USA Today say, Embedded Cameras, No Way

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/phones/2004-08-23-camphone-policies_x.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wirele...-policies_x.htm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"It's a tiny piece of technology capable of pulling off workplace no-nos from corporate espionage to a look up a co-worker's skirt. The new-and-improved cell phone — now equipped with a camera — is forcing employers nationwide to consider banning the device that not so long ago was a must-have for on-the-go employees. "Within the past six months, almost every employer has begun to think about the risks cell phones pose," said Vincent Alfieri, a head of the labor and employment division at Bryan Cave law firm in New York. "Employers who had never thought of it, or had to think of it, are now.""</i><br /><br />The USA Today article makes the point that many companies have long had a ban on camera in their offices. The fact that cameras now come embedded in PDAs and phones just make them more likely to enforce the prohibition. The list of companies banning all cameras on their premises include DaimlerChrysler, Texas Instruments, General Motors, Intel and interestingly the world's largest maker of camera phones, Samsung Electronics. <br /><br />The advice to employers seems odd. The article says to consider installing a camera-jamming device (i.e. an electronic means to disable a camera in a certain area). I did not know that was possible. Is it possible? :?: Meanwhile the advice to workers is simpler. Basically, you read your company's employee handbook to learn its rules on camera phones and if they are banned, you leave yours at home or in the car. Or buy a phone or PDA without photo capability. Doh! That is, if you can find a decent PPC or phone without a camera. So far two out of the four new VGA PPCs have cameras. That is not a good trend for those of us that want to be able to actually take our PPCs with us everywhere....... :| You may think that you want a PPC with an embedded camera, but what about when you change jobs, or want to visit a sports centre or school etc. Will they allow cameras on their premises? Thoughts?

[cribbagewiz]

My employer has required a camera pass for decades. Yes, decades, I've been there for two of them. However, camera phones and PDAs have chipped away at that policy, and now the official word is that passes are still required for actual cameras, but embedded cameras are the responsibility of the lab or manager concerned.

Lab security has been strengthened by orders of magnitude as a result. It's not to the point of a frisk at all labs, but in many, it is. All because of the new trend. I, for one, hope that it's a trend that dies out. We have enough problems maintaining personal privacy these days without the masses having the ability to snap a shot of whom- or whatever they wish covertly.

[butch]

The article says to consider installing a camera-jamming device (i.e. an electronic means to disable a camera in a certain area). I did not know that was possible. Is it possible? :?:

It does, just turn off the lights! :mrgreen:

Sorry....

[Gerard]

I find this subject depressingly lame whenever it gets posted, which this year has been at least once a week on one PPC site or another. I can see the issue being important if you happen to make weapons or do top-level research for a living, but seriously, what percentage of the population is actually engaged in those activities or other truly 'sensitive' work? Maybe 1 or 2%? Are they going to ban cameras at Walmart next, or on farms? Will it soon be necessary to smuggle a camera into you kid's school to snap a couple of shots at a band recital? I see a booming market in camera hats if that's to be the trend.

Ah, the joys of self-employment and working at home. I can have all the cameras I like, and if anyone wants to bring a camera to my workshop I'll be flattered at their interest in my work.

Is this a 'problem' in other countries as well, or just in the US? Europe has had affordable video phones for a few years now. Are companies all over Europe shutting down access to such device owners? I don't know, really, and am curious as to comparative knee-jerk reactionary policies in other countries.

[Anthony Caruana]

One major car manufactuer in Austrlaia has come up with a novel approach to this. They buy highly featured cell phones for staff. If the phone has a camera they simply shatter its lens with a gentle tap of a hammer and nail.

[egoz]

Ever since we started to think about the future in a technological fashion we envisioned the "video phone." Today we're literally on the threshold of that realisation. The contemporary camera-phone is merely the predecessor to tomorrow's fatter mobile networks' video-phones. Look at your wi-fi/blue-tooth-esque wristphone and see each other during yor call. The total huge utility of such a device blasts away silly, short-lived prohibitions on such devices.

When that tomorrow happens, ideas as silly as banning "personal video devices" shall be archane. "If my employer can video my actions, i should be allowed to video my actions as well -- never mind who doesn't want video on during a call???"

Utility and desire is the best way to change anything.

[email protected]

[dean_shan]

I like my camera-phone. I like having the people's picture come up when they call me.

[johncruise]

I like my camera-phone. I like having the people's picture come up when they call me.

(underline mine)... uhmmmm dean... you don't need to have a camera-phone for that feature.

[rmasinag]

I was never for stupid gimmick cameras............ so this is a good topic for me. :D

[alabij]

The reporter didn't do a good job on the facts. On the HP website, they emphasized that the reason they had twoh6315's, one with a camera and the other without was because there was a high demand for camera phones in certain feilds eg surveying, construction, research etc. They even have a case study on the camera phone. I've forgotten the linkbut its in the FAQ section.

It is true that camera phones are hazardous to sensitive/secretive data but the reverse can also be said for their need. Personally I don't use camera phones because of the low quality though my Ipaq has one.

[alabij]

When it comes to public places who are we to complain about people taking unauthourized pics of us. When government cameras are monitoring us 24/7. In the streets, stores, trains etc you name it.

Also with regards to sensitive/secretive/confidential information camera phones are the least of the prolems. Digital cameras are so small these days with high res that anyone caught stealing information with a camera phone should be fired for incompetence. If you are going to steal do it well.

[Sven Johannsen]

On the HP website, they emphasized that the reason they had twoh6315's, one with a camera and the other without was because there was a high demand for camera phones in certain feilds eg surveying, construction, research etc. They even have a case study on the camera phone. .

HP of all OEMs didn'ty need to put the camera in the phone, and make two models. The make an SD camera the same quality as the built in one. They could sell me a non camera 6315 for $75 less and sell me a $100 camera (and make money, or sell you (generic you) a PPC and camera bundle. Heck they could sell me a PPC/camera bundle cause I could leave the camera in the car. They can't sell me a PPC with embedded camera. I'm one of those super secret clandestined guys, like the guys at Chrysler and Samsung, who can't take it in.

[Jude]

I think that over there in the US it's another case of attitudes failing to keep up with technology. Since the camera phone trend hasn't completely exploded over there until now, companies were given time to become paranoid and cook up all sorts of industrial espionage conspiracy scenarios revolving around them.

Over here in Southeast Asia, the moment camera phones came out, people snapped them up. Before companies and institutions knew what was happening, there were camera phones everywhere and people just got used to them and took for granted how benign they are. So it'd be a bit ridiculous and futile banning them after the fact.

[Jason Dunn]

I find this subject depressingly lame whenever it gets posted, which this year has been at least once a week on one PPC site or another. I can see the issue being important if you happen to make weapons or do top-level research for a living, but seriously, what percentage of the population is actually engaged in those activities or other truly 'sensitive' work? Maybe 1 or 2%?

Gerard, if you see it being posted and discussed quite often, doesn't it stand to reason that it's an issue of importance to more than just 1-2% of Pocket PC owners? It's not an issue for you - fine. But to criticise the topic because you don't want to hear about it seems rather egocentric to me.

