Embedded Camera Backlash Begins

[Jonathon Watkins]

<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." </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 devices 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 and PDAs 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 embedded cameras are soon going to become ubiquitous. If this is the case it is important for those who want/need their PDAs with them at all times, to let the manufacturers know that they don't want cameras embedded. <br /><br />So, what are your thoughts on the issue? :dilemma: I will put a poll up tomorrow to get some hard numbers and to see what the general consensus about PDAs and embedded cameras is.

[herrner]

Here in Germany, it's often forbidden to take camera-enabled phones to pop-concerts and other cultural events, too. One more reason why I've changed my P800 smartphone to a PPC + phone (T68i in this case) solution.

Herrner

[Jonathon Watkins]

Here in Germany, it's often forbidden to take camera-enabled phones to pop-concerts and other cultural events, too. One more reason why I've changed my P800 smartphone to a PPC + phone (T68i in this case) solution.

So you're actually downgrading to an older phone? Interestingly enough I am trying to source that phone as well. It may be obsolete, but one of the few decent phones (syncs with outlooks, lots of features etc) with Bluetooth and without an embedded phone. I *DON'T* want to see Pocket PCs go the same way, with folks actually looking out older obsolete models as they don’t come with camera embedded. :|

[welmoed]

Personally, I think the move to add cameras to cell phones was stupid. We have become such an immediacy-addicted society that now people can't even bear to wait to send a digital picture via email when they get back to their computers. I mean, what's the rush?!?

--Welmoed

[D.psi]

Since I've started working at my current job ('93) it has been forbidden to have any type of camera on the premises. For those locations where security issues exist, this is hardly anything new; what it forces is a lengthy checkin process at the front desk.

Do you have a laptop? Does it have wireless? Do you have a cell phone? Does it have a camera? Do you have a PDA... ad nauseam.

Nothing new, but we do have to shop for accessories carefully. :(

D.psi

[arb]

Consumers want so many things.. the more they have of it, the better. Even if the item isn't going to add much to the product.....

Cameras in the phones and PDAs were a bad idea. I have heard of people saying that certain industries use the camera features from the phone and PDA but I can't understand why since it doesn't provide enough resolution to be helpful....

Companies need to stop thinking about the consumers and think more about big business. Or they should make both versions at the same time and let the customer decide at that point. Hopefully it will be a cold day in Heck before RIM starts integrating cameras in their products. Personally All PDAs and phones have lost their usefullness in the past few years... Give me a Monochrome screen for a Phone with Months of talk time, that would make me happy. Give me a small and useful PDA that does PDA stuff, I don't want to watch a movie on my PDA.

A little off subject, but cameras are a no no for me. :)

[Ryan Joseph]

I love the embedded camera in my i-mate!

I just spent a week in NY and I was able to snap instant pictures and email them back home instantly. Everyone I sent them to absolutely loved it!

I don't have a job where cameras are forbidden, thankfully. I'm sure I'd feel different if I did, but for now, I think it's one of the best features!

And with so many negative posts about this, I'm sure glad I got a camera device now before they stop being produced. :mrgreen:

[surur]

Surely phones and PDAs should come without a camera, unless there is specific customer demand for such a toy?

vs
"The booming popularity of camera phones which can snap and instantly send photos - and, with some models, short video clips..."

Dont you people understand that the thing that is fueling the current upgrade cycle for mobile phones are the cameras? Cellphones are consumer accessories, not fueled by business needs. Why do you think cell phones have colour screens? Is it to make the battery last longer (NOT!)? Its to woo consumers, who like shiny things.

I think the luddites here need to get together and start their own mobile phone OEM, making cell phones for business. They could weigh a pound, have a 1 line lcd screen, be destruction proof, last 3 months on one charge and could be used as a door stop in addition. That would address the needs of business perfectly, and let the rest of us consumers get on with enjoying the features that we, paying our own money, obviously demand. Manufacturers can not impose features. If they did it would just crash and burn in the market place.

Surur

[Jason Lee]

I have the new Motorola V600, nice bluetooth and camera. It is wonderful. I went on a trip to Kansas City and never got my camera out. I took over 80 pictures with my phone. At 640x480 they are not too shabby. I wouldn't use it to photograph a wedding but for most things it rocks. I love integrated cameras. It was one of the things on my wants list when I was shopping for a new phone. Bluetooth was on the needs list. :)

I would love to have a camera in my ppc. But I would want to be able to use it for wireless video phone say with Microsoft Portrait more than to take pictures. I could probably get along with the HP SD camere but that is just one more thing I have to carry around. Too bad I could not use my mobile phone as a bluetooth web cam for my ppc... now that would be cool.

[bjornkeizers]

Personally, I think the move to add cameras to cell phones was stupid. We have become such an immediacy-addicted society that now people can't even bear to wait to send a digital picture via email when they get back to their computers. I mean, what's the rush?!?

--Welmoed

For one, because I don't carry my camera with me all the time. It's bulky, heavy and loves batterys. Why take it with me on the off chance that I *might* want to photograph something? I don't have a camera phone (yet) but I do have a Clie TH55 with an embedded camera. I can take reasonably good quality pictures with it and send them to friends anc family through BT or WiFi.

A while ago I was pen shopping. I'd bought a new one, and wanted to put it in my blog. So, I took a picture with the Clie and uploaded it to my blog! Straight from cam to net, without the need for a PC.

&lt;edit> Jason Lee, That reminds me: I *can* use my TH55 as a wireless webcam ;-) Just another way technology is evolving in new and fascinating ways.

[possmann]

I like the idea, but would rather see the hardware vendor offer this as an added feature at an added cost. For me, I could care less - and in fact would more often prefer that my phone/ppc NOT have an embedded camera.
The hardware vendors are increasing the cost of something that teenie-boppers would mainly use as opposed to lagre use in the business environment. Yet we, in the business environment, don;t seem to have a choice and have to pay extra for another feature we really don't want or use/need. :?
Back to my rant on why hardware vendors should start looking at the PPC and Smartphone devices like they look at computers - allow the buyer to customize what they want on their device... *sigh* :|

[marlof]

I like cameras in anything I have. But then again, I like shiny techthingys. I'm nothing more than a geeky magpie, who uses his gadgets for end user purposes, nothing business related. And I carry a 2.1 MP digital camera (good enough for 10x15cm pictures) wherever I go, and would be glad to use a good all-in-one, that combines that cam, my phone and a PDA. For those rare occasions where my cameraphone wouldn't be allowed on premises, I do carry an Ericsson T39 as a backup phone. But I agree on one thing: manufacturers who care for the business user are wise to have camera-less devices as well. Not for me, since they simply aren't shiny enough. ;)

[Jonathon Watkins]

A little off subject, but cameras are a no no for me. :)

That's bang on topic! Companies will produce PPCs with cameras - unless we ask them not to.. Currently the default behaviour seems to be moving more and more to adding them in - especially on the high end ones. We need to make it clear that many of us want this trend to stop.

....Luddite....

Not wanting embedded cameras is not about being a Luddite, duh! :P It's about wanting to take our PDAs with us everywhere - it's about loving technology!

[bjornkeizers]

The hardware vendors are increasing the cost (..) Yet we, in the business environment, don;t seem to have a choice and have to pay extra for another feature we really don't want or use/need. :? (..) allow the buyer to customize what they want on their device... *sigh* :|

Way back when, when I got my first cellphone, it weighed a ton and cost me hundreds of guilders. It had a one line LCD and it could make calls. It didn't have SMS, EMS, WAP, BT, WIFI or whatever.

Today, I can get a phone with great battery life, color screen, wap, internet etc. for less then 50 euros. Even an older phone like a T610 (which has a camera) has great battery life and a ton of features for a great price. And the latest phones can be had for nothing on a contract!

So please, stop complaining.

[Jonathon Watkins]

So please, stop complaining.

Bjornkeizers, if we as PDA users don't make our voices heard now - we soon won't be able to get decent PPCs without cameras.

I *can't* get a decent phone WITH Bluetooth and WITHOUT a camera. So, I am stuck with my Nokia 8210, unless I buy an expensive unlocked Siemens S55 from Expansys and get a contract and throw away the phone that comes with it. This is not complaining - it's about asking for choice and options. I.e. decent phones and PDAs with no built in cameras.

[marlof]

Currently the default behaviour seems to be moving more and more to adding them in - especially on the high end ones. We need to make it clear that many of us want this trend to stop.

I don't want that trend to stop. IMO that would be a silly thing to do from a sales point of view, since -see the huge sales of camera enabled gadgets - many want it to continue. But I would like it if manufacturers offer two versions: one with, and one without camera.

One other thing that came to mind when I was thinking about this subject is a bit off-topic, yet related: has anyone ever encountered problems with the sound recording ability of their PDA?

[burtman007]

You don't even need the poll to get my vote. NO CAMERAS!!!

I have Sprint service and have had it for years. I love the coverage I get in my area. Rarely do I get dropped calls. I have an old Motorola Timeport that I plan on keeping until I see a phone WITHOUT a camera that I like. I went into the Sprintstore this weekend and there was maybe 2 craptacular off-brand phones that didn't have cameras.

For me, I don't want to see my friends and family pop up in low res. everytime they call. I'll bring along a 3 to 4 MP camera to capture the memories. The camera feature on the phone just doesn't cut it.

[surur]

Sorry to copy a post from an older thread, but i think it is still appropriate:

By the way, if you really don't want a camera on your camera phone, just take a dremel tool, dremel out the lens, and fill the hole with epoxy. What's the big deal?

In the UK many/most government departments have bans on camera phones/PDAs, and 'removing' them does cut the mustard.


3 points:

1) If you were going to go to all that trouble trying to trick them into letting in your phone, whats to stop you from bringing in a variety of micro-cameras of even phone camera attachments?

2) As a person living in UK, I am quite concerned by the statement that most government departments are so hellbent on secrecy. What are they trying to hide form us, the people that are paying their salary?

3) As this is a problem that most business people are facing (trying to get a good phone without a camera) why dont the business supply a service to disable the camera easily (e.g. a tamper-evident sticker or permanent paint or epoxy) applied by the security at the department itself? This would be similar to having your access card and photo being taken by security.

Lets see some truimp for common sense, not paranoia.

Surur

[bothari]

Companies need to stop thinking about the consumers and think more about big business.

I assume you're kidding, right? This would be a *guaranteed* way for the industry to shoot itself in the foot. There are more than enough cheap "business" phones in the market, there is almost no diferentiation between them and the profit margin is *thin*.

Phones have cameras because people buy them, if the consumers (a.ka. the ones willing to pay cash for our products) want cameras, you give them cameras.

This is a market-driven business, if it becomes difficult enough to own a camera phone (due to restrictions on where you can bring it) then consumers will demand camera-less phones and suppliers will follow. However i woukld bet on consumers continuing to ask for "shiny things"

[bjornkeizers]

So please, stop complaining.
Bjornkeizers, if we as PDA users don't make our voices heard now - we soon won't be able to get decent PPCs without cameras.


If businesses fear pda's with camera's, they might as well ban pen and paper, or blindfold all their employees and visitors. Just because a very small group wouldn't be allowed to carry such a device doesn't mean all of us have to suffer because of it. If you're not allowed to carry a phone, then don't. If it's your place of business, have the company provide an alternative. I think it's a great trend. Because of trends like this, we now all have phones with color screens and internet! I seriously doubt any OEM would not put in a camera or offer two models just to satisfy such a small group..

[yslee]

Small group? Last I heard, a lot of people do work, and quite a few in places that don't allow cameras. Why should people who love their devices and use them in meaningful ways be deprived of them because of some gee-whiz W?BIC type of user?

Exactly what kind of progress are we looking at from camera phones? More crappy photos?

Given the way the market looks however, mediocre integrated phones are here to stay, and I think those whose workplace forbids cameras will have a tough time replacing their devices.

[tmulli]

I think they have no place in phones (or pdas for that matter). I am ot a big fan of convergence. (I can say that since I only occasionally travel long distances. If I had to travel all the time for business etc. I might say otherwise, but only for the sake of security - not losing items). I want one device dedicated to doing one thing WELL. I don't care that I have to carry more items. Phone companies and carriers should work together to make better, more reliable phones and not worry about about how much crap they can cram into the smallest form factor. I was looking to upgrade my phone, but all the phones my carrier had were 300.00 camera crap phones with 500 games, a built-in word processor, tax estimator, swiss army knife and a bottle opener. I acutally went back to my Moto StarTAC. It's solidly built, gets excellent battery life, has an excellent speaker, has great signal reception, and no camera, games, calendar or other crap.

[bothari]

3 points:

1) If you were going to go to all that trouble... whats to stop you from bringing in a variety of micro-cameras...
2) ...I am quite concerned by the statement that most government departments are so hellbent on secrecy...
3) ...why dont the business supply a service to disable the camera easily (e.g. a tamper-evident sticker or permanent paint or epoxy)...

Lets see some truimp for common sense, not paranoia.

Surur

Right on! You said it better than i ever could. Going into a tizzy about these cameras is a bit like freaking out because horses are scared of these new-fangled motor-carriages and i want my carriage without a motor, goshdarnit! :lol:

ok, maybe i overstretched a tad, but you get the picture... pun intended..

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Dont you people understand that the thing that is fueling the current upgrade cycle for mobile phones are the cameras? Cellphones are consumer accessories, not fueled by business needs. Why do you think cell phones have colour screens?
While I'll concede that consumer demand has likely risen for cameras phones and that any phone with a camera must have a color screen, BUT Nokia and SE have many phone models on the market that have color screens with no camera. I own both a SE T610 and a Nokia 3650. In neither case, was the camera ever a consideration, but in both cases, the color screen certainly was. This holds true for many of my friends and coworkers as well. Everyone I know wants a color screen, but most don't care much for whether a camera is included or not.

[lapchinj]

Yeah, it seemed to be a cool novelty when they first started coming out but as time went on and so many people seemed to have something with a built-in camera the novelty wore off because the camera stunk. And now looking back it was just a novelty to sell electronics – nothing really useful.

The only place I saw some usefulness was in the service business where you might find a tech person or mechanic taking a picture of some part so for reference later or to make sure to order the correct part.

Now what we ought to have is an 8 megapixel camera :shocked!: with a copy of PPC2003SE running on it :shocked!: with all of your favorite apps :shocked!: accessible using the rear viewing screen :shocked!: . Now that's a REAL camera 8) :mrgreen: 8) !!!

(Maybe they could build a phone into it - but that would probably be a novelty item.)

Jeff-

[bothari]

... Nokia and SE have many phone models on the market that have color screens with no camera...

Interisting that you mention Nokia which has had a steadily falling market share. The latest analisys conclude that this is due to 2 factors:
1 - no flip-phones
2 - not enough cameras/camera phones too expensive

Well, guess what ? : http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/5024.html


The "i don't mind carrying extra items around" crew is at a serious disadvantage, most people want to carry a phone + pda + camera without looking like a geek/tourist. This is unlikely to change...

Exactly what kind of progress are we looking at from camera phones? More crappy photos?
This misses the point of camera-phones by a huge margin (apart from being sanctimonously arrogant) which is neither to be a artistic-level recorder-of-genius nor to advance the status of the human race but instead a way to quickly and simply record ..something. Not all pictures have to be as good as possible...

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

3 points:

1) If you were going to go to all that trouble... whats to stop you from bringing in a variety of micro-cameras...
2) ...I am quite concerned by the statement that most government departments are so hellbent on secrecy...
3) ...why dont the business supply a service to disable the camera easily (e.g. a tamper-evident sticker or permanent paint or epoxy)...

Lets see some truimp for common sense, not paranoia.

