August 10, 2014 8:01 am at 8:01 am #613369
What are the pros and cons of each?August 10, 2014 3:33 pm at 3:33 pm #1091053Shopping613 🌠Participant
Well, I canfisthand tell you that I had K9 and I broke through it so well that it was under my own password and IAugust 10, 2014 3:34 pm at 3:34 pm #1091054Shopping613 🌠Participant
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.August 10, 2014 6:21 pm at 6:21 pm #1091055
Anyone with experience using CovenantEyes?August 10, 2014 6:36 pm at 6:36 pm #1091056To be or not to beMember
From my experience, no internet safety plan is complete without A) someone else holding the filter password B) a reliable chavrusa program , where someone you respect sees every site and link you click on and last but most importantly C) you have to be honest with yourself and know 1) what is dangerous for you ( what are your pitfalls and weak points) and 2) always use your brain ad remember that you want to keep yourself and your home clean ,
About the pros and cons of each one, why don’t you contact TAG?August 11, 2014 3:22 am at 3:22 am #1091057lzParticipant
k9 is very nice but very easy to get around, and even without having to get around anything, there is plenty harmful stuff accessibleAugust 11, 2014 4:55 pm at 4:55 pm #1091058YW Moderator-42Moderator
CE/Web Chaver is good because it will tell your chaver if u uninstall it. Thoughit could be there are ways around that. There are ways around everything if you are motivated enough. The best we can do is use these tools to act as a reminder. It is a lot easier to stop yourself from doing an issur when it takes work to do whatever it is you are doing. We need to do our hishtadlus to minimize the nisayon.
You should have both a filter and a chaver and know yourself etc as pointed out above. I would also recommend adblockplus, flashblock, and if you can handle it imglikeopera.August 18, 2014 5:15 am at 5:15 am #1091060
42: What’s the difference between using CE directly versus signing up via WC?August 18, 2014 7:03 am at 7:03 am #1091061EnderParticipant
CE is the same as WC. WC is offered at a discounted price, so it is much cheaper, while providing the exact same service.
As far as which as the K-9 vs. Web Chaver debate, they are different. I use WC and K-9. K-9 has the advantage of preventing seeing things that I shouldn’t by accident, for example pop-ups and other ads. Web Chaver keeps me from intentionally going to websites that I shouldn’t.August 18, 2014 7:31 am at 7:31 am #1091062MalbimMember
Ender, just ask your LOR.August 18, 2014 2:30 pm at 2:30 pm #1091063ED IT ORParticipant
k9 is a proxy that all internet traffic passes through and is FILTERED
CovEyes/ Web Chaver MONITERS all traffic passing through its proxy.
both are easy to bypass, however both are a good geder.
if you need full internet access i would reccomend web chaver.
if you know which sites you need to access than k9 with a whitelist is better.August 18, 2014 3:02 pm at 3:02 pm #1091064EnderParticipant
Malbim: Read what people say before responding to them.August 18, 2014 3:33 pm at 3:33 pm #1091066ariele (Joseph)Participant
use both together. they both serve different purposes and do not conflict with each other.August 18, 2014 11:07 pm at 11:07 pm #1091067Privileged To Be AMember
I Personally think access to the internet should be restricted to men and women over the age of sixty…August 18, 2014 11:24 pm at 11:24 pm #1091068
But that would be wrong because she asked for my help, and yes, I am younger than 60.August 19, 2014 3:30 pm at 3:30 pm #1091069streekgeekParticipant
In my opinion, just like locks are there to keep honest people honest, same with a filter. If you want to get around it, you can. If there’s a will there’s a way, no matter how strong the filter
While having WebChaver does give you a reason to stop and think before clicking, if you choose someone you are not necessarily embarrassed of falling before, it won’t work. Just something to keep in mind.August 20, 2014 12:03 am at 12:03 am #1091070
I happen to find the name K9 annoying, since the filter is run by software and not dogs.August 23, 2014 11:34 pm at 11:34 pm #1091071ED IT ORParticipant
I woof to thatAugust 25, 2014 1:14 am at 1:14 am #1091072silentmoisheParticipant
Regardless of which filter you use, if something goes wrong on the computer remember to tell the techie you call that you have a filter installed.