[jlp]

When it comes to public places who are we to complain about people taking unauthourized pics of us. When government cameras are monitoring us 24/7. In the streets, stores, trains etc you name it.

People,

We talk a bout 2 different things here:
Video surveilance cameras are for security not looking up women skirt or espionage.

Then I've never seen anybody using their cell phone camera for video conferencing; I don't think it's possible yet, because 1) most cellphone/PDA cameras have their lens facing to the back and 2) I don't think the networks support this feature anyway; and 3) most probably the phones don't have such protocol either finally 4) most such digicams on the market take still shots anyway.

Also the cellphone and PDA digicams are so aweful it's scandalous :evil:: 95+% of all these digicams do as bad or worse as standalone digicams of a decade ago!!!

That's totally unacceptable!! Especially Sony's SE610/630: it takes stamp sized images about 200x300: ludicrous :evil:.

I much prefer to use my credit card (almost) sized Kyocera SL300R which results are on par with professional digicams of only 3-4 years ago 8), and because of its clevers design I can still take discreet pix in public without anybody taking notice :devilboy:.

[dmy]

Well.... I'm well entrenched here on PPCT as a strong opponent of having cameras in every cell phone and PDA. You can have it, but I want the option of not having it so I can use one for work. I'm a technology consultant. My cell phone *IS* my office phone. My 2215 *IS* my assistant/filing system/etc... Most of all of my clients (some mentioned by name in the USA Today article) do not allow me to take a cell phone or PDA with a camera into meetings in their buildings. I respect that.... but I then need an option of a cell phone and PDA without it. You can have a SDIO or CF camera today for cheaper and easier than I can get a decent cell phone without a camera.


Now for some added thoughts:

> I can see the issue being important if you happen to make weapons
> or do top-level research for a living, but seriously, what percentage
> of the population is actually engaged in those activities or other
> truly 'sensitive' work? Maybe 1 or 2%?

Ok.... or.... the janitor at Intel with a cell phone who is approached by someone at AMD to take pictures of the latest CPU design. Don't laugh.... when I worked at Intel in the early 1980s engineers/drafters/computer operators were regularly approached at a local hangout (Charley Brown's on Mathilda in Sunnyvale) by people willing to buy secrets. How about the guy working at your favorite bank who is taking quick photos of printouts on someone's desk to get your personal information for a little identity theft?

> When it comes to public places who are we to complain about
> people taking unauthourized pics of us.

well.... you can't..... but what about that kid in the high-school gym class that gets a thrill from using her PDA or cell phone to take a picture of your naked daughter, or your wife in the locker room after her yoga class and post it to the internet??

Extreme examples?? Maybe, but they do happen and are happening. Will employer and other places banning Cell Phones and PDA's with cameras cure the problem?? No..... but it'll curb it.

Now don't get me wrong...... in "my other life" I'm a serious photographer... I've won competitions, had several gallery shows, and sell my work. I carry a camera everywhere with me (except into those clients who won't allow me to do so). I think it's ridiculous that while tourists were at the Golden Gate Bridge a few weeks ago snapping photographs right and left, that a guy with a 4x5 view camera (you know.... the old style with the bellows and the photographer under a blanket to focus the darn thing.... I love mine) was detained and questioned for 45 minutes and had all his film confiscated for doing little more than the tourists were.

There has to be a middle ground.... I don't think anyone disagrees with that. If you want or need a PDA or cell phone with a digital camera in it I'm all for it and back you 100%. But I also want the option to NOT have it. Last fall when I had to replace my failing cell phone, my provider had exactly ONE model WITHOUT a camera in it. It was underpowered, under featured, and had to be special ordered with a 5 week delivery projected. Instead I had to change carriers with all the new contracts and other associated hassles and expense. Oh well..... at least I got a good phone (with bluetooth) that doesn't have a camera.

Cheers,
D.

[StarkAZ75]

The article says to consider installing a camera-jamming device (i.e. an electronic means to disable a camera in a certain area). I did not know that was possible. Is it possible? :?:

CCD's in commercial cameras are very sensitive to infrared. All they'd have to do is flood a room with IR from the emitters from remote controls. Try it with your own camera sometime. Point the remote at your camera and hit a button on the remote. You will see a bright white light on the camera screen.

[bkerrins]

Sounds like we want to punish the masses because the few break the rules. One should know not to take pictures of someone's under clothes etc. This sounds like getting rid of all the desk top computers or access to the internet because someone may look at porn...just stop those that break the rules not everyone.

[dean_shan]

I like my camera-phone. I like having the people's picture come up when they call me.

(underline mine)... uhmmmm dean... you don't need to have a camera-phone for that feature.

...uhmmmm John... it's a lot easier to get their picture on there when you do have one.

[Gerard]

Gerard, if you see it being posted and discussed quite often, doesn't it stand to reason that it's an issue of importance to more than just 1-2% of Pocket PC owners? It's not an issue for you - fine. But to criticise the topic because you don't want to hear about it seems rather egocentric to me.

Well, not quite Jason. I think it's a fun issue for PPC news sites and forums, something reliably inflammatory so as to make for a fun thread. Most of the hundreds of contributions I've read in PDA camera discussions have been written by people without any special interest, no corporate rulings at their workplaces.

At our daughter's school there is no rule about camera use. Obviously normal laws and normal standards of decency apply, as they should in every place. It is assumed that a parent with a camera, taking a picture of a classroom or a hallway or in an assembly, is doing so for reasons of family image collection, not for posting to some perverse website. Of course, if a parent were caught either with or without a camera and sneaking around in a changing room or washroom, bugging kids, they'd be challenged. A no-camera PDA rule wouldn't have any effect, as so far there are no strip searches in Canadian elementary schools prior to entry.

I don't wish to live in a police state. Is that terribly ego-centric of me? Jason, it seems I have offended you personally, yet again. My apologies.

[Sven Johannsen]

Then I've never seen anybody using their cell phone camera for video conferencing; I don't think it's possible yet, because 1) most cellphone/PDA cameras have their lens facing to the back and 2) I don't think the networks support this feature anyway; and 3) most probably the phones don't have such protocol either finally 4) most such digicams on the market take still shots anyway..

Not my cell phone, but I have done this wih a PPC and the HP camera over WiFi, using MS Portrait. W?BIC. Had the PPCPE OEMs thought about it, a rotating camera at the top that could face towards or away from the user would have been nice. Sony probably owns a patent on that though :?

[Carlos]

It's ridiculous to think that cameras in phones and PDAs change any of this. You can buy a camera that is smaller than a phone and takes sharper pictires. if someone is going to spy, why would he use something large and low-res?

I used to think embedded cameras were stupid. then I got the idea to shoot pics of our whiteboard diagrams during meetings. Very useful. Everyone loves the followup picture file.

[Gen-M]

I will not own a PDA or Cell Phone with a camera. This is for several reasons.