Surur

Right on! You said it better than i ever could. Going into a tizzy about these cameras is a bit like freaking out because horses are scared of these new-fangled motor-carriages and i want my carriage without a motor, goshdarnit! :lol:
While I certainly understand the basic premise of these arguments, let's be realistic here. No company or government building is going to submit to argument #1. Their counter-argument will be that you shouldn't be bringing in micro-cameras either. Argument #2 is a moot point. I've spent a great deal of time as a consultant for high-tech manufacterers and there's no way a company such as Intel would risk photographed information getting out to AMD. As for argument #3, a tamper-resistant sticker could easily be bypassed by someone carrying additional stickers and permanent paint is more backwards than just having asking the phone manufacterers to supply a full-featured phone without a camera. Perhaps an electronic based system where a cover is snapped on and can only be snapped off by the security officials (similar to what they do in discount clothing stores with those large ink-based devices) might work, but that won't be a practical solution anytime in the near future.

We are getting to a point now where if we want to choose a phone without a camera, we have to sacrifice numerous other features as well... Look at this thread. There certainly seems to be a greater than 50% sampling of folks who don't care much for the camera. We're just asking for options.

[marlof]

Exactly what kind of progress are we looking at from camera phones? More crappy photos?

Knowing you from digitalmediathoughts.com I know that this is a photographer speaking. But some ppl use their phonecams not to take a photograph, but to snap a memory. It works for me, as the following two (at random) examples might show:

Recently I met this old friend of my brothers, whom he hadn't seen in 10 years by accident). I snapped the picture, sent it by e-mail to my brother with some details. It worked better than just a message, since it also showed how his friend looked now.

The other moment: when my mother visited my brother in Italy, she was not too happy when she left (she doesn't like flying alone a lot...). My brother was a little worried, so when she came out of the gate, I took a snapshot, and sent it to him by email. He was very pleased to see her smiling.

I think you wouldn't care for the photographic capabilities of those pics, but my brother sure liked receiving them. That made me mighty glad I had a cameraphone with me on both occasions. Of course, it wasn't necessary to take those pics. And these weren't moments where I'd care to take a picture with a dedicated still camera. But snapping was easy, and it sure added a lot to the message that I wanted to bring across.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

... Nokia and SE have many phone models on the market that have color screens with no camera...

Interisting that you mention Nokia which has had a steadily falling market share. The latest analisys conclude that this is due to 2 factors:
1 - no flip-phones
2 - not enough cameras/camera phones too expensive

Well, guess what ? : http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/5024.html
Thanks. I was actually addressing your implied point that phones strictly have color screens because of the cameras. I already conceded that the demand within general population for camera phones is rising, but I can tell you sincerely that the vast majority of my coworkers (I'm a business consultant) find the camera to be the least-needed/most-hassle-inducing feature.

[felixdd]

I find it interesting that while no corporater companies would deploy phone cameras for employees to take work-related pictures on the field, these same companies are afraid that other copmpanies will deploy phone cameras to their employees/corporate spies to take work-related pictures "on the field" (aka spying).

that being said, I do recognize that some people don't want a camera. For some phones -- it's there and makes the phone cost more, but the quality of the shots don't justify the prices. To that, I support any company that makes models that both include or omit a camera.

And for those that want camera-less bluetooth phones: look at the SE T39 (GSM), SE T68(i) (GSM), SE T608 (CDMA). There's also the Ericsson R520, T60d; Motorola A830 (optional), Timeport 270c, and more.

[bothari]

... but I can tell you sincerely that the vast majority of my coworkers (I'm a business consultant) find the camera to be the least-needed/most-hassle-inducing feature.

You have a point, most of my co-workers would prefer their phones not have cameras... at least their work-alocated mobile phones.

And herein lies the rub (i think): wether a camera phone is a pain or a plus depends pretty much on wether(spell?) your phone is a work tool or a personal "life" tool. If the former, you want simplicity and great battery life, while in the later one would want as much as possible so the you can carry just *one* thing with you.

Personally, my job does not imply a need for external communication, so no phone. Since i'm paying, i want all the gee-whiz tools, since i don't wear a jacket/suitcase/bag and everything has to fit in the pockets of my jeans. I'm currently a nokia 6210 + ipaq user, but i'm eyeballing that nice juicy asus 505 rather closely...

[orol]

So please, stop complaining.

Bjornkeizers, if we as PDA users don't make our voices heard now - we soon won't be able to get decent PPCs without cameras.

I *can't* get a decent phone WITH Bluetooth and WITHOUT a camera. So, I am stuck with my Nokia 8210, unless I buy an expensive unlocked Siemens S55 from Expansys and get a contract and throw away the phone that comes with it. This is not complaining - it's about asking for choice and options. I.e. decent phones and PDAs with no built in cameras.

S55 simply sucks. don't buy it. the battery life is a joke as well as the display. don't even dream of it to be able to read the screen on th edirect sunlight

btw "decent" phone (I'd say the best one out) is nokia 6310i. which has the best battery life of all bluetooth phones. and it's proven very fast and stabile phone.

btw I bought S55 in september last year with intention replacing my trusty nokia 6310i. after one week I gave up on the stupid siemens menu, unusable GUI without any logic, battery life shorter then I'd love (2-3 days) and guess what ? I bought 6310i once again. and have it till now.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

And for those that want camera-less bluetooth phones: look at the SE T39 (GSM), SE T68(i) (GSM), SE T608 (CDMA). There's also the Ericsson R520, T60d; Motorola A830 (optional), Timeport 270c, and more.
Here's the dilemma that I'm in. Since I travel the world quite often, I must stick with GSM carriers. In the US, there are 3 GSM carriers: T-Mo, ATTWS, and Cingular.

Searching for BT-capable phones offered by these three carriers reveal the following phones: SE T610/T616, Nokia 3600/3650, Nokia 6600, Nokia 6820, Motorola V600, Siemens S56.

That's it. Of those phones, only the Siemens S56 offers the camera as an optional feature (it's built into all other phones). It is also unfortunately hindered by being a dual-band phone (GSM 800/1900) making it useless outside of the US.

I do own an old T68... unfortunately you'd be hard-pressed to find another GSM phone with worse reception, which is critical in the US (where GSM coverage is still relatively light).

So for now, if you want worldwide GSM support and you want BT, you really just have to accept that your phone will have a camera built-in, whether you like it or not.

[pelucidor]

I have a very nice (but old) digital camera - Nikon Coolpix 990 with add-on wide-angle lens. Takes great pictures but it is huge and heavy so we only carry it with us for scheduled events. We also have 2 high-end film-based SLRs with a whole bunch of lenses - my wife was a photograper in a past life. These are even bigger and are rarely used nowadays.

Every week there are dozens of times when I wish I had a tiny low quality digital camera (320x240 resolution would be enough for me) with me to take pics on the spur of the moment. Recently I was in a low-speed car crash (4mph) and couldn't believe the other driver was claiming to be paralyzed whilst getting out of her car - would have been nice to be able to take some pics of the zero damage to her bumper and her walking around as evidence against her intended insurance scam. Sometimes I might be by myself and see a perfect gift for someone and it would be good to take a pic for my wife to give her opinion on the item when I got home, instead of trying to descibe the item in words to her.


I must be one of the very few that can't wait until their phone plan runs out so that my wife and I can replace our T720s with a cameraphone, preferably with bluetooth.

As far as the concern of some businesses - things are way overblown regarding cameraphones. If a company has a restricted area where photography is banned then they should be either trusting their vetted staff to not take pics (whether they carry a cameraphone or not), or they should be checking staff for all photography type devices when they enter the area (some 'spy' cameras are smaller or more stealthy than phones). A few years ago I did some consulting work for Lockheed Martin in CO - as I wasn't a US citizen they had an armed guard walk with me everywhere for the three days I was there, and I wasn't allowed to touch anything including the mouse/keyboard of the servers I was setting up (I had to direct their IT guy on what to do whilst looking over his shoulder) - now that's being too fussy about security and so is the cameraphone scare.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

... but I can tell you sincerely that the vast majority of my coworkers (I'm a business consultant) find the camera to be the least-needed/most-hassle-inducing feature.

You have a point, most of my co-workers would prefer their phones not have cameras... at least their work-alocated mobile phones.

And herein lies the rub (i think): wether a camera phone is a pain or a plus depends pretty much on wether(spell?) your phone is a work tool or a personal "life" tool. If the former, you want simplicity and great battery life, while in the later one would want as much as possible so the you can carry just *one* thing with you.
Exactly! It would be great to have more options so that we don't have to make such sacrifices.

[surur]

I did not mean colour phones came on due to cameras. I meant it came on as a consumer feature. It certainly does not make your phone work better. In fact it significantly reduces battery life. However manufacturers soon noticed the better the screen looked, the more they sold. I have already seen phones with 16 million colours, when the first could only show 16.

About crappy pictures, people will also pay for better cameras. They used to be only 160x160 pixels, now you can get 1.3 Mpixel WITH a flash. And they will just keep on improving. They are developing no-moving part optical lenses for autofocus as we speak.

Lets face it, you can only make a phone so good as a phone. Then, if you want to keep on selling the stuff, you need to differentiate by adding features.

Now, about the camera restrictions. I understand the dilemma, but people faced with the problem need to understand they are a very small minority. Demanding that a manufacturer double their expenses (in setting up a separate production line) for the 5-10% people who dont want cameras is not very reasonable. What I think there should be a place for is aftermarket disabling of the cameras, certified in some way, so that the people who want the no-camera feature can bear the cost for there removal themselves, because as it is, its cheaper to leave cameras in than to make them without it.

And btw. I want a camera (especially a good one) in my pocketpc. I have one in my xda2 now, and it was a feature when I bought it. I use it often for a variety of reasons, and look forward to the 1.3 Mpixel camera and flash in the Mpx.

Surur

[Dave Beauvais]

I've found out that at least two movie theaters in town confiscate phones or other devices with cameras as well as "recording devices" before you will be allowed in the theater. My phone has a camera and my Pocket PC could technically be called a "recording device" thanks to its microphone. And I'm to be expected to hand these over to some rent-a-cop security guy? I think not.

Oh no... I might take a crappy low-res photo of the screen in a dark theater and post it all over the 'net, thus spoiling the plot of the movie, and causing millions of dollars in lost revenue because nobody wants to see the movie anymore. :roll: Give me a break. Perhaps this could be a valid argument about two years from now when phones will be able to capture more than fifteen seconds of poor quality video. For now, I'll take my ticket back to the box office and demand a refund, citing this absurd confiscation policy as the reason.

(Note, this is why I need to find a girlfriend who is well-versed in the ways of the geek. Storming out of a theater for this reason would almost certainly make it the last date.) ;)

[bothari]

So for now, if you want worldwide GSM support and you want BT, you really just have to accept that your phone will have a camera built-in, whether you like it or not
Exactly! It would be great to have more options so that we don't have to make such sacrifices.

This does seem to be a problem, though it's somewhat specific to the US market, where most carriers seem to be alergic to GSM and BT. Here in europe, most carriers do give a somewhat larger spectrum of choice, but BT phones without cameras seem to be becoming rare. BT adds enough cost, i suppose, to make a camera a low-cost extra...

[Paladin27]

I think adding cameras to these devices is a great idea. I always have my cell phone or pda with me, and often before I got a Sony Ericsson T610 I would say,"Gee, I wish I had a camera right now."

My company has not yet officially addressed the camera phone issue, but I think they will probably start banning them in sensitive areas in the near future. We don't have to worry about it to much since the company uses Nextel as it's official carrier, and since they are about five years behind in technology, we don't have any camera phones.

My opinion is that I want all my techie devices combined as soon as possible so I only have to carry and charge one thing in my pocket, instead of three or four. My dream is a PDA/phone/mp3 player/video camera/still camera that can surf broadband internet over a 3G cellular network.

If my office bans camera phones, I'll leave this magical device in my truck and carry my Redneck Radio err... Nextel with me during work hours.

[gorkon280]

I would by a cam phone, but it's not the major reason for buying one. To me, this sounds like a manufactured problem....a problem that isn't a problem yet. The thing that concerns me is that noone will want to integrate a camera and phone in the future. Let's correct the REAL problem...people stupid enough to want to take a picture of somethign at work. Even with cam phone, it's obvious when people are taking a picture with their cam phone.

[gorkon280]

I've found out that at least two movie theaters in town confiscate phones or other devices with cameras as well as "recording devices" before you will be allowed in the theater. My phone has a camera and my Pocket PC could technically be called a "recording device" thanks to its microphone. And I'm to be expected to hand these over to some rent-a-cop security guy? I think not.

Oh no... I might take a crappy low-res photo of the screen in a dark theater and post it all over the 'net, thus spoiling the plot of the movie, and causing millions of dollars in lost revenue because nobody wants to see the movie anymore. :roll: Give me a break. Perhaps this could be a valid argument about two years from now when phones will be able to capture more than fifteen seconds of poor quality video. For now, I'll take my ticket back to the box office and demand a refund, citing this absurd confiscation policy as the reason.

(Note, this is why I need to find a girlfriend who is well-versed in the ways of the geek. Storming out of a theater for this reason would almost certainly make it the last date.) ;)

And yet, this is what they invented pockets for. What are they going to do? Pat you down?

[Dave Beauvais]

And yet, this is what they invented pockets for. What are they going to do? Pat you down?
Yes, in a manner of speaking. At one theater, women's purses are literally gone through -- several items removed from the purse by security in order to see everything inside -- and both men and women are made to show the contents of their pockets. If a camera phone or recording device is found, it will be confiscated by security. I will not being seeing any more movies at this theater because of this policy. They don't run a wand over your body -- yet -- but it's nearly the level of security at some airports just to see a stupid movie and be subjected to twenty minutes of commercials and trailers.

Honestly, I'm not sure what they do if you decline to let them search your belongings, but I would assume they won't let you in. Since I won't be going to that theater anymore, however, I can't test this.

[SassKwatch]

....let the rest of us consumers get on with enjoying the features that we, paying our own money, obviously demand. Manufacturers can not impose features. If they did it would just crash and burn in the market place.
So you're suggesting there was this huge pent up demand from consumers wanting cameras embedded in their phones/pda's and that's why mfrs started producing them?? There were literally thousands of people sitting around grousing because their phones/pda's didn't have embedded cameras?

Somehow I think not. This is one case where the egg came before the chicken.

Manufacturers most certainly can impose features/products. It happens all the time in almost every industry. Those features that meet consumer 'demand', or more accurately, capture the consumer's fancy will stick around. Those that don't.......won't. But don't kid yourself. Mfrs impose (or try to) demand all the time. Pet Rocks, Cabbage Patch dolls, 'Reality' TV, carbon fiber shafted golf clubs....yada yada Yoda. Heck, a case could be made that even pda's represent a 'created' demand.

I have no problem with mfrs offering embedded cameras **AS AN OPTION**....or as an additional model of an existing device. What concerns me is that at the current rate of adoption, it will soon become difficult to find a gadget that *does'nt* have a camera embedded. And there are **many** folks who don't want nor need such a feature. That doesn't make them 'Luddites', it simply means they have no desire for it......and shouldn't have to pay to get something they don't want....and maybe not be able to get something they do want, like a CF slot in addition to the 'normal' SD slot in a pda.

[gorkon280]

And yet, this is what they invented pockets for. What are they going to do? Pat you down?
Yes, in a manner of speaking. At one theater, women's purses are literally gone through -- several items removed from the purse by security in order to see everything inside -- and both men and women are made to show the contents of their pockets. If a camera phone or recording device is found, it will be confiscated by security. I will not being seeing any more movies at this theater because of this policy. They don't run a wand over your body -- yet -- but it's nearly the level of security at some airports just to see a stupid movie and be subjected to twenty minutes of commercials and trailers.

Honestly, I'm not sure what they do if you decline to let them search your belongings, but I would assume they won't let you in. Since I won't be going to that theater anymore, however, I can't test this.

