back to article 'Revenge porn' bully told not to post people's nude pics online. That's it. That's his punishment

Notorious "revenge porn" tormentor Craig Brittain has been banned from posting people's nude photos on his website or anywhere else online – and ordered to destroy thousands of pictures in his possession. However, the 30-year-old from Colorado will escape a fine despite having made $12,000 from his IsAnybodyDown.com website …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Not sure who is being punished the most here...

    Having to look at that ugly mug of his in El Reg's supersize format leaves me feeling that I'm being punished more than he is.

    1. Ole Juul

      Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

      You mean his nude face?

      At least El Reg is not asking for money to take it down, but perhaps a burka would solve the problem.

      1. Cliff

        Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

        This isn't as lame a punishment as it sounds, apparently

        ~~~~quote Techdirt quoting Popehat~~~~

        ...That said, as Ken White notes, some may be disappointed that Brittain doesn't have to pay anything or isn't going to jail. But, White notes that punishment is likely to have an impact:

        1. This suggests the FTC determined he had no assets worth taking.

        2. If he violates the order, the FTC can file against him in federal court. The resulting civil/administrative process only bears the most remote resemblance to due process. It will be ridiculously easy for the FTC to shut down and confiscate any new enterprise he starts for the next 20 years. The clients I've seen be most mercilessly and thoroughly screwed without pretense of fairness have been FTC defendants in federal court.

        3. Craig Brittain is now subject to a permanent and relationship-and-career-debilitating stigma. Employers, lenders, landlords and others won't necessarily pick up internet drama. But you can bet that they'll pick up on an FTC consent order. Craig may want to change his name to something without such baggage, like maybe Pustule Nickelback McHitler III.

        ~~~~back to me~~~~

        Quite insightful, Ken White from Popehat is pretty clued up as a practising US lawyer with interest in freedom of speech and technology issues. Popehat is worth putting on your casual reads list.

        1. Ugotta B. Kiddingme
          Coffee/keyboard

          Pustule Nickelback McHitler III

          well done. Bonus points for including Nickelback.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: as it's his first offence

          Perhaps the US should be so lenient on first time murderers too?

          Pity the victims don't see it as a suitable punishment

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

        At least El Reg is not asking for money to take it down, but perhaps a burka would solve the problem.

        A paper bag would do. It comes with the sort of food that creates such a face, so it's good recycling and it has fewer religious connotations unless you draw cartoons on it. And the bag alone already exceeds the value of the git underneath.

        Personally, I wish this person's right to privacy was simply suspended. Not that I would pay any attention to him, but this guy's every move ought to be available to anyone who wants it, 24/7. Phone calls, bank statements, TV habits, and full video coverage, 24/7, for a couple of years. I'd go full panoptikon on his ass (that's an expression, not suggesting an explicit focus) because that's about as much privacy as he allowed his victims.

        This is certainly not a victimless crime. "Don't do it again" would only be acceptable if this was an accidental breach of the law (it does happen), but in this case I cannot be convinced that this loathsome jerk didn't know exactly what he was doing.

        1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

          Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

          > Personally, I wish this person's right to privacy was simply suspended.

          What right to privacy?

          Anyone can post photos of him and state where and when taken if taken in public.

          It will be interesting to have a follow up in a few year's time of whatever happened to so and so. Perhaps we can look forward to more regular updates?

          Anyone got a link?

    2. Yugguy

      Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

      Aye. Looking at that, let's face it, conning women is likely to be the only way he'd have a chance to see them naked.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

      I'm not a violent person, but that surely is one punchable face isn't it?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

        I think TV people call this a radio face :)

        1. wowfood

          Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

          I like the idea of using a paper bag, but those serve a purpose as they're recyclable. Why not use a non recyclable plastic bag instead? It's virtually the same as reusing it.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

            I like the idea of using a paper bag, but those serve a purpose as they're recyclable. Why not use a non recyclable plastic bag instead? It's virtually the same as reusing it.

            I like it, also because in some countries they haven't made holes in them to save the children. Which makes them attractively airtight. Sorry, I didn't say that. Please move along.