1) The quality of the pictures is unacceptable.*

2) I have spent the last 30 years in positions that take me into R&D or Military installations that forbid cameras because of espionage (commercial and military) risks. Some of these places don't allow cell phones. I have even been in the sales office of a valve manufacturer who banned cameras because of industrial espionage (Customer lists).

3) I value what privacy I can maintain. I try to provide the same to others.

*There seems to be a cultural change happening.... Pictures used to be for posterity. You took pictures and put them into photo albums to look at and share later. Nowadays pictures are transient. They disappear within days, or even minutes. Quality is no longer needed.

It would be interesting to see a poll on how many pictures you take in a day, a week, a month, a year. How many do you save?

[webagogue]

Sounds like we want to punish the masses because the few break the rules.

You must be new here. :devilboy:

I hate the idea of a camera in a PDA simply because I cannot see how it can be done well. I have yet to see an elegant implementation.

My phone, on the other hand (SH-505i - I live in Tokyo) has a very nicely implemented camera. Shots are pretty nice, too. Movies (with sound!) are downright amazing for such a small device.

[Maced]

This is retarded... I could understand banning phones because of sensitive data, but not because people are using them to look up co-workers' skirts... they could just as easily use a mirror on their foot... Are they going to ban mirrors at work too?

Besides, under desks it's usually pretty dark... most cameras don't work very well in the dark so they wouldn't really work all that great without a flash, and with a flash it would be obvious what would be going on... damn people these days.

[JustinGTP]

Now,

When dealing with this camera situation, do they forbid devices in which they can obviously see has a camera on it - or can we cover them up? For example, on the LOOX 720 that I really wouldn't mind having, I would buy a case for it from Piel Frama - but minus the cutout for the camera. No one would see the camera, I would still have a camera when I needed it, but all the problems have been taken away.

Will these companies get smart and now check all parts of the device just to make sure it doesn't have a camera? This could be interesting - I am going for a camera enabled PDA because I think that the pluses out weight the cons.

-Justin.

[webagogue]

I will not own a PDA or Cell Phone with a camera. This is for several reasons.

1) The quality of the pictures is unacceptable.*



Models available in NA may suck, but in Japan (and Europe, I hear), the quality is on par with older digital cameras. The phonecams don't have the megapixels (yet) or the high-quality lenses (usually plastic) and are a bit more finicky with lighting and such, but if you have good conditions and want a basic portrait shot, you can take quite an impressive picture. Definitely decent enough for a 3x5 print.

[yslee]

They still suck. Around that of 1998 standards, I believe.

[surur]

People,

We talk a bout 2 different things here:
Video surveillance cameras are for security not looking up women skirt or espionage.
.
.
Also the cellphone and PDA digicams are so awful it's scandalous :evil:: 95+% of all these digicams do as bad or worse as standalone digicams of a decade ago!!!
.
That's totally unacceptable!! Especially Sony's SE610/630: it takes stamp sized images about 200x300: ludicrous :evil:.
.
I much prefer to use my credit card (almost) sized Kyocera SL300R which results are on par with professional digicams of only 3-4 years ago 8), and because of its clevers design I can still take discreet pix in public without anybody taking notice :devilboy:.

I would not talk so publicly about my illicit activities if I as you :devilboy:

Seriously though, in the end non-camera devices will be much more expensive than camera based ones, due to missing out on the economies of scale. Eventually this will erode most bans, by making it too inconvenient to work or enter that place, every time having to divest yourself of your gadgets.

I understand some camera phones now use glass lenses and CCD's as apposed to cmos sensors. In 2 years many people will never buy a "real" digi-camera and settle for a reasonable quality 2-3Megapixel camera which they got free with their phone in any case.

Maybe it will look a bit like this (but probably smaller), which you can buy now. It is 3.2 megapixels with 3 times optical zoom.

http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/July2004/Samsung32.jpg

Surur

[bnycastro]

I wouldn't mind cameras in mobiles or pocket pcs. I think they are very useful when you need quick snaps of something. :P

[jmjarvis]

Guys,

In answer to Jonothan Watkins question of "The article says to consider installing a camera-jamming device (i.e. an electronic means to disable a camera in a certain area). I did not know that was possible. Is it possible?"

The answer is yes. Take a look at this :

http://www.icebergsystems.co.uk/camera_phone_security.html

Jas.

[davenicholls]

Sounds like we want to punish the masses because the few break the rules. One should know not to take pictures of someone's under clothes etc. This sounds like getting rid of all the desk top computers or access to the internet because someone may look at porn...just stop those that break the rules not everyone.

If we ignore the industrial espionage part, then as far as I'm concerned they have to punish the masses because the victims of the few who break the rules will sue them.

The problem here is that public places are being squeezed from both sides, the technology is making is easier for people to indulge their perversions, and the courts are making organisations pay out higher and higher amounts if they are found guilty of not fulfilling their duty of care.

The choice between a ban or a lawsuit is an easy one to make.

Dave

[gorkon280]

CCD's in commercial cameras are very sensitive to infrared. All they'd have to do is flood a room with IR from the emitters from remote controls. Try it with your own camera sometime. Point the remote at your camera and hit a button on the remote. You will see a bright white light on the camera screen.

Try again. I just tried this and it resulted in a picture of my hand holding the remote.....in perfect focus even. ONE picture did have a brigt light but that wasn't because of the IR remote....it was because of the flash bouncing off of the remote head back to the camera.

[surur]

Guys,

In answer to Jonothan Watkins question of "The article says to consider installing a camera-jamming device (i.e. an electronic means to disable a camera in a certain area). I did not know that was possible. Is it possible?"

The answer is yes. Take a look at this :

http://www.icebergsystems.co.uk/camera_phone_security.html

Jas.

They are selling their product Safehaven, which is a transmitter and a system to receive it in the mobile phone, telling it to disable the camera. It can only work with the cooperation of the camera, so unless all the OEM's take this up, its just not going to happen. And if you can defeat it by wrapping up your camera in tinfoil (accept for the lens of course) its not much use at all.

Surur

[gorkon280]

I will not own a PDA or Cell Phone with a camera. This is for several reasons.

1) The quality of the pictures is unacceptable.*

2) I have spent the last 30 years in positions that take me into R&D or Military installations that forbid cameras because of espionage (commercial and military) risks. Some of these places don't allow cell phones. I have even been in the sales office of a valve manufacturer who banned cameras because of industrial espionage (Customer lists).

3) I value what privacy I can maintain. I try to provide the same to others.

*There seems to be a cultural change happening.... Pictures used to be for posterity. You took pictures and put them into photo albums to look at and share later. Nowadays pictures are transient. They disappear within days, or even minutes. Quality is no longer needed.

It would be interesting to see a poll on how many pictures you take in a day, a week, a month, a year. How many do you save?


I value my privacy too. Yet I fail to see how a still picture of you yammering on about something is much of a invasion of it. If they tried to take your pic while standing at a urinal, well, then that may be a invasion of privacy. A VIDEO of you talking to someone else, taken covertly, is a invasion of privacy.

