New Phones Raise Privacy Fears

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113632,tk,dn120403X,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article...n120403X,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div>"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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?

[SandersP]

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.

[Cortex]

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 (http://brainthoughts.com/viewtopic.php?t=5) &lt;

[Vincent M Ferrari]

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.

[dmy]

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:

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

[Sven Johannsen]

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.

[Silver5]

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).

[Vincent M Ferrari]

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.

[bjornkeizers]

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.

[djdj]

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.

[David Prahl]

I don't see a need to ban camera phones or devices any time soon. A few reasons:

People can take any old digital camera with them and not be very obtrusive. In a few years a person pointing a cell phone will be more obvious that a person taking a picture with a camera (or close to it, at least).

People will always abuse technology. Whether it be prank calls on a cell phone, spam on your PC, or gun-related violence. Remember that scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey when the "apes" first use a club? On each other?

This fad will wear thin quickly. People will love their camera phones for a few months and then just use them as phones. I think the "fun factor" will wear off on most people.

What are the chances? People with camera phones aren't predators waiting on street corners with spare batteries in their pockets. How many people are going to sit around with their phone out waiting for somebody to do something stupid?

Would I like a phone or PDA with an integrated camera? You bet! Would I take pictures and start a moblog? Probably. Would I use it to blackmail people? No way. The real issue here is not technology, but the morals of the end user.

[Kati Compton]

I do not allow camera phones near me, my property, or family.

But then, I'm paranoid.
This isn't intended to be snide -

Why is your avatar a picture of yourself, then?

[corphack]

I don't think the manufacturers can afford to produce dual product lines (unless they significantly drop the price of the non-camera models). Society is probably going to have to get used to a reduction in the level of privacy they can expect when they're out in public. Of course, we could try to legislate it away, but at its worst its a harmless vice (when it is a vice), at its best it will be a significant new art form. Also, any legislation will also have to determine deffinitional boundaries between invasions of privacy, art, and freedom of speech/freedom of the press. I doubt that will ever happen, so people will probably just have to get used to being on display - exhibitionism and voyerism are exciting for some; I predict that more people are going to discover the meaning of the word "fetish".

[malcolmsharp]

Check this out...

"One variation on this theme would be to forbid any power center--the government, police, or corporations--from having monopoly control. Instead, the power of sight goes to everybody."

David Brin. Read the whole thing here...

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.06.97/cover/brin1-9706.html

To some extent, I agree with him. If we are going this way (and we seem to be), then we need to make the tools open. Cameras on every street corner? Hook them all up to the web.

Anyway, an interesting take on this issue.

[surur]

Ive got an XDA 2, which has a 640× 480 camera, and I use it every day. I dont use it to take pics of people, although I could but to make a quick record of something visual such as a notice board, time table documents etc.

It Is much faster than writing something down. I only hope that one day ocr gets built into these devices, which will make an end to copying text to electronic form.

Digital cams are electonic so I expect in two years time all camera phones will be 2 Mega pixel at least (and our real cameras 30 Megapixel) and the problems of quality will be due to the small optics. I believe Sony has already made a PDA with a 2 Meg camera.

The hardware is here, only the software is lacking. I would love to be able to easily annotate a pic on my XDa for eg.

In fact pictures are not a real problem. Some one must still decide to take it. When eyeglass video cameras come out, to go with our 4 G phones in 5y time, and we are constantly recording what we see and storing it on our sever at home over the network privacy will have disappeared completely.

There is nothing really to stop this from happening, but there will be real advantages, like less muggings, and less antisocial behaviour, and much more honesty (I have often wondered why the audio equivalent is not available. How many times have you not wished you had a record of what that salesman had said over the telephone)

So anyways, The revolution is just starting!

Surur

p.s. All errors courtesy of Transcriber :)

[dMores]

"you must let the bad in with the good".
the problem is, when they decide to regulate something basic as camera phones, they pretty much inhibit everything. that's something i find scarier than the thought of someone taking a picture of me kissing my girlfriend.

on the other hand, i would probably not like up-the-skirt pics of my girlfriend on the net. but most of the time, those voyeurs take pictures that barely show a person's face. so it would not really be offending to see my girlfriend's butt on the net, when i would be the only one knowing it actually is her.

anyways, i want a camphone. i have been in so many situations where i wish i had one, and even though i have a t68i with the camera-snap-on, it is usually snapped-off when i need it most :?

