Well we plumbed new depths today folks!

One forum member posted a picture that I believe,but cant be certain,was Child Pornography.
The offender removed the image and other pornographic picrures from their original posts after I reasoned with him.Obviously I have been unable to keep a copy of the offending picture but I am pretty certain.

Anyone else believe it was child pornography?

Do we have a moral/legal obligation to push Max towards contacting the "authorities"?

Thoughts please.

Well Belva reckons it was a medical picture, I'll check out the thread...brb

Hail BELVA the pitiful in the prog lounge

BTW how do I make a direct link?

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6459 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6459

Lets see if that works

The forum member wrote:

Actually i just typed "penis" over google. And found it. It wasn't ejac. It was pus...... a medical site, pretty gross. It's not a child cock. It's an adult , Japanese dude who just shaved it preparing a surgery.

Don't have any child porn: I think people that do it should be hanged by the balls , and have their guts cut.And if they were looking for a volunteer to do it, I'd be really glad to do it. I'm not joking around those subjects

I know what I saw-so I'm still not convinced...

I believe his explanation that the photograph was taken from a medical site and that it wasn't an ejaculation but pus. I however have strong doubts on the claim that it was a photograph taken from "a japanese adult shaved to have surgery"... whether using this image out of context can be considered pornography or not is beyond my knowledge, but I insist that it shouldn't be taken lightly...

Of course I received a not so nice PM from Mr Belva after my post suggesting his data to be passed to the police...

The picture was of a child.Although it is a medical site when used in the context that it was used today surely it becomes, in effect,pornography and therefore Child Pornography.

With a little help from my friends I have located the picture and than ks to Goohle Translator can post the caption in English

The infant normally is the false package stalk. In other words, the foreskin having been overturned the turtle head, unless power is inserted a little, don't you think? it is in a state where it does not direct. Because is, in that way to when bathing, unless washing, being, it does, but the mother who is feared is many, the dirt abnormal play happens to see the child while it waits frequently. When you fumble by the dirty hand, infection occurs there and like the photograph like the cheek ‚¸ coming becomes swollen and is painful and, also the pus coming out, it reaches the point where urination is feared.

Ok it did look like a childs balls, I mean thats what I thought in the first place right?

I'm not sure if Belva new though. I'm not convinced its porn as such now! Looks like he just wanted to find an offensive picture quick!

BTW i searched google for it too, but couldnt find it.

I haven't seen the photograph, but if this was really the case, and if there is a legal obligation, I think we should push.

Snow Dog: WHy should it be on our PCs? Unless you copied and pasted it, it shouldn't be there.

Err... right, Tony?

Snow Dog wrote: My question is if this picture is on our PCs somewhere, does anyone know?

Yes it is.

You can delete it by the following method.

In Internet Explorer click

Tools>Internet Options>General. In the "Temporary Internet Files" section click "delete files" and this should clear out all your internet files.

Snow Dog wrote: So its just like deleting pics from a normal website? So pictures you just view on the Forum are stored somewhere. Can we be clear about this now please?

Yes they are stored on your hard drive in a temporary internet folder.

Just follow the instructions...

Thanks nacho and Tony.

Well, whatever the outcome, at least I can't see BELVA coming back here EVER AGAIN.

Although with someone who I'm pretty confident is quite seriously deranged, you never know.

Manunkind wrote: Thanks nacho and Tony. Well, whatever the outcome, at least I can't see BELVA coming back here EVER AGAIN. Although with someone who I'm pretty confident is quite seriously deranged, you never know.

SurfAnonymous is an internet utilities that hide your IP address, thereby saving you from the vulnerabilities concerned with it.

• Are you looking for a way to change your IP address ?
• Are you looking for Anonymous Web Surfing ?
• Are you suffering from Hackers ?
• Do you want to increase your Online Privacy ?
• Are your IP address blocked by websites ( chat, game servers, messageboard, forum ) ?
• Are you looking for FREE Proxy List ?
• Do you want to hide your OS & Browser Version ?
• Do you want to run Programs (MSN .etc) behind firewalls ?
• Do you want to hide your IP while chatting in MIRC, ICQ, MSN, Kazaa...etc ?

Tony R wrote: Manunkind wrote: Thanks nacho and Tony. Well, whatever the outcome, at least I can't see BELVA coming back here EVER AGAIN. Although with someone who I'm pretty confident is quite seriously deranged, you never know. SurfAnonymous is an internet utilities that hide your IP address, thereby saving you from the vulnerabilities concerned with it. Are you looking for a way to change your IP address ? Are you looking for Anonymous Web Surfing ? Are you suffering from Hackers ? Do you want to increase your Online Privacy ? Are your IP address blocked by websites ( chat, game servers, messageboard, forum ) ? Are you looking for FREE Proxy List ? Do you want to hide your OS & Browser Version ? Do you want to run Programs (MSN .etc) behind firewalls ? Do you want to hide your IP while chatting in MIRC, ICQ, MSN, Kazaa...etc ?

I see...

Or maybe he doesn't need that. I'm on a changing IP system: my internet provider gives me a different IP every time I connect my computer (don't ask me why, I only know it was cheaper for me this way), so it would be really difficult to ban me by IP...

But don't worry, I',ll behave

Not Child Porno, but the picture of Phil Collins after Genesis is simple disgusting and repulsive, of course it was taken from a porno page.

A woman defecating with a explicit view of the feces is not appropiate for this place, UI reported it but the 500 internal error message appeared, so I don't know if it reached the moderator.

But seems Belva has licence to kill or the Adms were taking a well deserved vacation, hope tomorrow this sick guy will be banned forever.