I understand that some of the cell or pda embedded cameras can take a video clip but in the places most people desire privacy, I would keep it in my pocket. The fact that most people desire privacy doesn't change the fact that I find them useful. Just because you feel weird around someone who has one of these doesn't mean I do and even if I worked with someone who felt weird about it the problem would be easily solved by either never showing it to them, or just keeping it in your pocket.

As for these being used for corporate espionage....well I think that it would be WAYY easier to do one of two things with the current environment....either hack from the inside or the outside. One example of how things get out is from ex employees who don't honor their NDA. Sure, if only a few people were privy to the info it would be easy to track back to for legal action, but say when they are ramping up production and more then one or two persona know about it (say 100s) and then the lay off 100's.....it's kindof hard to track that back to any of them.

[Ryan Joseph]

Will these companies get smart and now check all parts of the device just to make sure it doesn't have a camera? This could be interesting - I am going for a camera enabled PDA because I think that the pluses out weight the cons.

Justin, I have an i-mate, which has a built in camera. It's not a big deal where I work, everyone has camera phones and nobody cares.

But every so often (once every two or three months) I need to go to the county courthouse. They do not allow cameras in there. I did the very same thing you suggested, I had my i-mate in a case without a camera cutout. The security guard opened the case, pulled the device out, turned it over, and saw the camera. I could either take it back to my car or leave it at the desk to pick up on my way out.

I took it back to my car. :wink:

Sooo, all that to say that, yes...if businesses are serious about keeping cameras out, they'll look all over the device to make sure there isn't one.

[Carlos]

The quality of the pictures is unacceptable.
How good are the pictures you DON'T get because you just don't happen to have a camera with you?

The security guard opened the case, pulled the device out, turned it over, and saw the camera. I could either take it back to my car or leave it at the desk to pick up on my way out.
At the federal courthouse a couple months back they saw my keychain knife (tiny) and told me I had to go put it back in the car. That was blocks away, so I simply took it off and put it in my shoe. Walked right in.

So when the same courthouse people told me my i-mate couldn't go in, on my next visit I simply covered the camera lens with a rubber cover like the one on the antenna hole. Voila, I was in.

It's really ridiculous of organizations to try to stop the OBVIOUS cameras; it's the hidden ones that are going to be used for illegal purposes. It's also ridiculous to expect $6/hour security guards to understand this, and to know the technology.

[cribbagewiz]

I can see the issue being important if you happen to make weapons or do top-level research for a living, but seriously, what percentage of the population is actually engaged in those activities or other truly 'sensitive' work?

I don't know, really, and am curious as to comparative knee-jerk reactionary policies in other countries.

I happen to work a multinational corporation that makes a large number of pieces of technology. My company generates more US patents than any other and takes intellectual property and corporate espionage VERY seriously. I don't think the measures I detailed in my original comment are at all "knee-jerk" or "reactionary".

The site where I work employs some 10,000+ people and needs to accomodate vast numbers of business partner visits and contractors who could be competitors to divisions other than the one being visited. Since real estate is at a premium, often there are several divisions present in the same building, sometimes the same aisle.

[rocky_raher]

All because of the new trend. I, for one, hope that it's a trend that dies out. We have enough problems maintaining personal privacy these days without the masses having the ability to snap a shot of whom- or whatever they wish covertly.

I always get a chuckle when someone refers to new technology as a "trend," and wishes it would soon "die out." Small cameras, in PDAs and phones, and on keychains (and probably on watches, eyeglasses, and ball-point pens before long) are useful and here to stay.

You may complain about the loss of privacy when anyone around you could have a hidden camera. I will ask, "How much privacy do you expect when you are in public?" What will a phone camera see that eyeballs won't?

On the upside, muggers, rapists, purse-snatchers, etc. are now much more likely to get caught and prosecuted because of the increasingly more likely probability of being photographed.

[Carlos]

It's knee-jerk because camera phones are the least of their worrries. They need to be looking for the cameras that are not obvious, but that would be basically impossible since they are so small.

[rocky_raher]

The article says to consider installing a camera-jamming device (i.e. an electronic means to disable a camera in a certain area). I did not know that was possible. Is it possible? :?:

It does, just turn off the lights! :mrgreen:

Sorry....

Your idea is a little more practical than mine. I was going to suggest flooding the workspace with high-intensity ultraviolet, and requiring all employees to wear welder's googles and sunblock!

[rocky_raher]

The article says to consider installing a camera-jamming device (i.e. an electronic means to disable a camera in a certain area). I did not know that was possible. Is it possible? :?:

I've recently been watching DVD's of the 1960's series "Fireball XL-5" and "Thunderbirds." In these shows, the high-tech vehicles are equiped with camera-detection sensors. So, whenever a bad guy or a reporter photographs Thunderbird One, an alarm goes off. That's what security-conscious firms really need. We'll have to ask Gerry Anderson how those sensors work!

[rocky_raher]

I can see the issue being important if you happen to make weapons or do top-level research for a living, but seriously, what percentage of the population is actually engaged in those activities or other truly 'sensitive' work? Maybe 1 or 2%?

Your industry doesn't have to be weapons in order to be worried about security. Industrial espionage can harm or bankrupt any firm. Clothing designers don't want their work leaked to competitors or the press, for obvious reasons. A kitchen supplies manufacturer coming out with a new design for a potato peeler doesn't want his competition to steal his design and beat him to market. Everyone has customer lists and personnel rosters, and very good reason to not want them photographed and leaked.

[Sven Johannsen]

At the federal courthouse a couple months back they saw my keychain knife (tiny) and told me I had to go put it back in the car. That was blocks away, so I simply took it off and put it in my shoe. Walked right in.

So when the same courthouse people told me my i-mate couldn't go in, on my next visit I simply covered the camera lens with a rubber cover like the one on the antenna hole. Voila, I was in.

And had you been caught smuggling banned items into a federal courthouse, you would have spent at least the night in jail. It's inconvinient if you don't know the rules. It's inexcusable if you know them and blatantly ignore them. Unless of course you are engaging in civil disobedience in order to bring the issue to litigation for the benifit of all of us. But then you have to let the authorities know you are doing it.

[Gen-M]

I don't ask that they stop selling camera phones and PDAs. I just want them to offer these devices without cameras for those of us who, for business or personal reasons, will not buy devices with cameras in them.

I'm looking for a cell phone without a camera, but with Bluetooth. No US carrier offers such a phone. All that I can find are "discontinued."

Frustrating :evil:

[ppc_kiwi]

Different situation requires different setup. In my environment, a camera phone is OK. I think, for those companies or places that prohibits camera phone, they should implement a workable procedure to not allow these devices. I'm againts a national ban on all camera/phone (if it will ever happen here in the US like what's happening in other countries).

[Sven Johannsen]

Different situation requires different setup. In my environment, a camera phone is OK. I think, for those companies or places that prohibits camera phone, they should implement a workable procedure to not allow these devices.

They do. You get to leave the camera home or in your car. The problem is only when my PPC or phone is attached to the camera. That's not my employer or customer's problem, that's my problem and I have a hard time fixing it with the current offerings, and have the other features I want.