[DrtyBlvd]

I do not allow camera phones near me, my property, or family.

But then, I'm paranoid.
This isn't intended to be snide -

Why is your avatar a picture of yourself, then?

ROFL.... Maybe it isn't!

(Or maybe he's completely confident that people are out to get him!:)
:lol:

[DrtyBlvd]

Camera phones. Waste of time?

Everyone I know, and I do mean everyone, has a phone with a camera - and no-one, and I do mean no-one, uses it.

Sure, we all tried at the start, but it doesn't 'have the legs', it seems, unless you are a student, by all accounts, really... And even that may be a poor broad-brush generalisation.

One nice touch is being able to use a photo as a visual signal when someone rings you - I have a couple that make me laugh everytime those people ring - that I DO like...

People having the ability to take such pictures are not a problem to me; nor, I would guess, to most others - the greater issue of invasion of privacy is a somewhat moot one in my opinion; witness how many times you are filmed, or rather, "caught" on camera whist going shopping for example - on the road, in the car park, in the pedestrian areas, in the shops themselves etc etc etc. The 'invasion of privacy' arguments still rumble on about those circumstances, but not to any great degree I believe.

Technologically, I love the webcam to the pda ability - view home from anywhere, with my daughters waving at me sort of thing - remote camera viewing has the ability to be a bit more of an issue I would say! Especially with the cost and size of pinhole cameras nowadays, letalone dial-in multiplexes... :D

[Cortex]

Check this out...

"One variation on this theme would be to forbid any power center--the government, police, or corporations--from having monopoly control. Instead, the power of sight goes to everybody."

David Brin. Read the whole thing here...

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.06.97/cover/brin1-9706.html

To some extent, I agree with him. If we are going this way (and we seem to be), then we need to make the tools open. Cameras on every street corner? Hook them all up to the web.

Anyway, an interesting take on this issue.

the article looks very nice and echos my thoughts. rather than being extensively abused i think the main effect of widespread use of cameras will be a refinement of peoples perceptions about ourselves.

in general an amazing percentage of people feel like the things they do are somehow significant -- at least significant enough to try to keep them private. that very belief fosters the temptation for people to try to expose whats being hidden and creates stigmas for behaviors that in reality or pretty mundane.

cameras will simply point out how boring (and similar) we really are....
removing some of those stigmas will make us more rational and help us appriciate the things in life that really matter...

ps. we all pick our noses

[Stik]

Camera phones? Just watch this controversial issue ' snowball ' .

Samsung's banned them from most of their factories...

Samsung Electronics, the world's largest chipmaker, yesterday said it
would block employees and visitors from bringing their camera phones
into semiconductor, flat-panel and electronics factories.

The ban will be effective from July 14, a sweeping measure that will
affect major factories and work places of Samsung, which is keen to
protect its cutting-edge technologies against industrial espionage.

Ironically, Samsung is the leading maker of high-end camera phones,
dominating the domestic market and spearheading innovation in the
global mobile handset industry.

http://seclists.org/lists/isn/2003/Jul/0031.html

A pool ban in Australlia and elsewhere...

Mobiles are to be banned from swimming pools across Australia amid fears that camera phones are being misused.
The ban will affect more than 300 gyms, pools and sports centres across the country run by the YMCAs of Australia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2984780.stm

Italy is no exception...

Furtive phone photography spurs ban

Italy's data protection commissioner has issued stringent rules governing how the phones can be used and some other organisations, including strip clubs and gyms, have banned the phones from their premises.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2916353.stm

Saudi Arabia has had an outright ban on camera phones since 2002 ...

Saudi Arabia has banned the sale of mobile phones with built-in digital cameras after men were reported to be using the devices to photograph women secretly.

The Commission for Promoting Virtue and Preventing Vice wants an investigation into the possibility of the phones being "misused by wicked people".

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_681800.html

Makes for a thriving black market :wink:

Banned Camera Phones Selling Like Hot Cakes in Jeddah’s Black Market

JEDDAH, 28 November 2003 — Mobile camera phones are hot sellers this Eid season despite a Kingdomwide ban and a significant increase in retail price.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=35625&d=28&m=11&y=2003&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom

In the States?