          2. Chris King

            Triple Bag ?

            Somebody described me this way once (I prefer "I have a face for radio and a voice for mime") and it sounds all too appropriate...

            One bag for his head...

            One bag for her head in case his falls off...

            And one for the light in case of a double failure.

    4. Andrew Moore

      Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

      The German's have a word for this face "Backpfeifengesicht"- it means "a face badly in need of a fist"

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not sure who is being punished the most here...

      Is wearing that stupid beard part of his punishment or part of the reason for it?

  2. Graham Marsden
    Thumb Down

    "This behavior is not only illegal but reprehensible,"

    "...said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in announcing an out-of-court settlement between the watchdog and Brittain."

    But not so illegal that you could actually push for any sort of conviction, so had to go for a weaselly plea-bargain which would allow you to declare victory without actually winning the case.

    1. DNTP

      Re: "This behavior is not only illegal but reprehensible,"

      It's a sad state of affairs when there are enough people in this country who see nothing wrong with what this little slimeball does, that it would be difficult to successfully prosecute him before a jury. And these people would in fact lie and fight to get on a jury, for the express purpose of acquitting him, in the name of their stupid crusade.

      Who wants to bet that when this pewling child of a criminal finally realizes he has to face the grown-ups of society who are sickened by his antics, he cries and begs the court to seal and expunge his record? That he begs Google and maybe the Reg to take down that picture and that article?

      1. Triggerfish

        Re: "This behavior is not only illegal but reprehensible,"

        Wouldn't it be nice to organise something say such as everyone worldwide changes their facebook profile picture for a week, with a pic of him and the title "This man has/is a small penis".

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "This behavior is not only illegal but reprehensible,"

      Well, sadly, there's not any law against being an utter asshole. This is America, and we have freedom of speech here. Even for absolute scum like Craig Brittain. Who doesn't really deserve it.

      1. The First Dave

        Re: "This behavior is not only illegal but reprehensible,"

        No one else try reading that statement in reverse? Nice to see it acknowledged that not all illegal behaviour is immoral...

  3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Holmes

    I don't see what the problem is

    0) Get address from dox

    1) Go into downtown bar

    2) Hire some muscle

    3) ???

    4) Percussive attitude adjustment of person of interest

    5) Repeat for a couple of months

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I don't see what the problem is

      There's no justice like mob justice

    2. Sir Runcible Spoon
      Pint

      Re: I don't see what the problem is

      "4) Percussive attitude adjustment of person of interest"

      I read that as "Percussive altitude adjustment" - it has lots more connotations too :)

      1. Triggerfish

        Re: I don't see what the problem is

        "We kept adjusting his altitude."

        "Really want did you do?"

        "Well we carried him up to the upper floors and dropped him out of it a few times"

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm not sure I feel that sorry for the "victims" here

    He posed as a "curious woman" who wanted to exchange pictures? At what point does the victim bear responsibility for being an utter moron? The only reprehensible thing he's done is effectively blackmailing them into paying money to get them removed. If it wasn't for that, his site would merely serve as a testament to their stupidity.

    1. dan1980

      Re: I'm not sure I feel that sorry for the "victims" here

      @AC

      "At what point does the victim bear responsibility for being an utter moron?"

      They are entirely responsible for the fact that Craig Brittain got his hands on their photos. They chose to send their photos to someone they didn't know. That much appears to simply be a fact, so far as I read this (if not then please correct me).

      That's not something I would do, but then I wouldn't take the photos in the first place because I am a hideous, hairy and hunched half-ape and am always sure to put a shirt on before I brush my teeth or do my hair so as to avoid accidentally having to see the body that beer built in the mirror.

      But, that it was perhaps not the wisest thing to do, that is all they are responsible for. They are not - even in the slightest - responsible for the actions that Brittain took subsequent to receiving their photos. That is on him and him alone.

      These women are as responsible as someone in a bar meeting a stranger and letting them buy a drink and then getting drugged. Which is to say that they were trusting. Presumably that is the last time that will happen for a while and that is the biggest negative effect here - in my opinion. This dickbag has reduced the number of trusting people in this world and this is not limited to just the women who were direct victims but extends to anyone reading about it.