I'm againts a national ban on all camera/phone (if it will ever happen here in the US like what's happening in other countries).

I'm pretty sure none of us either want, or advocate that. Just want the option of a current PPCPE or smartphone without an embedded camera.

[dmy]

They do. You get to leave the camera home or in your car. The problem is only when my PPC or phone is attached to the camera. That's not my employer or customer's problem, that's my problem and I have a hard time fixing it with the current offerings, and have the other features I want.


BINGO

Finally another person who gets to the real crux of the matter.

All this arguing and fighting over whether a ban will stop illegal use. It won't.

All this wrangling over whether you can really enforce any kind of ban. You can't.

All this discussion over whether an integrated camera is good to have or not.... for some it is and others it isn't.

But all many of us are asking for is an option to not have a damned camera as a part of my PDA and cell phone! If you don't think it's hard to find a decent cell phone without a camera, try it yourself... and it's getting to be the same way with PDAs. On the other hand, those who DO want a camera could just as easily go spend $25 for a SDIO or CF camera for their PDA that doesn't have it.

:grumble: Ok...... I'll calm down now.

D.

[gorkon280]

I don't ask that they stop selling camera phones and PDAs. I just want them to offer these devices without cameras for those of us who, for business or personal reasons, will not buy devices with cameras in them.

I'm looking for a cell phone without a camera, but with Bluetooth. No US carrier offers such a phone. All that I can find are "discontinued."

Frustrating :evil:

Your solution to this may be to scope out eBay for some old t68i's, BUT you right, you should not have to do this. I'd have to check out phone scoop and see if there are any non camera BT phones. The only other solution to this is that the PPC manufactures (YEAH I AM TALKING TO YOU GUYS!) should pick a frickin standard connector across manufacturers! :evil: The the phone companies could sell a cable solution for those of us that need one for ppc and we could upgrade and have no issues when we upgrade either. Again, not a ideal solution, but it's a solution.

[daS]

On the HP website, they emphasized that the reason they had twoh6315's, one with a camera and the other without was because there was a high demand for camera phones in certain feilds eg surveying, construction, research etc. They even have a case study on the camera phone. I've forgotten the linkbut its in the FAQ section.
Ah I just love marketing department spin. :roll: HP does spec a version of the 6300 without a camera, but have you tried to order one? You can't. T-Mobile currently has an exclusive deal with HP on the 6315 and they are only selling the version with the camera. :? Of course, if you are a very large corporate customer and you want to buy many phones, T-Mobile will take a special order for the non-camera version.

The real reason that HP is including a camera is because of the high demand from the consumer market, and because adding a camera is sooooo cheap. Someone in this thread claimed that HP could offer the non-camera phone for $75 less. But the truth is that there's only a very small handful of extra parts needed for the camera: the CCD (or CMOS) sensor, a cheap plastic lens, and a few minor components. The rest of the camera: the image processing, memory, buttons and other user controls are all shared with the "host" device. So the added cost for the camera is a few dollars at the most.

As for the main focus of this thread. . .

I gave a presentation on this subject at a conference back in April. I also covered other issues like corporate bans on "tape recorders". In a nutshell the point I was presenting was that it's not possible to keep someone that wants to spy from doing so. Also, many people will innocently violate the rules (how many of you even think about the voice recording capabilities of your Pocket PCs?) So instead, the rules need to be modified to regulate behavior. That is: "No photography, no recording, no removing copies of data from the facility." This type of rule can be enforced when someone is caught (and no rule helps when you don't catch the perpetrator) and doesn't restrict modern technology.

Finally, as to the value of cameras in phones and PDAs: I don't think the current crop are of much use as camera replacements, but I recently noticed how many times I wish I had my camera handy for a quick snapshot of something as a reminder or to provide someone else with a visual reference. For these things, even my little Minolta Dimge X (which is always in my computer bag) is too big to carry unless I know I will need it. For this type of thing, the camera phone is ideal. 8)

[Daviddjr]

I'm all for the option to have the camera or not too. When I had to get my Nokia 3650 for software testing I didn't want the camera. Mainly because, as others have mentioned, the quality of the pics is unacceptable, to me. I'm also an amateur photographer and therefore prefer a higher quality pic. Even when that spontaneous moment to take pictures occurs I always regret it afterward when I upload the pics.

And now, I do work for a company where cameras are prohibited but there has not been any real mention of camera phones, or PDAs.

My sister's husband actually has to switch phones with her every day because he won a Treo, with the camera, and can't take it into work. Handspring/PalmOne finally released a cameraless model but not to his benefit.

What would be nice, rather than camera jamming equipment would be software that disables the camera. It could display a message when a user tries the camera with a serial number that security could verify with the developer. Also, couldn't one of the screen protector companies come up with a stick on cover for the camera that made it look like there wasn't a camera. I know that is deceptive to some degree but...

Anyway, enough of my rants. Everyone have a great weekend.

David

[surur]

But all many of us are asking for is an option to not have a damned camera as a part of my PDA and cell phone! If you don't think it's hard to find a decent cell phone without a camera, try it yourself... and it's getting to be the same way with PDAs. On the other hand, those who DO want a camera could just as easily go spend $25 for a SDIO or CF camera for their PDA that doesn't have it.

:grumble: Ok...... I'll calm down now.

D.

Its this kind of thinking that results in bicycle lanes causing congestion on roads. Everybody knows bicycles are cheaper and healthier. However most people prefer to drive, usually just for convenience (privacy, speed, comfort, carrying capacity). The healthier and therefore "better" option therefore gets funded to the tune of millions to billions, causing the road to become narrower and causing problems for the till then happy majority. So now we all have the "option" to cycle. We also have no choice but to suffer the now more congested roads, just to make a small minority of luddites happy.

People need to recognise when the tide is coming in, and to stop trying be be like King Canute and turn it back.

Surur

[Carlos]

the rules need to be modified to regulate behavior.
And THERE is the solution to the whole issue. You cannot possibly physically prevent people from bringing in hidden recording equipment (voice/photo/video). So stopping the people who have OBVIOUS equipment is just downright stupid.

Those of you who really don't want a camera phone can do as previously suggested; smash the lens.

Me, I'll continue to carry my lens cover, so when the need arises I can keep people from knowing there is a camera in my PDA. The i-mate also has another advantage in not having an antenna, so stewardesses and others don't hassle me about the phone part of it. The good thing about all of these silly rules is that underpaid and uneducated people are left to enforce them, so it's pretty easy to get around them.

And had you been caught smuggling banned items into a federal courthouse, you would have spent at least the night in jail.
Yup. And you should see what I've carried with me onto airplanes... :roll:

[dmy]

Its this kind of thinking that results in bicycle lanes causing congestion on roads.
...
People need to recognise when the tide is coming in, and to stop trying be be like King Canute and turn it back.
Surur

:confused totally: :confused totally: :confused totally: :confused totally:
I've read this 4 times, and frankly I can't make sense of your posting or what it has to do with my wanting an option to NOT have something.

