Bill Introduced To Require Camera Phones Make Noise When Snapping Pictures

[Ed Hansberry]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00414:@@@L&summ2=m&' target='_blank'>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque...4:@@@L&summ2=m&</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Camera Phone Predator Alert Act - Requires any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera's phone. Prohibits such a phone from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone. Treats the requirement as a consumer product safety standard and requires enforcement by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)."</em></p><p><img alt="Why don't you have a seat right over there?" border="0" src="http://www.ehansberry.com/ppct/2009/20090126-chrishansen.jpg" /></p><p>I can understand what this law is trying to accomplish. I suspect there are lots of sex offenders that get images of their prey covertly by snapping pics from their silenced cell phone camera. Initially I thought people would just find another way to do the same thing, and to be sure, some will be determined enough to do so, but not everyone would be willing to carry a separate digital camera that could be silenced in the settings. I don't really see the harm this bill could cause. Will it stop everyone? Certainly not, but it may stop a few. I don't give a lot of marks to sexual predators for being too high up on the intelligence scale, and it may be just enough to prevent some meaningful percentage of secret pics being taken.</p><p>I suspect for some phone makers, this would be harder to implement than you might think. The speaker settings are universal. Once you mute the speaker on the phone itself, no app can make noise. You'd have to rewrite the driver to allow an exception for the phone's camera. I think it would be worth it though. It would take a few years for existing phones to cycle out of use to be replaced by new ones.</p><p>The bill was introduced in the US House of Representatives on January 9, 2009. I have no idea how long it will stay there before it has a chance to get voted on.</p>

[JKingGrim]

Dumbest bill ever. I can take a silent photo with a camera but not a camera phone? Just because my device has a cellular radio it must be noisy when it takes a picture? Exactly what congress should be focusing on right now.

[virain]

Dumbest bill ever. I can take a silent photo with a camera but not a camera phone? Just because my device has a cellular radio it must be noisy when it takes a picture? Exactly what congress should be focusing on right now.

Yeah, but it is "feel good" bill! And that's what you'll get or the next 4 years :)

[Rocco Augusto]

I remember this was a big deal when I moved to Portland in 2001 as they were having a record number of reports of kids snapping pictures of other kids changing in the locker rooms. A few years ago a story similar to this was making the rounds again. I'm sure in a few more years this will pop up once again.

[Twain]

This is just nutty. While I can understand the sentiment, the idea that U.S. lawmakers want to tell international camera and phone manufacturers to insert a "noise" when the shutter goes off is silly. Any perv will simply buy a camera in another country where the U.S. "noise" is not built-in.

Now if these lawmakers could just focus on the real problems facing the country...

[Ed Hansberry]

So let me ask you a question with a few assumptions.

First of all, we know this is a problem, whether it is teens sneaking pics of other teens in locker/changing rooms or pervs using them in public restrooms
It is understood that no law will stop anything, but perhaps only mitigate it and make it easier to prosecute an offender. If you never knew a pic was taken, hard to identify the person who took it, but if you at least heard the click and turned and saw who was snapping the shot, there is a fighting chance of identification.
Japan and South Korea, at least, already have such legistlation in place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_phone).
So, how would those of you that find this silly and nothing more than a "feel good" bill attack this problem? Just one idea that may prevent nude/semi-nude pics of your pre-teen daughter from making it up on MySpace pages without her knowledge, or pics of your 7 yr old boy going to the bathroom being shared on a child porn site.

And don't forget, you are allowed to have legislation be part of your answer if you want. That is the reason for a great deal of laws - to protect people from those who would do you harm. Doesn't have to be part of your answer, but it could be.

[Stinger]

Dumbest bill ever. I can take a silent photo with a camera but not a camera phone? Just because my device has a cellular radio it must be noisy when it takes a picture? Exactly what congress should be focusing on right now.

If someone is holding a camera, you know that they're taking a photo. It's easy enough to pretend to be doing something else whilst taking a photo with a phone.

I believe this is already law in a lot of European countries. It shouldn't be hard for any of the big manufacturers to implement in the US.

[Cattle-Dog]

Ed, my answer would really upset many teenagers, but I think cell phones should be completely banned in K-12.

[Ed Hansberry]

Ed, my answer would really upset many teenagers, but I think cell phones should be completely banned in K-12.

In school settings (during class) - I'd agree, but other places? We don't have a land line, so we all have cell phones. It is an invaluable way for parents to keep in touch with their kids, especially teenagers. There were a number of times as a teen I had to find a payphone to call my parents in particular situations. I am thankful my kids will never have to do that - they can just call me wherever they are.

