Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
who_meParticipant
??”? ???? ???? ???? ?
(??) ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????”? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????”? ???? ?????? ??’: ??? ??”? ????’ ??? ?’ ???? ?????? ???”? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???. (??”? ?”? ??????) ?????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?????”? (????? ???”? ??? ?’ ?????) ??”? ??? ????? ????? ????”? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????: (????? ????? ??????):
???? ????? ???? ???
(?) ???? ???’ – ????? (?) ????? ???? ????? ?”? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? (??) ??? ????????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??”? (??) ??? ?????? ?”? ??? (??) ??? ??? ??? ???? ??”? ??? ??? ?’ ??????? ????? ??”? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?”? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??”? ???”? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?”?:
who_meParticipantIf your willing to pay approx. $50 a year there are other good filtering software e.g. from SafeEyes.com. The advantage of Safe Eyes vs. K9 is that in SE you cannot instantly override the protection as in K9. (Although you can manually enter exceptions in administrator mode it is more cumbersome)
Jnet has the added benefit that it is ISP based, meaning any PC that connects to the router is protected, whereas the software filters such as K9, Netnanny and Safe-Eyes are only good for the PC they’re installed on.
The thing I can’t stand is when people leave their wireless routers in unprotected mode. It is a tremendous achrayus for I can have all kinds of protections in my home and yet my neighbors unprotected router allows a user on my computer (or any wifi enabled device) to connect itself and surf without any filter whatsoever!
There was once a talk about a legislation to force wifi connections to be password protected and not open to public, we need to see that law passed.
-
AuthorPosts