just don’t see it as a community crisis.
Re: Filters. If you install a really effective filter on you machine, don’t expect to be able to do useful work on it and do expect occasional lockups. The best filter is the one between your ears.September 9, 2013 5:00 pm at 5:00 pm #975787
have dealt with a couple of kids who went otd. not a single otd kid that I have ever met went off due to the internet. maybe other posters here have had other experiences.September 9, 2013 8:06 pm at 8:06 pm #975788sharpMember
I agree with jbaldy22, I’ve seen that a lot myself.
The OTD phenomena existed a long time before the worldwide web was in existence.
Although, I’m not trying to minimize the dangers of the Internet.September 9, 2013 9:29 pm at 9:29 pm #975789
nobody said that the source of all “off the derech”ness is the internet. fact is, the internet does weaken ones resistance, sensitivities and beliefs. and that can lead one to being a vulnerable Jew at the mercy of the world. not a good place to be. at all.September 9, 2013 9:38 pm at 9:38 pm #975790
I don’t believe that many of the kids who go off even know why they are off and how they ended up there. Usually the kid has to come back on to a certain degree before he gains the self awareness and honesty to really understand what happened and how he got there.
What I mean is usually the kid is unhappy he will then start making lifestyle changes and meet bad friends and one thing leads to the next. If you asked him why you are off the derech he wouldn’t say “because I met bad friends who introduced me to drugs and who knows what…” In most cases the kids will say that it was my Rebbe or parents or whatever. The Rebbe may have been what made him upset but without the Internet or without the bad friends he would never be off the derech. So with Internet what happens is that the person is usually unhappy with their life for whatever reason and become curious and start “looking for things” either out of boredom, unhappiness, or pain or whatever. Then unfortunately they learn about negative things online and they change their lifestyle and start going to the places they learned about online…September 9, 2013 10:56 pm at 10:56 pm #975791
Let me put it this way – if everyone tomorrow morning decided to get filters i don’t think it would put a dent in the otd rate. Filters were not designed to combat people who are looking to do the wrong thing.September 9, 2013 11:50 pm at 11:50 pm #975792
WIY you couldnt have said it better, there is no point in arguing these people will say whatever they think regardless of what you say if they havent had a firsthand experience (and i mean by firsthand having a close relationship whether friend or family who suffers from this)and you know what; god bless them, but unfortunately they are like kids who tell their parents “but my friend said that its not so bad” or “it looks so funny/weird”… may hashem bless them that they never have to understand why those ads are so crucial…it may sound over done bec we always hear old rabbis with long white beards talking about “shmutz” or the “terrors of the internet” and so that already gives it a
“yeshivish” look to the problem,but ask the people who were part of families that were torn apart by it if they think its a “jewishy problem”
ps. do they not think that a site like GYE has many many psychologists working with them and they would know by now what the best way to put up and ad would be ??? and the proof is…THIS THREAD LOL the fact that we are discussing this right now!September 10, 2013 12:12 am at 12:12 am #975793
Someone who is externally on the derech but internally otd is just as much otd as those kids. There are plenty of ruined kids in Yeshiva that still attend but their head is in the gutter 100% they have girlfriends and text on shabbos so what’s that worth? Otd isn’t only kids who dropped out of school or got kicked out. The Internet is ruining kids as well as adults. Speak to people in chinuch who are tech savvy. They will tell you what the kids are up to on the net.
Besides for the kids the issue is adults. How many adults were ruined by making a few bad clicks in a moment of weakness (that lead to an addiction or an extra marital affair) ?September 10, 2013 12:18 am at 12:18 am #975794r9913Member
The biggest filter is your eyelashes!!!
If you want to look you will.
If you stop and prevent yourself from looking you won’t look.
Come on! What about self control?
Okay, I know it can be addictive and perverted people will continue watching whatever they want regardless of having filtered internet.
There are psychiatrists/psychologists who specialize with these specific addictions.
