look guys we dont know the facts. they put enough to get the people to convict before trial.it is black letter law if you have a picture of your own child in the tub and naked by law that is child porn. and if it is child porn why didnt the store he returned it to see the evidence and turn him in. or how long did the new owner of the pc have the pc before they found the evidence and was that person already in trouble with the police.the point i am tring to make is this story has convicted him before a trial. we the public are responsible, innocent until proven guilty.not guilty until proven innocent. think about one think to if you watch adult movies with a certain actress almost 5 years ago you where watching child porn she was only 15 in her movies. you see the kids now and you will have a hard time telling thier age. for example next time you see a clerk sell beer to someone see if they ask for id. if he was that guilty he would have been already convicted and doing jail time.

Firefox is the best. Just run a google search and you can download it for free. I've been running the beta 3.04b for a couple of weeks and have had no problems.

Thank you for your responses to my questions, I have recommended them to my friend. I guess it turns out it wasn't his computer, they were visiting his brother and it was on his niece's computer... Also a child.

It angers me that children are exposed to things like this and no one does anything about it. I guess it won't really bother most people until it happens in there own home with their own kids.

Yikes! The man a heartbeat away from the presidency. And a true champion of democracy.

This guy looks like a perv. Thank you to everyone involved in catching another cancer to society.

hey razz, get over it. IF she is an informant, good for her for giving up these people to the police.

There is nothing the police can do about a pop up ad.

gotthat

To answer the second part of your question, no the Father in your scenario couldn't be charged. He would have to have "intentionally" exposed his child to pornography. In your description it wasn't intentional, to the contrary, the father was making every attempt he could to avoid the exposure.

So back to the pictures,Remember the 10 that were arrested and only 9 pics. Where is the 10th persons pic. Jennifer lowell HMMMM!!!

gotthat

A pop up blocker is the best bet, most computers have them these days. The google tool bar includes one, if your computer doesn't have one.

On the pornographic pop ups, they wouldn't generally appear out of the blue. Someone had the computer on a pornographic website that generated the pop ups, it then wasn't shut down properly, it is oft times difficult to kill all the pop-ups without completely shutting down the browser. I suspect an adult was at the base of the problem, most probably inadvertently.

gothat, great questions. Are there any lawyers out there who can answer those questions?

This story makes me want to share a recent experience a friend of mine had. I would really look forward to the Gazette doing a full story with a poll on how to solve this problem. It goes like this...

A good friend of mine has a daughter, she has grown to the age where she is starting to learn to use the computer. He recently explained to me that as she was using the computer, she started getting pop-ups. Everyone knows how annoying those things can be.

Well, the problem is, one of the pop ups included nudity and a picture of a sexual act. He immediately tried to close it before she could see it, but it was too late. After he closed it, two more opened.

When he told me this, I told him he should call the cops to file a complaint. Whoever made those pop-ups had just exposed a child to pornography. Of course he didn't want to call the cops over it, but I asked him what he thought would happen if she goes to school and talks about it....

Could he be charged with anything? I would hope not. If he did contact the police, would/could anyone actually follow through and do anything about it? Probably not.

What gives? These pop-ups are annoying, and harmful to children. I can see in absolutely no way that nudity and pornographic acts should be able to "legally" pop up whenever they want on your computer.

My friend has purchased "protection software" before this happened. Is that company responsible? As his daughter gets older she will need to use the computer more often for school work.

Let's imagine if this same thing happened at a school, could the school be blamed? or would it be the pop-up creator? Pop-up creator's are the scum of the earth.

Has anyone had a similar experience that they could share? or any suggestions from the P.D. on what my friend could do?

The Rockford newspaper had his photo in today's edition, but I wonder if it is his mugshot from down there. Also, I am not sure how I feel about running all of these photos of accused persons. A convicted person might be another story. I just don't know.

No bias. No inconsistent guidelines. No nothing. We just haven't been able to get the photo yet. We're trying, and we'll use it if and when we get it.

Scott Angus
Editor

that sorta is crap. those chics were makin a living. borderline criminal/ethical, whatever, im not judgin them. but until a judge convicts them they are no more guilty than this cat who may have bought his puter used. if yer gonna print one pic you should print em all. id personally rather know what the guy who wants to take pics of my kids looks like, than what the local 'prostitutes' look like.

The point here is that there seems to be inconsistent guidlines with respect to when to publishing photos of people "taken into custody."
Imagine that, a newspaper with either a political agenda, or a bias. This reminds of a story which was front page, with a picture of the accused. It involved sexual charges against children by one local man. The charges were all dropped and all the gazette did was print a one paragraph story buried deep in the paper saying the charges were dropped. I still think the Gazette owes Mr. Boyd a front page retraction. I also think legal action against the gazette is in order for slandering him.

You don't know just what the girls did either now do we!!

I disagree. You don't know if he bought the computer used or not.

So just were is this obvious criminals photo at.I think this is a little more disturbing then some strippers!!!!!