What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
131 Comments
- aurifex, on 10/12/2007, -10/+57Outrageous. Invasion of privacy, and not needed.
- chiklit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29They might as well just make it illegal to wear clothes. It'd probably be less expensive.
- 5N00PY, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20While I agree that this is an extreme invasion of privacy...I also suspect opponents of this plan may be overestimating the number of people that actually want to see them nude.
- TonyBuzzan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Yeah it's an invasion of privacy. Whack a Girls Gone Wild sticker on them and they dont even need to be X-ray!
- neszis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20I HATE ALARMIST, SENSATIONALIST HEADLINES.
There is no camera in existence that can see you nude through your clothes (except a limited kind of camera flash that can render some thin fabrics slightly translucent). These cameras can merely "see" through your clothing. X-Rays don't WORK like that. It bounces off of hard surfaces, like bone matter, or guns. On the monitor, you'd look like a skeleton with whatever's in your pockets.
RTFA. There's no place that says the camera can see you nude. It says that the camera can see through clothing, which causes privacy concerns -- because looking into peoples' pockets is a privacy violation, that sort of thing. - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I used to work at a doctor's office and, honestly, only about 5% of the population looks good naked. Clothes really do an amazing job of hiding everyone's ugliness. I pitty the poor bastard (or computer algorithm) that has to watch those cameras.
- BuddyDoQ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Honestly, if someone wants to kill you, and I mean, really wants to kill you, there's not much an x-ray camera can do to stop them.
CCTV cameras I already don't care for, but x-ray cameras? It brings up more issues than just privacy, and aside from the fact that it won't stop a bomb from exploding, how would you enjoy having some unseen government worker take pictures of your children, effectively in the nude? What happens to the images once taken? Are they recorded? Will I or my children end up on some website after a perverted security official "leaks" the footage? What will happen if I elect to ware clothes that can block the x-ray cameras? Will that be held against me?
You want to stop crime and terror? With cameras? People aren't so nice as to go, "Oh look, a facny x-ray camera! I better not blow me and 100 others to hell like I was fully prepared to do, someone might see me, I'm not bat-***** crazy or anything!" - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Be a patriot, smash the cameras, use shape charges if you have to.
- Strider817, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18England is used to it by now. I heard on the Discovery channel last night that the average Englishman is photographed 300 times by all the cameras they have. However, I will note that I don't know if it's more or less in America.
- Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Some one needs to loose their virginity, and fast.
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Cameras are a poor substitute for officers patrolling the streets.
- idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/
Pics. It really happened.
Really, I find it more surprising that the UK voters allow government cameras to be put up at all. Controversy on maybe-nude pictures should take a back seat when your privacy is being directly violated. - jmontes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10What a great business opportunity for the person who figures out how to make comfortable lead underpants.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10These things need to be implemented around high schools in quick fashion. The teenage girls must be protected from terrorism at all costs.
- DirkVanAss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10hmmm...wasn't their a movie about stuff like this in England?
But at least that turned out perfectly for everyone - primehifi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Cue the cucumbers.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13"it could prove to be pretty useful in identifying criminals"
Right, because anybody carrying a gun or something that looks like a gun but you can't quite be certain is a criminal. Realize that unlike a camera, which takes your picture in the visible spectrum, this is an x-ray camera that takes your picture in the x-ray spectrum. As they're mainly focusing on the change in materials and not the change in contours and contrast, they can't easily identify faces with this technology. Thusly, it has to be paired with another camera to make it useful in the first place. And if you're going to use cameras, what does the x-ray technology add, other than the invasion of privacy on the off-chance you might see someone do something illegal? It doesn't help you identify people in the least, just what those people are carrying.
I'm sorry, but not only is this system wildly expensive, it adds very little to crime fighting except for finding weapons, which are legal to possess and carry with certain restrictions. For the price of this system it'd be much easier to outfit an entire squad of cops with portable metal detectors, or just hire a bunch more cops. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"OMFG HE HAS A GUN!!
Oh.. nvm.. it's just a penis." - crashflow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@illegalcortex
i hate to be the operator of that screening machine when a mob of retirees go by.
ARGHHHH!!!!!
/claws eyes out - whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -0/+8@geminitojanus
The justification I've always heard for why it's "ok" to have cameras in public places is that there is no expectation of privacy. If you're out in public, people are going to see you already. Apparently, the justification for these cameras will be that if you're already out in public, SUPERMAN is going to see you already... - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"digg me down but there is no way an xray machine can see thru clothes and not the skin, you would see skeletons with a blue or misty aura around it not curvy breasted pink matron flesh. No nudity!"
Uhh, perhaps I should direct your attention to the CT scan, the first representation of an X-ray machine that can see through your clothes, skin, and even bones based on what intensity it is set at and how the data is interpreted by the computer (you can literally "peel away" layers of data). Doctors can use one exposure of CT data to make hundreds if not thousands of different interpretations of the data, selecting exactly what resolution they want and what material they want to look at. It's possible to remove densities such as clothing (however, most medical CT scanners don't have the kind of resolution to do this accurately, as the difference between the air and the density of the clothing is very similar, and because medical CT scanners are built with the intention for looking at the differences between tissues and not flesh and fabric).