      It's always a good idea to be prudent but it's sad when the default position has to be "don't trust anyone".

      1. Arctic fox

        @dan1980 Re:"..... it's sad when the default position has to be "don't trust anyone"."

        Indeed it is dan1980, I quite agree. What makes it even worse is seeing certain posters arguing along the lines of "they were mugs so they deserved it". I admit that I am paraphrasing their attitude but not by very much. One may indeed be foolish if one wanders down a dark alley late at night but one still does not "deserve" to wake up in intensive care.

        1. nuked

          Re: @dan1980 ..... it's sad when the default position has to be "don't trust anyone"."

          He who sticks his nose into a beehive can expect more than a nostril full of honey...

        2. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

          Re: @dan1980 ..... it's sad when the default position has to be "don't trust anyone"."

          > One may indeed be foolish if one wanders down a dark alley late at night but one still does not "deserve" to wake up in intensive care.

          Isn't that better than the alternative?

          And in all fairness is has to be admitted that it only happens occasionally. So, statistically, that's all right then.

      2. Andrew Moore

        Re: I'm not sure I feel that sorry for the "victims" here

        Trust, like respect, has to be earned. This does not mean you have to shut yourself away from the human race; just be careful with your interactions with people you don't know and (especially important in the internet age) have never met.

    2. JayB
      FAIL

      Re: I'm not sure I feel that sorry for the "victims" here

      Seriously?

      You don't see anything wrong with having someone post the most intimate things about you on the web with no permissions or knowledge by you?

      Or is it only ok if it's not you?

      Yes the victims, note, no quotation marks you prevaricating cretin because they are bloody well victims of a crime, were foolish but that is all they were, and sadly this crap will still go on because if there's one thing the Human Race isn't short of, it's fools and scum going out of their way to take advantage. Sad however that this wasn't fully prosecuted. Just because the man is a low life and worth sod all, couldn't they have at least fined him and forced him to pay by installments?

      1. Triggerfish

        Re: I'm not sure I feel that sorry for the "victims" here

        Actually looks like not all did send their pictures to him, he also ran submissions from others, and even a bounty scheme where you could name someone and a reward would be given to anyone posting their naked pic. Add to that then posting contact details and its fair to say the man is a twat of the highest order.

    3. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: I'm not sure I feel that sorry for the "victims" here

      That sort of attitude is the same as saying, "She was dressed provocatively m'lud, so it's her fault I raped her". That won't get you very far in court.

      Blaming the victim displays a lack of compassion and empathy that should raise a red flag to everyone around you.

  5. Old Handle
    WTF?

    I'm a little skeptical of broad anti-revenge porn laws since the issue does touch on freedom of speech, but I thought this case was a slam-dunk. Surely the fact that he was asking for money to take pictures down makes it outright extortion/blackmail. I don't see how pretending to be two separate organizations changes this.

    1. Richard Jones 1
      WTF?

      Sounds a Lot Like Wire Fraud To Me

      @Old Handle, his 'business' sound to me more like wire fraud and I thought Uncle Sam did not like wire fraud or have things changed recently.

      1. John Lilburne

        Re: Sounds a Lot Like Wire Fraud To Me

        "I thought Uncle Sam did not like wire fraud or have things changed recently."

        Apparently, if we look at recent cases such as Missip AG vs Google or Zoe Keating vs Google, its not surprising that some in of Uncle Sam's minions might think that the law is a bit influx at the moment.

    2. dan1980

      @Ole Handle

      Personally, I disapprove of any law that is created to address some buzzword title. Similar ideas are in Australia, where politicians periodically bring up the idea of 'anti-troll' laws.

      The problem is that the specifics get discarded when things are shoved into neat, sensationalist-media-friendly boxes with neat, sensationalist-media-friendly labels on them.

      The question that should always be asked is: what is the relevant behaviour or activity that is to be legislated against?

      With 'revenge porn', specifically, I find it a bit of a quandary. It's easy to say that it's wrong and shouldn't be allowed but harder to pin down exactly what the problem is, legally.

