Software to Disable Cameras On Cell Phones

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonlan/archive/2005/08/25/456130.aspx">http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonlan/archive/2005/08/25/456130.aspx</a><br /><br /><i>"One of [Microsoft's] Partners Credant has a solution called Mobile Guardian which provides the ability to control cameras, disable bluetooth and infra-red as well as provide encryption and policy management. This is a really secure/controlled way of ensuring that the features you don't want people to have access to are disabled whilst still retaining the flexibility the device platform offers."</i><br /><br />A nice way to keep corporate secrets a secret but allow employees to take full advantage of their cell phone's capabilities.

[C Sammet]

I find all of this problem with Cameras, Bluetooth, Infrared, etc.. to be largely a waste of time. As put forward, the problem is with security and the ability for someone to steal corporate or intellectual property secrets. The issue I have is that if someone wants to do that there are many other more easily concealled devices to accomplish the task versus holding a camera phone or even a PDA out in the open to take pictures and steal the property. The real thief will still be in business, but people with cameras in their phones and other platform features they might have been able to use for other benefits will be the only ones penalized.

Here we are again penalizing a honest user to try and stop someone who will simply continue doing business as normal. The same is true with new licensing methods (activation) and such like. We have really seen how activation has stopped piracy, huh?

[Jonathan1]

I find all of this problem with Cameras, Bluetooth, Infrared, etc.. to be largely a waste of time. As put forward, the problem is with security and the ability for someone to steal corporate or intellectual property secrets. The issue I have is that if someone wants to do that there are many other more easily concealled devices to accomplish the task versus holding a camera phone or even a PDA out in the open to take pictures and steal the property. The real thief will still be in business, but people with cameras in their phones and other platform features they might have been able to use for other benefits will be the only ones penalized.

Here we are again penalizing a honest user to try and stop someone who will simply continue doing business as normal. The same is true with new licensing methods (activation) and such like. We have really seen how activation has stopped piracy, huh?

So would you let the average person walk into a building with a big clunky digital SLR because it pretty obvious? And no one would ever use that as way to steal secrets.
Anything that can be used to take a picture can be used to steal secrets it’s that simple. If you start making exceptions to that rule you WILL have people using it. Heck what is more natural then acting like you are dialing when in actuality you are snapping a picture.
What is being penalized here are the companies who are throwing these features in because they are trendy and the users who are buying them not because it’s a business function but because oooo cool I can send a picture of my dog to my mom.
That's what it really boils down to.

I'm sorry if I come off pissy but these rules have been around forever. Now people are bitching about them simply because all of a sudden manufacturers aren't taking these industries into consideration. If they were the CCD would be a snap on/off modal and it would be a non-issue. . If you don't like the rules there is a really simple solution...don't buy a camera with a phone built into it...oops. Sorry phone with a camera built into it. I actually made that Freudian slip the other day. I’m getting really irked with these companies. Instead of focusing on getting better reception, battery life they are tossing every feature and then some into these devices. (Clue to moto. I couldn't give less of a crap about MP3 playback.) These devices are phones first and foremost. It would be nice if moto and the like took that into consideration before anything else. I actually had to go into a small HMO the other day to do some work. My coworker had the trendy phone. I have an older grayscale. (That gets superb battery life.) Guess who’s got confiscated. Guess who was able to continue to do his job and receive calls?

[C Sammet]

So would you let the average person walk into a building with a big clunky digital SLR because it pretty obvious? And no one would ever use that as way to steal secrets.
Anything that can be used to take a picture can be used to steal secrets it’s that simple. If you start making exceptions to that rule you WILL have people using it. Heck what is more natural then acting like you are dialing when in actuality you are snapping a picture.
What is being penalized here are the companies who are throwing these features in because they are trendy and the users who are buying them not because it’s a business function but because oooo cool I can send a picture of my dog to my mom.
That's what it really boils down to.

I'm sorry if I come off pissy but these rules have been around forever. Now people are bitching about them simply because all of a sudden manufacturers aren't taking these industries into consideration. If they were the CCD would be a snap on/off modal and it would be a non-issue. . If you don't like the rules there is a really simple solution...don't buy a camera with a phone built into it...oops. Sorry phone with a camera built into it. I actually made that Freudian slip the other day. I’m getting really irked with these companies. Instead of focusing on getting better reception, battery life they are tossing every feature and then some into these devices. (Clue to moto. I couldn't give less of a crap about MP3 playback.) These devices are phones first and foremost. It would be nice if moto and the like took that into consideration before anything else. I actually had to go into a small HMO the other day to do some work. My coworker had the trendy phone. I have an older grayscale. (That gets superb battery life.) Guess who’s got confiscated. Guess who was able to continue to do his job and receive calls?