As I live in Columbus also, which theater? I can see banning weapons and the like, but cam phones can't even take a decent picture in a fully lit room let alone in a dark theater!;)

[Fishie]

And for those that want camera-less bluetooth phones: look at the SE T39 (GSM), SE T68(i) (GSM), SE T608 (CDMA). There's also the Ericsson R520, T60d; Motorola A830 (optional), Timeport 270c, and more.
Here's the dilemma that I'm in. Since I travel the world quite often, I must stick with GSM carriers. In the US, there are 3 GSM carriers: T-Mo, ATTWS, and Cingular.

Searching for BT-capable phones offered by these three carriers reveal the following phones: SE T610/T616, Nokia 3600/3650, Nokia 6600, Nokia 6820, Motorola V600, Siemens S56.

That's it. Of those phones, only the Siemens S56 offers the camera as an optional feature (it's built into all other phones). It is also unfortunately hindered by being a dual-band phone (GSM 800/1900) making it useless outside of the US.

I do own an old T68... unfortunately you'd be hard-pressed to find another GSM phone with worse reception, which is critical in the US (where GSM coverage is still relatively light).

So for now, if you want worldwide GSM support and you want BT, you really just have to accept that your phone will have a camera built-in, whether you like it or not.

Why dont you just import a phone from Europe, or buy it on one of your travels.

[Dave Beauvais]

As I live in Columbus also, which theater? I can see banning weapons and the like, but cam phones can't even take a decent picture in a fully lit room let alone in a dark theater!;)
The Areana Grand Theater (http://www.arenagrand.com/) downtown in the Arena District (http://www.arena-district.com/).

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

So for now, if you want worldwide GSM support and you want BT, you really just have to accept that your phone will have a camera built-in, whether you like it or not.

Why dont you just import a phone from Europe, or buy it on one of your travels.
Cost and (to a lesser extent) support. While I'd prefer not to have the camera in my device, I'm not willing to pay an extra $300-$500 USD not to have it. In addition, comapanies here won't troubleshoot any issues you might have things such as with WAP connectivity if you're using a phone model not offered by them.

[surur]

....let the rest of us consumers get on with enjoying the features that we, paying our own money, obviously demand. Manufacturers can not impose features. If they did it would just crash and burn in the market place.
So you're suggesting there was this huge pent up demand from consumers wanting cameras embedded in their phones/pda's and that's why mfrs started producing them?? There were literally thousands of people sitting around grousing because their phones/pda's didn't have embedded cameras?
.
.

Manufacturers most certainly can impose features/products. It happens all the time in almost every industry. Those features that meet consumer 'demand', or more accurately, capture the consumer's fancy will stick around. Those that don't.......won't.

This is of course where the FREE MARKET and COMPETITION comes in. It costs money to add a camera to a phone. R&D costs and parts/material/license fees. Not all manufacturers added cameras at the same time. If some manufacturer found that his phone (being sold for £100 more than their competitor's) was not selling despite the features they added, they would have crashed and burnt in the market place.

The only place where features get added at extra cost against the wishes of people is in a MONOPOLY. I think you are too used to the ways of one convicted monopolist...

Surur

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

So for now, if you want worldwide GSM support and you want BT, you really just have to accept that your phone will have a camera built-in, whether you like it or not
Exactly! It would be great to have more options so that we don't have to make such sacrifices.
This does seem to be a problem, though it's somewhat specific to the US market, where most carriers seem to be alergic to GSM and BT.
That's very true. BT adoption in the US has been lethargic. So my situation in the US is more precarious than most folks in Europe and Asia.
Here in europe, most carriers do give a somewhat larger spectrum of choice, but BT phones without cameras seem to be becoming rare. BT adds enough cost, i suppose, to make a camera a low-cost extra...
That seems to be the case. It's quite possible that those of us that would rather be without the camera are in the minority overall, but between you, me and many on this board, there seems to be a legitimate demand for full-featured, camera-less phones.

We'll see how all of this plays out.

[bjornkeizers]

Well well, it seems that no matter what your opinion is, this is certainly a hot topic!

Here's the thing: you can either go with the flow and accept that the latest & greatest have camera's because that's what the *average consumer* wants, or you'll just have to hang on to your old cam-less phones without all those nifty features. What do second hand T68's go for these days?...

[SassKwatch]

This is of course where the FREE MARKET and COMPETITION comes in. It costs money to add a camera to a phone. R&D costs and parts/material/license fees. Not all manufacturers added cameras at the same time. If some manufacturer found that his phone (being sold for £100 more than their competitor's) was not selling despite the features they added, they would have crashed and burnt in the market place.
But you missed the entire point. There was no 'demand' for camera phones.......until they were introduced to the market. Once introduced and a significant number of people thought they were 'kewl', *then* the demand followed.

I think you are too used to the ways of one convicted monopolist...
And I would argue that you are too caught up in the *theoretical* holy grail that 'demand' always creates the market.

Markets can't be *sustained* without demand, but they can most definitely be created/initiated in the absence of same. Camera phones/pda's are but one example.

[surur]

I think thats semantics. In any case camera and video phones are not new ideas. Demand can only be measured once a supply is available.

Surur

[Jonathon Watkins]

Here's the thing: you can either go with the flow and accept that the latest & greatest have camera's because that's what the *average consumer* wants, or you'll just have to hang on to your old cam-less phones without all those nifty features. What do second hand T68's go for these days?...

Quite a lot actually. :| I'm looking for one now. :?

We should NOT have to look for obsolete phones just because some folks want a toy on the latest and greatest.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Why dont you just import a phone from Europe, or buy it on one of your travels.

We should not need to do that. Besides - I AM in Eurpope and can't get a BT camera without a camera on a mobile contract. I DON'T want PDAs to go the same way!

[Jonathon Watkins]

I have no problem with mfrs offering embedded cameras **AS AN OPTION**....or as an additional model of an existing device. What concerns me is that at the current rate of adoption, it will soon become difficult to find a gadget that *does'nt* have a camera embedded. And there are **many** folks who don't want nor need such a feature. That doesn't make them 'Luddites', it simply means they have no desire for it......and shouldn't have to pay to get something they don't want....and maybe not be able to get something they do want

Bingo - nail on the head! PDAs and phones should come without a camera by default. That way everyone can use them.

The built in cameras in devices will become more and more problematical in future.......

[surur]

Here's the thing: you can either go with the flow and accept that the latest & greatest have camera's because that's what the *average consumer* wants, or you'll just have to hang on to your old cam-less phones without all those nifty features. What do second hand T68's go for these days?...

Quite a lot actually. :| I'm looking for one now. :?

We should NOT have to look for obsolete phones just because some folks want a toy on the latest and greatest.

How much is quite alot? Ive got one, and Im in the UK...

Surur

[felixdd]

I do own an old T68... unfortunately you'd be hard-pressed to find another GSM phone with worse reception, which is critical in the US (where GSM coverage is still relatively light).

Did you upgrade the firmware? After firmware upgrade the phone's reception isn't that bad....

[SassKwatch]

I think thats semantics. In any case camera and video phones are not new ideas. Demand can only be measured once a supply is available.
It's not semantics at all. It's simply applying theory to real world experience. You're certainly right in that 'demand' can't be measured until supply is available, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Would you agree there currently exists a 'demand' for automobiles capable of getting 100 miles per gallon of gasoline? While we can't measure that demand, it's pretty safe to say that if the technology existed to produce such vehicles, it could be successfully brought to market. And if such a vehicle could be produced in an SUV sized vehicle with the performance characteristics of a Corvette, the 'demand' would increase dramatically. So, it's safe to say we intuitively understand such a 'demand' exists....even if we can't measure it.

OTOH, there was no 'demand' for Cabbage Patch dolls prior to their introduction. They were purely a marketing phenomenon that happened to capture the public's fancy.

Camera and/or video phones probably exist somewhere between the extremes of the above. As you say, they are certainly not a new idea....been around at least as long as the first Dick Tracy comic (if not longer).

Anyway, enough of this Econ 101 stuff, the main point is that cameras in phones/pda's are not for everyone......but of late, the trend from mfrs has begun to show signs that everyone may have to accept them, or do without the device entirely.

[Jonathon Watkins]

And for those that want camera-less bluetooth phones: look at the SE T39 (GSM), SE T68(i) (GSM), SE T608 (CDMA). There's also the Ericsson R520, T60d; Motorola A830 (optional), Timeport 270c, and more.

Pretty much all of which are obsolete or can only be gotten second hand. :|

S55 simply sucks. don't buy it. the battery life is a joke as well as the display. don't even dream of it to be able to read the screen on th edirect sunlight.

Thank for the heads up. :| Good to know, but not good that there are no decent current phones with BT and no camera.

[Jonathan1]

At 640x480 they are not too shabby..

AHHHH the pain the pain!! Anything less then 2MP, IMHO, sucks unless you are blind. I just can't go back to anything less, Heck I consider 5MP to be barely tolerable at this point. Bring on the 10MP cameras! For me these camera phones are a gimmick. A fun gimmick but a gimmick nonetheless. I really have no use for such a device unless everyone and their mother has one. As it stands not one of my friends or anyone in my family has one of these devices so it becomes a moot point. Even if they did I'd be hard pressed to find a use for it. I con honestly say there has been a time where I've kicked myself for not having a camera phone.

I wish for once the phone industry as a whole would stop with the rampant progression of adding crap to a phone and simply focusing on giving us cell phones with amazing battery life. My Nextel i60c gets, at best, 3 days of standby and maybe a few hours of talk time. Give me a phone that can go a solid 10 days of standby and 8 hours of talk and I'd be a happy guy.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I must be one of the very few that can't wait until their phone plan runs out so that my wife and I can replace our T720s with a cameraphone, preferably with bluetooth.

I think you are far from alone in that. :) I want to exactly the same thing, but guess what, I can't! Just about every phone with BT also has a camera. So, I either chose an old obsolete second hand one, or one without Bluetooth. :| I do not wish to be hunting down an iPAQ 4130 two years from now if all high end PDAs come with cameras. :?

As far as the concern of some businesses - things are way overblown regarding cameraphones. If a company has a restricted area where photography is banned then they should be either trusting their vetted staff to not take pics (whether they carry a cameraphone or not), or they should be checking staff for all photography type devices when they enter the area (some 'spy' cameras are smaller or more stealthy than phones). A few years ago I did some consulting work for Lockheed Martin in CO - as I wasn't a US citizen they had an armed guard walk with me everywhere for the three days I was there, and I wasn't allowed to touch anything including the mouse/keyboard of the servers I was setting up (I had to direct their IT guy on what to do whilst looking over his shoulder) - now that's being too fussy about security and so is the cameraphone scare.

Well, when you consider (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11357&rsbci=0&fti=126&ti=0&sc=400) what exactly (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=14917&rsbci=0&fti=126&ti=0&sc=400) they make (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11170&rsbci=13151&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400), then those precautions sound quite reasonable. :wink:

[marlof]

We should NOT have to look for obsolete phones just because some folks want a toy on the latest and greatest.

So... if Sony Ericsson would continue to build the T68i (or something similar) you'd be happy? I'd say: let your voice carry the message, and vote with your money. Millions of others (youngsters, consumers and some business people) will vote for cameraphones with their wallet. The market heard their voice. Now it's your turn. ;)

On a side note: I do not necessarily care for the condescending tone you use when you speak of a cameraphone as a phone with a "toy". A camera to me is not more a toy than a built in calendar is. I probably don't *need* any of those two, but I do like them since I actually see use for them. I personally don't care for games on my phone, but I can easily understand why a manufacturer would put them there, since my nephews and nieces are spending top dollars on phones that give good gameplay. Does that make my phone more expensive? You bet! But as long as they add in features I want, I'm ok with that. If not, I go to the competition. You might think differently, but other people might have other usage patterns than you have, and put those things to actual use.

That said: I do understand the frustration of not being able to get a phone built to the latest specs and design, simply because you're not allowed to use it due to one feature that you'd personally wouldn't use anyhow. That's why I hope your voice is heard, and some company will see the market for a very Smart Phone sans camera. I have to swallow hard, but I think palmOne actually saw some light there.....

[Jonathon Watkins]

We should NOT have to look for obsolete phones just because some folks want a toy on the latest and greatest.

So... if Sony Ericsson would continue to build the T68i (or something similar) you'd be happy? I'd say: let your voice carry the message, and vote with your money. Millions of others (youngsters, consumers and some business people) will vote for cameraphones with their wallet. The market heard their voice. Now it's your turn. ;)

Yes and guess what this is? :wink:

Don't get me wrong, I want the latest and greatest, just not with a camera. 8) The is a sizable proportion of folks out there that *don't* one however and we are not being catered for. Phones are bad enough - but the trend of cameras on PDAs is not good at all. So, you have a camera phone and a camera PDA

[On a side note: I do not necessarily care for the condescending tone you use when you speak of a cameraphone as a phone with a "toy". A camera to me is not more a toy than a built in calendar is. I probably don't *need* any of those two, but I do like them since I actually see use for them.

Apologies that you find it condescending. I generally use the term 'toy' as a compliment, as you will see if you search my posts. :) A calender is a tool, not a toy as it is usefull for most folks in thier working life.

But as long as they add in features I want, I'm ok with that. If not, I go to the competition. You might think differently, but other people might have other usage patterns than you have, and put those things to actual use.

Sure I understand that, but adding a camera as a feature means that we *won't* be able to use it the device it is attached to. This is not about 'nice to have', this is about being able to use a device in the first place.

That said: I do understand the frustration of not being able to get a phone built to the latest specs and design, simply because you're not allowed to use it due to one feature that you'd personally wouldn't use anyhow. That's why I hope your voice is heard, and some company will see the market for a very Smart Phone sans camera. I have to swallow hard, but I think palmOne actually saw some light there.....

You're right about the frustration about not being able to use the latest devices, but I still think it is daft that we are hoping that a company *won't * add a particular feature to PDAs and cameras. So what happens if PDA and phone manufacturers don't offer such a capability? Ebay does a roaring trade in second hand 6310is, T68is, 4130s and e805s. :|

Just imagine what will happen when PDAs and phones with cheep instant streaming video camera capabilities appear. You can send a live video stream from anywhere to anywhere. Want to speculate what will happen about the backlash about that? :?

[marlof]

I just find it a bit strange that people are making a fuzz out of this (not you, but security ppl), while they allow all Pocket PCs that have voice recording capabilities. Imagine what those can do at secret meetings.... Or aren't these allowed? Your choice in devices will be very limited. ;)

[marlof]

A calender is a tool, not a toy as it is usefull for most folks in thier working life.

So useful is the distinction between "toy" and "tool"? I find your categories hard to explain to my nephews and nieces. They are hardcore phone users (and are in the market group that is one of the most interesting to the manufacturers), and they have no use for the calendar. They do have use for the camera, and for them it's a very handy communication tool. Some see this as useful. Others see that as useful. So what's a toy to some, is a tool to others. And vice versa.

[CTSLICK]

Aside from the obvious personal rights violations and security problems my objection to embedded cameras is based on my opinion that this "functionality" or "feature" is being crammed into devices where it is just not needed. I am tired of crappy cameras that take crappy pictures inflating the price of what should otherwise be an affordable device. I don't need this, I don't want this, please stop it.

[rocky_raher]

1. The comments about the low quality of current cellphones remind me of what was said about the first digital cameras. Stand-alone digital cameras improved (as did everything electronic), so will phone cameras.

2. About security, I feel that it should be a matter of trust. There are digital cameras that fit on keychains, and digital cameras that look like ballpoint pens. An employee who would engage in industrial espionage won't be deterred by forbidding him to keep his cell phone and PDA. Ironically, perhaps the best deterrent to unauthorized photography is intense video surveillance in the workplace!!
Others have mentioned voice recording capability in numerous devices. How about the flash memory dongles that plug into a USB port and can download data? I've seen one embedded in a pen.