The majority of men(or women) will not need these filters.September 10, 2013 2:33 am at 2:33 am #975795
I don’t want to meddle, but I’m a little concerned now that this thread has gone a bit off topic. I didn’t start this thread to debate the cause of addictions or who is particularly vulnerable to them. I guess my addendum was a bit … provocative, and I apologize for that.
If you’d like to discuss any alternative ways for the filter creators to advertise their product, that was what I intended this thread for.September 10, 2013 3:56 am at 3:56 am #975796
lol r9913 …l-o-l
so sad how naive the world is in the darkest of times, good luck!September 10, 2013 10:24 am at 10:24 am #975797
“I remember reading a flyer that said (in the name of some random ‘gedolim’) that if someone owns a computer, even if it has no Internet access and even if they only use it to type Chiddushei Torah, the Torah they type is not Toras Emes and they get no s’char.
Wondering if the same applies to any sefer typeset and printed in the last seventy or so years.”
Really? I didn’t know they had computers back in the 1940s…September 10, 2013 2:38 pm at 2:38 pm #975798
@r9913 – Excellent point. I’m certainly glad filters are in existence, but we shouldn’t become so dependent on them that we’re unable to guard our eyes on our own.September 10, 2013 11:25 pm at 11:25 pm #975799
> The majority of men(or women) will not need these filters.
And arguing for self-control is the height of naivety.
Unfiltered internet is not a particular clause of OTD rates, that’s a straw man argument, but it is a cause of outwardly-religious people who’s insides are rotted away by unfortunate mistakes and temptations that a filter could have prevented.
If a filter it “locks up” your computer, or you can’t do useful work with an effective filter, please get a competent technician, or TAG or Venishmartem advice who can set it up right. It doesn’t help to be an IT Pro for this, you need someone with filter installation expertise, it’s now an industry in itself.September 11, 2013 12:41 am at 12:41 am #975800
I would reread r9913’s post.
I agree, The same goes with the Smoking thread.
It’s your life you make choices that you have to live with. I don’t think having a filter eliminates the problem. Practice self control.
Truthfully, If someone wants to watch whatever they will regardless. Those people need help.September 11, 2013 1:52 am at 1:52 am #975801
Unfortunately the argument that the internet affects the otd rate is not a straw man. Read the asifa booklet if you want to see it in writing.
As I have said earlier in these forums if you are using a computer for business purposes waiting for tag or a competent technician to come fix things is not an option. I haven’t spoken to a single person who has had a happy experience with a filter.September 11, 2013 9:47 pm at 9:47 pm #975802
No-one’s talking about the asifa booklet here, and in any event it barely if at all mentioned OTD rate, instead it goes on about the real risks to all of us. You can find it by searching for KinusBrochure.pdf – have a good read. I or you may not agree with all it actually says, but please don’t distort the argument. (Find a copy of the later Flatbush or European version if you want a more moderate view that still advocates filters as the only way to use the ‘net).
Some are trying to avoid the filter solution by exaggerating the argument and pretend it’s about reducing OTD rates – that’s a straw man, and appears to be an effort at hiding the true undeniable risks of full Internet exposure.
> I haven’t spoken to a single person who has had a happy experience with a filter.
You either have very few acquaintances, don’t speak much, have incredibly unlikely friends, or are lying. Either way, that’s patent nonsense, unless you have a very narrow definition of “happy”.
> if you are using a computer for business purposes waiting for tag or a competent technician to come fix things is not an option.
1. TAG or a competent technician can advise you how to set up and choose a filter in a business environment. Your typical “IT pro” may recommend K9 for a business environment, for instace which is usually a bad idea. As a example, OpenDNS can be configured on the router and the chances of it affecting anything are next to nill. (And don’t tell me it’s not an effective filter, unless you know how to set it up properly).
2. TAG, for instance offer an amazingly quick turnaround time (often within an hour) for their clients in unblocking miscategorised sites and addressing compatibility issues etc. – better than most paid technical support services. Your arguments remain nonsense.
My business and job relies on using the internet every minute of the day, accessing a massive array of sites and internet services. I have never had my filter interfere with my work, much less had to fix anything.
