digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Harry Potter Leaker Forgets to Remove EXIF Data from Photos. [PIC]

aycu22.webshots.com — The guy who took pictures of the stolen harry potter book and put them on the net forgot to remove the EXIF data which contains the serial number of his Canon camera which means he can be traced back.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • vroom101, on 10/11/2007, -6/+543Assuming the EXIF data is legitimate AND the camera can be traced AND the photographer can 100% conclusively identified, my reaction is this...

    Dude is in for a world of hurt!
    • sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -15/+152Quick, serialia changnonium! Oh wait, I'm a muggle. Drat.
      • macemoneta, on 10/11/2007, -31/+14I think the spell you want is "Exi-V2!":

        http://www.exiv2.org/

        The question is, is the serial number real, or is some poor dude gonna get dragged out of bed by SWAT at 3am for having a matching randomly selected serial number?
        • afx1, on 10/11/2007, -19/+39No, the data is called EXIF. Exiv2 is a C++ library for reading that data from files. Welcome to the Internet, enjoy your stay.
        • macemoneta, on 10/11/2007, -9/+38"No, the data is called EXIF. Exiv2 is a C++ library for reading that data from files. Welcome to the Internet, enjoy your stay."

          I guess you have a reading problem. The package includes a command line utility for manipulating EXIF data. It can be easily scripted to change the serial number field in all the images in the book to contain any random number.

          Welcome to the Internet yourself, kid.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36Dilbert once decided to participate in an illegal chain letter scheme. Dogbert's advice seems oddly appropriate:

        "Maybe for your first crime you shouldn't attach your name and address and mail it to several thousand strangers?"
    • JrGhoull, on 10/11/2007, -9/+98if ifs and buts were chocolate and nuts the world would be made of candy
      • bewareofmoose, on 10/11/2007, -3/+80That... that was amazing. Do it again.

        This time, slow.
        • sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -56/+24Your mom said the same exact thing to me last night.
          • sammyc53, on 10/11/2007, -16/+10comments like that make me want to leave Digg. Grow up.
          • crushfan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+13You. Suck.
          • sexybobo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7you have it all wrong sockpuppet You were suposed to say. "thats what she said"
      • JackyAppleJones, on 10/11/2007, -8/+31I believe it goes "If wishes and buts were clusters of nuts, we'd all have a bowl of granola". You know? Strangers with Candy?
      • spyrochaete, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17I thought it was "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas."
      • deranfuhrer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12What about "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all be fat and happy"?
      • SeventhSon, on 10/11/2007, -8/+0I resent that. I'm no candy ass. Oh, you only used one t. My bad.
      • SurrealDream, on 10/11/2007, -2/+39I thought it was "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a large amount of candy and nuts, unless of course our supposition is flawed in that you aren't very inquisitive, in which case you'd probably end up with fewer candy and nuts. Assuming also that the hypothetical scenario of receiving a piece of candy for every 'if' and a nut for every 'but' (what candy? what nut? how big? what are their calorific content? are these factors variable?) remains true, we'd all be up to our ***** in sugary pistaccios. Unless of course you /aren't/ very inquisitive""
    • mrfreeziexp, on 10/11/2007, -29/+4http://duggmirror.com
    • jstohler, on 10/11/2007, -2/+87Wouldn't he have to have registered the camera in order to tie it to him?
      • zybch, on 10/11/2007, -1/+33Yeah. Unless he registered it, all the 'authorities' will be ablke to do is trace it to the store he purchased it from (if that).
      • Transmission3k, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17Yeah. And then the company (Canon, in this case) would still have to be willing to give up that data to a 3rd party. I don't see anything of that sort ever happening.
        • mollerade, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Even if its registered and Canon handed over the data, he could just say, oh i lost that camera in a park six months ago.
      • maffiou, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Yes, or you could just look through flickr for other shots with the same exif serial number... It would take you a while, but if you restrict to the naming scheme of that specific camera... Well probably still not realistic... But it'd be interresting to see how long it takes to have something come up...
        • iWasHere, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Wow, that is kinda scary knowing that that method could actually be used...

          Didn't think about that one...
        • Dracker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Because everyone with a camera uploads their pictures to Flickr
      • DangerMouse9, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Nah, they'll just pick someone at random and blame them, it's what the RIAA does so why not the publishers? :)
    • ccanni1028, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15This is one reason NOT to register for your camera's warranty!