So far, private organizations are the only groups to take the step of banning cellphone cameras. But if a piece of legislation being sponsored by Ohio Representative Michael Oxley wins approval in Congress, the usage of these cameras could soon be restricted on all federal property. That would include national parks, cemeteries, even the Capitol Building.

Tim Johnson, a spokesperson for Representative Oxley, says it isn't just the size of these cameras that has lawmakers concerned. He adds they're also concerned that the digital nature of the photographs allows for the pictures to be widely disseminated.

"Congress is trying to update what we're sort of calling our old privacy laws, which were formed when people were just taking still photography, to a day when you can have not just an electronic picture taken, but put it over the internet, and suddenly you become very public to millions of people across the world," says Tim Johnson.

The legislation wouldn't completely ban cellphone cameras on federal property, but it would ban the use of these devises to take pictures of anyone in "sensitive or compromising states." It would also ban the electronic distribution of any of these pictures.

Tim Johnson says Representative Oxley and his supporters are hoping the federal legislation could serve as a model for states and municipalities. But representatives from the cellphone manufacturing industry aren't convinced the problem has gotten so out of hand that a federal law is necessary.

"We don't think there's a need for any additional controls to be placed on wireless phones at this point," says Rich Blasi, media director for AT&T Wireless. "You know, policing this in places like gyms and such, that can be done on a localized basis."

Cellphone manufacturers may not see a need, but by all indications, Congress does. The legislation that would restrict cellphone camera usage has already been passed by the Senate, and Tim Johnson says Representative Michael Oxley expects the bill to win the approval of the House before the new congressional session begins in January.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=2940FE84-696D-436E-8F01064B77AB500D

[tanalasta]

Camera phones... like a lot of new technology can actually be quite useful, a fun novelty or / and often abused.

In Australia, it was only a few months ago that someone was caught taking camera photos of people in a somewhat unsavoury manner - namely public toilets and changerooms. Somehow, the newspapers caught on to this and proceeded to rant about 'protecting our privacy' and 'banning these from public changerooms' for the next few days before it all died down again. So yes, the opportunity for abuse (especially as the newspaper correctly mentioned that these photos may well end up being shared or posted on the net by sick individuals).

However, lets not let an over-reaction dampen what is otherwise a fine technology that will eventually get even better. I can envision in a few years time, camera phones (with suitable memory cards) being able to take 3+ megapixel photos and videos. Heck, the 3G network in Australia already allows video conferencing which is not only useful, but as their TV advertisment with a girl and guy flirting/undressing ... even i could put that to good use with a partner ;) And MMS'ing friends, being able to take interesting photos at a party (not everyone can afford to have a small digital camera in their pocket). It's always nice to have a photo phonebook. So yes, lets keep the phone cameras rolling. And if people abuse it, smack them down. Not only because they deserve to be, but they generate negative publicity and a stigma for what is otherwise a fine piece of gagetry :)

Sorry for all the grammatical errors... Someone else was fighting for the computer... i'll edit this when i have the time ;)

[Oleander]

So yes, lets keep the phone cameras rolling. And if people abuse it, smack them down.

There's just one little problem...

How do you define "them"?
Let me answer that for you.. You don't. You just ban everything that just comes close to looking like a cam phone. Wich means that here in Denmark where I live, there are now many places where the use of a phone (or a PPC for that matter) are banned due to a few harebrained morons, who really don't know how to behave properly. :evil:

[tanalasta]

You just ban everything that just comes close to looking like a cam phone. Which means that here in Denmark where I live, there are now many places where the use of a phone (or a PPC for that matter) are banned due to a few harebrained morons, who really don't know how to behave properly.

That really is quite sad. I'm not 100% sure as I don't memorize every news article but I would assume severely fining (jailing is a bit harsh) people that get caught in the act would be a fitting deterrent. It would (and is) most unfair to inconvenience the majority of people who own camera phones because of a "few hairbrained morons". Just out of curiosity, what is the punishment for not adhering to the Denmark ban? One would think that common sense would prevail when using camera phones.

[Oleander]

I'm not sure, but I guess that you can be fined to something like 80$.