3. I think the proliferation of digital cameras is, overall, a good thing. Yes, they can be abused (as can any technology), in locker rooms and restrooms for example. They also can deter crime. Many law enforcement people and lawyers consider eyewitness testimony extremely unreliable, not because witnesses lie, but because their eyesight, perception, or memory is faulty. A witness to a crime or an auto accident who snaps a digital photo creates hard evidence.
Years ago a liberal columist (I don't remember who) remarked that affordable camcorders reduce the incidence of police brutality because no cop wants to be the subject of a Rodney King-type home video. I like to think that, much more often, the bad guys are more careful about what they do in public because they never know who could be photographing them.

4. Let me add another example of how useful spontaneous photography can be. I recently bought some suits. The store's fashion consultant helped me select an assortment of shirts and ties to go with them, in various combination. I could never remember what went with which without help, so I took out my SPH-i700 and photographed each combination.

[surur]

I think people here are trying to hold back the tide. What is actually happening is not about cameras and phones. Its all about increasing the functionality of that thing we always carry with us. Thats why people are now carrying cell-phones instead of watches, and carrying cell-phones instead of cameras, and carrying cell-phones instead of FM radios, and carrying cell-phones instead of MP3 players, and carrying cell-phones instead of PDA's, and carrying cell-phones instead of gameboys, and carrying cell-phones instead of cash (with integrates RFID) etc etc.

Its not that cell-phones are really so amazing, its more that we always have it with us, so why not integrate all our gadgets in one place.

Ive notices phones are now getting larger to provide that functionality, and people are still buying them, because they appreciate having so many gadgets in one small package. In 15 years time we will still all carry the ONE GADGET, and it will do everything we need to do, ever.

Motorola did not make the Mpx to enter the defunct PDA market, they did it to increase the functionality of their cellphone offerings.

Its the tide of the future, and there is no turning it back.

Surur

[Phoenix]

I want camera functionality in my cell phone.

The end.

[Tracy Daubenspeck]

From a corporate perspective, there should be plain vanilla devices that don't have Bluetooth, WIFI, Voice Recording, or Cameras. These all violate various security standards. I had to take my company owned Dell apart and remove the microphone so that it would comply with security requirements and the IR port has to be taped over. I have to purchase cell phones with none of the above as well. The Samsung X426 is such a device. There is such a thing as too many bells and whistles.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Anyway, enough of this Econ 101 stuff, the main point is that cameras in phones/pda's are not for everyone......but of late, the trend from mfrs has begun to show signs that everyone may have to accept them, or do without the device entirely.

:? Not good choices. :? Why can't the manufactures see that embedded cameras are not for everyone?

Now, about the camera restrictions. I understand the dilemma, but people faced with the problem need to understand they are a very small minority. Demanding that a manufacturer double their expenses (in setting up a separate production line) for the 5-10% people who dont want cameras is not very reasonable. What I think there should be a place for is aftermarket disabling of the cameras, certified in some way, so that the people who want the no-camera feature can bear the cost for there removal themselves, because as it is, its cheaper to leave cameras in than to make them without it.

I can see the sensibleness of this, but doubt it will fly. Who would organise & run it? I doubt that it would be cheaper to leave camera lenses & electronics in than make them without. Maybe as the embedded cameras get more sophisticated & expensive the problem will decrease? I don't think so. :?

So please, stop complaining.
Bjornkeizers, if we as PDA users don't make our voices heard now - we soon won't be able to get decent PPCs without cameras.


I seriously doubt any OEM would not put in a camera or offer two models just to satisfy such a small group..

It's a very LARGE group actually. There are many people that are not allowed to have cameras on them at work, in leisure centres, in schools, clubs etc. The more ubiquitous embedded cameras become, the more places will ban them.

Maybe if most phones have cameras then the PDA manufactures will not add them. :D If you have an embedded camera in your phone then you don't need one on your PDA! You tend to take your phone more places than your PDA anyway. It's also not so important to have the latest phone, as long as it support Bluetooth etc :wink: It IS important to have the latest PDA though! :lol:

[ctmagnus]

I walked into the grocery store today. There was a No Cameras sign on the door.

What do second hand T68's go for these days?...

I paid $150.33 CAD for mine.

[foldedspace]

The problem isn't with the phones or PDA's. It's with governments/societies. I can't think of a single place I go here in Texas that prevent me from bringing in my phone just because it has a camera.

And as far as the quality goes, if you want to carry something else in your pocket *just in case* something picture-worthy comes up, be my guest. I like convergent devices and tend to carry only one device on a daily basis. And I have some pics from New Orleans that I took with my 3650 that came out better than my buddies Sony 2mp.

[Jonathon Watkins]

The problem isn't with the phones or PDA's. It's with governments. I can't think of a single place I go here in Texas that prevent me from bringing in my phone just because it has a camera.

Don't forget about Dell, Intel, Lockheed Martin etc. :wink:

This is not a primarilty a goverment thing. As a software tester I work for a large numebr of companies for short periods of time. Just about all restrotic the carrying of camera in some/many/all areas. It's especially prevelent in hi-tech and fincial compaies, but this goes wider than you think.

And as far as the quality goes, if you want to carry something else in your pocket *just in case* something picture-worthy comes up, be my guest. I like convergent devices and tend to carry only one device on a daily basis. And I have some pics from New Orleans that I took with my 3650 that came out better than my buddies Sony 2mp.

It is long said that a bad workman blame his tools. A good photographer can make a good image with a bad camera and a bad photographer can mess up with a good camera. However, I don't for one second believe that the same photographer would get better images from a cameraphone than from a dedicated device. :)

Embedded cameras are not about quality - they are about taking record shots and about sending them to folks. To get 'good' images would simply cost too much. If all you want to do is produce 6x4 inch prints, then sure, but nothing more. Even with 5 mega pixels, optics the quality of the bottom of a beer glass won't get you far. :wink: Carl Zeiss optics on embedded cameras? It'll probably happen at some point. :lol:

Camera and PDA phones may damage the low end of the camera market, but I think that folks do value and appreciate the extra quality and features that a real camera offers.

[surur]

It's also not so important to have the latest phone, as long as it support Bluetooth etc :wink: It IS important to have the latest PDA though! :lol:

You must be joking (or on a different planet from me). Phones are a so much more socially acceptable expression of technology than PDA's. People get a new phone every year, PDA's only every once i a while. If PDA manufacturers could get people on the cellphone upgrade cycle they would be very happy!


Anyways, we all know that standalone pda's are dying (its like a computer without a modem) so in 2 -3 years, a phone with a camera will also be a pda with a camera. And it will be at least 2 megapixel (and still very cheap).

Thank god for Moore's law. We should be applauding this move, as we will still end up with cheap hardware, running a pocketpc OS and all our software, in a cheap and subsidised, very competitive field where the manufacturers know a thing about styling and innovation.

Surur

[foldedspace]

It's odd. The same places where you can't take your phone into the store because it has a camera in it are the same places where cameras in the square watch your every move and traffic cameras take your picture as you drive by and send you a ticket in the mail for speeding. The crackdown is on the citizen while the goverment expands its use of surveillance. Societies decide what's acceptable and governments and businesses follow.

If a workplace wants to restrict camera phones, fine. I don't have to work there. If the grocery store wants to look in my pockets before I go in, then I don't have to shop there. It's the free market at work. We all draw the line somewhere. I think getting frisked before I run in for milk is goofy. That's more of a concern to me than petitioning manufactuers to go along with this paranoia by producing devices that do less, but with the same weight, size and price.

[Jonathon Watkins]

It's also not so important to have the latest phone, as long as it support Bluetooth etc :wink: It IS important to have the latest PDA though! :lol:

You must be joking (or on a different planet from me). Phones are a so much more socially acceptable expression of technology than PDA's. People get a new phone every year, PDA's only every once i a while. If PDA manufacturers could get people on the cellphone upgrade cycle they would be very happy!

Earth, most of the time. :wink:

I think for most of the crowd around here, it *is* more important to have a better/newer PDA than phone. Otherwise they would be hanging around SmartPhoneThoughts (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com)! :wink: Who is talking about socially acceptable by the way? I'm talking about having devices that meet your needs. That's why I am organising to buy an obsolete phone - that meets my needs/wants (Bluetooth & no embedded phone). :?


Anyways, we all know that standalone pda's are dying (its like a computer without a modem) so in 2 -3 years, a phone with a camera will also be a pda with a camera. And it will be at least 2 megapixel (and still very cheap).

A modem? How quaint! :lol: :wink: Standalone PDAs dying is a point of view of course. But it's a bit hard to get a 4 inch screen in a smartphone isn't it? Sure PDAs in the future will have lots of nice features in them, but I question whether cameras will/should be part of that.

Phoenix said it well actually:

I want camera functionality in my cell phone.

The end.

Fine with me. :wink: If most phones comes with cameras, you don't need one in your PDA. (Just let me have a decent phone with BT and no phone please). :?

Please?

[yslee]

Too many posts! too many posts! *swirly-eyed*

1. I'm guessing camera phones will improve, but my main rant is that if you accept mediocrity, you will be given mediocrity. As it is integrated caemras are so piss poor I don't find any compelling reason to use them other than as a toy, which is where I agree Jonathon. Until some decent quality comes from them (this is independent of resolution), they aren't very useful beyod the "kewl" factor.

2. I do agree in a bit that this is due to paranoia of society and businesses, but after seeing numerous less-than-desirabe uses of them, I guess you can't exactly blame places for wanting to ban them.

3. Errr, 10 megapixels?

4. Jonathon, here I've seen the T68i going for less than US$60.

5. Oh, on BT phones without a camera.. there is the.. NGAGE! =P

[sjr]

personally i cant see how banning camera phones really helps. with modern day technology if someone wants to take a picture of something they will with or without camera phones, its pretty easy to get a pinhole camera that can be consealed in anything. imo its just a moronic attempt of a solution to a problem thats occuring.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Too many posts! too many posts! *swirly-eyed*

:eek: :crazyeyes:

Nah - just good solid constuctive debate. :wink:

I'm guessing camera phones will improve, but my main rant is that if you accept mediocrity, you will be given mediocrity. As it is integrated caemras are so piss poor I don't find any compelling reason to use them other than as a toy, which is where I agree Jonathon. Until some decent quality comes from them (this is independent of resolution), they aren't very useful beyod the "kewl" factor.

Well, I *do* see the point of having one for 'record' shots, but, I can't take one to work and I'm not about start messing about swapping SIMs between phones. :?

I do agree in a bit that this is due to paranoia of society and businesses, but after seeing numerous less-than-desirabe uses of them, I guess you can't exactly blame places for wanting to ban them.

Very true - and this will probably get worse. :|

Jonathon, here I've seen the T68i going for less than US$60.

I've managed to source one, but that price is a fair bit cheaper than I've seen over here.

Oh, on BT phones without a camera.. there is the.. NGAGE! =P

:twak: Ummm, NO! :lol: It was practically the only phone coming up that had BT and no camera though. :|

[whydidnt]

Aside from the obvious personal rights violations and security problems my objection to embedded cameras is based on my opinion that this "functionality" or "feature" is being crammed into devices where it is just not needed.

I'm sorry, but this quote is just incredible. Explain to me how an inanimate object such as cell phone with a camera violates your personal rights? How is a camera violating your security. It can't -- only a person misusing it can, and I hate to tell you that if it's not the camera phone with that person it will be something else. That guy doesn't care if it's banned or not.

This is the age old gun rights debate, only you can insert the word Camera where ever gun might be. Camera's don't shoot you, people do. Banning the technology is not the answer because those who really want to break the rules will find a way regardless of the rules. Those who have no intention of misusing the technolgy get penalized because it's "easier" for those in charge just to ban the technology, than it is to enforce common sense rules on people that work for them.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Aside from the obvious personal rights violations and security problems my objection to embedded cameras is based on my opinion that this "functionality" or "feature" is being crammed into devices where it is just not needed.

I'm sorry, but this quote is just incredible. Explain to me how an inanimate object such as cell phone with a camera violates your personal rights? How is a camera violating your security. It can't -- only a person misuing it can, and I hate to tell you that if it's not the camera phone with that person it will be something else. That guy doesn't care if it's banned or not.

Just a word of warning, lets NOT go off-topic into gun controll, OK? :)

I think that CTSLICK was talking about *potential* personal rights violations and security problems. If there is no camera - there can't be any pictures. It won't necessarily *be* something else. That argument is like saying "Lets rob that store, because if we don't, someone else will."

Banning the technology is not the answer because those who really want to break the rules will find a way regardless of the rules. Those who have no intention of misusing the technolgy get penalized because it's "easier" for those in charge just to ban the technology, than enforce common sense rules of people that work for them.

There is truth in that, but you can't take a picture without a camera, right? Security is about risk reduction. The fewer cameras, the less the risk of security breaches. In most places banning cameras is only one part of an overall security policy. But - selective exceptions soon wreck havoc with the best plans. It's safer/easier/less risky to ban them. I don't like it, but I can understand it. That's the way the world is - and it ain't going to change.

[yslee]

Well, I *do* see the point of having one for 'record' shots, but, I can't take one to work and I'm not about start messing about swapping SIMs between phones. :?


Well, it's not about if they're useful or not at all, just that in their current state, they just aren't very good. Yea, I know, plenty of people love them, but why accept mediocrity?


I've managed to source one, but that price is a fair bit cheaper than I've seen over here.

Don't mind me for saying this, but where you live, electronics are expensive! I can buy stuff new and sell them in the UK as second hand goods and still make a profit (friends flying to and fro UK have already done that).


:twak: Ummm, NO! :lol: It was practically the only phone coming up that had BT and no camera though. :|

You have no choice! Muhahahahahah! How about the Ngage QD? =P No sidetalking at least.

[surur]

It's also not so important to have the latest phone, as long as it support Bluetooth etc :wink: It IS important to have the latest PDA though! :lol:

You must be joking (or on a different planet from me). Phones are a so much more socially acceptable expression of technology than PDA's. People get a new phone every year, PDA's only every once i a while. If PDA manufacturers could get people on the cellphone upgrade cycle they would be very happy!

Earth, most of the time. :wink:

I think for most of the crowd around here, it *is* more important to have a better/newer PDA than phone. Otherwise they would be hanging around SmartPhoneThoughts (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com)! :wink: Who is talking about socially acceptable by the way? I'm talking about having devices that meet your needs. That's why I am organising to buy an obsolete phone - that meets my needs/wants (Bluetooth & no embedded phone). :?


I personally HATE MS smartphones. I think they fragment an already small market by preventing cross compatibility. I am only a fan of full grown PPC PE's, and have one to prove this. I just wish MS spent the same amount of time on the one handed interface than they did on the smartphone, but I guess due to ideological decisions they did not. Smartphones are for low power devices, and I like my PDA full fat, full power please!


Anyways, we all know that standalone pda's are dying (its like a computer without a modem) so in 2 -3 years, a phone with a camera will also be a pda with a camera. And it will be at least 2 megapixel (and still very cheap).

A modem? How quaint! :lol: :wink: Standalone PDAs dying is a point of view of course. But it's a bit hard to get a 4 inch screen in a smartphone isn't it? Sure PDAs in the future will have lots of nice features in them, but I question whether cameras will/should be part of that.

Phoenix said it well actually:

I want camera functionality in my cell phone.

The end.

Fine with me. :wink: If most phones comes with cameras, you don't need one in your PDA. (Just let me have a decent phone with BT and no phone please). :?

Please?

The point being of course that the pda and phone will be the same (I hope actually, and if devices like the mpx catches on in the public, there should be a chance for a pda phone. Else there wont. This is of course the old one device, 2 device argument, but the very fact that cameras are now very much tied to phones shows the one device argument is winning.

Surur

[whydidnt]

As a person who uses and carries both a UX-50 and a Z600 with embedded cameras I find this debate fascinating. I rarely use either camera, though I find it convenient to have access to one from time to time. I have not yet encountered a ban on my device, so perhaps I don't have the right perspective on this....