      If it's a photo that someone took of themselves that has been sent to you or that you copied from their phone or PC or camera without their permission then that's simple. That's a breach of copyright and the rest can flow from there.

      But what if you took the photo of your partner, with your own camera? Unless I am severely mistaken, you own the copyright to that work. If they agree to the photo then it cannot be claimed to be taken maliciously. The question I suppose is whether the subject of the photo could be said to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I would say that yes, they would be I don't know if there is enough legal work to back this up and, if so, in which countries.

      But should it matter that the subject was nude in the photo?

      Posing naked for photos is not illegal. Nor is posting naked photos online - otherwise that's half the Internet gone! So if taking a naked photo - with consent - is not illegal and you automatically have copyright of that work and, in general, posting naked images online is not illegal, when do these two legal activities become illegal?

      And, when they do become illegal, what is the exact nature of the illegality?

      To be sure, I find this utterly reprehensible but then I find the behaviour of and words and images of many people to be reprehensible (why does Ted Nugent spring instantly to mind?) but what they do is protected as freedom of expression.

      The trick is to craft the laws so that they effectively - and narrowly - target the behaviour that is the problem without infringing on freedom of expression. It is also necessary to do this in a far more widespread and unified manner than state-by-state as the Internet does not conform to voting boundaries.

      1. big_D Silver badge

        @dan1980 I don't know what the law is in Australia, but here in Germany it would be an offence to publish a photo, let alone a nude photo of somebody without their express permission.

        "Revenge porn" is covered here by several laws already and comes somewhere between sexual harassement and sexual assualt, I believe. It carries a 2 year sentence, if convicted.

        It is irrelevant whether you took the photos yourself or whether you stole them or were given copies by the victim. If they did not give you express permission to publish them, you cannot post them online or share them with friends. You might own the copyright on the image, so that the subject can't sell it, but you can't post it or sell it without their permission either.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Germany

          So German newspapers contain almost no pictures of people then?

          Come to think of it, I remember how whenever a German newspaper had an article about skinheads/neo-nazis/whatever they always printed one of a small set of familiar pictures, presumably of an actor or model.

          1. VinceH

            Re: Germany

            "So German newspapers contain almost no pictures of people then?"

            I would imagine those pictures aren't subject to the restriction because no specific person in the crowd is the subject of the photo.

            I've no idea which part of UK legislation covers it without bothering to do any research, but I believe it's similar here - if you take a photo of a specific person or persons and intend to publish or distribute it, you need their express permission; they have to sign a model release form*. Whereas a more generic photograph that just happens to include people is fine.

            * So sue your Facebook friends now! Yay!

            1. Cynic_999

              Re: Germany

              "I've no idea which part of UK legislation covers it without bothering to do any research, but I believe it's similar here - if you take a photo of a specific person or persons and intend to publish or distribute it, you need their express permission; they have to sign a model release form*. Whereas a more generic photograph that just happens to include people is fine."

              You are completely incorrect. So long as you hold the copyright to the image, and it is not of an illegal nature (not indecent children or contravening the voyeurism laws, nor of a subject that the government has prohibited being photographed e.g. security areas, military bases etc.) then you need no permission to publish in the UK. Open any newspaper and I am quite certain that you will find lots of photographs of people who would have prevented its publication if they could.

          2. Mike Moyle

            Re: Germany

            I can't speak for Germany, but where I live in the U.S., the determining factor is whether the subject had "a reasonable expectation of privacy" at the time the photo was taken. This, in general, eliminates the hurdle of getting a signed release from everyone in a news photo. Thus, for instance, someone is allowed to take your picture on the sales floor of a clothing store, since you can't "not be seen" there, but they can't follow you into the changing booth because you SHOULD have a reasonable expectation of privacy there. In the case here, a photo taken between consenting adults for their private entertainment would fall under that reasonable expectation of privacy unless the subject specifically agreed that it could be disseminated to others,

          3. Pookietoo

            Re: So German newspapers contain almost no pictures of people then?