      EDIT: damn hidden comment threading, I was beat to saying this.
      • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Or, one reason to NOT illegally put pictures of a book online.
        • s1mph0ny, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Or, one reason to NOT read harry potter.
    • newstart, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4Someone out there might find this useful:
      http://www.flickr.com/services/api/flickr.photos.getExif.html
      • samk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It would be interesting to see if someone could find other photos taken with this camera.
      • Himself, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5the photo_id is required. maybe the pothead issue will expand the search api..
    • locojones, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21You don't have to register the warranty to get traced. They can tie the serial number to the store that sold it. The store can associate the serial number with the receipt on which it was purchased. And most likely it was purchased with a debit or credit card, which makes it easy to follow the owner home.
      • slezzzter, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Depends on how expensive the camera was and not all stores record serial numbers on purchase reciepts (Walmart, for example). Assumes that he is the first owner and the primary purchaser (not a gift or used purchase). There's a ton of reasonable doubt here. He could destroy the camera and say he sold it on ebay.
        • AngelBunny, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4there is a couple of pictures where his whole hand is showing. if the catch the person they will know who it is by the way his hand looks
        • ninj3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8"His fingers are long and thin like the one on the camera! It must be him!"
          Somehow I don't see that holding up in court.
        • ldkronos, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Maybe it was his identical hand twin
      • GeckoSlayer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I think it worthy to note that shops keep only the last 4 digits of a credit card number on record for each product, and by Australian law (sorry, I know majority aren't Australian) each shop must keep an off-base record of these for at least 6 months after the purchase has been made... Usually the shops just throw this information away. So, I doubt he can be traced through a 4-digit number...
        • wafflemania, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Receipts (at most major retailers in the US) show the first and last name, and the last 4 digits. The digits could be used to weed out which "john doe" it was...
        • Xyleene, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2But the credit card/debit company will have the actual info.. They just do a search on 'date of purchase', 'place of purchase', 'cost of purchase', 'last 4 numbers of card'.. Chances are this would produce a unique record.
      • SeventhSon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2And we're assuming that the camera isn't stolen in the first place. But I'm sure that this pirate wouldn't do such an unethical thing...
      • therightclique, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8NOPE. sorry. stores don't keep serial numbers. after working at several stores that sell cameras (all big name stores), i can say with confidence that NO major store collects serial information from cameras.
        • DrCyclops, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Very true. Why would they? What would be in it for them? It would be nothing but exrta bookkeeping with no added profit.
        • GeckoSlayer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Oh, so about all the companies that by law HAVE to record your details when you buy a phone are doing it for fun? The point remains, I've seen people log them (in australia) and keep them.
        • wafflemania, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I can vouch for this.... I've never seen a serial number for a camera recorded. IPods are a different story- when you ring out an IPod you have to scan the serial on the box, and I assume it's recorded "somewhere".
    • rayxtime, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4I'm also in for a world of hurt when my team releases the transcription of these images. I'm halfway through copying chapter 19. Hopefully the file will be released tomorrow.
    • MSTK, on 10/11/2007, -1/+38One does not simply walk into Mordor.
      • whta, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Unless, of course, you are a rather extreme villain.
        • luweez90, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Worst. Reply. EVER.
          • whta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's a semi-inside joke. I hoped the commenter would see it.
      • StillGaming, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You know, MSTK, nobody truly gets the double meaning of what you just said. Just keep the troof under your hat, a'ight? ;)
    • jordansampson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7"prove it was me who took the pictures"

      -just because it was he bought the camera does not mean he is the prime/secondary/etc user of the camera. Personally ive used work cameras for more than my fair share of non work related photos.
      • wabbiteh, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2The photos have portions of his body (notably, his fingers). They could give at least some evidence by comparing the fingers.
      • luweez90, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Possesion is nine-tenths of the law
    • maddendude, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Next week on Digg, "Man sued for a Billion dollars over illegal photographs"
    • reinkaos, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2He is entering a world of pain!
    • fusion5, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Maybe the camera was stolen
      • supaklaw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Then it should have been reported stolen... before the pics released... right criminal mastermind?
    • smedrick, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5LOL

      A "world of hurt" from Harry Potter fans? Sounds more like a world of limp-wristed slaps.
      • wafflemania, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1NOOOOOOOO!!!! YOU BITCH!!! YOU BITTTCCHHH!!!
    • Himself, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5no.. next week on digg

      Man framed for leak. EXIF data needs to be secured. Industry moves to develop more invasive....

      • raitchison, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Nikon already encrypts some of the data on their RAW image format for their higher end DSLRs, they do this so you can't use Photoshop (or especially the GIMP) to work with these files.
    • Himself, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5should have used EyeBatch
    • drobie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well, his hand, the carpet in background, and the EXIF data from camera aren't the only things against him here. I'm sure there are only so many people who could get their hands on an early copy of the book. Link that in with the EXIF data to find out roughly where, then the carpet to find out exactly where. The guy has probably already been found.
  • stoitofardo, on 10/11/2007, -8/+365noob
    • alwaysmc2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+34It's so easy to do. There's a "remove personal information" button in the properties window of the picture. Well, if you use Vista...
      • banthis, on 10/11/2007, -15/+36ew... He said Vista... ew
        • grawity, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Vista?
          /me pukes
          • shunpike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Using Vista to type this... i have to agree with u... using it makes me feel dirty... so i am using Safari for Windows (Vista ***** up FireFox!)... feel cleaner!
    • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22This is probably the first time on Digg that someone got so many positive diggs just for saying, "noob". Probably because its the first time I've seen it being used most appropriately.
    • Speedy7, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I noticed the camera model 'canon something REBEL' yesterday, but i did not know the serial was traceable.
    • nwoantibody, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5He'll just claim his camera has been lost for a while. Then get rid of the camera. If that's not already done.
      End of discussion.
      Unprosecutable.
      • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It most likely won't be the only evidence. There's the serial number, but also a comparison of his/her hands, the background of the picture, perhaps the ISP and even the IP address from where the pictures were posted. I'm sure there's more evidence as well. And when you add it all up, "unprosecutable" becomes much more "prosecutable." And even still, if there's not a criminal prosecution, there's still the option of a civil suit, which has a lower threshold for finding liability.
    • maffiou, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4scan+ocr ftw...