Filters aren’t a perfect solution and I won’t state they won’t ever limit you from legitimate business, nor will I say the will definitely never cause issues (that would be as false as saying “no-one’s had a happy experience with a filter”), but so do seat belts on a car, or any of the syog latorah.
3. Anyway, this all avoids the crux of the argument: if your business relies on viewing grossly unsuitable material, do you think there is a Rov in the world who would agree you should operate that business? If not, then is just a question of how big the risk it, and your awareness of that risk.
That access to the complete internet is a problem waiting to happen is self-evident, it doesn’t need me, or an asifa to convince a worldy person of that. If you have another solution besides filters let us know. If your only answer is “self control”, I have a cheap river-crossing to sell you.September 11, 2013 10:41 pm at 10:41 pm #975803
Filters really bother me.
I don’t like the idea that something’s blocked. Basically, I trust myself and hubby and we haven’t had a problem. Apparently each family’s different.September 12, 2013 4:39 am at 4:39 am #975804
If you think that the arguments made in that booklet make sense to you than that explains the rest of what you said. There has been a lot of hyperbole used in regards to the internet and in my mind it is incredibly counterproductive. Again the asifa booklet is exhibit A.
You are making a lot of assumptions about my business and my views on the subject which are not true. In my mind its not a one size fits all solution – to me kids, teens, adults at home and adults at work all need different levels of filtration (or in the case of kids no internet at all). Also various families will have different needs – ie. someone in medical school (or in college in general) will have a very difficult time with a filter. Anyone who runs a business which is involved in developing/testing software will tell you that filters will not work for them for obvious reasons and it has nothing to do with viewing inappropriate sites.September 12, 2013 10:23 pm at 10:23 pm #975805
oy1 -bec im sure if there WAS an issue c’v it wouldve came up over dinner…oy….September 13, 2013 2:07 am at 2:07 am #975806
No. dinner is normally twice a week (on a good week). But it would have come up or he’s doing a good job at hiding things…this whole idea leads to spying on your husband or visa versa…. Have you?September 15, 2013 1:50 am at 1:50 am #975807
you missed my point it was that… its not spying and not that your husband is doing anything im sure he is a great guy but that a man who does fall prey to something like this is likely to not tell his spouse until its either out of control or she finds out by herself and this is for a few reasons
1)he doesnt wanna hurt her
2)he feels he will be able to get out of it before anyone is the wiser
and spying… no definitly not, there should be a mutual understanding that this has the yecholis to get anyone and if you dont believe it read some stories on gye nobody is above this and dont be that niave parent/spouse who says NOT MY SON/HUSBAND/
by now ypou should know better than thatSeptember 15, 2013 11:11 am at 11:11 am #975808
> If you think that the arguments made in that booklet make sense to you than that explains the rest of what you said.
Um, I said “I or you may not agree with all it actually says, but please don’t distort the argument.” We’re all on a non-essential web site right now, so no one here will be able to defend all its arguments – that would be hypocritical.
> Again the asifa booklet is exhibit A.
Again, I said: “No-one’s talking about the asifa booklet here”. It was you that claimed that the asifa booklet blamed the ‘net on OTD rates, and I merely challenged that and provided you a method of obtaining it, so you could read it and see that you were wrong and see the OTD debate is a strawman.
> You are making a lot of assumptions about my business and my views on the subject which are not true. In my mind its not a one size fits all solution – to me kids, teens, adults at home and adults at work all need different levels of filtration (or in the case of kids no internet at all).
That’s what I was hoping you meant, especially the “adults at work” bit – but you certainly didn’t say it initially. You were originally claiming that businesses simply couldn’t operate properly if they had filtered internet. That is nonsense. Filters work for just about everyone – it’s just a matter of getting good advice and setting the right level – and the level is typically far higher than most people believe possible.
> Also various families will have different needs – ie. someone in medical school (or in college in general) will have a very difficult time with a filter.
Not the medical student argument again! Please! Every time there’s a filter discussion someone mentions the poor medical students.
They are one of a very small minority who would have to have a very permissive filter, or one that’s easy to override, or a monitoring system instead.