Sorry, but you analogy doesn't fly. An SLR has only one purpose and that is to take pictures. A Phone with a Camera has multiple purposes and taking pictures isn't primary. As for the natural thing about sneaking pictures, I know folks who have used USB memory sticks to obtain items. I even know folks who were even more natural than that and made copies using the company's own copy machines.

The whole security issue with Camera/Phones is a waste and is ridiculous since it all boils down to protecting your assets and making them only available to those who need them. To act like eliminating Cameras in Phones or restricting them will prevent theft is being quite simple. It takes more work than that for a company to protect their assets from theft. My point is that for a company to worry about camera phones means they have larger holes elsewhere that are completely unprotected. This issue as a security risk is merely a red herring to make companies feel more secure. At the same time if I own a phone with a camera I now have to be concerned when entering a company since I will be judged guilty before innocent.

[PDANEWBIE]

I really have to wonder why noone has thought of this.. make a sensor on the phone and if the sensor gets within range of a transmitter it automatically "disables" any phones picture taking ability. Then you have the businesses that don't want that ability to have the transmitter installed and BOOM then noone is able to take the picture... Also have a built in failsafe if the sensor is covered up or disabled the phone just stops taking pictures altogether...

I understand the need for security but I think there are ALOT easier ways to take care of it than people are letting on.

Also I have never heard of any company say - "eliminating Cameras in Phones or restricting them will prevent theft". - What a company needs to do is to make sure as many bases as they can are covered and truely camera phones are a prevolent base in use these days.

[Tye]

I really have to wonder why noone has thought of this.. make a sensor on the phone and if the sensor gets within range of a transmitter it automatically "disables" any phones picture taking ability. Then you have the businesses that don't want that ability to have the transmitter installed and BOOM then noone is able to take the picture... Also have a built in failsafe if the sensor is covered up or disabled the phone just stops taking pictures altogether...

I understand the need for security but I think there are ALOT easier ways to take care of it than people are letting on.

Also I have never heard of any company say - "eliminating Cameras in Phones or restricting them will prevent theft". - What a company needs to do is to make sure as many bases as they can are covered and truely camera phones are a prevolent base in use these days.
I don't usually feel the need to chime in on this subject, but...
My problem with this approach is twofold:
1. As noted in other methods above. If somone really wants that picture, they will find a way to get. Whether it's a software or hardware hack, or a fake phone, or a camera in their coat button, they will get that photo.
2. If we do start blocking "legitimate" cameras with radio waves, how far do those signals travel? I run a small business in an office park. If my neighbor decides their trade secrets require this type of protection, does that mean my own camera will get blocked in my own office?
2b. That brings us back to good old fashioned compartmentalizing. Show people information on a need to know basis and have ironclad NDA's. I know, I know--those methods are fraught with their own problems. But in the end, some information will still get out, and no "innocents" are inconvenienced.
3. You would have to get the phone manufacturers in on this. Remember, they're businesses. They exist to make money. I just don't see this being a money making venture for them. &lt;--That doesn't mean I think all this is "OK". Just feel the point needs to be emphasized.
Alrighty, done rambling... Thanks for listening.

[Ed Hansberry]

1. As noted in other methods above. If somone really wants that picture, they will find a way to get. Whether it's a software or hardware hack, or a fake phone, or a camera in their coat button, they will get that photo.
Right, but the same can be said about the lock on your front door, or the safe at the bank, or the password on your PC. If anyone wants to try hard enough, they will get through those safeguards. Doesn't mean you don't lock your door though, does it? This measure, like most security measures, simply keeps honest people honest.

[Tye]

Right, but the same can be said about the lock on your front door, or the safe at the bank, or the password on your PC. If anyone wants to try hard enough, they will get through those safeguards. Doesn't mean you don't lock your door though, does it? This measure, like most security measures, simply keeps honest people honest.
Yeah, I see what you're saying. For me, where the analogies don't work, is that I'm locking my own front door and nobody else is locking me out of my own house. Now it might be different if someone else had a remote control to my front door and could decide when I could enter and leave. I hope I did a good job of explaining that.
I do agree with you about the big(gest in my opinion) part, though. In the end, we're only keeping the honest people honest.