      Seriously: who takes photos of a book ?
      • arcooke, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Someone who wants to prove it was taken from a book and not just written out of thin air in MS Word.
        • spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4could have easily included a few photos with the scanned pages
        • dywooto, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0...and THEN removed the EXIF info... you really thought this thru, didn't you?!
      • moonhead, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5It's so he can return it to the box it was taken from, so as to not easily be traced to the bookstore he works at..............
  • pyro789x, on 10/11/2007, -6/+335Assuming he can be traced down; this is going to be the most expensive picture this man ever takes.
    • zybch, on 10/11/2007, -3/+39Nah, he can just claim his camera was stolen.
      • KMye, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Agreed with cdnyny. Also, if the person the camera's tied to just happens to have some tie-in through work or a family member's work somewhere along the line of publication or distribution of the book, it won't help him at all.
      • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7On its own, the number is pretty useless. I mean, in theory it is possible if the guy registered with Canon to trace the owner of the camera matching that S/N.

        But that number is not tied to any watermark. It is a tag stored in plain text in the header of the JPG, very easy to spoof. As pointed out it, it would still probably be enough to get a search warrant. Even if you took for granted that the number was legitimate, at best that proves who owns the camera that was used in this crime. It would be like your car plates being found when investigating a RAM raid. Even if your car was involved, they would still need to prove you were involved and the vehicle was not stolen. Of course, finding the car in your garage a week later won't help your case too much. Just saying that there would need to be other evidence to show opportunity or you can't remove reasonable doubt.
        • kevincannon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It's not that hard.

          Step 1, Search flickr images for photos with the same ID.
          Step 2, If that doesn't work, search the web for it -- whoever did this is bound to have other photos online
          Step 3, One a photo is found online track it to a real person.
          Step 4, Use legal means to get warrant to search persons computer, or confront them through their employer.

          The number isn't going to get the person arrested, but it's going to be used to track down the person, that's all.
      • virtualball, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Yup, they could get a warrent to search the house and at the very least, the computer where the images were. I was watching E! (Girls Next Door) and they said it was a website that leaked it, deepdiscounts.com or something like that.
    • hudson99, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15But the EXIF info alone should give them probable cause to look for other evidence.
      • Me1000, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5how? digital data can be manipulated!
        • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Any evidence can be tampered with, whether it's a "hard copy" picture, document, video, voice recording, eyewitness report, etc. ... that doesn't remove probable cause.
    • idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually, that would be the most expensive 395 pictures he has ever taken.

      A couple of em were duplicates though.
  • homesickalien, on 10/11/2007, -5/+157Another good reason NOT to register your products online. I'm not 100% certain about Canon's privacy policies, but if the camera owner registered his camera with Canon. His identity won't be hidden very long...
    • over9, on 10/11/2007, -9/+23Don't you need to register the product to activate the warranty? I sure as hell would register to get that 1 year warranty.
      • one321, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13That's what they want you to think, and it works. I bet the majority of people that register do it because they are afraid their warranty will not work unless they do so.
      • stoanhart, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I have never registered a single product, and have claimed warranty on many.
    • whataboutdave, on 10/11/2007, -17/+7I like paying in cash if I'm not using Newegg.
    • mercano, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4The publishers could probably subpoena the registration info from Cannon.
      • tb0n3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4To issue a subpoena for a civil case, a lawsuit has to already have been filed. To file a John Doe lawsuit, public notification has to be made in the area the John Doe is suspected to live. And if they get that part wrong, the case is (in most cases) easily dismissed.
    • wburglett, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1im under the impression that it is not the real book as if it is, he is going to have a 1 Million dollar bill to pay.
      • locojones, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1The financial penalties are the least of his worries. He'll be facing criminal copyright charges under 17 USC 506.
        • Magnes, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5He is probably not from US but from GBR. USA is not The Whole World.
      • maffiou, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think it'll all depend on how he obtained his copy: If he'd sign a non disclosure agrement he's in trouble... If he just happened to have found it because of someone elses carelessness, not so much...

        To be honnest, this is only contributing to the hype... Who in their right mind reads an 800 page books in jpegs...
        On the other end, busting him spectacularly will maintain the hype as well...
    • JRjJ106, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1There is no reason not to register your products online as long as you don't plan to use that product to break the law, especially if you want an extended warranty.
      • WoollyMittens, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3There is not reason to register your products online as they can't take you warranty away from you anyway.
      • Elliuotatar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4How about if you later sell your camera on Ebay and it's used by a criminal and traced back to you? That's a good reason not to.
        • JRjJ106, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2No that is not a good reason not to. You would have to be a little paranoid to be thinking like that. Honestly what are the chances?
      • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3extended warranty!!!! how can i lose!?!??
    • Himself, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Another reason not to use credit cards for every purchase
  • wtfersk8s, on 10/11/2007, -57/+19

    Wow... we're being tracked through all kinds of things these days. You can't even take a photo without some unique serials appearing in your pic.