[j2inet]

Reminds me of a requirement some one was trying to get enforced a few years back where they wanted all camera phones to flash a light when a picture was taken. Don't know what ever happened with that one, but a light would have been highly ineffective in daylight or when covered by duct tape.

[whydidnt]

The problem with laws such as this is that they single out a form of technology, without addressing the issue they are hoping to resolve. Do you really think pervs using the phone won't figure out a way to silence the speaker before using it? The only people inconvenienced will be those that have a legitimate reason to want to take a silent photo, in a quiet setting, such as a wedding, etc.

This is just like DRM, will have no affect on the outcome, but will inconvenience people anyway. I have to agree with previous posters, this is a solution looking for a problem, and as usual our lawmakers prefer to "do something for the children" than actually deal with real issues we are facing today.

[burtcom]

Meh,

Why don't we have the phones imbed a digital watermark in all pictures and videos taken with the device? The watermark can contain the phone number, IMEI, user name, etc.

[virain]

The problem with laws such as this is that they single out a form of technology, without addressing the issue they are hoping to resolve. Do you really think pervs using the phone won't figure out a way to silence the speaker before using it? The only people inconvenienced will be those that have a legitimate reason to want to take a silent photo, in a quiet setting, such as a wedding, etc.

This is just like DRM, will have no affect on the outcome, but will inconvenience people anyway. I have to agree with previous posters, this is a solution looking for a problem, and as usual our lawmakers prefer to "do something for the children" than actually deal with real issues we are facing today.

I agree, This law will not stop pervs from taking pictures and posting them on the net, but it will inconvenience honest, law abiding citizens. Criminals will find a way to commit a crime anyway, because that's what they do, for money , for fun, or maybe both. On the other hand, honest person may need to take silent photo once in a while and that's create inconvenience for him/her.
The real purpose of such "FEEL GOOD" laws is that our politicians hide behind them so they can avoid dealing with real problems, such as economy, terrorism, etc., and 3 most popular covers are: the children, the poor, and the elders.

[servoisgod]

My thoughts are that anyone that is willing to take these pictures will also be the kind of person that will go right to Google and find either:

1. Phones that are not made here in the US.
2. Instructions on how to hack the phone to disable the sound.

OR

Just not care if the sound is on or off because they would be too far from the subject to hear it.

Don't think just because a perv is a perv that the perv isn't a technical perv...perv :)

Later,
Aaron

[Ed Hansberry]

Why don't we have the phones imbed a digital watermark in all pictures and videos taken with the device? The watermark can contain the phone number, IMEI, user name, etc.

That is a good start to a decent idea. The problem I have with that is privacy issues. I don't want to snap a vacation pic and sent to my personal blog and have my phone number embedded in it for spammers to get.

But there could be some sort of number (not sure if IMEI is private enough - if only the carrier can correlate that to a person, then I'm ok) that could identify the picture taker that the carreir could release when presented with a subpoena.

To all of you saying that the offender will find ways around this stuff, let me ask a few questions:


Do you lock your house?
Do you lock your car?
Are your financial records locked with a password?
Do you have a password on your computer or PIN on your smartphone?
Do you tuck your wallent WAY DOWN into your shoe when at the beach?
Do you have a password on your voice mail box?

You get the idea. NONE of those will stop a determined thief. I'd argue the frist two won't even stop a lazy one, but it tends to keep an honest person honest, so for someone that is thinking of going down the child porn route with that first pic to post in a forum, or for some kid thinking it would be funny to post a pic of his team mate getting dressed after a game might be disinclined to follow through with the action if they knew the camera couldn't be silenced. It would take deliberate action and forethought to get a device and either break the speaker entirely or buy a device from outside of the US that allows you to silence the camera.

I am open to arguments, but just because any law can be circumvented doesn't mean the law should cease to exist. I cannot think of a single law man has on the books that cannot be circumvented, and I doubt many of you would advocate throwing all of them away.

[whydidnt]

I am open to arguments, but just because any law can be circumvented doesn't mean the law should cease to exist. I cannot think of a single law man has on the books that cannot be circumvented, and I doubt many of you would advocate throwing all of them away.

The difference is that all of the things you mention are personal decisions made to protect oneself. None of them are on the books as a law. You are equating a personal decision one makes to protect themselves with a law that takes away the rights of law abiding citizens because it might in some rare circumstance "protect the children". The fact that a law can be circumvented or not doesn't mean it's a good law or a bad law. The fact that a law could be put into force that removes real, tangible rights that don't infringe upon others, simply because one might abuse that right is what I have a problem with.

