08-27-2004, 01:00 AM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
USA Today say, Embedded Cameras, No Way
"It's a tiny piece of technology capable of pulling off workplace no-nos from corporate espionage to a look up a co-worker's skirt. The new-and-improved cell phone � now equipped with a camera � is forcing employers nationwide to consider banning the device that not so long ago was a must-have for on-the-go employees. "Within the past six months, almost every employer has begun to think about the risks cell phones pose," said Vincent Alfieri, a head of the labor and employment division at Bryan Cave law firm in New York. "Employers who had never thought of it, or had to think of it, are now.""
The USA Today article makes the point that many companies have long had a ban on camera in their offices. The fact that cameras now come embedded in PDAs and phones just make them more likely to enforce the prohibition. The list of companies banning all cameras on their premises include DaimlerChrysler, Texas Instruments, General Motors, Intel and interestingly the world's largest maker of camera phones, Samsung Electronics.
The advice to employers seems odd. The article says to consider installing a camera-jamming device (i.e. an electronic means to disable a camera in a certain area). I did not know that was possible. Is it possible? :?: Meanwhile the advice to workers is simpler. Basically, you read your company's employee handbook to learn its rules on camera phones and if they are banned, you leave yours at home or in the car. Or buy a phone or PDA without photo capability. Doh! That is, if you can find a decent PPC or phone without a camera. So far two out of the four new VGA PPCs have cameras. That is not a good trend for those of us that want to be able to actually take our PPCs with us everywhere....... :| You may think that you want a PPC with an embedded camera, but what about when you change jobs, or want to visit a sports centre or school etc. Will they allow cameras on their premises? Thoughts?
|
| |
|
|
|
08-27-2004, 01:31 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 17
|
|
My employer has required a camera pass for decades. Yes, decades, I've been there for two of them. However, camera phones and PDAs have chipped away at that policy, and now the official word is that passes are still required for actual cameras, but embedded cameras are the responsibility of the lab or manager concerned.
Lab security has been strengthened by orders of magnitude as a result. It's not to the point of a frisk at all labs, but in many, it is. All because of the new trend. I, for one, hope that it's a trend that dies out. We have enough problems maintaining personal privacy these days without the masses having the ability to snap a shot of whom- or whatever they wish covertly.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-27-2004, 01:45 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 185
|
|
Re: USA Today say, Embedded Cameras, No Way
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jonathon Watkins
The article says to consider installing a camera-jamming device (i.e. an electronic means to disable a camera in a certain area). I did not know that was possible. Is it possible? :?:
|
It does, just turn off the lights! :mrgreen:
Sorry....
|
| |
|
|
|
08-27-2004, 01:53 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,043
|
|
I find this subject depressingly lame whenever it gets posted, which this year has been at least once a week on one PPC site or another. I can see the issue being important if you happen to make weapons or do top-level research for a living, but seriously, what percentage of the population is actually engaged in those activities or other truly 'sensitive' work? Maybe 1 or 2%? Are they going to ban cameras at Walmart next, or on farms? Will it soon be necessary to smuggle a camera into you kid's school to snap a couple of shots at a band recital? I see a booming market in camera hats if that's to be the trend.
Ah, the joys of self-employment and working at home. I can have all the cameras I like, and if anyone wants to bring a camera to my workshop I'll be flattered at their interest in my work.
Is this a 'problem' in other countries as well, or just in the US? Europe has had affordable video phones for a few years now. Are companies all over Europe shutting down access to such device owners? I don't know, really, and am curious as to comparative knee-jerk reactionary policies in other countries.
__________________
Gerard Ivan Samija
|
| |
|
|
|
08-27-2004, 01:54 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 706
|
|
One major car manufactuer in Austrlaia has come up with a novel approach to this. They buy highly featured cell phones for staff. If the phone has a camera they simply shatter its lens with a gentle tap of a hammer and nail.
__________________
Get your Pocket Mojo. Anthony Caruana is the Mojo master. |
| |
|
|
|
08-27-2004, 02:00 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 32
|
|
Ever since we started to think about the future in a technological fashion we envisioned the "video phone." Today we're literally on the threshold of that realisation. The contemporary camera-phone is merely the predecessor to tomorrow's fatter mobile networks' video-phones. Look at your wi-fi/blue-tooth-esque wristphone and see each other during yor call. The total huge utility of such a device blasts away silly, short-lived prohibitions on such devices.
When that tomorrow happens, ideas as silly as banning "personal video devices" shall be archane. "If my employer can video my actions, i should be allowed to video my actions as well -- never mind who doesn't want video on during a call???"
Utility and desire is the best way to change anything.
[email protected]
|
| |
|
|
|
08-27-2004, 02:04 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,911
|
|
I like my camera-phone. I like having the people's picture come up when they call me.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-27-2004, 02:15 AM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 275
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dean_shan
I like my camera-phone. I like having the people's picture come up when they call me.
|
(underline mine)... uhmmmm dean... you don't need to have a camera-phone for that feature.
__________________
John Cruz
|
| |
|
|
|
08-27-2004, 02:17 AM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 267
|
|
I was never for stupid gimmick cameras............ so this is a good topic for me. 
|
| |
|
|
|
08-27-2004, 02:33 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 131
|
|
The reporter didn't do a good job on the facts. On the HP website, they emphasized that the reason they had twoh6315's, one with a camera and the other without was because there was a high demand for camera phones in certain feilds eg surveying, construction, research etc. They even have a case study on the camera phone. I've forgotten the linkbut its in the FAQ section.
It is true that camera phones are hazardous to sensitive/secretive data but the reverse can also be said for their need. Personally I don't use camera phones because of the low quality though my Ipaq has one.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