And I'll say again..... I don't want to ban cameras in PDAs or Cell phones, in fact, my life would be so much easier if all my clients would simply allow them in their buildings. I'd buy one without complaint and go on about my life with a few dollars of useless electronics in my pocket.

D.

[buzzard]

I will continue to carry whatever phone I decide to buy and if it includes a camera, so be it. Last I read there is expected to be 20 million or more camera phones around the world in a few years so I don't know how these companies or businesses are ever going to prevent them. It's like trying to stop cars replacing horses, or stop TV replacing radio. It's GOING to happen whether they like it or not so they better spend their time trying to figure out how to live with them instead of trying to legislate against the inevitable.

[johncruise]

I like my camera-phone. I like having the people's picture come up when they call me.

(underline mine)... uhmmmm dean... you don't need to have a camera-phone for that feature.

...uhmmmm John... it's a lot easier to get their picture on there when you do have one.

Well dean, that's what bluetooth is for (even IR). I have a phone (no camera) where I have a caller ID displays the picture when they call me. I just transferred them via BT. Like what I said... you don't need to have a camera-phone to have that feature... there might be an extra step to do it... but it's not impossible. Point is, for that purpose only, you can live without a camera in your phone.

[surur]

Its this kind of thinking that results in bicycle lanes causing congestion on roads.
...
People need to recognise when the tide is coming in, and to stop trying be be like King Canute and turn it back.
Surur

:confused totally: :confused totally: :confused totally: :confused totally:
I've read this 4 times, and frankly I can't make sense of your posting or what it has to do with my wanting an option to NOT have something.

And I'll say again..... I don't want to ban cameras in PDAs or Cell phones, in fact, my life would be so much easier if all my clients would simply allow them in their buildings. I'd buy one without complaint and go on about my life with a few dollars of useless electronics in my pocket.

D.

For the simile impaired:

Its this kind of thinking that results in bicycle lanes causing congestion on roads. Everybody knows bicycles are cheaper and healthier {phones without cameras have less issues}. However most people prefer to drive, usually just for convenience (privacy, speed, comfort, carrying capacity) {phones with cameras are desirable, and wanted by a lot of people}. The healthier and therefore "better" option therefore gets funded to the tune of millions to billions, causing the road to become narrower and causing problems for the till then happy majority {some businesses are against them and wants to legislate against them}. So now we all have the "option" to cycle {having the option of no camera is nice}. We also have no choice but to suffer the now more congested roads, just to make a small minority of luddites happy {having the option is not free, it raises the cost to the manufacturer, which everyone will pay for, and allows luddites to make rules such as "get a phone without a camera is you want to use your phone in here"}.
People need to recognise when the tide is coming in {camera phones are not a trend, they are the prevailing reality}, and to stop trying be be like King Canute and turn it back {even wishing for the option is living in the past. Get with the program!}.

Hope it all clear now :D

Surur

[dean_shan]

Well dean, that's what bluetooth is for (even IR).

My phone doesn't have BT yet. I am going to buy the Bluetooth connector for it later. I have the Motorola v400, would like to have the v600 (built-in bluetooth) but it costs way to much. So for now, without paying extra moeny the only way for me to get photos into my Address Book is with the built in camera.

[dmy]

Hope it all clear now :D
Surur

Ya know.... I'm not simile impared, and I could come up with an example using yours to illustrate my point.... but it's really not worth it... time for us to agree to disagree.

All I know is that when I walk into any one of several of my clients, the guard at the desk checks the PDA, Laptop, and Cell Phones of all to see if they have a camera. If any do (whether or not the lens has been covered or disabled) the person is asked to leave them in thir car or at the desk. The last option is to walk away and not do business with the client.

I need my phone with me.... I can make do without my PDA for a meeting or two. All I'm saying is that either the client or the company making the phone needs to wake up and give me the option to keep that phone with me.... since the client is my livelyhood, the choice for me is clear.

D.

[Carlos]

So how about carrying a basic, old phone with you and swap the SIM card into it just when you're at that client's office...?

[johncruise]

So how about carrying a basic, old phone with you and swap the SIM card into it just when you're at that client's office...?

There you go! (great tip Carlos). However, this only applies to GSM phones (or phones with SIM card) :-(

OFF-TOPIC: I bought a second hand Sony/Ericson T68i cause my Siemens S56 dual-band phone can't be used in China (where I usually travel). Anyway, my T68i always go with me in the car (always charging) so that when I run out of batteries, I have some spare to use.

[Gerard]

For what it's worth, I'll not likely buy a PDA with a built-in camera. I've used three CF cameras, the Casio, HP, and Pretec, and have found that lens mobility is very important to me. Being able to shoot pictures with the PPC horizontal and the lens facing forward is especially useful, as it intimidates people less when I don't have a 'camera' pressed to my face. Last week I found it useful to have my old iPAQ 3835 bungied to my kayak at an angle so I could see the screen, with the lens tilted down a bit to capture the water in the lower part of the screen and mountains and sky in the rest of it. Hard to shoot video and paddle at the same time, so a back-mounted PPC camera would be very awkward to apply in such a situation - owing to the limited angles on a moulded form such as a kayak. I'll just stick with CF cameras, probably getting a 1.3Mp FlyCam with flash next unless something 2Mp or better comes along first.

daS; thanks for the common sense of your post on this subject. I've seen pen-hidden digital cameras for $100, so it's really futile making rules against non-criminals having cameras while criminals are so cheaply and easily able to circumvent protection schemes. There's a 0.3Mp camera capable of shooting 100+ images, smaller than a wooden matchbox. Toys for spies abound.

[KimVette]

[quote=Jonathon Watkins]CCD's in commercial cameras are very sensitive to infrared. All they'd have to do is flood a room with IR from the emitters from remote controls. Try it with your own camera sometime. Point the remote at your camera and hit a button on the remote. You will see a bright white light on the camera screen.

Actually, most commercial cameras feature IR-cut filters - either mechanical or electronic. This is why you cannot use your remote controls (even extended-range ones) as illumination in total darkness, unless you want to take a photo of an object ~3 inches from the lens with the IR source just a couple of inches from it.

Flooding the room IR won't do much. BTW if the camera IS IR-sensitive, it was designed to be that way and all you will succeed in doing is actually enhancing the picture and forcing the camera into high-resolution monochrome mode, only enhancing the picture. It takes a LOT of IR to jam a camera.

(BTW one of the lines of business I am in is digital video surveillance systems)

[KimVette]

[quote=Carlos]And had you been caught smuggling banned items into a federal courthouse, you would have spent at least the night in jail.

Probably more like at least a few months. Even with a CCW permit in a must-issue state or in an open-carry state, you cannot bring a weapon into a federal building without authorization, e.g., being security personnel, a police officer, etc.

SOME federal buildings allow you to check weapons in at the door but usually they'll just send you back out and tell you to come back later, WITHOUT the weapon. Doesn't matter whether it's a 9mm for personal or commercial protection, a leatherman utility knife, a nail file, or a precision screwdriver, if you conceal it to get past security and get caught, you'll be facing some big charges. Hiding a weapon in a shoe is not a small offense and not anything they'd take lightly, even if the intent were merely to avoid inconvenience.