    ***** Canon.
    • iomegaboy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Most cameras place the serial number in the EXIF. ***** cameras. There fixed that for you.
    • 1iProd, on 10/11/2007, -25/+5Hah, I bet you're just one of those NIKON fanboys. Yeah, well ***** YOU, and ***** Nikon! Yeah, that's right! Canon for life, arsenose.
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5Chill out man. On the other hand there are not that many Nikon "fanboys". There are plenty of people who say they buy Nikon because they already have existing lenses, but will concede that if they could return those lenses, they'd go Canon because of the ubiquitous of the brand to the professional photography industry as Adobe Photoshop is to graphic design.

        But to see a Nikon being used professionally at a news agency, or by a journalistic crew, instead of a Canon via pure preference and not for budgetary reasons, is rare if not uncommon.
        • therightclique, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2photoshop for graphic design?!?!? you don't know what graphic design is do you?
        • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1can someone please explain therightclique's comment? anyone?
        • 1iProd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I...I was being sarcastic??
      • Me1000, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4why does everyone have to be a fanboy?
      • Eliza101, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I'm sorry you're being dugg down, I thought your comment was hysterical.
  • reed311, on 10/11/2007, -16/+1320That's pretty embarrassing, now everyone will know that he reads Harry Potter.
    • bird757, on 10/11/2007, -49/+18That is the single funniest thing I have ever read on Digg
    • newstart, on 10/11/2007, -36/+6I agree its embarrasing, but that should be the last thing on his mind now
      • lyl18, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1^ That comment, newstart, is embarassing.
    • Himself, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Hopefully the large scale pressure might persuade him to grow as a person.
    • trriplejay, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I lol'ed
    • kmpr326, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Comment of the year. You sir, have won the internet.
    • tranzphat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0LMAO
    • tybach, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Cheers
    • Moonblade, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Well played
  • funkyjunk3, on 10/11/2007, -20/+176Canon camera owner # 560151117, a certain J.K. Rowling's lawyer would like to talk with you...
    • jwolcott, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16You're not helping.
    • griz, on 10/11/2007, -15/+13If you know the number, then that means you are in posession of the pages which means J.K. Rowling's lawyer would like to talk to you as well.
      • sckoralesky, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23nope. the image above shows the file info, not the actual picture.
      • StarlessKnight, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19Or they opened the link that has the number highlighted...
      • schoate09, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2YOU PHAIL
  • quez, on 10/11/2007, -4/+421Whatever happened to the days of quality piracy? These new guys suck at it.
    • dbz253, on 10/11/2007, -19/+8long live suprnova....


      we will never forget
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Suprnova was a bittorrent tracker, they were NOT pirates themselves. They chose not to control over what trackers appeared on the site, they merely hosted it.
      • otaking, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Bittorrent and Suprnova is not quality piracy.
      • ledzep19752000, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0I think means NNTP!
      • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2mirc/ftp warez ftw
      • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Bittorrent is for wannabe pirate kiddies.

        Real men use darknets.
    • xyqxyq, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18At least the cams are better.
    • CryptoManiaC, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3P2P happened
    • orlyfactor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Seriously, bring back DoD and RAZR 1911, not this amateur *****.
  • penguinshome, on 10/11/2007, -70/+7That's awesome! The ***** who will inevitably ruin the last Harry Potter book for me and thousands of others will hopefully be brought to justice. I hope he gets Federal-Pound-You-In-The-Ass-Prison, too.
    • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -7/+38For taking pictures of a book? You fail at life.
    • Feener, on 10/11/2007, -11/+9Unless you're 12 read a proper book.
    • Darmichar, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19It's a book, grow up and quit acting like a 9 year old.
      • SPECOPS, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3But he/she is 9 years old, and doesn't have a choice.
        • squenix1221, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6she?
          • therightclique, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6there are creatures that are like males, but have inverted weenises. that makes them females.
    • sloppychris, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22You know you're not required to actually read the book in pictures.
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Exactly, its common knowledge that the book was long available now in text, html, lit, and pdf form.
        • therightclique, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6i've recorded my own puppet show and audio books for my own personal amusement.
    • penguinshome, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5I grew up with the reading the series as a youngster. I'm 18 now. I've read Hawthorne, Asimov, Shakespeare and many other great writers. It's not a matter of it being a "child's" book. It's a matter of me not wanting the ending spoiled by some *****. It's wrong for someone to maliciously ruin something that someone has been waiting 7 years to read. This guy is just making it easier to ruin one of the last bits left of my childhood.
      • leahzero, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8You want someone to go to "Federal-Pound-You-In-The-Ass-Prison," because they might spoil some meaningless detail in a derivative heap of drivel penned by a woman who holds herself aloof from the very genre and literary community that paved the way for her insipid series' success, and you are crying about the ruination of one of the last bits of your childhood?

