Embedded Cameras; Good to Use & Some Good News?

[Jonathon Watkins]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.ppcw.net/?itemid=2150' target='_blank'>http://www.ppcw.net/?itemid=2150</a><br /><br /></div><i>”When I first got the XDA II and used the built-in camera I honestly thought, "Uups, what kind of useless camera did they build into it!" I played a bit with the camera during the first weeks, but always was disappointed of the bad picture quality and eventually stopped using it... until recently. There is no doubt, the picture quality of the XDA II is far from what I was used to with my digital 3 megapixel camera, but what I totally misunderstood in the beginning, was the usability concept, the fact that the XDA camera may serve a totally different purpose than my digital camera. But what made me change my mind?”</i><br /><br />What indeed? You just have to read Arne Hess’s article over at PPCW.net to find out. Suffice to say that it has to do with systematically digitizing his life. The reader comments after his article show that the debate continues. ;-) In related news, New Zealand is <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4076353.stm">introducing new legislation </a>to guard against so called ‘up skirt’ snappers. You can get up to three years in prison for distributing voyeuristic material made without consent. The bill aims to safeguard people’s reasonable expectation of privacy in private (thought not public) places. The US Congress also just <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=318071">passed a bill</a> that can impose fines of up to US$100,000 and a year in prison for anyone sneaking photos or videos of people in various states of undress. The good news is that countries don't seem to be introducing blanket bans on embedded cameras in particular places, but are treating the real problem: a tiny minority’s irresponsible misuse of the technology.

[BrianCooksey]

I've been using my built-in camera this way for some time... and even my "real" digital camera for some more intricate note-taking circumstances.

It's a great way to improve my explanation of something. So, for example, a conversation with my wife becomes "honey, here's a piece of furniture I saw at the store I thought you'd like" rather than trying to give some futile description. ... or capturing information from an equipment tag, a repair project, etc.

I'd also extend the note taking concept to capturing small moments to remember that aren't necessarily ones you'd frame and put up on the wall.

[Darius Wey]

In related news, New Zealand is introducing new legislation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4076353.stm)to guard against so called ‘up skirt’ snappers. You can get up to three years in prison for distributing voyeuristic material made without consent. The bill aims to safeguard people’s reasonable expectation of privacy in private (thought not public) places. The US Congress also just passed a bill (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=318071) that can impose fines of up to US$100,000 and a year in prison for anyone sneaking photos or videos of people in various states of undress. The good news is that countries don't seem to be introducing blanket bans on embedded cameras in particular places, but are treating the real problem: a tiny minority’s irresponsible misuse of the technology.

I think this (http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,11555328%255E421,00.html) encapsulates this debate on the do's and dont's of camera phone usage. ;) Sure, the fine isn't as hefty as the aforementioned, but the concept is still the same nonetheless.

[Jonathan1]

That’s all well and fine but for places where you simply aren’t allowed to carry cameras this doesn’t deal with the simply fact that this is going to become a bigger and bigger pain in the butt. What? You think someone who walks into the Pentagon, or Langley, or Los Alamos should be allowed in because they are expected to be on their best behavior?
I personally think, hope, cell phone cameras are going end up the way smoking is. It’s going to start off being banned here and there and over there and over there and there until finally society says good reddens to them. Or at least I can hope it does. The one drawback is that they don’t cause some form of cancer. That would help.
Why am I so anti-camera? Because its getting harder and harder to NOT find a camera in a phone that I want. If I wanted some low res camera I would go out and buy one. I don’t care for a camera that spits out fuzzy picts. I don’t care for a phone that may be only a .2MM thicker because of it but it still IS thicker. Give me my phone dang it!! I was at the mall yesterday shopping and decided to stop off at T Mobile’s booth to look at their plans and phones. The nub behind the desk keep pushing the phones with the cameras. So I pinned him down after 5 minutes of badgering.
“WHY do I need a camera?”
”Because you can send picts to your friends and take pictures at times when you could really use a camera.”
“Why would I want to do that?”
“Because it’s cool and allows you to show your friend what is going on.”
“Uh huh. So you want me to buy this thing because it’s cool. Thanks. But I buy a phone because it’s a PHONE.
Unlike some I have something called a vocabulary and can use it to describe what is going on instead of needing to send pictures and most of my friends don’t have the ability to receive pictures on their phone so its wasted. Add to the fact that that I have *whips out my Sony
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/sc/30588497-2-300-camera+on-1.gif So I don’t need another camera on me esp one that does a piss poor job at best.
I don't think my friends need to know what I'm doing 24/7 and don't need a blow by blow of my life's events so please stop shoving these camera phones down my throat when I neither want nor need the bloody thing!!! I want battery life and a strong signal. That is all. I don't need a camera, I don't need an OLED display, I don't need to play my MP3s, I don't need XM radio, I don't need GPS, I don't need something that can slice bread. (OK so I made that one up. I wish I had used it.) I don't need all of that crap. I do need a phone. Pref one that I don't have to drop in the charger every other day.”