Next comes backscatter x-ray technology, which uses a different kind of detection scheme (and is exactly what we're talking about in this case), but again, based on its intensity and how the data is interpreted by the computer, it can produce a fairly accurate representation of what you look like, nude. (http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ ). In fact, in the security domain, the "nude" representation is the most common one you'll see. (This technology is also used to scan tanks and rocket parts to detect sub-surface cracks in insulation, for example, like the main fuel tank on the space shuttle).
The real question here is how long it's going to take until the general public sues its government for exposure to ionizing radiation for what amounts to cyber-stalking and being a peeping tom. - bflfab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Sounds like someone's idea of a new reality show.
- SunDestroyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7George Orwell couldn't even make this up.
Notice how "terror" is always the prime excuse for implementing these social control technologies. - Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Think of all the new Web Sites that will open up...
- Managore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yep. Everyone knows that eating batteries when they clearly say not to, for your safety, gives you superhuman powers. :]
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Whats next? Sentry guns on lamposts?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Wouldn't all this constant x-ray radiation be really ***** bad?"
I believe they would be meaning "infra-red" or possibly some new technology that can see through fabric. Because yes x-ray radiation would be very hazardous, and certainly wouldnt be allowed to get away with putting Dangerous radiation dispersers all over town - naughtymonkey69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5tumorfest
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Look, this isn't an x-ray camera, it's the same old terehertz-wave scanner that crops up on digg about once a month with a headline along the lines of 'OMG camera sees you naked!!1!'. It penetrates clothes and a few cm of skin before reflecting, so it's more like seeing you with a bit less flesh than naked.
- schroeder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wouldn't all this constant x-ray radiation be really ***** bad?
- fraggle35, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The Sun!! it's bollocks.
- Psych77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yes. The camera's are raping us all.... Ouch. Ouch. Please stop. Moron.
This is coming from a citizen of a country who's government would never spy on them, eh? At least this is reported in the news, rather than you finding out it already happened 5 years ago... But that would never happen in your country, would it? - dominasian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ive never wanted to be able to hack more than right now
- PhilH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No doubt the technology is possible, but it's just not going to happen. The home secretary denied and even ridiculed the idea. Not to mention the story originated in 'The Sun'. So before people erupt in controversy over privacy issues, question the news that you're being fed.
- JoeMerchant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Don't comment on leaked documents" - yeah, there's an implication that the document is real right there.
I wouldn't give a damn if they can see me nekid or not - I do resent them pumping me with extra X-Ray radiation on a regular basis, this is the equivalent of being "shot" with millions of "harmless" high energy photons, except they aren't 100% harmless and eventually they will have a negative impact on your health. - BigKitty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, there are some nasty and sadistic people like to LAUGH at ordinary or unglamorous people who are caught in humiliating situations. Sick...but you saw it in the news stories about Abu Ghraib.
- Philodox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"England to put up X-ray cameras on Lampposts that can see you NUDE!!!"
In other news England's parliament says that it is on course to pass its "no fat chicks" law. - cptn_cardboard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Remember: whatever follows "for your safety..." is ALWAYS *****.
- crazybrit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Say, have you ever been to the UK? No? Didn't think so. BILL OF RIGHTS HURR!
- catastrophee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Picture or it didn't happen.
- designpunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yet another misleading sensationalising wankbag digg title.
You Put: "England to put up X-ray cameras on Lampposts that can see you NUDE!!!"
The article puts: "X-ray cameras on lampposts plan"
It's a consideration, and idea, not a finalised plan FFS - J6stik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Everyone freaking out about the article: READ IT. The article doesn't even mention anything about nudity, dumbasses. X-ray images don't allow a full-color, full shaded view of a nude person.
And comments about how this is such an outrage and the government = teh ev1l c0muniscts are stupid. British people aren't tools or sheep because of TALK about a new kind of security camera potentially for their own safety. Preconceived notions about governments being all evil are just as bad as accepting something they might try to feed you, since neither require any thinking. Think about stuff like this before denouncing it, D(umbasses)iggers. - CaptainWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, if all goes well, someone can get smart and sue the owners of the cameras of recording children walking down the street for child porn...
- mikev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, yes. But I really (hope) don't think cops will get their kicks out of this. It isn't like they are walking with their legs spread apart...but yes, I agree, this is an invasion of privacy.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's not an x-ray maching, it sees through clothing, like the story says. It can see your genitals and everything else, not your skeletal system. I've seen one doing it's thing on a video on PBS or something.
- xBDVx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The biggest problem is seeing people nude?! What about giving everyone cancer!
- ozziegt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@neszis
Actually you are incorrect..there are devices now which can literally see through clothes as if you were nude (albeiet in monochrome). Do some research on backscatter x-ray that some countries are thinking about deploying in airports. However, that being said, the technology isn't at a point yet where it can be used in a camera.
Additionally, conventional xray requires a film on the other side of the subject. So this definitely isn't a conventional xray. - dagnome1984, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2well I blew that joke
- Dundasbro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Streaming link??
- sweetthing411, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No Doubt ...that is crazy.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is