        You're not even human, how can you have had a childhood?
      • KMartSheriff, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2You have failed. Please die.
      • bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1the end of the book? c'mon, i figured out the end of this book 3 books ago. if you can't figure out what's going to happen you must be 9.
      • Tagaiz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2umm. hello. u dont have to read it if u dont want to.
        • penguinshome, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You obviously don't get the point of why I'm pissed off.
    • rainergamer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8LOL. Prison for ruining a book ending? I hate you people. Hermione and Harry die. Ron has sex with Ginny.
    • ninj3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3No one forced you to read spoilers. Blame your own curiousity if anything.
      If you inadvertently started reading a spoiler that goes, "Page XXX Harry..." and somehow didn't manage to realise that you're beginning a spoiler and look away then you're just a ***** moron. It's not like someone's screaming it into your ear.
  • djaoki, on 10/11/2007, -56/+15It's a shame that POTTER DIES in the end.
    • 1iProd, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4LIAR
    • GeneralReikan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14from being raped in the ass by a horse!
    • JoeDiggsIt, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5I wish....
    • timewaster, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Get it right. He dies and then comes back to life. Basically, he cheats death, literally.
      • therightclique, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3how does one cheat death "literally"? go study what "literally" means first, before using it.
        • SurrealDream, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Maybe he stole Deaths wallet, or did an illegal move with his knight in chess when Death wasn't looking.
          Lookit! I LITERALLY shut your monkey-ass up.
        • popltree2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Inconceivable!
      • ninj3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I knew that Potter was no good. He'd lie and cheat his way out of anything.
  • chicoer2001, on 10/11/2007, -4/+181I never register my stuff. What's the point.
    • NSMike, on 10/11/2007, -4/+68Well, if you own a 360...
      • Disjunto, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10...you don't need to register it, at least I didn't
        • GeneralFailure0, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6He means if it breaks, which it is highly likely it will if you were an early adopter. I'm waiting for mine to come back right now...
    • leethorn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15I got a 512 meg CF card when I registered my 350D.

      But I got drunk and lost it somewhere in Camden high street so I guess didn't win in the end.
      • ablacksunrise, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Getting drunk is a good a win as any...
  • str3ama, on 10/11/2007, -3/+111If I were the guy I'd destroy the camera and pretend like I sold it years ago, no proof

    Source: That article about gangsters dropping the gun at the scene of the crime.
    • NumberFour, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20Well honestly they could probably get him for it anyway. Not that many people get advance copies of the book, he'd get caught for sure.
      • lostradamus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Right. He probably has some connection to the publisher or distributer.
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5And they could compare those pictures, the carpeting, lighting, and whatever with that in his home.
        • neuropsychguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4In the picture in the link it looks like it's a library book because of the plastic cover on it.
      • schoate09, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Even if it was an advanced copy, it's copyrighted material, and this would still be just as illegal.
    • Beshitehboss, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3He should just file (scrub with a filer) the serial number off his "weapon".
      • asforme, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17This was already found ineffective. Just put a bit of acid on the area where the number was filed. The acid eats through the area around the number faster than it does the number because it is denser having been compressed.

        Plus, what's not suspicious about a CAMERA with the SN scrubbed off.
        • kaidovak, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22not to mention you could just take a picture on the suspect camera and check the exif :P
      • Alphi1, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2For all the good it would do - all the police would need to do is take another picture with the camera, and look at the EXIF on that picture. Nice thought though... :)
    • madeingermany, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19No, some stupid company (deepdiscount.com) started shipping books yesterday.
      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aBa6f6fDPwvI&refer=canada
  • genexyzration, on 10/11/2007, -12/+0The source is gone. Potter got there in time.
  • sfly510, on 10/11/2007, -15/+6They should torrent his mugshots.
  • MarrowMan, on 10/11/2007, -9/+302i bet Harry Potter gets an iPhone on the last page
    • DarKnight90, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4Pff wizards don't use iPhones http://digg.com/offbeat_news/5_Reasons_Why_Wizards_Are_better_Then_Muggles
    • darkened, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15And then the iPhone bluetooths with the magic wand, the universe explodes.
    • thedragon4453, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Actually, he gets the iPhone on the first page, then rambles on about how f'ing cool it is for the next 700, until finally he is killed by Hermoine (whos a dude, BTW). After she bludgeons him to death with his iPhone, she then exclaims "Nokia Bitch!"

      Ok, I know that no one could go on for 700 pages about a ***** phone, except maybe digg users.
  • stevenr21, on 10/11/2007, -8/+381oh snape
    • Shenanigans838, on 11/07/2007, -2/+25I must be punchy (and a geek) cuz this made me laugh out loud.
    • jackmaninov, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12NO! You bitch! You biiiiitch!
    • persept, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2snape ends up actually working for voldemort and had planned to kill dumbledore, but dumbledore lived becuase of some elder wand type thingy. it's in the next book
    • veracon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Made my day. Thank you.
  • vaconex, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4The serial number is recorded? Hmmmm. Didn't know that.
    • nazadus, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5Only if he registered it, which many people don't. How many electronics do you think actually get reg'ed? I would bet not many.
      • vaconex, on 10/11/2007, -8/+150% of mine are registered. Anything over $800 gets regged in case of theft.