OK so that wasn't verbatim but for the most part that was the minirant I gave him. Suffice it to say I had the guy back off the rest of the time I was browsing. Maybe a tad harsh but I loathe sales people who have the tact of an inbound nuke.
Sorry about that. :) pocketpcthoughts is 1/2 tech site 1/2 stress management. :)

[Jonathon Watkins]

Sorry about that. :) pocketpcthoughts is 1/2 tech site 1/2 stress management. :)

No problem. I'm sure that's what most of us are here for as well. :lol:

I share your pain brother - you know I do. :wink:

[surur]

I had great hopes for using my 1.3 megapixel camera on my Loox 720 in this way, as I was also using my XDA 2 camera to take pictures of whiteboards etc. Unfortuanately the quality is abysmal, and even worse than the xda 2's.

Ironically the 1.3 megapixel camera in my SE V800 phone is MUCH MUCH better, and can take easily legible pictures of a whole page (which the XDA 2 could not due to the low resolution). They do make nice spy gadgets.

I would however by suprised if the Pentagon allows people to bring their cellphone in where cameras are not allowed. IF they do then its all fake security (dare I say like airport security) as some-one could as easily read a document into the phone's voice recorder (as many have these now) or of course to an outside agent. As I have said before, in the places I have had to give up my camera I also had to give up my phone too (even if seperate).

And Jonathan1, if you are awaiting a cameraphone backlash, its not going to happen. There are powerfull forces, in the form of the phone companies, fighting for them (to increase their revenue of course) and only individuals fighting your corner. Cameras are only going to get better, and the concept of privacy outside our homes will disappear. Londoners are one of the most photographed and surveiled population in the world, and no-one really complains. We have thousand of speed cameras, congestion charging cameras, CCTV cameras run by shops and by the police, and of course cameras in phones. It would be rather hypocritical to ban the one and not the other. In 5 years, due to prices of sensors coming down, cars will have their own own CCTV, and people would not dare attack you unless they were expecting to be caught. Its all coming, due to these things becoming very cheap.

Better get used to it!

Surur

[surur]

I think this (http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,11555328%255E421,00.html) encapsulates this debate on the do's and dont's of camera phone usage. ;) Sure, the fine isn't as hefty as the aforementioned, but the concept is still the same nonetheless.

Man fined over topless phone photos
01dec04
A SYDNEY man was fined $500 today for taking photographs of topless women on Coogee Beach with his mobile phone.

Labourer Peter Mackenzie, 25, of Coogee, pleaded guilty in Waverley Local Court to behaving offensively in a public place on November 6.

It is believed to be the first time anyone has been prosecuted over such photography.

The partner of a woman he snapped confronted Mackenzie and called the police, staying with him at the beach until officers arrived.

Mackenzie told the court he had agonised over his actions.

"I really feel like I've blemished 25 years of being a decent person," he said.

Mackenzie faced three months in jail, but Magistrate Lee Gilmore instead fined him $500, warning him that "women are not objects of decoration for men's gratification".

Mackenzie's Nokia camera phone will be destroyed.


Now I have 3 problems with this case:

1) Would they have fined him similarly if he had used a normal camera?
2) Do people have a fair expectation of privacy in a public place, such as a beach? Here's a photo of the beach. Its wide open and not secluded at all! http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/mons1/img21.jpg
3) Since when were women not objects of gratification for men, especially their secondary sexual characteristics (breasts especially) which seemed to have been designed to gratify men!? (and men were designed to be gratified by them). This is why people cover up unless they are with people they wish to, er, gratify.

How is this different from pictures of streakers being taken at a cricket match, and then shown over and over on TV? Why dont the cameras avert their gaze, so as not to offend the streakers privacy?

Upskirt photos are clearly wrong. Taking a photo of a skirt in public is not.

The only way this could have stuck if there was a local bylaw saying photos on the beach was prohibited.

Surur

Edit: Apparently he was charged with offensice behaviour, similar to sone-one who flashed some-one else, despite not being the one who flashed! I'm sure if he appealed he would have his conviction overturned.

Legal pundits, however, are uneasy about the conviction. Pauline Wright, chairwoman of the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society of NSW, said that there was "a valid argument that Mackenzie's actions did not constitute offensive behaviour within the meaning of the Crimes Act". She added: "A lot of people would find what he did offensive, but ... you have to prove that he intended to offend."

Wright notes that the charge of offensive behaviour usually applies to indecent exposure, drunkenness, and the like. She concludes that the "creative use" of the charge demonstrated that the law had not kept pace with technological innovations.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/02/beach_perv_busted/

[Typhoon]

Yea, the quality usually sucks. It is only useful if you are desperate.