My point regarding circumvention in this case is that the law will serve no significant valid purpose, other than inconveniencing large amounts of law abiding citizens. Since those that want to circumvent will anyway, why bother-- there are already laws on the books against voyeurism, this is an un-needed knee jerk reaction to a problem that is minor compared to the other issues facing the world today.

[Cybrid]

Meh,

Why don't we have the phones imbed a digital watermark in all pictures and videos taken with the device? The watermark can contain the phone number, IMEI, user name, etc.

Sure, A prepaid/ unlocked/ unregistered phone will give you little. "Burners" are all the rage in certain illegal pharmeceutical activities.

The law sounds great. The likelihood that it will change/affect anything? Not so much.

[lmychajluk]

I would hope my pre-teen daughter would be smart enough to be aware of her surroundings and not rely on some feel-good law to protect her. I hope you honestly don't think your daughters are completely safe simply because there are already laws against assault, rape, and murder.

If someone is intent on something, good or bad, they will find a way to accomplish thier goal. There are plenty of situations where a silent camera would be appreciated (pics in a church, for example), and what's the point in taking away something useful from the majority in order to try and limit a minority? A speaker could just as easily be muffled, and what about using a video capture modes? Do you want your personal videos ruined with a 'click' or a 'beep' every few seconds just because some politician in Washington thought it was a good idea that would make him look good?

There's a simple rule for just about any new law that politicians need to consider - The law should penalize acts with an intent to do harm, and not an inanimate object. Most 'gun bans' fall under this category (which criminals pretty much ignore), as do laws such as banning knives in schools (which have resulted in a 6yo girl getting expelled for spreading peanut butter on her sandwich with a plastic knife from her lunchbox). Most of the truly 'bad' things people can do based on this rule are already covered, and therefore the pols can now move on to more pressing matters, like balancing budgets and taking care of the day-to-day business of thier districts.

Going down a road with legislation like this will stifle innovation and only lead to cars that can't go faster than 65mph (many of which already record the last few seconds of driver inputs and telemetry for 'crash analysis'), libraries that only lend books that are 'approved reading', and RFID tags to track your every whereabout 'just in case you're lost, hurt, or kidnapped so emergency personel can find you quicker'.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[mbranscum]

This is partly why our country is in the mess its in today. As a criminal investigator with a larger metro unit (12 years), I can safely say I don't remember a case involving a cell phone camera where a silent shutter had anything to do with a case.

Our lawmakers need to address real problems in the country instead of trying to please a few special interest groups to garner more votes at election time.

[virain]

Do you lock your house?
Do you lock your car?
Are your financial records locked with a password?
Do you have a password on your computer or PIN on your smartphone?
Do you tuck your wallent WAY DOWN into your shoe when at the beach?
Do you have a password on your voice mail box?



***long quote trimmed by moderator JD***

The key words in your questions are: "Do You" That means that YOU are the one who is responsible for locking your door, your computer, email account, etc... So it is YOUR responsibility to be aware that there are pervs around and protect yourself against them, teach your kids to do the same. If to put the law in prospective questions should sound something like this:

-Does he notified you after stealing your identity
-Is he telling you which article of your clothing he checks for valuables at the time of crime.
-Does he has alarm installed on tools that he use to commit a crime that will sound when he picks your lock?
You know these are stupid questions, no criminal will comply, but yet you support camera sound law.
Best way not to become a victim of a crime is to prevent it, before it happens. And that's your responsibility not the criminal's, he does quiet opposite, and intentionally in this case, I might say.

[Damion Chaplin]

OK, this is probably going to be unpopular but...

We had a similar conversation a month or so ago over at Salon, and I'll say the same thing here I said then:

I think all you people against this law doth protest too much!

Yeah, the law's stupid. No, it's not going to affect criminals at all. But...

Worried about your phone's camera making noises in church? Use a real camera! Or how about respecting your place of worship by not taking pictures of it at all..?

Seriously, we're talking about cell phone cameras here. There's barely any on the market that take a picture worth a dang in the first place. Maybe now with an added annoying sound, people will actually start using actual cameras for actual pictures. ;)

[Damion Chaplin]

It's also worth noting that there are already numerous places where cameras and cell phones with cameras aren't allowed. Why not expand that sphere to include gymns and so forth?

One time I went to pay a traffic ticket of my wife's. They wouldn't let me into the DMV with my phone (because it had a camera), so I had to go pull out money from a cash machine, take a taxi home, drop off my phone, then take the taxi back, pay the ticket (which took all of 45 seconds), then take a taxi back home to get my phone. :mad:

Cell phone cameras are highly over-rated.

