digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

England to put up X-ray cameras on Lampposts that can see you NUDE!!!

breitbart.com — The Government is considering installing X-ray cameras on lampposts to spot armed terrorists and other criminals. However, officials acknowledged that it would be highly controversial as the cameras can "see" through clothing.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • aurifex, on 10/12/2007, -10/+57Outrageous. Invasion of privacy, and not needed.
    • HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -34/+22Show pix or it never happened!
    • 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.
    • 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!
    • primehifi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Cue the cucumbers.
    • hellno, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Well besides the fact that its an invasion of privacy, it could prove to be pretty useful in identifying criminals
    • 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
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Be a patriot, smash the cameras, use shape charges if you have to.
    • chiklit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29They might as well just make it illegal to wear clothes. It'd probably be less expensive.
    • 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.
    • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3That's awesome!

      lol
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -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...
    • moobster, on 10/12/2007, -16/+12Digg me down...
    • cptn_cardboard, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4now, the problem is (at least in america) when you are in public, you legally have NO privacy. thats why there are security cameras at intersections and in grocery stores.

      That. Is. A. Problem.
    • Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Think of all the new Web Sites that will open up...
    • 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.

    • 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.
    • techsiddhu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1guess what .. guys and gals would love to expose
    • Steel_Blue, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Psh, I have nothing to hide other than my GIANT *****.
    • 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.
    • catastrophee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Picture or it didn't happen.
    • JettaMan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6The British people are like cows, they won't complain. Just give them a dose of that state-funded BBC propaganda and they won't make a peep. Distract them with anti-American propaganda and the people won't even notice what's going on.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@catastrophee

      http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/loincloth.jpg
      http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/woman.jpg
    • macmcrae, 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.
    • 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
    • khyberkitsune, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@geminitojanus...

      except in the UK, there's a gun ban. So anyone carrying a gun is likely to be a criminal. Even the cops generally carry nightsticks.
    • schroeder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wouldn't all this constant x-ray radiation be really ***** bad?
    • 0o0Moylan0o0, 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
    • 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.
    • techsiddhu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i can fight my whole life for my privacy
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Calling it x-ray is accurate (at least, assuming this is a backscatter x-ray camera - this whole plan seems to be pretty theoretical at this point). There are more than one type of x-rays.

      From http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/

      "The application of this new x-ray technology to airport screening uses high energy x-rays that are more likely to scatter than penetrate materials as compared to lower-energy x-rays used in medical applications. Althought this type of x-ray is said to be harmless it can move through other materials, such as clothing.

      A passenger is scanned by rastering or moving a single high energy x-ray beam rapidly over their form. The signal strength of detected backscattered x-rays from a known position then allows a highly realistic image to be reconstructed."

      A better article is at the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6309917.stm

      It all makes me wonder if the lead codpieces from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep are going to come into fashion for a whole different reason...
    • ChillHomie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Big Brother Sees You
    • neszis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I feel silly. Looks like I shot my mouth off a bit early on that whole "can't see through you" thing. However, as you said, there's no camera yet that can do this, because it requires a special situation to work (like a scanning "booth").
  • 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.
    • mnetlucas, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I want to be a security guard...
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It doesn't *actually* take naked pictures. It's the same system people were bitching about in the airports a few weeks ago. IIRC the screenshots just showed a blue human-shaped object, and genitalia were not exactly detailed. They even developed a "censored" version that just showed outlines to pacify the porn freaks. It's designed to show high-density objects like guns and knives, the human shapes are just there for reference.
    • 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.
  • bflfab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Sounds like someone's idea of a new reality show.
  • 8300dvo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5oooh, pictures please! i would love to see this in action:) next stop, x-ray glasses on policemen:)
  • homerj14, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2pix or it never happened? wouldn't these cameras be able to see through little boys and girls and old women and men?
    • 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.
  • RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Cameras are a poor substitute for officers patrolling the streets.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Well, I'm not sure. When the officer on the street is only there to write tickets (like all the ones where I live), at least a camera gives you a ticket without adding a stupid comment like "5 mph over the speed limit is still OVER the speed limit" or "If this is your second ticket in 15 minutes for being parked in the same spot, maybe that should teach you something about your parking habits"

      *****. What the hell ever happened to "serve and protect?" Now it's just "ticket and piss off." ***** pigs.
    • kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1In the US eerytime I get pulled over for speeding. I get a gun pointed to my head......