[djdj]

First of all, there shouldn't be any kind of difference distinguished between cameras and camera phones.

Different degrees of solution to the problem, depending on circumstances, in increasing order of restriction:

(1) Allow cameras, but advise discretion in their usage. Inappropriate usage is grounds for termination and legal action. Educate all employees on what is and what isn't appropriate usage of a camera.(Defining "inappropriate" action clearly, of course)

(2) Allow cameras, but no flashes.

(3) Require cameras to be registered with the company, so you know who has them.

(4) Require cameras to be surrendered in certain areas of a building. Clearly post signs at entrances and throughout the area of the restriction.

(5) In extreme cases (but certainly not the majority) don't allow any type of cameras at all, issuing non-camera phones to employees who need mobile coverage while on-the-job.

In my own company I would have restriction (1) except in areas where new products are being developed and tested, in which case I would require level (3) or possibly level (4), but unless you're working on a military contract, I don't see much need for level 5.

[surur]

First of all, there shouldn't be any kind of difference distinguished between cameras and camera phones.

Different degrees of solution to the problem, depending on circumstances, in increasing order of restriction:

(1) Allow cameras, but advise discretion in their usage. Inappropriate usage is grounds for termination and legal action. Educate all employees on what is and what isn't appropriate usage of a camera.(Defining "inappropriate" action clearly, of course)

(2) Allow cameras, but no flashes.

(3) Require cameras to be registered with the company, so you know who has them.

(4) Require cameras to be surrendered in certain areas of a building. Clearly post signs at entrances and throughout the area of the restriction.

(5) In extreme cases (but certainly not the majority) don't allow any type of cameras at all, issuing non-camera phones to employees who need mobile coverage while on-the-job.

In my own company I would have restriction (1) except in areas where new products are being developed and tested, in which case I would require level (3) or possibly level (4), but unless you're working on a military contract, I don't see much need for level 5.

This is very sensible, and I like solution 3 and 4. If I have nothing to hide, why not just register the device. And if someplace is really sensitive, stop the cameras (which have been registered) at the door.

Makes sense to me.

Surur

[Xanadu]

How about making the cameraphone lens modular? Just pop out the lens, cap the socket, and voila...Security-friendly phone!

Heck, you could even standardize cameraphone lenses to the point that employers would just need to put communal "lens buckets" at the entrances to restricted areas. Drop your lens into the bucket on the way in....pick one up your way out!

Problem solved.

:D

-Xan

[Carlos]

You're not going to solve this with common sense. Most business policies are created by pure FUD by people of low intelligence on a power trip. Solving the problem in a simple way is not going to get past them.

If the solution requires thousands of dollars and a project to install it, as well as additional budget and power for the manager, then you have a chance.

[pgh1969pa]

I find this subject depressingly lame whenever it gets posted, which this year has been at least once a week on one PPC site or another. I can see the issue being important if you happen to make weapons or do top-level research for a living, but seriously, what percentage of the population is actually engaged in those activities or other truly 'sensitive' work? Maybe 1 or 2%? Are they going to ban cameras at Walmart next, or on farms? Will it soon be necessary to smuggle a camera into you kid's school to snap a couple of shots at a band recital? I see a booming market in camera hats if that's to be the trend.

Ah, the joys of self-employment and working at home. I can have all the cameras I like, and if anyone wants to bring a camera to my workshop I'll be flattered at their interest in my work.

Is this a 'problem' in other countries as well, or just in the US? Europe has had affordable video phones for a few years now. Are companies all over Europe shutting down access to such device owners? I don't know, really, and am curious as to comparative knee-jerk reactionary policies in other countries.

Well not everyone is self-employed and that may explain you lack of knowledge in this area. First, while many companies may not make "weapons" they may feel that what they do is proprietary and would prefer not to share that with the rest of the world. Trade secrets, strategies, marketing plans, and competitive knowledge are the types of things companies would like to protect. Frankly, they have the right to protect these things by restricting the technologies that that can not be easily controlled. Whether it's effective or not, it's their right. You probably enjoy the rights afforded you so maybe you shouldn't be so critical when others exercise theirs. Companies own/control their facilities just like you own your home. You can control what is brought into your home and they control what you can bring into their facilities. I've been to countries where you can not photograph banks, airports, government buildings, and military institutions. While that may sound strange to my American sensibilties, I am a visitor and I respect their laws whether they make sense to me or not.

Some of us want PDAs without cameras to permit our use of these devices with our customers and suppliers. Maybe one should not be so judgemental just because it isn't a problem for you.

And to answer your question, in both the industrial and developing world, their are growing conerns about the proliferation of these cameras in corporate and governmental environments.

[bnycastro]

Basically this discussion will be a standoff. Because the Pros and Cons differ for each individual and each scenario; I guess the best solution is for the device manufacturers to come out with two models one with and one without the camera. hp is doing this with the 63xx series; palmone did it with the treo600. PocketPCs are simpler as most of them don't have the cameras built-in (well until now I guess) mobiles on the other hand almost all of the mid-range to high-end models have them. If by chance you are able to get a mobile without a camera there is a pretty good chance that it wouldn't have bluetooth or even ir as well. Another user (sorry can't remember clearly) also posted a suggestion of having a back up device... maybe an older mobile with no camera; or an older PPC. Let's say I have a Nokia 3100 and a h2210 now; and I end up buying an MPx or and XDAIII. Now I could keep my current line up of devices with me just in case I will be going to a place which doesn't allow cameras or I can sell them both to pay for the MPx or XDAIII, and buy a pad of paper for the place that doesn't allow mobiles/ppcs with cameras. When I get to a place where the device is not allowed I'll leave it in the car (I don't want some security guy fumbling around my PPC) and use the pad and pen. Well come on people we can't have everything and sometimes, we have to deal with it as best we can. If the place/client disallows the camera then you shouldn't bring one; respect their decision I'm sure you would want them to respect yours.

IMO this will not be a problem yet here in the Philippines... people just take these cameras for granted, nobody pays attention to them, and as I said almost all mobiles have them.

[Gerard]

I've been to countries where you can not photograph banks, airports, government buildings, and military institutions. While that may sound strange to my American sensibilties, I am a visitor and I respect their laws whether they make sense to me or not.

As has been pointed out in a Thoughts thread recently, using a camera inside many US airports is now considered a dangerous action. Try pointing your camera at a bank's security cameras or just generally photographing anything while inside, and then have yourself a nice little chat with the friendly American security guard. Try this in a US military institution and you just might spend the next year in prison, waiting for a lawyer, as a suspected terrorist.

Some of us want PDAs without cameras to permit our use of these devices with our customers and suppliers. Maybe one should not be so judgemental just because it isn't a problem for you.

... And I want a PPC without an embedded camera for reasons of versatility, choice, and device reliability. I want more accessory connectivity, not more embedded devices. A CF slot or two, two SDIO slots, built-in wireless is okay... And a few of the newest and nicest devices - hx4700 and e830 being obvious choices - have dual slots and no cameras. Is the built-in camera truly a crisis in the world of the PPC?