I am a pretty strong believer in individual rights and always find it absurd when governments and organizations decide to ban some sort of technology because it could be used in a nefarious (sp?) way. In almost every case it's some sort of "new" technology. Do you know that some major cities on the east coast of the US banned Automobiles from their roads when first introduced? Let's face it the people driving them could have been reckless and ran over a horse... we all know how that debate finally ended.

Organizations that feel the need to ban new technology really need to look closer at the type of people they hire. I, for one, can't understand why an organization that deals with such highly confidential information would hire any employee, or allow any contractor on-site that they don't trust - which is the obvious message here. Surely if you wanted to steal trade secrets you find a less obvious way than the use of a crappy embedded cell phone camera.

This is really no different than the current fight over DVD/CD encryption, companies (and the government by the laws they have passed) have said - we don't trust Joe Public with this technology so we have to lock it up and only let him use it as we see fit. This means that Joe Public is denied his previously defined fair use rights, while no real benefit is derived by the Movie producers since the pirates have and will always find a way to circumvent their copy protection schemes anyway.

Stop fighting to ban technology and start fighting to ban the illegal or unscrupulous use of said technology. I think you would better spend your energy arguing with your employers that it's ridiculous to ban this type of technology since you aren't going to steal from them anyway.

[yslee]

There is truth in that, but you can't take a picture without a camera, right? Security is about risk reduction. The fewer cameras, the less the risk of security breaches. In most places banning cameras is only one part of an overall security policy. But - selective exceptions soon wreck havoc with the best plans. It's safer/easier/less risky to ban them. I don't like it, but I can understand it. That's the way the world is - and it ain't going to change.

Exactly. Saying that allowing guns and cameras and enforcing common sense and thinking that they won't be misused is naive at best.

[dh]

There are plenty of violations to be found on the web if you seach for a few minutes. There are some real idiots running around with cameras in phones.

As I see it, everyone is free to own a device with a camera built in. At the same time, any company is free to set the rules for their property and I have had to leave my phone at the security desk in many of my customers, although if I remember I leave in my car. I've said in other threads, my bag is often searched looking for cameras. Is this a violation of my privacy? No, I could turn around and walk away if I chose, just wouldn't sell too much that way. Same if you don't like the rules your employer has, exercise your right to choose and work somewhere else. Might be tough if you work in hi-tech though since HP, Apple, Nokia, Sun and most pharmaceutical companies and many others ban cameras.

Because I use my Zaurus at meetings, I'm glad it doesn't have a camera. I don't use the phone during meetings with clients, but I certainly need my data.

Cellphone companies sell a lot of their phones to kids, hopefully serious mobile computer makers will realise that business people are the people that buy expensive devices and keep phone free versions.

[whydidnt]

I think that CTSLICK was talking about *potential* personal rights violations and security problems. If there is no camera - there can't be any pictures. It won't necessarily *be* something else. That argument is like saying "Lets rob that store, because if we don't, someone else will."

Actually it's not, it's saying that guy is going to rob the store whether he has a weapon you can see or not. Not "I'm going to rob the store if he doesn't."


There is truth in that, but you can't take a picture without a camera, right? Security is about risk reduction. The fewer cameras, the less the risk of security breaches. In most places banning cameras is only one part of an overall security policy. But - selective exceptions soon wreck havoc with the best plans. It's safer/easier/less risky to ban them. I don't like it, but I can understand it. That's the way the world is - and it ain't going to change.

Actually I think things will change, you've already pointed out the sheer number of camera phones out there. Someday, a company will be sitting there saying to themselves "Why can't we hire any high quality technical people?" and realize it's because those people don't want to work for a company that doesn't trust them and won't let them carry the latest greates gadget. When that happens they will change the policy and find a better, more realistic way to control the risk.

My company requires me to have anti-virus software, and to use a firewall when connected from my home office - not because they don't trust me, but they know that things "could happen" to compromise our security by accident. They also allow me to be administrator on my PC which would allow me to turn those things off and wreak havoc on their system because they know I won't do that. The same concept goes to camera phones, IMO. If companies invest significant resources controlling risk where no significant risk exists they are spending money that could be better spent controlling real risk. I say this not knowing you personally, but from your posts I can guess the chance of you misuising a cellphone camera to be very small, and therefore they company should care less if you have a camera, and worry more about other "real" risks.

[whydidnt]

Exactly. Saying that allowing guns and cameras and enforcing common sense and thinking that they won't be misused is naive at best.

And I say it's naive (at best) to think that banning these will prevent thier misuse. The genie is already out of the bottle, it's very unlikely that she will be put back in.

A business management teacher told me once - Employees like to prove you right - if you don't trust them, they'll prove that you were right not to trust them. If you trust them, they'll prove that you were right to trust them. I've lived by that rule for almost 20 years and have always been amazed by how accurate that statement was.

[rocky_raher]

I walked into the grocery store today. There was a No Cameras sign on the door.

Now there's a restriction I agree with 100%. No reasonable store manager would want ANYONE to photograph their shelves full of canned goods! As a grocery store customer, I would NEVER want anyone to post photographs of me buying Pillsbury self-rising bleached flour on the internet! Speaking of which, do you have any idea of just how many websites are devoted to vegetable fetishes??

I'm glad to see that someone is trying to stop the madness! I wish that more dry cleaning establishments adopted this "No Cameras" policy.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

We should NOT have to look for obsolete phones just because some folks want a toy on the latest and greatest.
So... if Sony Ericsson would continue to build the T68i (or something similar) you'd be happy? I'd say: let your voice carry the message, and vote with your money. Millions of others (youngsters, consumers and some business people) will vote for cameraphones with their wallet. The market heard their voice. Now it's your turn. ;)
I totally agree with this line-of-thinking when people are complaining about one specific product, but in this case, there isn't much of an alternative... and if Jonathon were to end up buying a 2nd hand phone, that "vote" won't count for much as the manufacterers would never notice. Unfortunately, I've ended up selecting 2 phones now with built-in cameras that I didn't particularly want because they were the only 2 phones with all the "other" features I was looking for.

If companies invest significant resources controlling risk where no significant risk exists they are spending money that could be better spent controlling real risk. I say this not knowing you personally, but from your posts I can guess the chance of you misuising a cellphone camera to be very small, and therefore they company should care less if you have a camera, and worry more about other "real" risks.
While I completely agree with your theory here, my limited wisdom tells me that companies will NOT submit to this logic.

I've seen a few posts now state that companies should stop making such a big deal about camera-phones, but in all likelihood, they won't. So the dilemma for the rest of us who don't want the hassle induced by cameraphones (but desire all the other features) is this: do we just accept the cameras along with all the hassle or do we do what Jonathon is doing and that is to reach out for a 2nd-hand T68?

Those are just terrible options IMO.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

I do own an old T68... unfortunately you'd be hard-pressed to find another GSM phone with worse reception, which is critical in the US (where GSM coverage is still relatively light).

Did you upgrade the firmware? After firmware upgrade the phone's reception isn't that bad....
Yes I did. I even have the terminator cable that allows me to flash the firmware myself. Reception is still very bad relative to the Nokia 3650 and worse than the newer SE T610 (which is still bad IMO). That's why I gave the T68 to my father in Thailand. In places were GSM signals are strong and plentiful, there isn't much of an issue, but in the US, it's difficult to work with at best.

[surur]

There is obviously no easy solution to this, but I wonder what the bosses and management do with their own snazzy camera phones when they get to the office.

Unless they make One rule for Us, One for Them, they will eventually change the rules themselves because they experience the inconvenience first hand.

Unlike PDA's, Im sure Bill Gates has a cellphone :)

Surur

[marlof]

I totally agree with this line-of-thinking when people are complaining about one specific product, but in this case, there isn't much of an alternative... and if Jonathon were to end up buying a 2nd hand phone, that "vote" won't count for much as the manufacterers would never notice. Unfortunately, I've ended up selecting 2 phones now with built-in cameras that I didn't particularly want because they were the only 2 phones with all the "other" features I was looking for.

1. If Jonathon (and the ones who can't use a cameraphone) doesn't buy a new phone, the manufacturers should lose sales. If they are such a small number, that this lose of sales doesn't hurt them, it's hard to understand why they should continue to develop devices specifically for such a small group.

2. I've ended up with phones who can play excellent games (like the Sony Ericsson T610), which I didn't care for at all. But since the phone had all other features I was looking for, I still wanted it. And I don't care, since with the subsidized price plans, I could get that phone for free with my contract. I didn't expect to spend less dollars. ;)

[Xanadu]

I'm in a similar situation to many of the others here who work in "secured" environments. As a result, I've repeatedly postponed the purchase of otherwise tempting camera phones (z600, v600, t637, etc.) because I realized that they would be sitting unused in my car for ten hours a day. And what happens if I don't have a vehicle of my own to store it in (due to carpooling or business travel)? Unfortunately, liability issues prevent most companies from allowing you to stow your tech with them while you're on site.

How about this for a "simple" solution: cell phone manufacturers start building their products with removable lenses.

If I know I'm going to be in a non-camera-friendly environment, I remove the lens and pop in a nonfunctional cap into the hole that matches the camera's body color. It wouldn't even LOOK like a camera phone. Should a security agent still become suspicious, I would remove the cap and show him the obviously empty enclosure. (Proper design would make the camera's deactivated status readily apparent.)

Tech hounds get their toy. Working stiffs get an upgrade path.

Problem solved?

-Xan

[Steven Cedrone]

How about this for a "simple" solution: cell phone manufacturers start building their products with removable lenses.

If I know I'm going to be in a non-camera-friendly environment, I remove the lens and pop in a nonfunctional cap into the hole that matches the camera's body color. It wouldn't even LOOK like a camera phone. Should a security agent still become suspicious, I would remove the cap and show him the obviously empty enclosure. (Proper design would make the camera's deactivated status readily apparent.)

Tech hounds get their toy. Working stiffs get an upgrade path.

Problem solved?

-Xan

Although that sounds like an interesting idea, I still see a problem(or two) with it:

1) It is still a camera phone.
2) What would make them believe you didn't have the lens hidden with you, ready to slip back into the phone?

It comes back to the fact that people that work in "secured" environments, need phones without built in cameras - period...

Steve

[Steven Cedrone]

Now there's a restriction I agree with 100%. No reasonable store manager would want ANYONE to photograph their shelves full of canned goods! As a grocery store customer, I would NEVER want anyone to post photographs of me buying Pillsbury self-rising bleached flour on the internet! Speaking of which, do you have any idea of just how many websites are devoted to vegetable fetishes??

It is not unreasonable to assume that the first item on a criminals "to do" list when "casing" the next "hit" might be to photograph the security systems, placement of safe's etc, for detailed analysis later???

But anyway, back on topic. Just because we don't see/understand what the potential threat to a business sees, does not mean it doesn't exist. They do have a right to protect their assets, and if it means a little inconvinience to employees: well, either you just have to respect that or move on...

Just my .02!

Steve

[Pony99CA]

I seriously doubt any OEM would not put in a camera or offer two models just to satisfy such a small group..
It's a very LARGE group actually. There are many people that are not allowed to have cameras on them at work, in leisure centres, in schools, clubs etc. The more ubiquitous embedded cameras become, the more places will ban them.
Let's look at the situation from another point of view. If no places banned camera phones, would you mind having one? Would you actually want one?

If/when you do your poll, I hope you'll at least have the following options:

Do you want a camera phone (or a PDA with a camera)?

Yes
Yes, but some place I have to go bans them
Yes, but not until the quality improves
It really doesn't matter
No

If camera phones truly do become ubiquitous, do you really believe more places will ban them? Or do you think they'll succumb to the reality of the situation and realize that people want their phones with them and stop banning them?

I'm hoping the latter.

Steve

P.S. This thread is completely mistitled. The backlash began long ago. I've been hearing stories about places banning camera phones for months (if not longer), and you've been talking about it for a few weeks here. :-)

[Steven Cedrone]

If camera phones truly do become ubiquitous, do you really believe more places will ban them?

Yes, I really think they will...

Or do you think they'll succumb to the reality of the situation and realize that people want their phones with them and stop banning them?

I'm hoping the latter.

You can hope all you want! :wink: There are businesses out there that will never lift the ban on cameras (including camera enabled phones). And the trend to ban is likely to continue, regardless of how ubiquitous they become (and maybe because of that very fact)...

Steve

[Pony99CA]

1. I'm guessing camera phones will improve, but my main rant is that if you accept mediocrity, you will be given mediocrity. As it is integrated caemras are so piss poor I don't find any compelling reason to use them other than as a toy, which is where I agree Jonathon. Until some decent quality comes from them (this is independent of resolution), they aren't very useful beyod the "kewl" factor.
That's just a failure of imagination. Here are some ways "toy" camera phones could be useful:

I'm in a car accident. With my camera phone, I can take photos of the scene (at least in daylight :-D), the license plate, the other person's driver's license, etc.

I'm shopping for clothes, but I'm not sure about the cool outfit I saw. I try it on and send a picture to my wife to get her opinion (which is the only one that matters, of course :lol:).

My daughter wants the latest Bratz doll. The store I'm at has several different ones, so I send a picture to her or my wife to see if I have the right one.

I spot a crime, so I take a photo for the police that I otherwise couldn't have because I didn't usually carry a camera.

I see a price for something I want at one store, but know the store I usually shop at will match the price plus 10% of the difference. I take the picture and go to my regular store and show them the photo.

I see a newsworthy event, so I send a photo to my local newspaper.

I have personally taken accident photos with a digital camera that I used to carry with me (but no longer do as much because I got a camera phone). I have also taken pictures of prices at a store with my camera phone to show the manager when the price I was charged didn't match the receipt. (Yes, the manager could have gone and looked, but I don't like waiting.)

Just because the current cameras aren't very good (which I'll agree with) and don't live up to your professional standards doesn't mean they aren't useful. Maybe you're use of superb equipment has just made you jaded. :-D

Steve

[surur]

Now there's a restriction I agree with 100%. No reasonable store manager would want ANYONE to photograph their shelves full of canned goods! As a grocery store customer, I would NEVER want anyone to post photographs of me buying Pillsbury self-rising bleached flour on the internet! Speaking of which, do you have any idea of just how many websites are devoted to vegetable fetishes??

It is not unreasonable to assume that the first item on a criminals "to do" list when "casing" the next "hit" might be to photograph the security systems, placement of safe's etc, for detailed analysis later???

But anyway, back on topic. Just because we don't see/understand what the potential threat to a business sees, does not mean it doesn't exist. They do have a right to protect their assets, and if it means a little inconvenience to employees: well, either you just have to respect that or move on...


This is a restriction on the shoppers, not the employees.

Actually the reason they are probably banning cameras is so their prices could not be compared more easily with their competitors. There was a story about this a year or two ago.

This just goes to show the maxim: If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?

[Pony99CA]

I think that CTSLICK was talking about *potential* personal rights violations and security problems. If there is no camera - there can't be any pictures. It won't necessarily *be* something else. That argument is like saying "Lets rob that store, because if we don't, someone else will."
Now that's not the same thing at all. Banning camera phones obviously won't solve the problem of cameras in the work place. There are already many other "hidden" digital cameras available (PDAs, pens, cigarette lighters, etc.). However, there are also just plain cameras, which are getting smaller.

Unless people are physically patted down and have their bags searched, it's easy to sneak a digital camera in someplace. Let's watch the people better, not ban the technology.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Now there's a restriction I agree with 100%. No reasonable store manager would want ANYONE to photograph their shelves full of canned goods! As a grocery store customer, I would NEVER want anyone to post photographs of me buying Pillsbury self-rising bleached flour on the internet! Speaking of which, do you have any idea of just how many websites are devoted to vegetable fetishes??
It is not unreasonable to assume that the first item on a criminals "to do" list when "casing" the next "hit" might be to photograph the security systems, placement of safe's etc, for detailed analysis later???