By the way, on monitoring systems – it doesn’t (and usually shouldn’t) be a spouse that monitors. But if the concept shocks you because of the lack of trust that’s implied, then you won’t like learning hilchos yichud. (It is true that monitoring systems are far more difficult to use effectively than filters.)
Frankly, people in medicine spend their careers seeing stuff that for a normal yid would be totally ossur but their jobs saves lines and halachah permits this. It’s irrelevant to the discussion unless you like arguing in extremes (rosh yeshiva vs women’s doctor).
> Anyone who runs a business which is involved in developing/testing software will tell you that filters will not work for them for obvious reasons and it has nothing to do with viewing inappropriate sites.
I work in developing software and that’s not true.
I can view more sites in a day than many people see in a year.
My business relies on accessing countless websites and our internet traffic passing through multiple proxies, redirects, DNS systems and heterogeneous networks in one piece so I know about all the ways that filters can affect software businesses but it’s untrue that “filters will not work for them”.
There are filters (e.g. DNS-based) that will work even in the most extreme example, and sometimes multi-tier solutions are necessary. The state-of-the-art is improving every day and having a legitimate sites blocked is increasingly rare. Like email spam fighting, it will soon be a largely solved problem.
Rarely, a business may have to change some software if it absolutely conflicts with every filter that’s currently out there, but even in this <u>extreme</u> case I ask you the same answered question as above: “if your business relies on viewing grossly unsuitable material, do you think there is a Rov in the world who would agree you should operate that business? If not, then is just a question of how big the risk it, and your awareness of that risk.”.
Lawyers would recommend a filter too in a business environment because it protects from a particular class of legal problems that employees with internet access can cause.
If it’s important enough, we would save no expense to get the right advice & filter.
Some people baulk at spending the price of a esrog on a filter that will work with their business because it’s not free, so they leave it unfiltered because the free one makes the ‘net unusable. It’s simply because they don’t appreciate the problem – because they haven’t seen first hand the mess the ‘net can create – yet!
It’s fair enough to criticise “hyperbole”, but the flip side is that many people are naive to the multifaceted dangers of unadulterated internet access (often because they haven’t yet been affected), and believe “self-control” is a reasonable alternative. If they knew what rabbonim and the pros know, it wouldn’t be a debate.
In fact, even the secular world are waking up the problems that a generation of exposure to the unfiltered internet will cause. In the UK they are starting to mandate that every internet connection be provided with a filtering option. And that’s from the government of a bastion of the liberal free-speech western world! Yes, they mean kids, but us adult Jews should not want possible access to inappropriate material either.September 15, 2013 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm #975809Torah613TorahParticipant
Ash, thank you for making excellent points.September 15, 2013 4:02 pm at 4:02 pm #975810
Here is a paragraph from the booklet “It begins with running late for davening; next the daily shiur is dropped. How many mothers
and wives learned only months later that the
all-important shiur was really a daily chavrusa
with Mr. Internet? Minchah falls to the wayside
Why bother dressing as a frum Jew when there
is nothing frum about the person anymore. “
Because no one is talking about it (the asifa booklet) I can’t bring it as a proof of how certain organizations have a nonsensical view in regards to the internet? That seems kind of silly to me. Additionally you did say “in any event it barely if at all mentioned OTD rate, instead it goes on about the real risks to all of us” which did imply that you had read it and agreed to at least most of its content. I encourage viewers of this forum to read it and see what I am referring to – I have quoted some pretty insane passages from the thing before on this forum. There was actually a lively discussion about the booklet on this forum a while ago.
About the adults at work I meant that many can not use a filter. I don’t know what kind of standards qa has at your office but in most normal companies you aren’t allowed to install anything extra on a clean system. Having a filter defeats the whole purpose of running the tests. Talk to people who are in college and you will find out how frustrating it is for them to get by with a filter. And yes there are a substantial amount of medical students and women who need to access womens health related sites which have things a filter will find objectionable.