But for me, what is more annoying is the fact, that now, I will have a hard time trying to prove that my PPC is neither a phone nor a camera, and more often than not, probably have to hand over my PPC for custody until I leave, or leave... 8O

[dma1965]

My son is due to be born in 2 weeks, and I intend to snap his picture and email it to everyone I know the moment it happens. Yesterday, a friend was over my house and his 3 year old son had the most silly grin on his face I have ever seen, so I snapped it and and emailed it to my friend on the spot. Precious moments!
We should NOT punish everyone because of the actions of a few bad apples !

[hakeashar]

I don't think cameras will be that big of a problem.

For the destardly perverted, there have been mini spy cams and xray glasses for the longest time. So it's not like they're benefitting from this. It's that this might tempt the average joe who now has this ability to snap pictures anywhere to use it for unsavoury purposes. But, I don't think this will be a problem because like any new technology, laws are made to restrict usage and create taboos. Look at cell phones.

For me, I think CCD's are a huge step for humans and I can't wait for a camera in my PDA. There have been many times in the recent past when a camera would've been useful to have at that time

So I want in my next PDA a camera and GPS. GPS is like the camera thing. I think they're scared of releasing it because they think everyone won't look where they're going and hit things. That's nonesense, GPS would be extremely useful to me, and it would probably encourage me to travel abit more locally. Casio put GPS into a watch, so the means exist to make it small enough for PDA's. Cost aside, why haven't we seen this in any high end PDA's yet? We could have GPS but we get biometric scanners.... :| :roll:

Whoa where's this going. Time for another cup of coffee.... :mrgreen:

[Jon Westfall]

In South Korea, only cameras that emit a 65-decibel or louder noise will be allowed to take pictures. Perhaps this is a good compromise rather than ban them totally - at least someone knows that a camera phone is around and taking pictures.

I'm suprised Jason didn't mention this piece from wired in his initial post :wink:

[paulv]

My biggest problem with these phones is how they are perceived in society.

- If I bring a camera into a private area then everyone will instantly think I'm up to no good.

- If I bring a mobile phone into a private area then "who cares". Mobile phones are now seen as a normal attachment in our lives.

What's missing in many arguments is that nearly everyone perceives that a phone is a phone used to make phone calls - ie nobody cares where you take it. If you carry a camera around then it's VERY clear that you intend to take photos. So I see these camphones as being very easily abused, particularly by the immature.

Here in Oz (and I imagine the US) ANYONE can get a phone. You certainly don't get a psych test to check that you're a well-rounded individual. This means that whilst the majority of people are going to use these for reasonable use, there are still going to be lots of idiots who use it for other purposes - and you won't know because the camera is "disguised" as a phone. This isn't any cleaner then than a guy with a camera in a carry bag shooting through a hole in the bag.

Is there an easy answer? Not a chance but I'm all for banning them in places where people still expect some privacy such as changing rooms.

Truly public areas are a bit different though and we'll all have to learn to live with lessened privacy.

[cribbagewiz]

At my company, cameras are not allowed. We do a lot of confidential, intellectual property sorts of work at my company,and we cannot afford to let people take pictures of products under development.

Camera phones have cameras in them, and as such, are not allowed on site. Anyone caught with a camera phone will be escorted to security where the phone will be confiscated until such time as the person leaves the site.

This is an entirely appropriate response, in my opinion. I would argue that the surrender of cell phones until departure is something that many, many other establishments should adopt if they actually care about cell phone etiquette. I am also in favor of cell phone dampening devices, should the property desire it.

I have a cell phone. Have had one for almost ten years, in fact. I have come to depend on my cell phone. If I feel like talking on it, I will, with no regard whatsoever to the people around me. If the place I do so wants to spare the people around me that particular "intrusion", then one of the two strategies above should be used.

Likewise, cameras do nothing more than allow the capture of images. In a public place, there is no assumption of privacy. You want to flip someone off? Go right ahead, but be prepared for someone to capture that moment and either post in on the Internet, or even televise or publish it.

Welcome to the 21st century.

cribbagewiz

[bjornkeizers]

I do not allow camera phones near me, my property, or family.

But then, I'm paranoid.
This isn't intended to be snide -

Why is your avatar a picture of yourself, then?

I took that picture myself. [it's actually an edit] - people with camera phones can take pictures without me knowing it, and I dont like people taking pictures of me, family or property without my consent. At least if they point a normal camera at you, you know it's a camera.. but with these new camera phones with built in camera, you don't know if someone is making a phonecall, or taking a picture of you for god knows what reason. Next thing you know, you're the next Star Wars kid because of someone taking your pic and sending it to his friends :D

Someone said that normal cameras pose the same risk. I have to disagree. A normal camera can't send pictures to other cameras.