I was thinking it might be more of a price comparison issue. I've heard that a WalMart prevented some woman from writing down prices once. Other companies have complained about price comparison Web sites that put their sales information on the Web before it was distributed to the general public.

However, assuming somebody with a camera phone is casing the joint seems a bit much. If somebody seems suspicious because they're taking a lot of pictures, ask them what they're doing. A criminal will probably take that as a good time to leave.

Anyway, I think you're giving criminals too much credit. Most people robbing a grocery store probably aren't that smart. Banks are where the money is at. :lol:

Steve

[surur]

I'm shopping for clothes, but I'm not sure about the cool outfit I saw. I try it on and send a picture to my wife to get her opinion (which is the only one that matters, of course :lol:).

My daughter wants the latest Bratz doll. The store I'm at has several different ones, so I send a picture to her or my wife to see if I have the right one.

I see a price for something I want at one store, but know the store I usually shop at will match the price plus 10% of the difference. I take the picture and go to my regular store and show them the photo.

.
.
.
I have also taken pictures of prices at a store with my camera phone to show the manager when the price I was charged didn't match the receipt. (Yes, the manager could have gone and looked, but I don't like waiting.)


Did you know you were breaking the law!!!

‘Prices are trade secrets’ – stores unite to make DMCA look stupid (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/prices_are_trade_secrets_stores/)

An excerpt:

Four major US retailers have thrown their weight behind the anti-DMCA campaign by making it look ridiculous. The bargain hunter site FatWallet.com has been given notices under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by WalMart, Target, Best Buy and Staples claiming that their sale prices are copyright trade secrets.

The stores dont want you to do any of these things, and they will try and make it as difficult as possible for you. Also when earlier it was said that government are protecting our privacy by banning cameras: Again, if I wasn't doing anything wrong and newsworthy, there would be nothing to leak to the newspapers. They are most likely protecting their own underhanded practises.

Surur

[Pony99CA]

There are businesses out there that will never lift the ban on cameras (including camera enabled phones). And the trend to ban is likely to continue, regardless of how ubiquitous they become (and maybe because of that very fact)...
I agree that many places won't lift the ban, but those should only be high-security areas. There's no reason in many companies to prevent me from having a camera phone in most of the business. Just ban the cameras in the high-security areas.

However, I wasn't talking about companies like that. I was referring more to consumer-oriented businesses. Consider health clubs, for example. If camera phones become truly ubiquitous, I doubt they'll be able to stay in business if they're basically telling people they can't have a phone on the premises. People will find another gym or get home exercise equipment rather than be without their phone.

Steve

[bjornkeizers]

Glad to see my comments sparked such a lengthy debate!

Here's a thought: since it's possible to jam signals to and from phones, what about jamming cameras as well? Since most new phones will come with some form of connectivity, it's easy to build in a function that deactivates the phone when it recieves a signal...

It won't stop the James Bond type, but it'd work for most businesses.

[dMores]

not sure if it's been brought up in these 10+ pages thread, but has anyone ever tried taking a picture with their cameraphone or snap-on-pda-cam of a document?

i have tried, to copy my mom's recipe, but the quality sucked.
and the video quality is even worse, so forget about going to a sneak preview movie and distribute it on the net :)

maybe i'm just lucky that i don't work for a company that restricts their access like some of you.
i'd agree though that it would be a good idea to produce identical phones/pdas, one with and one without a cam.

[Sven Johannsen]

If camera phones become truly ubiquitous, I doubt they'll be able to stay in business if they're basically telling people they can't have a phone on the premises.
Steve

They don't ban phones, they ban cameras. If your phone has a camera that is your choice...Oh wait, no it isn't, you almost don't have a choice. If you want a featureful phone, you get a camera.

I personally have no problem with cameras in phones. It should be incumbant of the owner to comply with rules that say don't take pictures here. I'm sure everyone would do that. We all wear our seatbelts, obey the speed limits, no-one steals music, (oops sorry, indefinate trial period), etc. Unfortunately our society leans toward helping us comply with the rules that are imposed, by removing the ability to break the rules if possible.

I have a T610, because it is virtually the only BT capable phone that T-Mobile has (currently, I'm not digging an old one up on e-bay and paying for it). There are a significant number of places I cannot take that phone. In my town, high tech/ military, that is not unusual.

I would just like to have a choice, that doesn't involver me getting outdated hardware, loosing the features I want (mainly BT).

I think one more option in the poll would be appropriate.

6. I could care less if there is a camera in the phone or not, but I can't take it where I need it, if there is.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Here's a thought: since it's possible to jam signals to and from phones, what about jamming cameras as well? Since most new phones will come with some form of connectivity, it's easy to build in a function that deactivates the phone when it recieves a signal...

But again, back in the real world that is not going to happen. How would ALL the embedded camera manufactures get together to decide on the protocols to use, how to implement it etc? Just ask Intel how long it took them to get MMX adopted - and that was something that was meant to give customers some benefit. :wink:

[Jonathon Watkins]

There are businesses out there that will never lift the ban on cameras (including camera enabled phones). And the trend to ban is likely to continue, regardless of how ubiquitous they become (and maybe because of that very fact)...
I agree that many places won't lift the ban, but those should only be high-security areas. There's no reason in many companies to prevent me from having a camera phone in most of the business. Just ban the cameras in the high-security areas.

OK Steve - you tell them. But meanwhile, while you arange that, we either obey thier rules, or we are asked to leave.

However, I wasn't talking about companies like that. I was referring more to consumer-oriented businesses. Consider health clubs, for example. If camera phones become truly ubiquitous, I doubt they'll be able to stay in business if they're basically telling people they can't have a phone on the premises. People will find another gym or get home exercise equipment rather than be without their phone.

I know my local health club has this policy and I suspect many other do as well. How many folks are going to get home exercise equipment? Not many that's for sure. If they have embedded cameras they will have to leave their PDAs and camera at home or entrust them to the tender care of the attendants.

You may not like thier policy - but that is the way it is and will remain. They problem will only get worse. :?

[rocky_raher]

2. About security, I feel that it should be a matter of trust. There are digital cameras that fit on keychains, and digital cameras that look like ballpoint pens. An employee who would engage in industrial espionage won't be deterred by forbidding him to keep his cell phone and PDA. Ironically, perhaps the best deterrent to unauthorized photography is intense video surveillance in the workplace!!
Others have mentioned voice recording capability in numerous devices. How about the flash memory dongles that plug into a USB port and can download data? I've seen one embedded in a pen.

On reflection, I see that my reasoning above is faulty. Yes, an employee who's forbidden to bring a camera-equipped PDA or phone into work can still smuggle in a matchbook-sized camera or a pen camera. However, possession of such a thing in a no-camera area would be considered proof of criminal intent. Not forbidding camera phones/PDAs might be interpreted as permitting any cameras whatsoever.
My original paragraph suggests that management adopt an attitude of "We trust you!! Bring in all the cameras/recorders/spy gear you want, we're confident you won't do anything amiss with them!" Ridiculous, actually. Banks trust their employees, but they still lock the cash drawers and count the money at the end of the day.
There's also the matter of due diligence. Despite any and all measures, a security breach can occur. Then management is asked, "Did you do everything reasonable/possible to prevent this?" An answer of "We didn't ban camera phones because it wouldn't do any good, there are other tiny cameras available and we trust everyone anyway" would indicate negligence.

[CTSLICK]

Aside from the obvious personal rights violations and security problems my objection to embedded cameras is based on my opinion that this "functionality" or "feature" is being crammed into devices where it is just not needed.

I'm sorry, but this quote is just incredible. Explain to me how an inanimate object such as cell phone with a camera violates your personal rights? How is a camera violating your security. It can't -- only a person misusing it can, and I hate to tell you that if it's not the camera phone with that person it will be something else. That guy doesn't care if it's banned or not.

This is the age old gun rights debate, only you can insert the word Camera where ever gun might be. Camera's don't shoot you, people do. Banning the technology is not the answer because those who really want to break the rules will find a way regardless of the rules. Those who have no intention of misusing the technolgy get penalized because it's "easier" for those in charge just to ban the technology, than it is to enforce common sense rules on people that work for them.

Please don't shoot your fellow Minnesotan :wink:

You're right, I didn't clarify...my bad. I was definitely speaking of the potential problems caused by those using the device and the potential conflicts with rules and restrictions. I felt this was safe ground as we have already seen some rights violations and security problems with these camera. So, yes, rules and laws need to be constructed to address those issues. An outright ban on devices with embedded cameras doesn't really fix anything. Besides the genie is already out of the bottle.

My point remains that I do not now, or for the forseeable future, want a camera on my device. I would like the people marketing this to focus on functionality I need like better, faster, more widespread connectivity. That is a service I will pay for.

Hope we're all good on this now.

[D.psi]

As I read a small sample of this thread, I realize that not everyone understands what happens in a competitive business market. I work in one of the worst, the defense industry. But pretty much all of the technology driven market place is in a similar boat, AFAIK.

The regulations regarding access to the facility where I work state that no camera is allowed without prior approval. This includes any instrument that could be used to take photographs, which includes PDAs, cell phones, digital cameras, camcorders, what have you. The fact that the regulation only deals with cameras does not limit the application to cameras only; the regulation deals with the capability, not the instrument. In fact, my company reserves the right to confiscate any equipment it deems as being inappropriate; bye-bye cell phone, you've just lost it. The same type of regulation is also implemented at local public swimming pools, don't know what they do if they find you in violation, probably just expel you.

Having the device that include digital cameras disabled by the facility security personel is a non-starter. The only way to do this is a permanent disabling (read damaging) of the device, and the various facilities will not accept the liability for personal equipment damage. The only viable option they have is an outright ban; if you violate the ban, it's your own fault, since you were aware of its existance.

We're not talking a bit of HTML code that anyone has access to, we're talking a new chemical compounds for pharmaceutical companies, we're talking a more efficient engine for a car manufacturer, we're talking a better encryption scheme for a software vendor. These are the sensitive things that are intended to be protected.

It's entertaining to see how people really don't understand information security. Not only are the designs that I work on sensitive, so are the scheduling and budgeting aspects. The benefits packages at many companies are also considered sensitive, as full knowledge of these allows others to lure away star players.

These are the reasons why I can't have a camera at work. I still have my Nokia 6160i, archaic by today's cell phone standards, but it serves my needs. I can guarantee you that I won't be replacing it with a camera enabled phone, otherwise I couldn't bring it to work. It is my personal cell phone, not the company's; the same goes for my Ipaq. Knowing where I work, I have to be careful with the technology I buy.

We have been labelled ludites at some point in this thread. I have been arguing with our IT folks for the accpetance of my handhelds since before I bought my first palm-size PC. Call me a ludite if you will, but I'm actually blazing a trail here.

D.psi

[bjornkeizers]

As It's entertaining to see how people really don't understand information security.


The people you trust with your secrets are in the best position to betray you. If I want to spy on a company or institution, I don't sneak in there with a phone - I recruit someone from inside the company or plant someone there. A good operative with a trained memory could do a lot of damage, much more then someone with a cam phone...

[Steve Jordan]

I firmly believe cameras in cell phones will go down in history as one of the prime examples of the old axiom, "Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done." You know, like internet-enabled blenders, SUVs, and slavery.

Sci-Fi aside (where everyone apparently trusts everyone else explicitly), there's just no practical reason to attach a low-res camera to a cell phone, especially with battery life and bandwidth use such an issue. You can make more of an argument for attaching a camera to a PDA that can beam the pic to a cellphone, but personally, I'd rather have it as an optional attachment that I can leave behind if I desire (and if security demands it).

Speaking of security, companies and offices that are concerned about internal security, whether camera or sound-based, do have one obvious option: Jamming reception. If cell phones could not store their photos, this would solve the security issue at the source. The other company option is to have someone stop every exiting person with a camera-enabled cell phone or PDA, and demand to examine it for photos taken. Both are difficult tasks at best, and not methods I'd recommend. But if no other solutions are offered, expect to see this at an office near you.

With all of that against the camera/cell phone, I expect it will die off eventually, but only well after overstaying its welcome. Maybe it will come back as a true cameraphone someday, when bandwidth isn't so much of an issue (but imagine the stink over using those while driving!).

[makezizz]

I have a friend that works at a government building that not only bans cameras, but also PDAs. You're not supposed to have anything that you could copy any type of documentation to.

After reading the many pages of this topic, it got me to thinking. Even if I could get my current phone (t610) without a camera, it still can function as a voice recorder. Plus, if you had the proper cable, or a wireless connection, you could copy files to it. Or, more basically, if you wanted to copy some complex formula that was too big to memorize, you could jot it down as a note using the keypad.

The only way to be completely secure would be to remove all functionality from the phone except the phone.

[surur]

I firmly believe cameras in cell phones will go down in history as one of the prime examples of the old axiom, "Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done." You know, like internet-enabled blenders, SUVs, and slavery.
.
.
With all of that against the camera/cell phone, I expect it will die off eventually, but only well after overstaying its welcome. Maybe it will come back as a true cameraphone someday, when bandwidth isn't so much of an issue (but imagine the stink over using those while driving!).

This is pure daydreaming. It lacks a firm grasp of the reality most people experience. Just because your particular situation prohibits what phone you can use, does not make it true for most consumers. Thats whats lacking in this thread, a sense of perspective. And as I mentioned earlier, cellphones will only absorb more and more functions, including pocketpc functionality.

As a test, tell me what percentage of people who buy their own mobile phones face the same restrictions as you. I would put it at less than 10%, possibly less than 5%. I dont see manufactures catering much for such a small minority.

Surur

PS: and of course, from a security point of view, mobile phones make excellent listening devices. All one needs to do is phone some-one and keep it in your pocket. Further you could easily read sensitive information to some-one else.

[D.psi]

The people you trust with your secrets are in the best position to betray you. If I want to spy on a company or institution, I don't sneak in there with a phone - I recruit someone from inside the company or plant someone there. A good operative with a trained memory could do a lot of damage, much more then someone with a cam phone...

In terms of raw betrayal you are correct. But the issue, as was pointed earlier, is due diligence. I don't need a good memory I can print out the code, or copy it to disk (in some programs that's easier than others). Yes I am cleared to work here (just had to submit my recertification papers), but from the company's standpoint, due diligence is that no cameras are allowed. Period. End of story.

On my current program, I am forbidden from being anywhere near a window while working. I don't need to work in a Faraday cage, though that was initially proposed. I am in a building inside the building. No windows. I have two computers at my desk, one on a secure network another not. The "secret" computer has all of its ports and drives disabled, so as to not allow any copying out of data, without written justification.

My company takes security relatively seriously. We're not the worst or the best in that respect. But regardless, no cameras, without company approval. Violation of this rule is grounds for dismissal.

D.psi

[whydidnt]

There are a lot of great points on both sides of the debate, the more I think about it, the more I think the marketplace it self will sort this out.

If more and more places end up banning these phones, consumers won't buy them, and manufacturers will start making phones without cameras again - I think we have to factor the cell-phone companies themselves into this decision though - don't they make a little $ on every photo you send over their network?

If more people decide that having a camera phone is a priority, they'll buy one, and work and go to places that allow those. Places that don't allow them will either accept that they've limited their customer and employee base because of this or change their rules to accomodate those who want to carry one of these devcies.

A third possiblity - as the younger generation grows up with these phones matures and moves into management positions at companies, they decide they want to carry their cool phone into the office and relax the rules - someone else pointed this out earlier in a little different way.

Just to respond to my previous posts and some of the follow ups - I don't live in some world of Nirvana where nobody ever breaks the rules. I recognize that companies can and will ban these technologies and I understand the pain some of you must feel in not being able to carry the latest toy into your place of work. Having said all of that I still think too many people are willing to standby and accept bans on items that have no business being banned - - to steal from an earlier post - we never speed and always where our seat belts, right? :wink: Well, no we don't, but guess what - nobody has banned the car to prevent us from speeding. :devilboy:

[Jonathon Watkins]

Actually I think things will change, you've already pointed out the sheer number of camera phones out there. Someday, a company will be sitting there saying to themselves "Why can't we hire any high quality technical people?" and realize it's because those people don't want to work for a company that doesn't trust them and won't let them carry the latest greates gadget. When that happens they will change the policy and find a better, more realistic way to control the risk.