I have adblock on my computer which seems to do a pretty good job knocking off every popup and ad that I can throw at it. Also how do you propose to lock said filter in a way I can’t get around it in about 3 seconds? For adults the best you can really do is make sure you don’t come across the stuff if you aren’t interested. What kind of person or situation are you proposing that a filter will protect from (again we are referring to adults here) assuming that the person has at least a minimal amount of proficiency. Trust me I have helped plenty of friends struggling with filters they do block things they need all of the time and they are also for the most part ridiculously easy to circumvent.
I know plenty of developers and not a single one with a filter despite the fact that these people are highly educated about the technology out there and the dangers of the internet and they all feel the same way I do.
In regards to monitoring systems considering that you claim to be developer you gotta be kidding me. I have no interest in someone being able to reconstruct my ideas and actions from a browsing history – that could completely kill my business and I am sure that it would do the same to many others. Besides for the fact that again since I like many developers out there make a lot of use of virtual machines would make one completely useless.
You basically are asserting that since filters work for you they should work for everyone. To me that doesn’t seem like a very valid assertion.September 15, 2013 4:22 pm at 4:22 pm #975811
Whats the best way to filter an android phone?September 16, 2013 12:22 am at 12:22 am #975812
Warning: this is a very long post (the page-down key may help!) but I do hope it’s useful to many who have the same questions or concerns as jbaldy22 ]
> Here is a paragraph from the booklet …
As I said “it barely if at all mentioned OTD rate, instead it goes on about the real risks to all of us.”. You quoted one paragraph which I read, but that is not the thrust of the asifa booklet if you read it with a bit of objectivity – it mainly talks about addiction and the harm viewing inappropriate material can cause.
You and I may find the language hyperbolic, but you can’t say their argument was about OTD rates, it you read the whole thing (and it does go on a bit, I only got to about 10000 words with only one reference to OTD before I gave up).
> Because no one is talking about it (the asifa booklet) I can’t bring it as a proof of how certain organizations have a nonsensical view in regards to the internet?
Sure you can, it will just be besides the point.
> I don’t know what kind of standards qa has at your office but in most normal companies you aren’t allowed to install anything extra on a clean system.
This is besides the point, and does demonstrate that you don’t know the filtering software industry. That’s no detriment on your behalf, as many experienced techies don’t know the variety of filters in this large field of technology.
Filtering software does not have to be installed on the machine. DNS-based software (which I mentioned twice) is installed on the network link (typically the WAN/ISP gateway router) and is transparent to all the computers within the network – and that’s just the simplest form of network filtering!
There are many other router-based filters that work with actual content examination.
Most large corporations already filter against inappropriate material to some degree (yes, even website development businesses or itnernet companies) because it protects them from legal problems caused when employees access these sites – and that’s in the secular world protecting themselves from being sued rather than caring deeply about their employee’s neshomas.
Even for those that don’t: you may not realise it, but almost every single professional office network is already filtered – just not necessarily against inappropriate material. Any modern enterprise router has some form content-aware (packet-sniffing) firewall and typically some sort of anti-bot and anti-malware filtering, often using a central registry or blacklist which prevents certain sites from accessing or being accessed, and often content-aware.
This largely the same technology that enterprise filters use too!
Use Google Chrome, and you’ve roughly got the same technology built into its browser, as yet it’s the most popular browser among geeks. Why? Because it protects you from bad sites (malware) and you trust the source (Google’s categorisation). Does it ruin the ‘net? No. Do software developers and office workers curse it? No. Why? Cause it works. So do enterprise-grade filters and soon they will every as effecitive and transparent as Google’s malware filter.
By the way, if you’re talking about software engineers, we normally need admin/root access to our own computers due to the range of software that coding requires.
> Having a filter defeats the whole purpose of running the tests.
Please explain what you mean by this?
In my business, having our software and sites work even with a filter means it is far more likely to work on unfiltered systems!
Also, if you’re building a website and it does get flagged as inappropiate that would be a real problem for you as many people have filters (Jews and Gentiles alike) and you’re excluding them as your customers.
> Talk to people who are in college and you will find out how frustrating it is for them to get by with a filter.
Why? Why are college students different than the general Jewish population?