[dochall]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/2998818.stm


It's not the technology just tge morons who use it.

[dMores]

Someone said that normal cameras pose the same risk. I have to disagree. A normal camera can't send pictures to other cameras.i believe there are sony cameras with bluetooth available. i have also seen a digital video camera from sony that's bluetooth enabled. allows you to check your mail on that miniature screen of the camcorder :)
and you can send pics the same way.

but isn't it obvious when someone is taking a picture with a cameraphone? arm extended, staring at the screen, you know he's shooting something.

isn't there a law that camcorders have to have a red light blinking when recording? they could do something similar with the camphones.

[Ken Mattern]

Yesterday my girlfriend, her son and I went to cut a Christmas tree. When we found one we liked I took a photo of them measuring the tree, with my Nokia 3650 camera/phone. Then her son (a five year old budding photographer who is getting a digital camera for Christmas) took a photo of us. When we went to Disney World and wanted a quick snap without waiting for the digital camera to boot we'd use my phone.

Last week I emailed a fellow asking him if he had the power supply for one of my Jornadas. He asked what it looked like so I took a photo of one with my phone and emailed it to him.

If I go to certain places on the Army base where I work I'm not even allowed a cell phone, let alone a camera. In other places I tell them I have a camera in my phone and ask what their preference is. I have not yet given up my phone to gain entrance to those places on the base. I have been advised, however, not to use the camera.

It also seems to me that manufacturers could easily make an inexpensive case that covers the camera lense and add a software switch that would hide the camera options. That way people could buy the camera equipped phone or one "without" the camera and the manufacturer doesn't have to worry about "different" model lines.

[bjornkeizers]

[quote=bjornkeizers]but isn't it obvious when someone is taking a picture with a cameraphone? arm extended, staring at the screen, you know he's shooting something.


You dkon't have to do that [though most people do tend to do it anyway] You can just walk by me, point the lense at me and push a button. Chances are it's not going to be a good photo, but the point is you can take one without the person knowing.


isn't there a law that camcorders have to have a red light blinking when recording? they could do something similar with the camphones.

Yes, there is actually. I study journalism, and last week we got our camera training. The law is that you have to have a red blinking light on during filiming so people are aware that you're recording them/something.

I think they should have the same thing on camphones, but like a beep. Still, if people really want to take pictures where they're not supposed to, that's hardly going to stop them.

IMHO, these things pose a great security and privacy risk.

[Ratel10mm]

Up to a point, I'm with bjornkeizers on this one. To my way of thinking, it's just plain rude to take a picture of me without asking first. If you then make money from that picture, then I'd expect to get a cut - a modelling fee, if you like. After all, if people like David Beckham can have 'image rights' written into thier contracts, then why shouldn't the rest of us charge for our image. :D
Of course, if you just happen to be in the backround of someone's holiday snap, that's different. I'm talking about when people are deliberately using you as the subject, or an essential part of the composition.
:soapbox:

[nategesner]

I believe the picture phone is just like any other piece of technology: A benign tool that's function is determined by the user.

Look at our society and you will see that these phones will be used for fun, but also for evil (for those of you that don't believe in evil, please consider handing a sharp knife to Saddam Hussein and then sit down in a private room to discuss his poor record on human rights). We become more voyeuristic by the minute and this is just another way to sneak up on someone and take pictures without them knowing. Already we see fitness centers banning them. I'm sure it won't be long before we have to ban them from other places as well.

The problem is, we are trying to fix this situation by banning the phones. This is just a band-aid on a compound fracture. We need to look at instilling virtue back into our society and teaching people that their behavior has an effect on others. Rules will not change people's hearts and convince them to behave, they will only slow people down a little.

[ymm424]

:roll: All I have to say is this....I love cool new technology and always want the most recent (that I can afford)...the best gifts for me at all times. I find the phones with cameras intriguing BUT...
I am a high school teacher and have had the kids fun around and take my picture...I sometimes worry that this could be a problem. Fortunately for me, I am well liked but...imagine if students hate you???? What deviant thing can they come up with to do with the picture they've just snapped of you???
Could invite a bunch of trouble, not to mention big legal issues.