      Maybe its because I'm black, but one time I was with my wife Cynthia, and she was hispanic.. Apparently the polic ein Ohio were told to pull over a black male, and hispanic female posing as a couple to smuggle drugs.

      I mean there must be some helluva good detectives to detect drug deals from cars going over 75 mph..


      Point being said. I'm tired of being harassed by corrupt police officers.
  • Avalontor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5some of you believe this???
    • Avalontor, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6digg 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!

      Why don't you just some of the X-ray glasses out of the back of comic books children?
    • Nickatnite101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Whether its true or not alot of people want to believe it.
    • 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.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Avalontor - http://www.epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/ Pretty close to nude.
    • dizzledaking, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1cue nightmares. Eesh that link is creepy!
    • PhilH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why are people digging Avalontor down? He's absolutely right. The technology might exist, but just read the headline again. Why are people actually gullible enough to react to this sensationalist nonsense?
  • baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3so what BFD , not like you have something nobody ever seen before, = all males have penises, and all females have coochies & breasts...

    i think it is a good idea since terrorists can easily hide a bomb in a vest or under a heavy coat, if this can stop mad bombers from causing wholesale murder then i am all for it...
    • 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!"
    • kutaone, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I think the best form of defense is to make them so scared of you that they don't ***** with you...

      I say we nuke Paris and show them exactly how crazy we can be.
    • baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1BuddyDoQ, the authorities stand a hell of a lot better chance of catching these suiscide bombers if they can see under their clothes & see the bombs they conceal...
  • dominasian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ive never wanted to be able to hack more than right now
  • TommySalami, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Airplane," anyone?
    Hopefully they come with a no-men filter
  • jmontes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10What a great business opportunity for the person who figures out how to make comfortable lead underpants.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't want lead underpants, but I do want X-ray-opaque images printed on my clothes that can only be seen by these scanners. Knives, guns, bombs, etc.; make it look like everyone is armed to the teeth. Or on tattoos!
  • oknothing, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4if you really wanna see my schlong that bad just ask
  • kutaone, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1On a different note...

    Job Applicants for camera watcher just went through the roof
    Pay for the camera watchers just went through the floor
    "Camera Watcher" instantly elevated to number 3 most wanted jobs
    The ACLU is having a heart attack and masturbation at the same time
    My freakishly enormous schlong is going to end up on some sicko website somewhere without me knowing
  • GoldenChild1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is going to put a hurting on England's graffiti artists.
  • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Seems like a long shot of implementing this. While it's true people have no reason to expect privacy in a public place -- which is why cameras in public are fine -- people do have a reason to expect privacy under their clothing.
  • naughtymonkey69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5tumorfest
  • Namco, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Pics! PICS!!! For the love of god, PICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!
    • Derrekito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Some one needs to loose their virginity, and fast.
  • Scoobies, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How about just outlawing clothes at the airport, the underground, public places, the bus ...
  • donquixotex, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I highly suspect that the few people that do watch these videos will not even really want to be looking for *****, ass, pussy, *****, etc.. If you think about it, on a day to day basis, how many people, of the hundreds you see, would you even WANT to see naked...? I'm including old people, fat people, weird looking people, etc.. The number is really low. Furthermore, you would become desensitized. After seeing so many fake naked bodies ("fake"=>you probably don't get flesh tones, but rather just the shape of the body), it wouldn't even be that arousing.
  • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ohhhh, they can see all the way into my BONES!!!!!!!!!!!
  • XISUPERMANIX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think it can only see the outline of your nude body, not actually skin and color. Kinda like the ones at airports, well only special airports.
  • directedition, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Yes it will see throught clothing. It will also see through skin, flesh, and everything else. It's a friggin X-Ray. There were people who wanted to ban the use of the x-ray in the late 19th century for concern of female modesty. Then they saw what an X-Ray looks like and realized their concerns were stupid.
    • WanderLink, 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.
  • WanderLink, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Craziness. I would hate to live in the UK. There's cameras everywhere over there already, so now there's ones that will rape you. Bravo UK citizens for slowly letting your government turn into the Soviet Union when it comes to Big Brother's creepy all-seeing eye.
    • crazybrit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Say, have you ever been to the UK? No? Didn't think so. BILL OF RIGHTS HURR!
    • 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?
  • genforklift, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2NAKED ENGLAND X RAY PARTY IN ENGLAND!
  • cptn_cardboard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Remember: whatever follows "for your safety..." is ALWAYS *****.
    • 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. :]
  • XISUPERMANIX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3All those flat, skinny, pale people. I would hate to be the guy watching these tapes.
  • Gillz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Pics or it didn't happen.
  • somesthetic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1you don't need to put up x-ray cameras to see me naked.
  • cookdsc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't blame them, I look great nude
  • Dundasbro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Streaming link??
  • 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.
  • sweetthing411, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No Doubt ...that is crazy.
  • magixx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Whats next? Sentry guns on lamposts?
    • DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Digg Xray cameras are watching you do that. you will be exterminated.
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't give them ideas. Or at least patent them first...
  • thecheatah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Is it wrong to play a game on digg's comment page where you thumb up every other comment and thumb down the rest?