> And yes there are a substantial amount of medical students and women who need to access womens health related sites which have things a filter will find objectionable.
Fine, as I said let them have a permissive filter, or no filter, but that’s an extreme case. On that, we can mostly agree. Now, back to 99.9% of the world …
> I have adblock on my computer which seems to do a pretty good job knocking off every popup and ad that I can throw at it.
Sorry, I’m not sure what that has to do with filtering?
Ad-blocks are quite dumb systems that typically work purely on the type of window that’s launched, not the content therein (as far as I know – I haven’t looked into it).
A good comparison is email-spam filtering software where the state of the art is excellent and we’re basically untroubled by spam when 10 years ago it almost made email unable. Filters are becoming this way with ever fewer false positives.
The arguments you make about software filters are years out of date.
> Also how do you propose to lock said filter in a way I can’t get around it in about 3 seconds?
You’re apparently a techie – and most people aren’t and can’t get around them quite so easily, especially if set up right but your question remains very valid in many situations.
I should point out that that an enterprise filter for a corporate network is actually quite hard to get around, even for a techie. Ever tried to break through a firewall? Not easy!
An even better question you should be asking is that even if you couldn’t get around it, you could just buy a new unfiltered system that your work/family don’t know about!
These are good questions, so thank you raising this valid point we can discuss:
The answer to both your and my question is that for both you have to take a positive step to get around it, and that moment of workaround will hopefully give you time for the “ruach shtus” (see sotah 3a) to pass or to “histakel besholoshoh devorim” (pirkei ovos).
The goal, as I understand it, is to ensure that the psak halochoh is clear that every Jew on the net must have a filter. Some filter, one that works but doesn’t allow you access to anything inappropiate – each on their own level (like hechsherim or meat kashrus) like you said but this applies to basically everyone in all situations, unlike what you originally said.
(Ok, ok, not the medical students)
It’s like hilchos yichud. Who says you need a shomer? And if you do have e.g. 3 men at night who says I still can’t commit an aveirah?
The answer is that the rabbonim know the risks and define the safeguards. No-one’s stopping you bypassing it but at least you know you are outside what’s permissible just by not having a filter.
As soon as you bypass the filter, you are unfiltered. Unshomered. Not kosher.
I beleive in year’s to come, not having a filter will be like not having a hechsher on a butcher. There’s nothing to say it’s not 100% glatt and you can trust everyone involved but everyone will react in shock if you buy there and won’t eat at your house. It’s just as seemingly illogical (The butcher can bypass a mashgiach! What’s the point!) but just as effective if you understand human psyche as well as gedolim do, and as deeply as the Torah (that demanded rabbonim make syogim – protections) does.
Arguments such as your’s meant that we blindly entered the first 15 year’s of the ‘net without any safeguards and awful risks that went unchecked. Just because filters aren’t perfect doesn’t mean they are useless and shouldn’t be used by everyone (on some level).
> For adults the best you can really do is make sure you don’t come across the stuff if you aren’t interested.
I really don’t understand this attitude. You seem to know the internet. How likely is it that with the amount of surfing you probably do each day that you’ll be able to ensure you never stumble across something terrible? If you haven’t yet, I’m afraid it’s almost inevitable.
As to: “if you aren’t interested”, we know “ein aputropus larayos”. Enough said on a forum that’s read by young readers.
> What kind of person or situation are you proposing that a filter will protect from (again we are referring to adults here) assuming that the person has at least a minimal amount of proficiency.
> Trust me I have helped plenty of friends struggling with filters they do block things they need all of the time
Well then, they haven’t been set up correctly, or they don’t understand why it’s been blocked. Some apparently innocent and popular internet tools are but a millisecond away from the most terrible soul-destroying content imaginable.
I’m afraid I can’t give examples as this itself may be a michshal and this is a public forum, but if the mods allow (mods? you can contact me personally and I’ll elaborate.
> and they are also for the most part ridiculously easy to circumvent.
Not if they’ve been set up correctly. There are “filters” and then there are filters!