            Pictures taken in a public place or at a public event are fair game. Pictures taken in a private setting are protected by privacy law.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "but here in Germany it would be an offence to publish a photo, let alone a nude photo of somebody without their express permission."

          Are you sure?

          It would be impossible to publish a picture of say a public protest, a football match or a concert.

          Can you explain how permission was sought for everyone in this picture?

          http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-the-birth-of-a-movement-fotostrecke-122785.html

          1. big_D Silver badge

            @Lost all faith

            We are talking about private photos here, although photos in public are subject to the rule as well, with a couple of exceptions.

            If you take a public photo with distinct persons in the foreground, then you need to obtain their permission, before you publish. If people happen to be crossing the image in the background, that is OK. Likewise, if you are photographing a public object (building, statue etc.) and people happen to be in the background, that is OK.

            I think the press also have an exception for photographing public events.

            But, for example, the police can't post photos of speeders or criminal suspects on their websites or Facebook pages.

            Dashcam footage can also not legally be uploaded onto the inernet, for example, or handed to the police or the insurance company in relation to a crime or accident... :-S

          2. gnasher729 Silver badge

            The exact legal situation was of course simplified.

            Mostly, exceptions are made for things that are newsworthy. Like a public protest, or a football match, or a concert.

            As an example what is not allowed: During one election campaign, one German politician used a photo of him surrounded by members of the public. One of those members of the public didn't like his image associated with that politician, so an awful lot of expensive campaign posters had to be removed and destroyed.

        3. dan1980

          @Big_D

          And that's another question - are these things covered by existing laws?

          If the behaviour is really that bad (and I believe it is) then surely there should be laws covering it. And if there are, then why make new, special laws?

          I don't mean that to say that new laws aren't needed - I mean it as a genuine question: if this behaviour is already illegal under existing laws then what is the purpose of new laws covering the same situation?

          To answer your question, in Australia, you only have the right to prevent the publishing of photos of you (whether online or otherwise) where you did not agree to the photo and can reasonably be said to have some expectation of privacy. If someone takes a photo of you walking down the street, they can publish that online without requiring any consent because there is no expectation of privacy in a public space.

          Likewise, if you are at private location - say a bar or nightclub - and there is a photographer going around and you agree to have your photo taken (obvious posing is implicit consent) then, again, they can publish that.

          I am not entirely sure what happens if someone publishes a photo of you that they shouldn't - I'm pretty sure that all that entails is the right to ask for the photo to be taken down. I don't think it's a crime to publish the photos - you would just get sued if, as the photographer, you refuse to take it down when asked to.

          Which is all fine. The question is what happens if someone takes a naked photo of someone else - with their consent - and later publishes it? Let's assume that the subject has the right to ask for it to be taken down but beyond that, what? Let's say the photographer duly takes the photo down and does so promptly. Should here be a penalty or criminal conviction on top?

          If so, on what grounds?

          If you answer that the publishing of the photo was malicious and designed to cause harm and embarrassment, would the same apply if you took a photo of a friend who was exceptionally drunk and making a fool of himself and then you posted that online? It can be easily argued that this is cause for embarrassment and could be seen by (say) parents or in-laws or employers and thus may cause harm to the subject in that way.

          Is that just as bad and just as deserving of punishment and/or criminal conviction?

          If not then what criteria do you use to separate the one from the other? Is nudity inherently in some different class? If so, why? For some people, nudity is no problem at all - nothing to be ashamed of. For some people, being photographed or filmed heavily intoxicated would be far more embarrassing to them, personally and, depending on their circle, perhaps even far more detrimental. After all, pretty much all parents want their children to have sex because most want grand kids! Most, however, disapprove of their children getting riotously, uncontrollably, sickeningly, drunk and making idiots of themselves.

          So how do you determine what gets treated as especially embarrassing or harmful such that the publishing of it is deemed malicious enough to warrant particular punishment where a less embarrassing photo would simple be taken down and that's it?

          Given people are all different, how do we set down that which is especially embarrassing? It might be said that if it causes particular embarrassment and harm then it qualifies, but that leaves interpretation of the law as "I don't like it".