My 'judgemental' perspective arises more out a growing resentment for the creeping military perspective which more and more dominates minds. We should choose not to live in constant fear, not just allow ourselves to be swept along by this propagandist movement. In greater openness lies greater security. Hide in a hole with guns poking out will get you nowhere.

[pgh1969pa]

As has been pointed out in a Thoughts thread recently, using a camera inside many US airports is now considered a dangerous action. Try pointing your camera at a bank's security cameras or just generally photographing anything while inside, and then have yourself a nice little chat with the friendly American security guard. Try this in a US military institution and you just might spend the next year in prison, waiting for a lawyer, as a suspected terrorist..

Let me clarify...it's obvious that you can not do what you want on private or government property. What I speak of is the fact that there are public areas in some countries where you will be approached just for having a camera on your person.

Is the built-in camera truly a crisis in the world of the PPC?

No but it is a crisis for those of use who would like to use PDAs in camera restricted areas. It's not a real problem as long as devices without cameras remain plentiful.

My 'judgemental' perspective arises more out a growing resentment for the creeping military perspective which more and more dominates minds. We should choose not to live in constant fear, not just allow ourselves to be swept along by this propagandist movement. In greater openness lies greater security. Hide in a hole with guns poking out will get you nowhere.

I fundementally agree with your arguement. The crux of my argument is if I have to respect a no camera rule to gain access to private property, I would like to option of taking my PDA with me. I don't care whether someone else chooses to purchase a camera enable PDA but I just want the option of purchasing one without a camera. The current trend is more and more devices are becoming camera enabled. Fine...great....just make sure I can get mine without the camera.

[surur]

My 'judgemental' perspective arises more out a growing resentment for the creeping military perspective which more and more dominates minds. We should choose not to live in constant fear, not just allow ourselves to be swept along by this propagandist movement. In greater openness lies greater security. Hide in a hole with guns poking out will get you nowhere.

There is increasing paranoia sweeping the world. I was picking up some visiting relatives from Heathrow airport, and after very publicly snapping some pictures of their arrival, was accosted by a rather unfriendly (armed!) police woman and informed of the "new rules". So I waited to walk out of the sliding doors of the terminal and started snapping again, and she followed me out and said I could not take pictures anywhere on the property at all!

To me this indicated total stupidity. Tourists take pictures! If I was spying for a terrorist I would use a spy camera and they would never know! How long till filming the "changing of the guard" at Buckingham Palace will be banned? Dont people ever think these things through?

I think it is time for some civil disobedience, to show these idiots they are acting against the will of the people.

Surur

[Prevost]

Although those cameras can result useful, the fact to me is that this is simply something added in order to convince more people to buy a more expensive PDA or cellphone.

If manufacturers know already the outcome of this, then STOP MAKING THEM!!! :evil:

[davenicholls]

To me this indicated total stupidity. Tourists take pictures! If I was spying for a terrorist I would use a spy camera and they would never know! How long till filming the "changing of the guard" at Buckingham Palace will be banned? Dont people ever think these things through?

Surur

I think you're missing one point. When I leave my house I lock the doors, this doesn't stop necessarily stop people getting in, but it does mean that anyone who does get in can't say that they wandered in by accident. in other words locking the door allows me to identify the bad guys. With cameras in airports etc, allowing anyone to take pictures will also allow terrorists, robbers, etc to use the best possible equipment in broad daylight and, when caught, simply say that they are 'tourists'. By having a blanket ban the bad guys are forced to use underhand techniques and can be shown to be guilty when caught. I agree that it may be difficult to catch them, but that doesn't mean their lives should be made easier by being allowed to blend in with hundreds of innocent folk.

As per my previous post, I also believe that legal issues are behind a lot of this. Imagine the outcry if there was a major bomb at Heathrow and it was later discovered that the perpetrators had enjoyed free access to photograph all the security measures. Every victim would be sueing the government for failing to act.

For companies the same applies, whether they lose vital secrets or get hit with large lawsuits for not protecting the employees against voyeurs, would the shareholders accept the excuse that people wanted to use cameras?

Dave

[Kati Compton]

I think you're missing one point. When I leave my house I lock the doors, this doesn't stop necessarily stop people getting in, but it does mean that anyone who does get in can't say that they wandered in by accident. in other words locking the door allows me to identify the bad guys. With cameras in airports etc, allowing anyone to take pictures will also allow terrorists, robbers, etc to use the best possible equipment in broad daylight and, when caught, simply say that they are 'tourists'. By having a blanket ban the bad guys are forced to use underhand techniques and can be shown to be guilty when caught. I agree that it may be difficult to catch them, but that doesn't mean their lives should be made easier by being allowed to blend in with hundreds of innocent folk.

As per my previous post, I also believe that legal issues are behind a lot of this. Imagine the outcry if there was a major bomb at Heathrow and it was later discovered that the perpetrators had enjoyed free access to photograph all the security measures. Every victim would be sueing the government for failing to act.
Obviously there's a tradeoff. I mean, we could also solve the problem by not letting anyone fly unless they were fingerprinted, provided a swab of DNA, gave their firstborn as as hostage to the government to ensure good behavior, and put under general anesthetic for the duration of the flight. This would also help prevent terrorist attacks. But it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

The question is, where to draw the line. Different people have different limits. Though I think those limits can be stretched by the gradual "well, I guess just this one little more inconvenience is okay if it makes me safer".

You know, last year I took a picture of the Chicago skyline from an airplane. It was a nice view. Sigh.

[Sven Johannsen]

and put under general anesthetic for the duration of the flight.

Considering 10 hours in coach, I wouldn't be all that opposed to that measure. :wink:

[Kati Compton]

Considering 10 hours in coach, I wouldn't be all that opposed to that measure. :wink:
Yeah - after my flight to Australia in coach coming up in December, I may change my mind...

[davenicholls]

Obviously there's a tradeoff. I mean, we could also solve the problem by not letting anyone fly unless they were fingerprinted, provided a swab of DNA, gave their firstborn as as hostage to the government to ensure good behavior, and put under general anesthetic for the duration of the flight. This would also help prevent terrorist attacks. But it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

The question is, where to draw the line. Different people have different limits. Though I think those limits can be stretched by the gradual "well, I guess just this one little more inconvenience is okay if it makes me safer".

You know, last year I took a picture of the Chicago skyline from an airplane. It was a nice view. Sigh.

I agree that there are limits to what is acceptable. No matter what you do all security systems have vulnerabilities, the trick is to use interlocking systems where the holes in one are caught by the others. Making terrorist activities stand out from 'normal' activities is one of the ways to make security tighter, and in that context I believe that losing the ability to take pictures in airports is acceptable.

I would rather use my memory to remember a beautiful view from a plane than use an airport picture to remember the last time I saw a loved one lost to terrorist action.

Dave

Dave

[Kati Compton]

I think I am going to stop talking about this now, as it would turn into a discussion where I would then have to moderate myself and warn me to stop talking politics, and that just gets too confusing. ;)