> I know plenty of developers and not a single one with a filter despite the fact that these people are highly educated about the technology out there and the dangers of the internet and they all feel the same way I do.
Anecdotes are not statistics. And again, you really need to get out more because the world Jewish of Jewish software professionals is replete with pros who have very strong filters.
And again, your you’re statistic of 1, I counter with mine. I am a software engineer and business owner, and I can use a filter without issue because it’s been set up right.
I repeat, the most experienced software engineer or technologist in the world can still know next to nothing about filters. The world of technology is vast and a seasoned Java expert, for instance, can know nothing about DMA disk caches, or FPGA chips, or filters even if they think they know all the technology out there!
> In regards to monitoring systems … I have no interest in someone being able to reconstruct my ideas and actions from a browsing history – that could completely kill my business and I am sure that it would do the same to many others.
First of all, as I said, monitoring systems are tricky to get right – far trickier than filters and in businesses often will interfere. I suggested that for the extreme case, like a medical student who cannot have a filter, they may be the only protection of some sort that works.
Just to clarify as there seems to be some confusion on your part: effective monitoring systems don’t record your every keystroke, nor do they let anyone expect one specific third party access the logs or get alerts, and the monitoree would chose the monitor. They also don’t log anything – know one can be bothered to monitor everything you; good monitoring software only flags concerns and ignores the rest.
If you were in need of a monitoring system, could you not find one person that you trust enough to monitor you? In fact, even worse, is everyone you know unethical enough to steal your business if they could reconstruct your ideas?
By the way, if you’re in the software world then you should know that if a third party could re-implement your business idea from scratch just by seeing your idea, and despite you having a head start, then your business plan needs a rewrite.
> Besides for the fact that again since I like many developers out there make a lot of use of virtual machines would make one completely useless.
No, not if you have enterprise network filtering (ISP-based, router-based or both).
Anyway, virtual machine’s use the host connection so it’s often at the mercy of the same filter as the host. Almost all of your arguments are against software-based filters like K9 which are simply not a good match for many business environments anyway and most likely the sort of filter that your acquaintances had such trouble with.
> You basically are asserting that since filters work for you they should work for everyone. To me that doesn’t seem like a very valid assertion.
You basically are asserting that since filters don’t work for those you know, they don’t work for anyone. To me that doesn’t seem like a very valid assertion.
But to answer your problem: no, I have helped many, many people set up proper filters – far more than you have heard grumble about them I’ll bet. And they come back to me if it all doesn’t work well first time, so I know precisely about how well they work.September 16, 2013 1:09 am at 1:09 am #975813
I’ll a little exhausted from typing the above, so excuse me if I don’t give a full in-depth answer.
In short they are tricky, as are all smartphones.
For teenagers/kids please don’t buy them an Android. They’re not designed to be locked down and all solutions are basically fighting against the OS. If you absolutely must, give them an old (v2.1-2.3) device and get a real pro (e.g. TAG technician or Venishmartem) to set it up.
For adults, I would recommend an iPhone (or a Blackberry if you want blocked browser rather than just filtering) but that doesn’t help if you already have an Android, or actually need only an Android.
For Android, as with all smartphones, the method is to install an app-lock in conjunction with a new filtered browser. I won’t mention app names here because there are always new ones. Call your nearest branch of TAG.
All the methods will interfere with your phone somewhat, typically restricting the freedom to install new apps instantly whenever you want.
If you’re serious about having an effective filter you have to take things to extremes, such as rooting the Android phone or block website browsing entirely on the phone and only use it for email and suchlike, while leaving web browsing the computer.
You’ll also find, with a locked-down phone, you suddenly have double the free time for family, friends and learning!
Smartphones are a little like the internet in 1990s: filters really are not that great and will cause some trouble.
Again, if you haven’t yet bought and need a smartphone get an iPhone instead, and know it will be locked down a little.
And if your kids/teen/bochur/sem girl asks for a smartphone (or tablet, or smart media player), please refuse (especially an Android).
