Camera-Phone Backlash Begins

[Mike Temporale]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3793501.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3793501.stm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"The booming popularity of camera phones which can snap and instantly send photos - and, with some models, short video clips - have piqued fears about workplace security. The prospect of sensitive information being snapped and sent to other phones, copied to websites or e-mailed to others has prompted the likes of Intel, the phone maker Samsung, the UK's Foreign Office and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories in the United States to go as far as banning camera phones from their buildings. At previews for popular films, reviewers are being asked to leave such gadgets behind, to prevent unauthorised stills being leaked before the release date." </i><br /><br />The BBC story that the quote above was taken from, hits the nail on the head. There are a lot of firms that are tightening up their security procedures with the increasing availability of phones with embedded cameras. Due to customer demand Sprint have released a version of the Treo 600 smartphone without a camera, but isn't that the wrong way around? Surely phones should come without a camera, unless there is specific customer demand for such a toy?<br /><br /><i>"Although convictions for the misuse of camera phones have so far involved invasion of privacy rather than corporate espionage, those with secrets worth stealing worry that it is a matter of if, not when. Tim Donahue, of Sprint, says those in the fields of finance, government, hi-tech manufacturing, and research and development are most concerned. "They're just scared to death someone might take a photograph of something."" </i><br /><br />Quite apart from those problems, there are privacy and child protection issues as well. My local fitness centres has banned cameras on the premises and I understand that the same thing goes for the local schools. The BBC article concludes that camera-phones are soon going to become ubiquitous. If this is the case it is important for those who want/need their phones with them at all times, to let the manufacturers know that they don't want cameras embedded. So, what are your thoughts on the issue?

[Ben]

I have believed for a long time now that the proper solution is to make the camera removable. I have seen people put electrical tape over the camera to comply with restrictions! I personally believe that the camera portion of every phone should "pop off" and have a block of plastic to go in its place for the mornings that people are going to an office where the camera is forbidden. Just like modular drives in laptops, people should be able to put in different things (a GPS, a camera, extra storage capacity or battery life) or just leave a plain filler in the spot for the modular device.

:idea:

I sincerely believe this is the proper solution to the problem and will be the approach of some successful company that ends up grabbing serious market share in the cell phone industry when the various issues and competing ideals of working in a highly connected mobile world collide.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I personally believe that the camera portion of every phone should "pop off" and have a block of plastic to go in its place for the mornings that people are going to an office where the camera is forbidden.

Now that IS a good idea. I'm not sure that the OEMs will take it up though. Perhaps if we ask them nicely. :wink:

Seriously - the only way to get something like this is to ask - or be asked onto a focus group - real power! :lol:

[ShivShanks]

I personally believe that the camera portion of every phone should "pop off" and have a block of plastic to go in its place for the mornings that people are going to an office where the camera is forbidden.

Now that IS a good idea. I'm not sure that the OEMs will take it up though. Perhaps if we ask them nicely. :wink:

Seriously - the only way to get something like this is to ask - or be asked onto a focus group - real power! :lol:

Actually there are some other good ideas too. But first the problem with most of these bans and rules is enforcing them. Sure the Gym I go to (well mostly don't go to and just pay dues :) ), has rules about camera phones not being used, but who the heck enforces it or checks for it anyway and is it even possible? My friend has a Treo 600 with a camera and always has it with him. Who is to stop him from surreptiously taking the picture of some nude guy in the gym and doing some photoshoppery and getting the person in trouble? Okay today's VGA cameras aren't probably the best for that, but don't worry the many megapixel camera phones aren't far away.

A much better idea is a mandatory loud audible sound to be emitted when taking a photograph. That way unwary people being surreptiously shot can always be alterted and can do a bit of self policing or call to attention others to help them. This of course doesn't work with inanimate objects. Beyond a point there is actually nothing you can do to stop some of these technologies from invading our lives at least at places where the rules and policing isn't strong. And in some cases these devices can even be useful. There have been cases of attackers being caught on a cameraphone proving useful in catching them. As with most things we'll have to learn to live with them and find creative ways to deal with it.

[possmann]

this has quite a bit of attention on the pocketpcthoughts web site and for the most part I agree that either 2 models should be offered, or some sort of a pop-off feature... Having it use the SDIO slot isn't the solution because it will stick out so something should be done. Then why would I want to purchase a business phone for my employees and then pay for a gadget that has no business purpose?

The phone feature is nice, but not for business use at all.

[Mike Temporale]

IMHO, the best chance at enforcing these is to require all embedded cameras to adhere to a given set of rules or standards. One of which would render the camera un-usable when a specific signal is broadcasted. Kind of like a cell phone jammer. Companies could then buy Embedded Camera Jammers, and not have to worry about people taking pictures.

[possmann]

Interesting idea Mike - I never thought about that... a digital camera blocker

[Mike Temporale]

Interesting idea Mike - I never thought about that... a digital camera blocker

:mrgreen: I stressed the embedded part because I don't think these problems really apply to regular digital cameras. And you don't want to cause problems for the professional photographer who is getting paid to take pictures of a company event or something. Plus, typically these guys aren't the ones you need to worry about. It's very easy to see the camera and flash when a picture is taken. It's just the embedded ones that are really a concern.

[Ben]

I don't know if audible beeps or camera jamming signals are really the solution. I think those ideas are fine in principle, but unlikely to succeed in a world where the cell phone users who are interested in stealing information also tend to be technologically savvy. It is not difficult to disable those kinds of features, even if legal regulations require the manufacturers to build phones with them. Of course, people who really want to steal data won't use a cell phone camera, anyway, they will use one that is built into their lapel pin, bow tie, or some other innocent-looking piece of clothing.

I think the camera should pop off for the gym or office, and criminal laws should protect privacy by fining people or giving them jail time for taking pictures in gym locker rooms, offices, and similar places. That and the right to kick people out of the gym and have them forfeit their membership fees (which can be explained contractually at the time of signing for membership) will solve the problem.

[refnulf]

It's going to be exceedingly hard to search everyone that enters a gym, or the workplace for their cameraphones. What are you going to do? Use metal detectors like at the airport? It's just going to be a hassle. Imagine trying to keep em out at concerts...

But I wouldn't really worry about that too much because digital cameras are getting smaller and smaller while offering higher megapixels than before. So take the camera, I'd still have my digital camera, and if you take that, my boots would probably have a camera in it, or maybe my tie...

And who's to say that if the camera could pop up from the phone, that people would actually remove the camera and replace it with a plastic block or whatever? And about digital camera blockers or whatever, I don't think that's possible atm. They're not running on any frequency or whatever to jam.

The problems are endless, only solution is to destroy every camera with a phone and make new laws that outlaw the fusion of camera and phone. YEAH!!!

[Mike Temporale]

And about digital camera blockers or whatever, I don't think that's possible atm. They're not running on any frequency or whatever to jam.

Right, not at this moment. However it is something that can be legislated and enforced through the FCC. In much the same way that mobile phones must work within a given frequency. Embedded cameras would have to listen on a specific frequency.

Nothing is going to stop the pro from getting what they want. It will stop the average joe looking to be a goof.