        I just checked my EXIF info, and while yes, the info is there, it isn't exported into my jpgs.
      • joel2600, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8obviously... because your camera runs a query against a database on the internet to check if it is registered before recording the metadata on the image
  • bigpeeler, on 10/11/2007, -65/+174I'll be glad when this Potter crap is gone. It's the Paris Hilton of books.
    • brandtson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16amen. no one knows how to go to a book store, have a seat, and read a few pages from an unknown author. I used to wonder why stephen king is still making money. Now, I sorta know why.
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Heck its why Dane Cook makes money. Most Americans can't name 5 other regular stand-ups.
      • ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I know, man! Dane Cook is overrated.
      • SurrealDream, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4HEY!...I like Stephen King :(
      • ablacksunrise, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Insulting Dane Cook AND Stephen King in one set of replies... THIS WILL NOT STAND! :P
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2WORD. Sick of the fanatics.
      • zybch, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6"WORD" ????
        Seriously, what the ***** is the point of prefacing a statement with that?!!? Unless you're a stupid white rapper ***** who decided to change his name to 'Ice Tea' or something.
        • crushfan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Pff.. That Maddox-role-play is extremely boring.
    • BLKMGK, on 10/11/2007, -4/+43Umm yeah, I mean anything that gets hordes of kids to be excited about reading a book can't be good huh? The book wasn't really meant for adults, it was meant for kids. That many adults happen to like it, including myself, is just a happy side effect for JK I'd guess.
      • leahzero, on 10/11/2007, -15/+2Why do you Harry Potter fans just mumble these vague, defensive remarks about literacy anytime someone criticizes the series or Rowling?

        "JK" and these books haven't made some great contribution to global literacy. These books appeal to privileged, affluent kids and adults in prosperous Western societies; they're not reaching kids in Western ghettoes or Third World ricefields. Forgive me if I don't get too excited about whether Richie Rich reads Harry Potter or blows his trust fund on video games.

        We also have no evidence yet that kids who read Potter actually read anything ELSE, or whether they are just interested in the Potterverse and not in broadening their literary scope. It remains to be seen whether the Potter phenomenon will actually cultivate an enduring appreciation for literature amongst young fans, or whether it was yet another fickle kiddie fad.

        But sure, as a kiddie fad, it's well above the usual cultural detritus that gets fobbed off on youth.
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Actually, you are both wrong, in my opinion. I think the internet has contributed more to kids reading than anything else this decade, even JK Rowling.
          • Koldkompress, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2How else are they going to find out where the good porn is?
          • wafflemania, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I don't really count "hw r u 2day?" as reading...
        • Pixelante, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2'"JK" and these books haven't made some great contribution to global literacy. These books appeal to privileged, affluent kids and adults in prosperous Western societies; they're not reaching kids in Western ghettoes or Third World ricefields. Forgive me if I don't get too excited about whether Richie Rich reads Harry Potter or blows his trust fund on video games.'

          I know it must suck to be poor and to have your next meal coming from the trash bin, but shouldn't you be looking for a job instead of posting here in Digg?
    • griz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13You mean Potter goes to jail?? Thanks ***** for ruining the ending!!!!
      • shinynew, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1aw he gets out almost as fast as he gets in stop bitching.
      • wafflemania, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Shouldn't have left the EXIF from the wand he was using :O
    • kballweg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Concerned about people ever so much younger than you reading books? It's got to look bad on your resume. Actually it really doesn't come close to PH's skank factor of 2K on a scale of 1 to 10. Nice to know there are twenty somethings auditioning to be the Dvorak of the new age.
    • bagboyrebel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12because everything popular is automatically bad. /sarcasm
    • PoeticExplosion, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Bigpeeler, why do you hate Harry so much? They are well-written books with an interesting world and sympathetic characters. They follow in the footsteps of all the other hundreds of famous books (like, say, the Illiad?) which follow the Hero's Journey. They have plenty of subtext, literary allusion, and all the other things pompous critics like.

      The only reason you don't like them is that they are fairly easy to read and they're popular.
  • aticus, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4digg owns leaker
    • rattsabre, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Digg user doesn't understand ownage.
  • RST1123, on 10/11/2007, -38/+266THIS IS ONE HARRY SITUATION.
    • soot, on 10/11/2007, -8/+115HOW WILL HE WEASLEY HIS WAY OUT OF THIS ONE?
      • napsack, on 10/11/2007, -2/+93THIS IS A SIRIUS PROBLEM!
        • moocow1452, on 10/11/2007, -4/+68I DON'T HAVE A CLEVER QUIP!
        • StarlessKnight, on 10/11/2007, -2/+83EXPECT SOME GUYS TO SHOW UP AT YOUR DUMBLEDORE.

          *Credit to a friend for that one.
          • xtmno3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+60CURSES ON THE SNITCH WHO RATTED HIM OUT
          • HollisJamison, on 10/11/2007, -24/+3HIS CELL MATE IS GOING TO DIVE THROUGH HIS ASS LIKE IT WAS A LUPIN A DOGSHOW.
          • dasdef, on 10/11/2007, -21/+3_IGGERS!
          • battmutler, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5c-c-c-combo breaker!!!!!!111
        • titlesaysitall, on 10/11/2007, -22/+2CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!
    • iluvgossip, on 10/11/2007, -3/+62I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE YELLING ABOUT!
    • DBNKR, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1Made me grin :)
    • LegendarySock, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5BEST THREAD EVER
      • tranzphat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0yes yes this is funnier than thread that go for comedy the comments are CLASSIC
    • nefty, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4EPIC WIN
    • kmpr326, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1This thread is going to reveal I do nothing but surf digg at work. Thanks for making me laugh, fags.
    • idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I love you guys.
  • DesignEx, on 10/11/2007, -27/+9Great idea, bring a bunch of attention to the guy who tried to make this data freely available to us.
    • ejking, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12tool
    • Rfriaz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Thanks, anon. Ah...
    • SeventhSon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Yeah, I hate it when someone invests hours of work into something and then expect me to give them my hard earned cash if I want to enjoy it.
    • HiFiGuy36, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That particular data isn't supposed to be free.
  • gab00n, on 10/11/2007, -20/+3Dobby saves HP from Malfoy's house but Bellatrix through a knife and killed him as they disapperated, he was a good elf.
    • zybch, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Dobby saves Hewlett Packard?? I never knew JK used large international corporations in her books.
      • chieferer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1have you been living in a cave for the last 6 or so years??
        /sarcasm
    • SeventhSon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Well, if people keep giving her book away for free, she's got to make some money off of product placement.
  • minox, on 10/11/2007, -17/+4I like the epilogue about Harry's children being sent to school.
    • EllimistX, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3That killed the book for me, it made no sense and was completely unnecessary.... why 19 years? did she just pull that number out of her ass?
    • jaydoj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Oh you suck, you ruined it. Eh, now i can spend my 40 bucks on jack daniels.
  • theferno, on 10/11/2007, -24/+8DUMBLEDORE DIES ON PAGE 596!!!111 o wait...
  • nhassan, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2digg is once more suffering a minor case of obsession.

