12-06-2003, 08:00 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
New Phones Raise Privacy Fears
"You've just flipped the bird at a driver who splashed you with mud. A rude moment soon forgotten by anyone who saw it, right? Maybe not, if one of those witnesses has a cell phone with a digital camera. Long a staple overseas, "cam phones" arrived here in 2002, promising sleek and cheap--under $100--fun with a voyeuristic twist. And they're taking off: 7 million of 72 million cell phones shipped in the U.S. have cameras; by 2007, 51 million out of over 110 million will have them, predicts research firm IDC.
The same size as regular cell phones, cam phones can snap photos while users appear to make calls. Candid shots can be e-mailed to friends or sent to sites that have automated "moblogging" (mobile blogging) such as Buzznet.com, Fotolog.net, and Textamerica.com, and there viewed worldwide in seconds. That means every faux pas, and even more private moments (in locker rooms or store dressing areas, say), can become fodder for public consumption."
So, what do you think? Are camera phones and PDAs with built-in cameras and wireless more trouble that they're worth, or do they represent a truly useful digital tool? Never having had a phone or PDA with a camera built in, I'm sitting in the middle on this one. I can see the potential for abuse, but that doesn't invalidate the usefulness of a technology - people can get addicted to online gambling, but that doesn't mean that Internet access is an evil thing.
One of the things I believe will start to happen is that phone and PDA makers will have to start offering two otherwise identical models: one with a camera, and one without. There are too many instances and companies that are banning camera phones, and a phone OEM doesn't want to shut off sales to a whole segment of the market.
What do you think about camera phones and PDAs with built-in cameras? Is there a difference between the two in terms of how people perceive them because of size and form-factor?
|
| |
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 08:18 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 153
|
|
few camera phones are much better way to make polite society than guns.
I can't wait until politician can't go anywhere on the planet and saying something stupid without being broadcast instantly on the net. Surveillence society goes both ways.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 08:35 PM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 495
|
|
There are several philosophical and sociological aspects of the widespread use of cameras. Some uses will be abusive in non-personal ways such as taking photos of a competitors product, some abuses will be motivated by personal gain such as voyeurism, and other uses will be to simply document life's experiences.
For reasons that are not entirely clear, we live in a culture that 1. fosters ignorance (typically for monetary gain as well as denial as a means of emotional comfort) and 2. strives to maintain a social environment where there is always the option for deviant behavior if one chooses. Why don�t cars have speed regulators if it�s illegal to drive over a speed limit? Why don�t people want GPS in their cars if it would be helpful for car theft?
By documenting life's experiences I'm not sure that 1. will change but it will definitely influence number 2. as the example of "flipping off" another driver illustrates.
In the broader sense what impact will cameras everywhere have on crime? There already plenty of examples of ATM cameras being used to gather information about crimes that just happen to occur in the background (I think photos of one of the terrorists in Turkey recently were taken from an ATM showing the car bomb driver smiling as he raced by in the background). How difficult will it be to be mugged or attacked in the future when we are covered with personal wireless networks and cameras that record our every move?
If you�re interested in the philosophical aspects of these questions feel free to continue the discussion here... (I quickly jotted down some of my thoughts about the subject some time ago...)
> HERE <
|
| |
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 08:37 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 797
|
|
Re: New Phones Raise Privacy Fears
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
What do you think about camera phones and PDAs with built-in cameras? Is there a difference between the two in terms of how people perceive them because of size and form-factor?
|
Truthfully, barring a major quality increase, people will always kinda look at them as novelties or toys. I've had three different camera phones, and I notice people are more interested in the neato factor than anything else (especially considering there is very little realistic use for a 238x162 picture of Aunt Frieda's Apple Pie). What it cool, though, is the concept of sharing something cool immediately. No more (I wish you were here; you'd have to see it to believe it).
The great thing about camera phones is they allow you to not just tell someone what you're seeing at any given moment, but actually show it to them. It's hard to argue that that isn't cool...
I would just like to see a major increase in resolution (even to the point of 1mp) and image quality (really an adjustment in white balance would probably improve the quality drastically).
There's always going to be a market for these as gadget freaks will love them and the carriers love selling them because they can sell a data bolt-on with the phone for people to e-mail their pictures.
I have a feeling they're here to stay.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 08:38 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 130
|
|
OK, I'll bite......
I have a couple of comments about this..... which to tackle first.
Let's take the more general issue first. In the article cited, it says:
Quote:
No matter what camera is used, it's never good form "to take anyone's picture without his or her knowledge or permission," says Dan Wilinsky, Sprint's director of media relations.
Today, however, discretion is left to individual judgment.
|
Well.... to a certain extent. I'm a semi-professional photographer (see more below) and there are laws in place for a lot of this already..... it's just most people aren't aware of them. If I take a photograph of you in a public or private location, and you are not "reasonably recognizable" (subject to court interpretation) I can use that image in any way I so choose. If I take a photograph of you FROM a public place (note *you* don't have to be in a public place..... only the photographer), I can use that image in any way I choose for "editorial or educational purposes only". Meaning..... I can take a recognizable photo of you on a public street, and use it to accompany an article in a newspaper on the recent rise in STDs in that city, or to accompany the text in a schoolbook or the like.... and there's nothing you can do. Use it to sell beer? I'm toast.
If I'm on private property, and I take a photograph of you, I'd better have a model release before I use it for anything. period. Not to mention both you and the property owner have the right to stop me and/or confiscate the film (or digital media).
Is it right to have free use of photos taken from public places? Well.... I tend to be above board with my photography, so I'll not enter into that.
Now for the rest of my rant.