          To take a very rough parallel, there are laws around saying offensive things to people, but exactly WHAT is offensive is difficult enough to pin down that no case that has ever gone before a judge in NSW (and I believe Australia) has ever been held up. That is because "I was offended" is not sufficient justification of actual offense.

          One option is to say that any photo, taken in private, requires explicit permission to publish a photo online, as you say the law is in Germany. But what does that mean for popular sites like Facebook? Presumably, even in Germany, family members post photos of their get-togethers and adults post photos of their children. Is it the law (were we in Germany) that before my sister posts a photo of our last family Christmas, she must obtain the permission of everyone in that photo? What if she doesn't and, some time shortly thereafter my brother divorces his wife in particularly acrimonious circumstances and she, in her anger and bitterness (and having never got along with us) decides to target my sister by complaining about the photos from Christmas, saying she never consented to having the photos posted online?

          It's a bit extreme but my point is simply that any law must be crafted very carefully to avoid it being misused.

          And, again, you could restrict this to just nudity but the only reason to single out nudity is that it can cause embarrassment but there are many, MANY things that can cause embarrassment that are personal and so can't be blanket legislated against.

          That's all a massively long detour but it's a complicated question and I don't believe it's a straight-forward situation with a straight-forward solution.

          To repeat, I find this all reprehensible but there are many reprehensible images and texts and speeches and lyrics and actions that I find reprehensible but are legal and rightly so. Many things that a majority of people would prefer to not exist are essentially negative side-effects to protecting important freedoms.

          Take something like Fred Phelps and his followers. Their actions are disgusting to me but I understand why they are allowed to do what they do - the freedom of expression that they are protected by is far, far too precious to weaken, even for those expressions the majority finds unpalatable.

          1. big_D Silver badge

            @dan1980

            Theoretically you must get permission before you can publish a family pic on Facebook or another website. My wife always explicitly says, that other family members cannot put a photo online, when they take one of her.

            Generally, for "normal" family and friends photos people don't seem to ask permission, it is just implicitly taken for granted, that they can post the photos. Usually the subject will then ask nicely for the image to be taken down, if they don't want it posted. But in theory, they could end up reporting the person doing the posting to the police...

            As to the "need" for such new laws, clarity. Plus heavier sentencing. If the publishing of an unauthorized photo results in a small fine, then it isn't much of a deterrent. Change that to 2 years in Knast (prison) for publishing nude pictures or sex videos without permission and you suddenly have a much better deterrent. In this case, revenge porn falls under "Online Mobbing" (online bullying).

            1. dan1980

              @big_D

              Thanks mate - I appreciate the education! It's interesting how different countries deal with this. It's very much a question of how you manage to conflicting goals of freedom of expression and protection of privacy without setting the sword swinging above everyone's heads whenever they post a photo on their facebook page and where in that complication and largely untested ground one decides to sit.

              To specifics - what about posting photos of your kids? Not to want to take this conversation into darker territory, but isn't the idea of a child's inability to provide proper, legally-valid consent the entire basis of paedophelia and child pornography laws?

              By that logic, however, minors can't give permission, legally, so posting photos of your kids online should be instantly a breach no matter what.

              Again - it's a quandary!

              1. big_D Silver badge

                @dan1980 The parents / guardians have the "Vormundschaft" over the children i.e. guardianship, so they can decide what is and is not in the child's best interest. Of course then you have pornography laws which mean you can't perform certain acts etc. with children or pose them erotically, so if you posted such a picture, you are acting illegally anyway.

                On the other hand, Germany is fairly open to nudity in general - TV shows and news show naked bodies, when naked bodies are there - E.g. reports on saunas. It makes watching American news stories funny, where naked breasts are blurred out, for example. But, again, the adults being photographed / filmed naked in non-sexual situations, have given their permission for the filming to take place and be broadcasted.

                Likewise the Facebook scandal about pictures of breastfeeding mothers being taken down as "porn", the Germans just shook their heads, it is a natural act that you see all the time, there is nothing erotic or pornographic about it...

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like