    just like the iphone, but not that obsessive.
  • samsam123, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3anyone know how to view that sort of file info? ive never come across it before
  • minox, on 10/11/2007, -20/+7Harry lives and has children. Big deal.
    • soot, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12NOOOOO BITCH! YOU BIIIITCHH
      • SurrealDream, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Can someone tell me this reference please? It's driving me nutty not knowing what it is.
  • beastieboy13, on 10/11/2007, -10/+0Well, good luck, Harry Potter stealer.
  • f8tbrautmehere, on 10/11/2007, -10/+0Well, the owner lives in San Diego.
  • Subterfug, on 10/11/2007, -1/+95That camera now has resale value!
    • popltree2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"And this is the camera I used to pwn myself with," said the convict from behind cool, unforgiving iron bars.
  • MuntrealCanada, on 10/11/2007, -4/+27where's that invisibility cloak when you need one?
  • evilmonkey2, on 10/11/2007, -11/+0no joke, but the guy who put has that book is my friend.
    • biff198, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I don't care what he put has, or what relation he is to you.
  • Dafreakzo, on 10/11/2007, -7/+196I work for an unnamed major camera company. I know for a fact that there is no way we can track who purchased a camera based on the serial number. You can only tell the month and year it was manufactured.
    • E9th, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5The distribution chain is mfgr-> dstr-> dlr-> consumer. Mfgr knows which distributor got the camera. Distributor knows which dealership got the camera. Dealer knows the consumer (unless it was a cash deal). So while the manufacturer may not know who ultimately bought the camera, a few well directed inquiries/subpoenas will likely turn up the purchaser. Works the same way with firearms.
      • psykiv, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I can say, with almost absolute confidence, that the store who sold the camera will not keep track of the serial numbers. I have yet to have a store list a serial number right on a receipt. The only way he'll get caught is if he had registered the camera, and even then, saying he lost it a few months ago will get him off the hook.
      • thebellmaster1x, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Yeah, because the police are just as worried about tracking cameras as they are firearms.
      • Himself, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2store knows they sold A camera...

        barcode != serial


        .... at least not the one scanned for item sale
    • Preacherman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+137You guys should really get a name. It will help you sell more cameras.
      • kryptonite514, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2rofl, made my day!
        • wafflemania, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Bravo! Bravo!
          Way to make me laugh out loud in an airport :(
    • newstart, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2Unamed Camera Company. Hmm.... never heard of this company before. Where r u guys located?
    • sark666, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27Are you telling me I just bashed in my camera for nothing?!
      • 10001, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2only if you didn't take pictures of the activity
        • swazo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1activity? its a ***** book dude.
          • 10001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2DUDE, put down the crack pipe... and notice the nested order of comments! -> bashed camera --> pictures of the activity ---> your ***** comment ----> this intervention
    • tyywebb, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Boo this man!
    • Davers, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3That's kind of what I figured. I mean if you buy a camera at Circuit City, they just scan the barcode like anything else, and the barcode doesn't contain any information specific to that camera, just that model - so unless the owner was stupid enough to register it (And assuming that registration requires input of the serial number), this digg is useless.
      • XHashmeerX, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0They usually have serial number barcodes as well that gets scanned when an item is purchased. Typically it prints up the serial on the recipt too. It's to protect against fraud, duping, or whatever. I used to work at CompUSA, and we did that with computers, cameras, etc.

        So you could trace it back, through alot of steps. But if he bought it cash, it's a dead-end. Plus, what if it was a gift from someone? haha
        • wafflemania, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1At Best Buy, none of the camera boxes have a serial number barcode on them. I assume the same is true for other retailers using the same merch...
  • JoeDiggsIt, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3Wah Wah Waaaah.
  • FTLJohnson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+151I still have a canon registration card around somewhere for my digital rebel that I never registered... I wonder if I put in this serial # and a some fake info if the lawyers would show up at somebody's house. I'm tempted to register that camera to JK Rowling.