Iván

Now we have another picture that contains a suspiciously young looking subject in this thread:

Topic: Can BELVA actually talk about music

Some people have no shame.

Tony R wrote: Now we have another picture that contains a suspiciously young looking subject in this thread: Topic: Can BELVA actually talk about music Some people have no shame.

90 % chance this was child porn IMO.

Manunkind wrote: Tony R wrote: Now we have another picture that contains a suspiciously young looking subject in this thread: Topic: Can BELVA actually talk about music Some people have no shame. 90 % chance this was child porn IMO.

I don't think so. Doesnt look it to me!

Snow Dog wrote: Manunkind wrote: Tony R wrote: Now we have another picture that contains a suspiciously young looking subject in this thread: Topic: Can BELVA actually talk about music Some people have no shame. 90 % chance this was child porn IMO. I don't think so. Doesnt look it to me!

It's gone now (Maani's here finally), but the female body was very small.

Manunkind wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Manunkind wrote: Tony R wrote: Now we have another picture that contains a suspiciously young looking subject in this thread: Topic: Can BELVA actually talk about music Some people have no shame. 90 % chance this was child porn IMO. I don't think so. Doesnt look it to me! It's gone now (Maani's here finally), but the female body was very small.

Well you may be right, I don't like to condemn without some more substantial proof though

Snow Dog wrote: Manunkind wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Manunkind wrote: Tony R wrote: Now we have another picture that contains a suspiciously young looking subject in this thread: Topic: Can BELVA actually talk about music Some people have no shame. 90 % chance this was child porn IMO. I don't think so. Doesnt look it to me! It's gone now (Maani's here finally), but the female body was very small. Well you may be right, I don't like to condemn without some more substantial proof though

Hey, neither do I, but I REALLY think that looked like child porn!

What do you think they should do to these disgusting perverts?

What would be a fitting punishment for publishing this filth?

Maybe Belva could describe to us what he would do to punish paedophiles and perverts?

It seems that the 7th Cavalry is here at last (thanks Lucky).

Now the two questions I have are:

1- He'll be back... can it be avoided?

2- Is anybody doing anything about the children's genitals picture?

Tony R wrote: Snow Dog wrote: My question is if this picture is on our PCs somewhere, does anyone know? Yes it is. You can delete it by the following method. In Internet Explorer click Tools>Internet Options>General. In the "Temporary Internet Files" section click "delete files" and this should clear out all your internet files.

This won't work on its own BTW, you also need to use a shredder or bleacher like Windows washer, otherwise the files can be recovered!

The only way to 100% remove ANY file from your hard drive is to overwrite your hard disk with 1s and 0s using a utility such as Norton's Government Wipe (I'm not sure if they still produce it - it used to be part of their Utilities suite).

There are low level tools that can recover material even if you've used apps to "shred" or "bleach", because applications that run in Windows tend to only run at a relatively high level.

Those IP "proxy" sites aren't as secure as you might think... it's easy enough to trace, as eventually, the data has to get to your IP address - and packets can be traced through proxies. All "conversations" between computers are two way, even if there is a "man-in-the-middle". Each end-point has to have an IP address - and most private external IP addresses are owned by ISPs.

ISP's are usually VERY helpful when it comes to getting information about people who are breaking laws

The site admins here could always block the MAC address - although even that could be changed by someone determined enough...  http://amac.paqtool.com/mac-address-spoofing.htm#Automatic_spoofing_mac_address_under_win95/98/nt/2000/2003/xp - http://amac.paqtool.com/mac-address-spoofing.htm#Automatic_s poofing_mac_address_under_win95/98/nt/2000/2003/xp

Which reminds me...

If you're trying to secure a wireless network, make sure your wireless router can filter by MAC Addresses. That way, you can specify which computers are allowed to access your wireless network. Everything else will be blocked (but you should still use encryption - not WEP!)

Interestingly enough BELVA considers his actions here 'progressive'. Am I to understand therefore that the porn he posted here is on par with the artists he likes, such as Brian Eno or King Crimson?

I can imagine Fripp's reaction on hearing from BELVA that King Crimson is the best thing since child porn.   

Oddly enough, hopelevre also considered himself progressive.

That's the trouble with thinking too much - you end up believing all sorts of wierd sh*t!

This type of person, whether intentional or not, is classified as an advanced troll by some sites, and a pain in the donkey by me.

Certif1ed wrote: Which reminds me... If you're trying to secure a wireless network, make sure your wireless router can filter by MAC Addresses. That way, you can specify which computers are allowed to access your wireless network. Everything else will be blocked (but you should still use encryption - not WEP!)

Apparently filtering by Mac Address is easily hackable,so pretty pointless...

Tony R wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Which reminds me... If you're trying to secure a wireless network, make sure your wireless router can filter by MAC Addresses. That way, you can specify which computers are allowed to access your wireless network. Everything else will be blocked (but you should still use encryption - not WEP!) Apparently filtering by Mac Address is easily hackable,so pretty pointless...

True - but everything to do with wireless networking is "easily hackable" if you have the tools and knowledge.

That's one of the problems with new technologies - they never get it right until version 3.0.

In the meantime, any additional security level is good - the analogies with doors is useful;

If you leave your front door wide open and go out, the chances of being burgled are pretty good.

If you simply shut it and do not lock it, then the chances are reduced - but not by much.

An ordinary lock can be picked easily, or an unlocked window can be easily opened.

In short, the more security holes you plug, the less your chances of being hacked - but in the current climate, almost any security level on a wireless network is similar to vehicle security; Anyone that knows how could nick your car in a couple of minutes if they wanted - but you wouldn't leave the doors wide open and attach a note to the windscreen saying "steal me", would you...?