This information is correct at the time of posting, it may be out of date tomorrow!September 16, 2013 4:29 am at 4:29 am #975814
FOR ALL THOSE WHO ARGUE STILL AGAINST FLTERS, just to bring the point home … make sure you read the last 2 sentences again and again and again
“As Rabbi Yosef Viener from Agudas Yisrael Monsey said in a recent talk on
a problem in Chinuch Habanim or Banos, or a very fine Bochur who will call
affected, or a family member, or a neighbor, or the chaver sitting next to them
in shul, or the chavrusah sitting across from them in yeshiva. If you
that there is no single problem facing the yechidim in klal Yisrael and
communities at large, there is no bigger problem than this. Nothing
lightly. Keep in mind, the people who come to me are so frum and so upset
there are thousands of people who would never even speak to their Rav. I
than then 90% chance that people have already been Nichshal in your house.September 16, 2013 4:31 am at 4:31 am #975815
…we live in dark times … darker even now that people are to SCARED to accept it…September 16, 2013 4:32 am at 4:32 am #975816popa_bar_abbaParticipant
a problem in Chinuch Habanim or Banos, or a very fine Bochur who will call
begging for help.
Meh. Correlation does not equal causation. You’re assuming that the internet is causing the problem, instead of that the problem is causing their wanting to do those things on the internet. ????September 16, 2013 4:40 am at 4:40 am #975817
PBA- right. if they have problems then the internet allows them to do whatever they want a little easier. Why don’t they deal with their problem as a problem. What happened before internet, I’m sure there were problems then too.September 16, 2013 4:51 am at 4:51 am #975818
lol wow dont you see how you are lying to yourself !?! WAKE UP! of course there were outlets before the internet but that isnt the point, the point ist that now someone who is INNOCENT AND PURE can stumnble and hit the lowest lows! you sound like crazy people taking every word that is said and showingSeptember 16, 2013 4:56 am at 4:56 am #975819
showing “well he could have meant this or it was only in this situation that he said that…” no! he said NOT A WEEK GOES BY that means that every week innocent husbands or sons discover somthing that they had NO inrest in finding or even if they did have taivos never dreamed of using this as an outlet and are now TRAPPED bec of this and are on the paths to ruining thier lives! WAKE UP!!! DONT TRY TO “FARENFER” EVERYTHING AND JUST ACCEPT THE FACT NOBODY IS ABOVE ITSeptember 16, 2013 5:12 am at 5:12 am #975820
“And yes there are a substantial amount of medical students and women who need to access womens health related sites which have things a filter will find objectionable.
Fine, as I said let them have a permissive filter, or no filter, but that’s an extreme case. On that, we can mostly agree. Now, back to 99.9% of the world …”
Hmm, I didn’t realize that women who are interested in their own health comprise less than 0.01% of the world. That’s interesting. #sarcasmSeptember 16, 2013 5:51 am at 5:51 am #975821
Once upon a time if someone had a tayvah he had to actually put in some serious hishtadlus to either look at shmutz or do something bad. Today all he needs is a phone ipod or computer. Basically almost any electronic device with a browser puts an insane amount of shmutz at ones finger tips. I read an article about a recent study done online that found that 30 percent (30%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) of all data transferred across the Internet is shmutz the bad stuff. Theres just so much of it online and a lot of it is free. Its all set up to lure people in to this intoxicating tayvah and get them hooked. Popa you should really never know. I know people in chinuch and i have a younger brother who tells me whats going on out there. Its very frightening. I dont think there is one bachur out there who had access to unfiltered internet in privacy that hasnt been nichshol in seeing things that are major issurim and wreck ones kedusha. Theres no need to elaborate. But if we had a problem last year the issue has likely gotten worse by now. Im not sure that many people have gotten filters. The order of business has to be to protect the kids. Im waiting for yeshivas to get some guts and actually do whats necessary to make a zero tolerance policy smart phones. Basically we find it we break it and your loss. I know Rabbi Bender does this. Halevai more Menahalim actually cared about their students nehsamos enough to do this.September 16, 2013 6:28 am at 6:28 am #975822
WIY, why not sell it to a goy and donate the money to tzedakah? No need for bal tashchis in the process of removing the michshol.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.