I appreciate what you are saying, but again, I don't think that it is realistic. Downsizing and Outsourcing are powerful disincentives not to rock the boat and make a fuss about these things. I've worked in many hi tech and financial companies - their camera bans are not about trust - they about risk reduction. The thing we have to do is find devices without cameras. I very much doubt this will influence employment practises. The kind of folks that like PDAs are exactly the kind of folks likely to be working in IT or similar jobs, right?

If companies invest significant resources controlling risk where no significant risk exists they are spending money that could be better spent controlling real risk. I say this not knowing you personally, but from your posts I can guess the chance of you misuising a cellphone camera to be very small, and therefore they company should care less if you have a camera, and worry more about other "real" risks.

The thing is - the 'investment' for the companies is minimal. They ban the phones, you sign the contract, that's that. You bring a camera in and you can be in a world of trouble. You comply or you pay the price. Sure you may be able to get away with sneaking a camera in a few times - but sooner or later you will get caught.....

It's nice that a company trusts me, but why should it? Security experts always say that the greatest risk to the network is from insiders, i.e. 'trusted' employees. A firm can never know someone *that* deeply to *know* that *definitely* won't be a problem.

Bottom line - banning cameras is easy and safer for many firms/places of work/places of recreation and this will probably increase. You can;t fight it, so it's best to comply with it.

[Jonathon Watkins]

As It's entertaining to see how people really don't understand information security.


The people you trust with your secrets are in the best position to betray you. If I want to spy on a company or institution, I don't sneak in there with a phone - I recruit someone from inside the company or plant someone there. A good operative with a trained memory could do a lot of damage, much more then someone with a cam phone...

Yes, and how much better to have someone from inside with a camera? :wink:

You are so right - it's the people you 'trust' that are in the greatest position to harm you - so why take that risk?

Again, I don't like it, but I understand it and have to comply with it - as do many others.

[D.psi]

As for the argument that the company can simply change its policy... In some industries, these policies are mandated by government agencies, and regulations.

We can all say that the company will change its policies, but when it's a government regulation that mandates the ban, then it's not nearly so easy to get the policy reversed. We get audited, by the authorities. They look for security breaches.

There may be a fair number of locations where cell phones don't cause a problem. But my industry as a whole does not include any of these locations. The original post was about a backlash on introduction of a camera as a built-in peripheral in consumer electronics. I can ensure you that the backlash has started... Almost 2 years ago for public swimming pools AFAIK. My job, the ban has ALWAYS been on; the only difference is the number of devices they have to look out for now.

Yes it is unfortunate, but these bans are on for a variety of reasons (liability, security, due diligence, etc...).

[surur]

There may be a fair number of locations where cell phones don't cause a problem. But my industry as a whole does not include any of these locations.

I believe your experience has distorted your perceptions. I would say MOST workplaces allow camera phones. And most people, if it was not for their work, appreciate having a camera in their phone, and would pay extra for it.

In the same way that there is little point fighting against the company that is employing you's rules, there is little point in fighting against the phone manufacturers who are making these phones and making a profit on them.

As some-one said earlier, the market will sort it out. If there is enough demand, the manufactures will bring out speciality phones, at increased prices (as there will be less economy of scale) with less features .

I imagine that a phone that hold a SD card would also be a security risk, so no mp3 phones either. Really no smart phones period....

Surur

[Xanadu]

How about this for a "simple" solution: cell phone manufacturers start building their products with removable lenses.

If I know I'm going to be in a non-camera-friendly environment, I remove the lens and pop in a nonfunctional cap into the hole that matches the camera's body color. It wouldn't even LOOK like a camera phone. Should a security agent still become suspicious, I would remove the cap and show him the obviously empty enclosure. (Proper design would make the camera's deactivated status readily apparent.)

Tech hounds get their toy. Working stiffs get an upgrade path.

Problem solved?

-Xan

Although that sounds like an interesting idea, I still see a problem(or two) with it:

1) It is still a camera phone.
2) What would make them believe you didn't have the lens hidden with you, ready to slip back into the phone?

It comes back to the fact that people that work in "secured" environments, need phones without built in cameras - period...

Steve

1) Actually, without the lens it is no longer a (functional) camera phone. When this is combined with a design that makes proof of deactivation trivial, we might just have an employer-acceptable solution.

2) How do they know the owner of a T68i doesn't have the add-on camera stored somewhere in his briefcase? This is a solved problem, with which employers are already familliar, and it involves a certain amount of trust. They disallow cameras in their facilities but don't feel the need to search everyone upon entry. Anyone found with a functional camera will face disciplinary action. So if I'm in a restricted area and using a camera accessory with my T68i or a lens module with my fantasy cameraphone, then I'm in trouble. But if I can easily demonstrate that I've NOT got a functional cameraphone, then it goes a long way towards allaying their fears.

Heck, I've already had my security office give the thumbs up for "disabling" an eventual cameraphone of mine with epoxy. However, I haven't had the heart to do it. It just seems like such a waste of a high-end phone. :roll:

-Xan

[surur]

Heck, I've already had my security office give the thumbs up for "disabling" an eventual cameraphone of mine with epoxy. However, I haven't had the heart to do it. It just seems like such a waste of a high-end phone. :roll:

-Xan

A triumph for reason! As this will be an increasing problem, its also a problem for business. I think someone will come out with a tamper-evident permanently adhesive sticker with e.g a hologram on it, that security could paste over the lens of a phone. You buy your phone, take it security, they paste their £5 sticker on, and every morning when you come to work, and every afternoon when you leave, you show them your phone as you check out. If your (fragile?) sticker is in good order, fine, if not you are in for the strip search.

This is a solvable problem, and progressive businesses will look at it as an aftermarket business opportunity.

Surur

[D.psi]

I believe your experience has distorted your perceptions. I would say MOST workplaces allow camera phones. And most people, if it was not for their work, appreciate having a camera in their phone, and would pay extra for it.
...
I imagine that a phone that hold a SD card would also be a security risk, so no mp3 phones either. Really no smart phones period....

Yes my perception may be skewed, I'll admit. But I doubt that my industry is the only one with these kinds of restrictions. Look at the lengths that the automobile industry will go to in order to protect the body design prior to unveilling it to the masses at an auto show. Don't even mention the pharmaceutical industry!!!

As for large capacity storage medium, I have an e-mail in with the security department concerning my Ipaq and the latest information policy. Don't know what they'll come back with. Technically they could seize it, since it has not gone through the authentication process. (The authentication process is simply ridiculous.)

1) Actually, without the lens it is no longer a (functional) camera phone. When this is combined with a design that makes proof of deactivation trivial, we might just have an employer-acceptable solution.

2) How do they know the owner of a T68i doesn't have the add-on camera stored somewhere in his briefcase?

Point 1) Actually what prevents the user from having a second lens? You can guarantee that for such a removable object, there will be a large after-market demand for replacements for lost parts. So simply covering / removing the lens will be insufficient.

Point 2) You are correct, there are a number of after market accessories for my Ipaq that would give it a photographic capability. The company trusts me not to take any in, but only because they have the heavy weight of sanctions to prevent me from having a camera in-house. From the company's point of view it's not a fear; it's a question of having leverage. If the policy is that no cameras are allowed without prior authorization, then they have the right to take disciplinary action should they discover the presence of a camera (assembled or disassembled).

Call it paranoia, call it stupid, call sslfjdlfj, it makes no difference. There will always be a market for non-camera devices, because there will always be locations where these aren't allowed.

[Jonathon Watkins]

There may be a fair number of locations where cell phones don't cause a problem. But my industry as a whole does not include any of these locations.

I believe your experience has distorted your perceptions. I would say MOST workplaces allow camera phones. And most people, if it was not for their work, appreciate having a camera in their phone, and would pay extra for it.

If you work for in the tech, finance, aerospace or govenment sectors then you are probably affected, or will be. This will prove to be more and more of an issue as more camera-enabled devices turn up.

I totally agree with you about the fact that if it wasn't for work I would want a camera on my PDA. BUT, I need to work and want a PDA on me, so I can't have one. :?

In the same way that there is little point fighting against the company that is employing you's rules, there is little point in fighting against the phone manufacturers who are making these phones and making a profit on them.

I agree with the first point and disagree with the second one. This thread and the BBC and Ars Technica stories are all pointing out that the embedded camera trend has gone too far and should be reined in. Sure they have their place, but that's *not* on every high end PDA and phone.

As some-one said earlier, the market will sort it out. If there is enough demand, the manufactures will bring out speciality phones, at increased prices (as there will be less economy of scale) with less features.

Maybe - maybe not - but I would welcome that actually as it would give me a choice I am rapidly losing. :?

I imagine that a phone that hold a SD card would also be a security risk, so no mp3 phones either. Really no smart phones period....

You are actually correct, but it's not the SD capability that are usually a problem - it's acually carying SD, CF cards etc. that is banned.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Heck, I've already had my security office give the thumbs up for "disabling" an eventual cameraphone of mine with epoxy. However, I haven't had the heart to do it. It just seems like such a waste of a high-end phone. :roll:

A triumph for reason!

Or a triumph for the pink slip/P45 department if they chose to take it that far. :? If you have said you are going to disable an cameraphone and then don't, isn't that worse than doing nothing in the first place? Now they know you have a cameraphone! :wink:

If you have it in writing that you are allowed an embedded camera at work then great. Otherwise it could be storing up problems for later.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Well, I *do* see the point of having one for 'record' shots, but, I can't take one to work and I'm not about start messing about swapping SIMs between phones. :?

Well, it's not about if they're useful or not at all, just that in their current state, they just aren't very good. Yea, I know, plenty of people love them, but why accept mediocrity?

Because a mediocre record shot is sometimes better than none? Don't get me wrong - if I could have an embedded camera in my PDA I would. But I can't and doubt I ever will be able to due to my job.


I've managed to source one, but that price is a fair bit cheaper than I've seen over here.
Don't mind me for saying this, but where you live, electronics are expensive! I can buy stuff new and sell them in the UK as second hand goods and still make a profit (friends flying to and fro UK have already done that).

8O Electronics expensive in the UK? NO, really? 8O :lol: :cry:


:twak: Ummm, NO! :lol: It was practically the only phone coming up that had BT and no camera though. :|
You have no choice! Muhahahahahah! How about the Ngage QD? =P No sidetalking at least.

Sidetalking!!!!! (http://www.sidetalkin.com/)

Ummm, no. :wink:

[surur]

Heck, I've already had my security office give the thumbs up for "disabling" an eventual cameraphone of mine with epoxy. However, I haven't had the heart to do it. It just seems like such a waste of a high-end phone. :roll:

A triumph for reason!

Or a triumph for the pink slip/P45 department if they chose to take it that far. :? If you have said you are going to disable an cameraphone and then don't, isn't that worse than doing nothing in the first place? Now they know you have a cameraphone! :wink:

If you have it in writing that you are allowed an embedded camera at work then great. Otherwise it could be storing up problems for later.

I meant reason from the security department, offering to allow the camera in after disabling the lens with epoxy (they could even use a fine drill and inject an opaque glue inside). Yes, it would ruin your device, but you did not want the camera function in any case, so its no real loss. I think security could be more pro-active, as the above group appear to have been. I assume xanadu is currently leaving his phone in the car, instead of taking the very final decision of destroying the camera and using it at work. This just demonstrates what value he places on the camera functionality.

I however mainly applaud his security department for being willing to meet him half-way in a secure solution.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I meant reason from the security department, offering to allow the camera in after disabling the lens with epoxy (they could even use a fine drill and inject an opaque glue inside). Yes, it would ruin your device, but you did not want the camera function in any case, so its no real loss. I think security could be more pro-active, as the above group appear to have been.

Doh - yes I see what you mean. Only thing is - does Xanadu have that in writing? Someone's word is very well - but what is company policy on something like that - especially if nothing is explicitly written down?

[surur]

I imagine a simple service, the certified phone camera destroyer. You want to use your camera phone at work, and dont care about the camera? You give your phone to security. They send it off to their certified camera destroyer, who then drills out the camera lens, fills with with epoxy and then put their seal on the epoxy. Taks them 10 minutes per phone. You get your phone back in a few days, and it costs you say £10-15. Everybody happy.

Why not?

[Jonathon Watkins]

But anyway, back on topic. Just because we don't see/understand what the potential threat to a business sees, does not mean it doesn't exist. They do have a right to protect their assets, and if it means a little inconvinience to employees: well, either you just have to respect that or move on...

Bingo! :way to go:


2. About security, I feel that it should be a matter of trust. There are digital cameras that fit on keychains, and digital cameras that look like ballpoint pens.
On reflection, I see that my reasoning above is faulty. Yes, an employee who's forbidden to bring a camera-equipped PDA or phone into work can still smuggle in a matchbook-sized camera or a pen camera. However, possession of such a thing in a no-camera area would be considered proof of criminal intent. Not forbidding camera phones/PDAs might be interpreted as permitting any cameras whatsoever.
My original paragraph suggests that management adopt an attitude of "We trust you!! Bring in all the cameras/recorders/spy gear you want, we're confident you won't do anything amiss with them!" Ridiculous, actually. Banks trust their employees, but they still lock the cash drawers and count the money at the end of the day.
There's also the matter of due diligence. Despite any and all measures, a security breach can occur. Then management is asked, "Did you do everything reasonable/possible to prevent this?" An answer of "We didn't ban camera phones because it wouldn't do any good, there are other tiny cameras available and we trust everyone anyway" would indicate negligence.

Again, bingo and good on you for going to reevaluate issues when new perspectives/facts become available. :)

That's the thing I love about PPCT, the usual polite, well reasoned and above all, thoughtfull debates that can be had. WAY more light than heat! :mrgreen:

I've had my mind changed on several issues though debates here. As John Maynard Keynes (responding to someone accusing him of changing his mind) once said, "When I receive new evidence, I change my mind, what do YOU do?" :wink:

[Jonathon Watkins]

There is obviously no easy solution to this, but I wonder what the bosses and management do with their own snazzy camera phones when they get to the office.

Unless they make One rule for Us, One for Them, they will eventually change the rules themselves because they experience the inconvenience first hand.

Nope, this does not wash as the rules apply to everyone. Everyone is inconvenienced and that's just life. It's often not their choice but is due to regulations, requirement, restrictions etc.

I imagine a simple service, the certified phone camera destroyer.

Is that a new Microsoft certification? :lol:

A good idea but I can't see it flying........unless the embedded phone situation gets really bad, which it may...... :|

[yslee]

Can't keep up, can't keep up! @_@

Re: Quality of phones, they're just not dependable enough for the applications listed. I agree with their usefulness, heck, some are things which I've thought about a few years back (like shopping for your girlfriend), but knowing the recipients of the photos it means the quality simply has to get better (and they probably will, I hope).

Re: Information mangement and security, I agree with D.psi on many people here not knowing how information is managed. Also that it is an important step in risk reduction and management (rocky makes a good point on this). And that it does give a company firm ground on where they stand on such devices.

Surur mentioned that most companies don't ban such phones. I'm current interning at an American MNC, and they're not small, but I've been allowed to bring my cameras (big ones) to work. As whydidnt mentions it, the trust is nice, but at the same time, I've also had the unfortunate experience previously to work with people who I can't trust at all.

Jonathon: Ha, yes, electronics are expensive! Stupidly so!

In closing, I'd like to say that we shouldn't whine and say that camera phones should be allowed everywhere, period. Policies happen because of things, and what we as consumers, users, and stakeholders do is to be proactive about it and try to get a compromise we're all happy with. In a sense I gues as someone said, the free market will soon sort itself out (but it'll take a while, so be patient folks).