    I think its fun, watching the text box shrink and then watching the hands turn gray!!!!

    You should try it!
  • HeL1ves1nYou, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Um... isn't prolonged exposure to x-rays a bad thing?
  • PurpleSfinx, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2THIS IS A LOAD OF CRAP.

    This article contains no technical information at all.

    I've done the topics of radiation in my physics class... There's no way this would be safe. You can't constantly be exposed to X-Rays, you will DIE. The most it could do is take a photo every few weeks before people who regularly travel in the area are considered to be having too many X-Rays.

    Seriously people, this is like something out of a comic book. X-rays can't even see through clothes to get a naked picture of you - maybe your bones or a fuzzy outline of your guts, but not just a naked photo - and as for detecting metal, we have other ways of doing that. They are called "Metal detectors", and they use a different kind of radiation entirely.

    Rubbish. Bury as innacurate.
  • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In other news: Surge of new applicants to the CCTV department overwhelms HR department. More information as it becomes available...
  • rabidphage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2think about it this way.. if people realise that they are being stripped digitally, they might as well go nude.. its freedom to be nude.. it pissess of a lot of conservatives..
  • handler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Fat lazy brits trying to make the cameras do the job of the officers.
  • 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...
  • dagnome1984, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ministry of Truth anounced today stating X-rays are ++good for you.
  • InsultComedy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Who wants a government bureaucrat looking at your girlfriend or daughter nude? And while they're at it, they can pull up any information they want, and arrest them without cause. A pedophile's wet-dream...and I'm sure they're signing up.
  • techsiddhu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I will agree to it only if a sexy bi*** is sitting on the other side of the camera. lol
  • 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.
  • Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Havnt they thought of the damaging effects of X Rays? It is dangerous to be exposed to X-Rays for any length of time.
  • crazybrit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Talk about an overreaction... yes, there are a lot of security cameras in Britain, but if you'd lived there you would know that it's not that unreasonable; there's just a lot of vandalism and petty crime going on there. It's not like there are cameras in peoples' homes. Also, "NUDE!!!"? ...No. X Rays can see through clothes, yes, but they see through skin as well. Duh. Lastly, this is never going to happen. I mean, the source is "a leaked memo" from a British tabloid, and no country would ever install x-rays on lampposts because a) they emit HARMFUL RADIATION and b) there's a very slim chance they would aid in catching terrorists anyway.

    Lame, Digg. Lame.
  • xBDVx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The biggest problem is seeing people nude?! What about giving everyone cancer!
  • WaltDismal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This story is bull and most of the commenters have no understanding of physics at all. To use X-rays you have to have the subject between an X-ray source and a camera. There's no way to easily do this in public. Besides which, you'd have to have the X-ray source on all the time, and this would sterilize any poor bastard who stood in the beam for a little while. There is no way the authorities are going to put up a public health hazard that would get them sued into poverty.The recent stories about technology that can see through clothes referred to terahertz radiation sensors. These are not X-ray machines but rather detect terahertz radiation emissions from human bodies, like infra-red but of a higher frequency. The problem is, the technology is rather expensive and bulky and no one is going to be able to stick this on a lamppost like a TV camera. This story is pure crap. Ignorant redneck fantasy.
  • BayAreaKing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0any way I can get my hands on one of those?
  • LucidHawk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2SEE HERE
    http://www.tsa.gov/research/privacy/backscatter.shtm
    • InsultComedy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Those photos look doctored. I've seen the real x-rays like a month ago on Drudge. Remember wearing bags of sand to get your teeth x-rayed? Can't be good for your health.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.