The number of times that techies who are called with problems are stumped because they weren’t told there was a filter installed.
Filters do cause many problems. So always tell the tech when you have a filter.November 5, 2014 11:59 am at 11:59 am #1091073RandomexMember
“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.)
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.November 5, 2014 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm #1091074PosterMember
A filter is not a policeman. It is there to help you navigate the web without chancing upon “dangerous sites”
Anyone working for hours to break passwords and get around filters, will need a lot more than K9 or any of these other filters can accomplish.November 5, 2014 7:40 pm at 7:40 pm #1091075
One problem with K9 is that the Safe Search includes results that the filter blocks, which is very annoying.November 6, 2014 1:32 am at 1:32 am #1091076RandomexMember
Is this as serious an issue as the software not actually having anything to do with dogs (though it can be set to make a barking sound when it blocks a page)?November 6, 2014 2:36 am at 2:36 am #1091077
It’s slightly less serious but still very relevant.July 5, 2015 6:36 am at 6:36 am #1091078
Is it geneiva to use an ad blocker on a frum site?July 5, 2015 6:45 am at 6:45 am #1091079
Depends if it’s pay-per-click or pay-per-view.July 5, 2015 7:37 pm at 7:37 pm #1091080YW Moderator-42Moderator
If the frum site has inappropriate ads (like this one) then it is a mitzvah. I used to disable ABP on YWN until they started having Google ads.July 5, 2015 9:06 pm at 9:06 pm #1091081feivelParticipant
For those of you who would like an ad blocker for your phone and thought there wasn’t one.
Dolphin is a really excellent browser for iPhone.
Comes with an effective ad blocker that can be toggled.
Lots of other nice things about dolphin alsoJuly 6, 2015 6:48 pm at 6:48 pm #1091082cent_centParticipant
Going back to the original question – there is a very good (and free) program that I use called openDns. It runs all traffic through its domain and checks it so any device connected to your internet will be filtered. No need for software on each device.
You can set different levels for different categories.
Its not 100% perfect but its a very good start.July 9, 2015 3:31 pm at 3:31 pm #1091083The little I knowParticipant
Have we noticed that so many of us are makpid on so many things, zman krias shema and tefilo, large shiurim for tzitzis, reviis for kiddush and havdoloh, zmanim for ending Shabbos, etc. Try Cholov Yisroel, Pas Yisroel, Yoshon, and countless other kashrus stringencies. Such a list of chumros can go on and on. Why is it that we, such high level machmirim in halacha, need any filter on the internet? Wouldn’t we expect to be risk free regarding such serious violations as getting into schmutz?
It is apparent that the issue is with the privacy that is perceived in internet use. No one watching. What about if all internet activity is under scrutiny, not by the NSA or some other government body (it already is), but by a chaver, a rov, even a therapist? The filter should always monitor, not just block. People can find ingenious ways around a blockade. But the risk of embarrassment is a far greater motivator. Rabbi AJ Twerski addressed this in an op-ed some time ago. He cried that the missing factor is Yir’as Hashem. Good point. The chumrah of the month club has no claim to it. Keeping mitzvos does not create Yir’as Hashem. Rather the midoh of Yir’as Hashem brings one to keep the mitzvos. We should not confuse the precursor with the result.
As a society, we have become obsessed with image. We always need to “look good”. This comes at the extremely high cost of building up our characters, to where our neshamos are true and holy, through and through. Just peek at the photos that are spread of every Rosh Yeshiva, Chassidishe Rebbe, etc., performing their functions of their jobs, participating at simchos and other events, etc. When when was the last time that viewing such pictures brought someone to a higher level of Yir’as Hashem or Ahavas Hashem? If we can insure that others think highly of us, then the image obsession has been satisfied, and we are free to privately satisfy our other desires and gratifications. Yes, we need filters. But is that enough to insure that our Avodas Hashem is that which HKB”H demands of us?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.