[Pony99CA]

not sure if it's been brought up in these 10+ pages thread, but has anyone ever tried taking a picture with their cameraphone or snap-on-pda-cam of a document?

i have tried, to copy my mom's recipe, but the quality sucked.
and the video quality is even worse, so forget about going to a sneak preview movie and distribute it on the net :)
Actually, lots of people have apparently tried taking pictures of "documents". Last year, I heard of a phenomenon in Japan called "digital shoplifting". People would go into a store and use their camera phones to take pictures of magazines.

I can't imagine the quality would be that great, and to get a significant part of a magazine would likely take a long time. Plus, I can't imagine you'd be very inconspicuous sitting there with a magazine and a phone for a long period of time.

However, the point is that it has already been a problem, and not in the high-security business world.

Of course, that doesn't mean stores should ban camera phones. New technologies often create new problems, and we don't ban them; we learn to accept them and selectively regulate them.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

If camera phones become truly ubiquitous, I doubt they'll be able to stay in business if they're basically telling people they can't have a phone on the premises.
They don't ban phones, they ban cameras. If your phone has a camera that is your choice...Oh wait, no it isn't, you almost don't have a choice. If you want a featureful phone, you get a camera.
Yes, I know they ban cameras, not phones specificially. However, is it just a coincidence that many of these bans have come along after camera phones started becoming popular? I don't think so.

My point was that if you literally can't get a cell phone without a camera, many places will have to change their policies. Like it or not, the cell phone has become a necessary part of many people's lives, both business and personal. If places without true security needs start banning them, they will likely be the ones to suffer.

I personally have no problem with cameras in phones. It should be incumbant of the owner to comply with rules that say don't take pictures here. I'm sure everyone would do that. We all wear our seatbelts, obey the speed limits, no-one steals music, (oops sorry, indefinate trial period), etc. Unfortunately our society leans toward helping us comply with the rules that are imposed, by removing the ability to break the rules if possible.
Society rarely removes the ability to break the rules; it implements punishments for those who do. That's why cars, knives, alcohol and guns aren't banned, but inappropriate uses of them are. I really don't think the camera is close to the level of danger those items are.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

However, I wasn't talking about companies like that. I was referring more to consumer-oriented businesses. Consider health clubs, for example. If camera phones become truly ubiquitous, I doubt they'll be able to stay in business if they're basically telling people they can't have a phone on the premises. People will find another gym or get home exercise equipment rather than be without their phone.
I know my local health club has this policy and I suspect many other do as well. How many folks are going to get home exercise equipment? Not many that's for sure.
First, there seems to be a large market for home exercise equipment already. I bet there are some people who will choose to stay home and work out rather than give up their phones.

Second, you only dealt with one half of my statement. Do all health clubs ban cameras? If not, people may choose to go to one that doesn't.

You may not like thier policy - but that is the way it is and will remain.
I'm sorry, but you can't possibly know that, unless you've become psychic. If everybody has a camera phone, and the club finds people aren't willing to in essence surrender their phone to work out, the club may decide that policy has to change.

I'm not saying it will change, because I'm not psychic either. I'm just allowing for the possibility.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

As I read a small sample of this thread, I realize that not everyone understands what happens in a competitive business market. I work in one of the worst, the defense industry. But pretty much all of the technology driven market place is in a similar boat, AFAIK.

The regulations regarding access to the facility where I work state that no camera is allowed without prior approval. This includes any instrument that could be used to take photographs, which includes PDAs, cell phones, digital cameras, camcorders, what have you.
I've also worked at a company where you had to get a "camera pass" to bring a camera onto the site. The few times that I took a camera to work, I didn't get one, but I wasn't spying, either. One time was to take photos of the office after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, just to record the damage that occurred.

I realize the defense industry (and others) may be a bit more stringent, and necessarily so. :-)

It's entertaining to see how people really don't understand information security. Not only are the designs that I work on sensitive, so are the scheduling and budgeting aspects. The benefits packages at many companies are also considered sensitive, as full knowledge of these allows others to lure away star players.
I understand information security. I've worked in the high-tech industry where even the internal phone directories were considered confidential to keep recruiters from calling people.

However, making something confidential doesn't mean that you have to ban cameras. For example, consider your benefits package example. Many (if not all) companies give their employees a copy of the benefits package when they join, written out on paper for their reference. If the employee wanted to give it to a competitor, it would be very easy to do by just faxing it to them. There is no reason to ban cameras to protect that.

Similarly, if the company phone directory is online, it's easy enough at most places to either E-mail it or print it out (for a small company). Again, there's no reason to ban cameras.

I understand about "due diligence", and that makes sense for locations with high-security restrictions. All I'm saying is that companies should strive to minimize those areas for both their own and their employees' convenience. That's one reason that companies also have multiple levels of security (as IBM did when I worked there).

To use your case again, you said you work in a building-within-a-building. Maybe cameras would be banned in your area, but not the enclosing building. That would be reasonable, I think.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Sci-Fi aside (where everyone apparently trusts everyone else explicitly), there's just no practical reason to attach a low-res camera to a cell phone, especially with battery life and bandwidth use such an issue.
Did you read my post (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=254935#254935) where I gave several? If you disagree with those, please state why.

Speaking of security, companies and offices that are concerned about internal security, whether camera or sound-based, do have one obvious option: Jamming reception. If cell phones could not store their photos, this would solve the security issue at the source.
Jamming obviously won't work by itself. The camera phone I have (the LG VX6000) allows storing up to 20 pictures. While jamming might prevent me from sending the pictures while on-site, nothing would prevent me from sending them later.

Jamming would also have the undesirable side-effect of preventing using the phone. :roll:

The other company option is to have someone stop every exiting person with a camera-enabled cell phone or PDA, and demand to examine it for photos taken. Both are difficult tasks at best, and not methods I'd recommend. But if no other solutions are offered, expect to see this at an office near you.
Again, this won't work by itself. Unless you jam the phones in the facility, I could take the pictures, send them out and delete them before I got to the security checkpoint.

Even for a non-connected device, implementing it would be tough. Consider something like the Viewsonic V36, which has a camera. If the facility allows me to keep it, I could take pictures, store the pictures on an SD card and put the SD card in my sock (or even in a capsule that I'd swallow).

When leaving, I could confidently show them that I had no pictures on my PDA, and they wouldn't find any unless they strip-searched (or X-rayed :!: ) me.

Yes, I know I'm making the case for banning a PDA with a camera, which I have argued against, but that just proves that I can see both sides of the issue. :-D

With all of that against the camera/cell phone, I expect it will die off eventually, but only well after overstaying its welcome. Maybe it will come back as a true cameraphone someday, when bandwidth isn't so much of an issue (but imagine the stink over using those while driving!).
I think you're wrong. Camera phones are here to stay. Both the cameras themselves and bandwidth will improve, so I doubt you'll see them disappear only to reemerge later.

Steve

[D.psi]

I think, in response to the original post title Embedded camera backlash begins, we can probably all agree that yes the backlash has started.

The broader questions of: 1) was the addition of embedded cameras generally good, and 2) will all future devices include embedded cameras, it depends on the individual's perspective.

I personally think that from the cell phone providers point of view, it was an intelligent way to boost their wireless internet service: add a phone and a means to email pictures from it. From society's point of view I think this development is a mixed blessing, and only time will tell how well it is accepted in the long term. (Yes, invasion of privacy issues have cropped up w.r.t. cameras in change rooms, etc...)

Will ALL future devices include a camera I doubt it. There will always be a market for non-camera devices. The pendulum has swung way over to the camera side for now, but I think it will settle closer to centre. There are many reasons why cameras might not be desireable, and I think eventually the market will reflect this fact. We may need to pressure the vendors, but I guess that's also what this thread was about.

D.psi

[Xanadu]

1) Actually, without the lens it is no longer a (functional) camera phone. When this is combined with a design that makes proof of deactivation trivial, we might just have an employer-acceptable solution.

2) How do they know the owner of a T68i doesn't have the add-on camera stored somewhere in his briefcase?

Point 1) Actually what prevents the user from having a second lens? You can guarantee that for such a removable object, there will be a large after-market demand for replacements for lost parts. So simply covering / removing the lens will be insufficient.

Point 2) &lt;snip> If the policy is that no cameras are allowed without prior authorization, then they have the right to take disciplinary action should they discover the presence of a camera (assembled or disassembled).

Call it paranoia, call it stupid, call sslfjdlfj, it makes no difference. There will always be a market for non-camera devices, because there will always be locations where these aren't allowed.

1) I should have been a bit more clear. My concept for an employer-friendly camera-phone has a modular lens that can be removed and reinstalled without tools at the whim of the owner.

To address your main point, having a provably disabled cameraphone is more than sufficient to meet the security needs of a concerned employer. When I go to work or travel on business, I would remove my cameraphone's lens and leave it at home. The fact that I could theoretically pop in a previously concealed lens into my camera and take pictures is irrelevant. Why? Because the company would have the same concern for someone attaching a camera module to a T68i....but you don't see un-accessorized T68i's being singled out for exclusion. It is the camera accessory/lens module that is/would be banned.

Thus, we have reduced the issue to a known, solved problem. The offense is having a phone that can take pictures.

2) We're in agreement. If I'm at work and have a T68i in one pocket and the camera module in another, I'm going to get in trouble. Same situation with my conceptual cameraphone. However, if I'm only in possession of the phone without the camera accessory/lens, then there's no violation.

-Xan

[Xanadu]

Yes, it would ruin your device, but you did not want the camera function in any case, so its no real loss. I think security could be more pro-active, as the above group appear to have been. I assume xanadu is currently leaving his phone in the car, instead of taking the very final decision of destroying the camera and using it at work. This just demonstrates what value he places on the camera functionality.

I however mainly applaud his security department for being willing to meet him half-way in a secure solution.

Actually, I haven't gotten a new phone yet. I'm still cruising around with a minimalist Nokia 3360. :smile:

As for the value I place on a cameraphone, it's actually quite low. I can see it being useful in certain situations (e.g. candids of my kid, post-car accident evidence collection, etc.), but it's not enough to influence my purchasing decision. Still, the techno-miser in me just can't (yet) bring himself to destroy a component in a high-end phone. :lol:

And my company really is easy to work with on this issue. They certainly could have been much more heavy-handed during the whole process.

-Xan

[Xanadu]

I meant reason from the security department, offering to allow the camera in after disabling the lens with epoxy (they could even use a fine drill and inject an opaque glue inside). Yes, it would ruin your device, but you did not want the camera function in any case, so its no real loss. I think security could be more pro-active, as the above group appear to have been.

Doh - yes I see what you mean. Only thing is - does Xanadu have that in writing? Someone's word is very well - but what is company policy on something like that - especially if nothing is explicitly written down?

Once I get a phone and demonstrate that it's been disabled, they will formally authorize it and give me a copy in writing to display in my cubicle. That's what they did for my SDIO WiFi card. I can't use WiFi in the office, but they cleared the component for personal possession as long as I obeyed that restriction.

-Xan

[crairdin]

Some observations:

1) I used to work for a defense contractor where incoming and outgoing packages were inspected by armed guards. We walked in and out with work-related paper in our briefcases, but if they caught you with a transistor in your lunch bag you could get fired. When I quit I carried out two sealed boxes of personal items which were not inspected. So at that place at least, banning cameras in phones (cameras were already banned in general) would be kind of moot.

2) You can get a tiny camera that looks like a pen and others that look like baseball caps and glasses. Banning cell phone cameras ignores the fact that it's trivial to get a small inconspicuous camera into the workplace, gym, or school.

3) Cell phone / PDA / camera / MP3 players are kind of weird anyway. My Pocket PC is a better PDA than my Smartphone; my digital camera is a better camera than any of the cell phone cams; and my MP3 player is more convenient to use in the gym than my PDA. I don't have a telephone/coffee-mug or a television/toaster. I don't see the synergy with some of the combo devices that are on the market. (Though I do enjoy my Microsoft Smartphone -- when it's working.)

Craig

[Kacey Green]

I don't think I replied but I did vote no cameras

It would be against the rules and maybe even the law to bring a camera concealed in the manner mentioned in the post or two above mine

[Sven Johannsen]

2) You can get a tiny camera that looks like a pen and others that look like baseball caps and glasses. Banning cell phone cameras ignores the fact that it's trivial to get a small inconspicuous camera into the workplace, gym, or school.

No it does not. Typically the restriction is No Cameras (cameras, video equipment, camera phones, etc.). The paranthetical or sometimes explicit mention of camera phones is due to their curent proliferation. It is concievable that folks that have a camera phone forget that it has a camera, if that is not a feature they use, so it is a reminder. Clearly the other items are banned. That does not mean they cannot be snuck in, just as a camera phone could be. It does mean that if caught, there are ramafications, from confiscation, expulsion, termination and possibly criminal charges.

Some people seem to think this camera thing is new. Heck no, the problems with cameras have been around as long as there have been cameras. It's just now everyone has one of the things on them 'disguised' as a one of those ubiquitous cell phones. If you think folks will just get used to this 'new' technology, I don't think so. Jenny will still not want her picture taken in the gym locker room, Big Corporation will still not want unathorized pictures of their new prototype taken, the Government will still take a dim view of snapping photos of Top Secret documents, and I'd still prefer that terrorists have to work a bit harder when casing security precautions than just taking pictures. Until people quit mis-using photography, cameras are going to be prohibited in some areas, regardless of the form they take.

[Kacey Green]

Thats what I said, but I like the way you put it, good post!

[Sven Johannsen]

I know you said that Kacey. I was adding my voice to yours. This is one area that keeping quiet is going to be seen as approval of the cameras in everything movement.

[Kacey Green]

I know you said that Kacey. I was adding my voice to yours. This is one area that keeping quiet is going to be seen as approval of the cameras in everything movement.
:clap:
sorry for the emote only post but there isn't more to say than that

[Jonathon Watkins]

I know you said that Kacey. I was adding my voice to yours. This is one area that keeping quiet is going to be seen as approval of the cameras in everything movement.

So, we have to keep saying it. The squeeky wheel gets the oil. :twisted:

[minimage]

Well, I came upon this thread yesterday and decided it was finally time to get a camera phone. Got it today. Haven't used it yet; it's taking an inordinate amount of time for it to hop onto the network. Once this baby decides to function, I can maybe stop carrying my digital camera, which does only 320 x 240 at best. I'd been wanting a color phone for some time (ok, really, I want a Smartphone or PDA Phone, but I resisted that temptation), and I hadn't done anything with my tax refund, so I actually tore myself away from the home computers (well, I took one with me, but it was a good thing, cuz there was a line at the store) and went shopping.

Guess on which side of the fence I sit?

[D.psi]

Okay, so this is late coming, but on a similar note to the entire camera issue... Market analysts are recommending forbidding personal storage equipment from industry locations.

http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040707.gtbanjul7/BNStory/Technology/

This kind of thinking is the very reason cameras are banned in a number of industry locations. When most of the engineering work was done at a drafting table, or on a 3-D model the camera thing was obvious. Now that CAD programs are used as extensively as they are, the next choice is removable storage media...

D.psi

[Pony99CA]

Okay, so this is late coming, but on a similar note to the entire camera issue... Market analysts are recommending forbidding personal storage equipment from industry locations.

http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040707.gtbanjul7/BNStory/Technology/

This kind of thinking is the very reason cameras are banned in a number of industry locations. When most of the engineering work was done at a drafting table, or on a 3-D model the camera thing was obvious. Now that CAD programs are used as extensively as they are, the next choice is removable storage media...
Digital Media Thoughts (http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=43189) has an item about this and some discussion.

Steve

[Kacey Green]

personally I think some discretion is in order, or we'll all have to strip down at work and bring nothing with us, put on work clothes at the door, etc. etc. I don't know how one will meet with the clients to sell them on the products or services b/c you won't have any info for them.