    Actually, I think I'd like to register it to Stephen King, just because the media frenzy would be hilarious.
  • TheMags, on 10/11/2007, -10/+19Let's assume for a minute that the guy did register it. Once he finds this out, he ditches the camera and says he sold it to someone for cash. That's that. No proof of anything.
    • urbal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12.... but there can't be too many people that had access to the book.
      • UglyBunny, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5right, only all the bookstore employees in the nation. I had a friend who used to work for Barnes & Noble, when the last Harry Potter book came out he had a copy five days before it was released.
      • 10001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3exactly.. its a three man team staffing the entire supply chain! It's not as though there were thousands and thousands of people involved from production, to shipping, to selling, is it?
    • napsack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Chances are the court wont buy that story. Hmm so you're an editor/publisher etc whatever, and someone by chance got your camera and took pictures of a leaked book?
      My two cents.
    • mc4_a, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11His hands are visible in many of the pictures, as well as his carpet.
    • Mlappy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The serial number traced back to him would give them enough evidence to obtain a search warrant; they seize the computers and everything and can probably find more evidence.
      • jroyale, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1That and the moron took pictures of his hands
        • wafflemania, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I recognize that knuckle hair.... Book him!
    • 10001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2except for all the other pictures of him and his girlfriend, his house, his car, road trips... proximate to that photo and AFTER.... unless he only took one whole picture

      uh oh: IMG_3624

      maybe they won't notice the other 3,623 pictures? that hopefully contain nothing similar.
    • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You are a criminal mastermind! Don't share your, "I sold it [gun, camera, computer, knife, etc.]" method with anyone else, because it will be the end of normal society, criminals will rule the world, and the police will be helpless against such an impenetrable alibi. It's amazing nobody's ever thought of that before. Genius!
  • ppvanzella, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Meh. Somehow I got another serial numer with metacam.
    I suppose they are two different copies of the book, both taken with Canon Digital Rebels, right?
  • djtiboy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+99i'm selling my New professional Canon camera at really low price if someone is interested...
    • Legionnaire, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Buyer beware
    • darkphoenix939, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6well you are not putting it to use with everything on auto...noob
    • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1editing files is easy.. with any real text editor
    • mrchimp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1djtiboy: In previous comments you claimed to be there while the pictures were being taken. Be honest now, was it your camera? :D
    • sail191912, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Do you ship to Nigeria?
  • madeingermany, on 10/11/2007, -4/+57In other news:
    An internet user by the alias of "over9" submits proof that he illegally downloaded a copy of HP7 to the social news website digg.com. :p
  • elmuerte17, on 10/11/2007, -15/+4if it ain't a car you can't track anyone down by serial number. buried as inaccurate.
    • sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8You're an idiot, of course you can. All it takes is a subpoena.
      • 10001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1AND a retailer to bother logging serial number.... instead of just another instance of camera X sold.
  • merrickx, on 10/11/2007, -12/+177Hermoine is hot.
    • sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -8/+16That's not a magic wand in my pocket!
    • veggiemoore, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2Yeah, but for her cliff of a forehead
    • voetsjoeba, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Who's hermoine ?
    • wafflemania, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1140 diggs just for stating a fact about a hot chick. Word.
  • madh4tter, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2Been here before, buried.
  • TheDHC, on 10/11/2007, -14/+6quick harry potter fags, cast a spell on him
  • londubh, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15He could have borrowed the camera. He could have paid cash for the camera. He might not have registered the camera. If the photographer bought the camera with a credit card and registered it he's *****.
    • 955701, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9If he took another picture with the camera and put it on the net he is also *****.
      • PoeticExplosion, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4f he took another picture with the camera and put it on the net and someone happens to check the serial number on that picture and happens to realize it's the same, THEN he's *****.
        • Elliuotatar, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Yes, but with the FBI scanning all net traffic in their secret AT&T installations, scanning the serial numbers from all jpegs that pass through there so they can be referenced later to find specific instances would be trivial.

          Oh ***** I just though of something else too. You might be able to search google for this data. But if they're not indexing it now, they might in the future.
          • 10001, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1+1 for AT&T reference....

            of course google is indexing it... there isn't a public operator yet.....

            had he been using a google equivalent photo sharing service he would have seen 'relevant' ads for the book.....


            what's the big deal? google will be indexing the book itself any time now and text searchable like the way they rape other authors
    • crushfan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I say, let's just *****.
    • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah, these kinds of alibis work so well with music and movie file sharing. Should work here too.
    • desynced, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0How would buying it via Credit Card trace it back to him? When I bought my camera at Best Buy, they didnt record the serial number with my purchase.
  • wontstoptalking, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1So we think those scans ARE real? I'm still not so sure.... (or maybe I HOPE they're not...)
  • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Dugg, waiting for him to be caught so I can laugh.
  • specialK16, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1I've read and heard so much lately, I don't know who to believe what really happens in the end. And hell, I'm not planning to read the book anytime soon.
  • groonk, on 10/11/2007, -14/+4dude deserves everything he's got coming to him
  • StMac, on 10/11/2007, -12/+9ruh row!
  • BenitoMussolini, on 10/11/2007, -3/+223He should threaten to spoil the ending for the police if they arrested him
    • sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19They would cast level 47 enchantment of sodomy upon you.
    • newstart, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6HAHAHAHAHA....... What would he say, "if you come near me I will tell you the ending this instant"
    • frizzipazzi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2dude, you've the worst nick ever
    • wafflemania, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Again, making me laugh out loud in the airport. Damn you digg commenters!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 191 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.