I've been shopping for a new cell phone.... can I find one without a camera? Not to get the other feature I want..... they just don't make a phone with bluetooth at a reasonable price without also throwing in a camera. It's a major part of discussion over on the various Cell Phone forums. Frankly, most people seem to want better reception or other features more than they want a camera, and they're getting a little tired of the current trend of putting a camera in every phone.
Personally, the only "device" I carry more than my PDA is a camera. I'm a semi-pro photographer (read that: I don't make a living from it but I've sold some of my work). I much prefer to carry my view camera (makes 4 inch by 5 inch film negatives) but always carry my compact 35mm film camera. I don't want to enter the film vs. digital debate because they both have their places..... it's just film is the thing for me. I don't have a digital camera, don't need one, don't want one. Spend extra on a PDA or phone to get one? No way. Waste of money for me.
As always..... YMMV
|
| |
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 08:51 PM
|
|
Editorial Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,411
|
|
I just got a T610. It has a camera. I'd just as soon it didn't. I really have no need for a low quality camera in my phone. Currently I can't take a cell in where I work anyway, so the camera was not big deal. Where I worked before, I could take my phone in, but not a camera, hence not a phone with a camera. I would at that point not have bought the T610. I consider the T610 an interim phone anyway. It will last until T-Mobile supports a Smartphone with BT, and preferably without a built in camera.
I read more and more references to employers banning cameras from the workplace, other than for official use. (Be hard for the security guys to make picture ID badges, if they couldn't have a camera, etc.)
Hopefully the phone manufacturers will come up with a different gimmick. I hope it is an SDIO slot, so that you can add memory, or that camera, or a GPS, or an FM radio, or whatever you want, that I don't want, and don't want to pay for.
__________________
Sometimes you are the anteater, sometimes you are the ant.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 08:51 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 181
|
|
I have a camera phone, but I have to say that I think manufacturers probably should look seriously at designing more models WITHOUT cameras. They definitely are not necessary, and will cause problems because people no longer respect privacy or have much in the way of manners.
I was sitting in class the other day, and about two rows in front of me is a really nervous girl that bites her nails and sometimes reaches up to her nose to do a little dirty business. Now she is pretty hot otherwise, but that's pretty nasty, and I certainly didn't like the idea that there were two girls sneaking pictures of her doing this. It seems kind of mean...we all know she has "issues" like anorexia and confidence problems and what was being done was probably only going to spread more talk around, imagine how the girl would feel if she knew what they had been doing.
I'm sure that there are times that all of us do something in public that we might be ok with having those in our immediate vicinity see or hear, but would not be comfortable having done the same thing were we to know that that act would be available for EVERYONE to see. Politicians and celebrities should be able to have their private moments too...I would hate to have to close my house up into a a cave-like state just to avoid having the world peer in at all times, or having to drive around with tinted windows on the car. Cameras are great for certain things, and it is convenient to have it in something that is always in my pocket yet I think that they are probably going to cost us even more in the way of privacy.
I'm not saying that they should be banned from sale or anything drastic, but I certainly would ban them at my place of business, gym, certain buildings...etc...so maybe it would be good to have certain high-end phones that don't include this gadget(and the low-end models too).
|
| |
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 08:56 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 797
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Silver5
I'm not saying that they should be banned from sale or anything drastic, but I certainly would ban them at my place of business, gym, certain buildings...etc...so maybe it would be good to have certain high-end phones that don't include this gadget(and the low-end models too).
|
That creates a whole new problem, though. Namely, at what point do you stop regulating trust and require people to look out for themselves?
I'm not saying people should run roughshod over the privacy of others, but for example, the girl who picked her nose; the wrong people here were the girls sneaking pictures, but in reality if you're in a public place, you don't have an expectation of privacy...
You could make a case that they should be banned everywhere, at which point all you're doing is banning the instrument and doing nothing to correct the societal problem in the first place. You have to be more responsible for your own behavior, to a degree. The girl picking her nose has to learn not to do it in public. If it isn't people with camera phones, it'll be people with pen-cams. You can stop one form of tech, but you can't stop them all.
Best to leave them all be and let society take care of itself.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 09:01 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 734
|
|
I have a camera phone myself - well, a Sony Ericsson T300 with a camera which you can attach to it. It actually makes pretty decent photos. They're fun, but also a definite security risk, not to mention a severe breach of privacy.
I don't use my camera phone to take pictures of people, and I do not allow people to take photographs of me. period. I do not allow camera phones near me, my property, or family.
But then, I'm paranoid.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 09:32 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 137
|
|
What difference does it make whether someone has a camera, or a phone with a camera? There shouldn't be any kind of restrictions placed upon a camera because it happens to be included as part of a phone.
Having a camera in my phone has been very convenient for me.
Being a semi-pro photographer, I have some kind of camera with me almost all of the time anyway. A lot of my "great" pictures were taken spur-of-the-moment when other people wouldn't normally have a camera with them. The fact that I have a camera phone now (thankfully, one with above-average quality) allows me to leave my other camera(s) in the car until I need a picture with higher quality.
But it all boils down to people being ethical and responsible for themselves. People that carry cameras--in a phone or otherwise--should be responsible enough to not take pictures that shouldn't be taken. Respect the wishes of others... Conversely, if someone is doing something that they don't want others to see, do it somewhere private. Any person in a public place can be seen by anyone around them. If there happens to be a camera to capture that moment, so be it. They are letting whatever people are around at the time see their actions anyway. They are already subject to public viewing. Having their picture taken just allows a bigger part of the public to see that.
On another issue, I do agree that there needs to be feature phones without cameras. (To the individual looking for a bluetooth phone without a camera, there's the T68i... camera attachment optional, though I can't give a high recommendation to the phone) There are just certain places that cameras are inappropriate, where a cell phone would be acceptible. Then again, there are places where a cell phone is inappropriate but a camera would be ok. Goes both ways.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