[whydidnt]

One time I went to pay a traffic ticket of my wife's. They wouldn't let me into the DMV with my phone (because it had a camera),

Cell phone cameras are highly over-rated.

Wow! What goes on at the DMV that is so secretive they must ban camera's? Scary to think about. Apparently you haven't tried one of the Nokia N95 or N96 cameras - they do a decent job fulfilling non-pro camera needs and eliminate the need to carry one more object. ;)

In any event, it seems the places you mentioned have managed to deal with the camera/camera phone issue quite well without a meaningless law on the books removing personal choice from the equation.

Too often we see politicians trying to "regulate" where they have no business regulating. You can say, it's just a camera phone, big deal, but where do you draw the line? It's frequently some new technology that people just don't understand, much like when cars where invented, and laws were written requiring someone to walk down the street waving a flag in front of the car, so no one got scared or was run over.

[starstreak]

My wife works at a school. Cell phones are banned from being in use. Of course it's only up to grade 7 and not high school.

I don't mind if the camera makes a sound, what I would hate is how loud of a sound it would make. There are some palces that don't want noise, like a library.

But a bill like this is to stop the minority from causing trouble, yet annoy the rest.

If they want to save lives, stop people from listening to music/drinking/eating in the car. More people DIE from that than from people snapping pictures. But you know? Not gonna happen. To many cars come with raidios and cup holders,etc. It would be hard to introduce.

The phone making noise bill can easly be defeated by someoen who wants to take shots without sound. Just rip out the speaker from the phone. And those are the people they want to stop with this bill.

[doogald]

This bill obviously needs to be fleshed out. It says that the sound must be loud enough to be heard within a reasonable radius. Well, what is that radius? How loud is the background sound - must it be audible in a crowded bar? At a concert?

[Jason Dunn]

The problem with laws such as this is that they single out a form of technology, without addressing the issue they are hoping to resolve. Do you really think pervs using the phone won't figure out a way to silence the speaker before using it? The only people inconvenienced will be those that have a legitimate reason to want to take a silent photo, in a quiet setting, such as a wedding, etc.

Well said - I agree. Adding noise to the phone only serves to irritate the majority of people that are using their cameras responsibly - the people taking pictures they shouldn't will keep doing it, finding a way around this. I think the real "solution" is to strengthen the laws that punish this type of behaviour.

[WolfDaemon]

Sorry, but I don't agree with the legislation. It will do next to nothing to actually stop a criminal, and will have some SERIOUS drawbacks.

Stopping criminal activity:
1. People will just get "spy cameras." Or even cameras that LOOK like phones. Because unless it's actually a phone, it wouldn't be covered by this law.
2. People will just use the video mode instead of picture mode. Video mode isn't covered by this law.
3. People will just cover the speaker with their finger, and cough while they took a picture (or make other situation-appropriate cover noises like slamming a locker door shut, whatever).
4. People will find ways to hack their phone, either software or hardware.

Serious drawbacks:
1. Can't take legitimate pictures where silence is appreciated. And this goes a lot farther than churches. It could be a lecture, a wedding, a library, exhibit, graduation, whatever.
2. Would discourage taking pictures of criminal activity in progress--such as a robbery, police brutality, or whatever -- because it would alert the criminal to your presence and actions.
3. The law requires that the noise can't be silenced -- so what does that mean for an open source OS like Android that anyone could customize? Would it basically make Open Source OSes illegal? That would be a serious over-reaching consequence of the legislation.

Seriously, this legislation is bad. The very minor benefit you might get isn't worth the serious negative drawbacks.

[Jason Dunn]

Seriously, we're talking about cell phone cameras here. There's barely any on the market that take a picture worth a dang in the first place. Maybe now with an added annoying sound, people will actually start using actual cameras for actual pictures.

I agree with you for the most part on how crappy cell phone cameras are, but the old adage of "the best camera you own is the one you have with you". My Blackjack II takes horrible pictures, just like every other Windows Mobile phone I've had, but I've had it with me a few times when I didn't have any other camera and it has come in handy.

I believe very firmly that we should be in control of technology, not the other way around. If I put my phone into silent mode, it SHOULD NOT MAKE A SOUND. I'm the user, I paid for the thing, it should obey my wishes. :D

[Pony99CA]

People will just use the video mode instead of picture mode. Video mode isn't covered by this law.
I'm glad somebody else thought of this. It was the first thing I thought of that would almost invalidate the law completely.

Most camera phones (except the iPhone, apparently :D) can shoot video. You can't require a noise while shooting video because that would ruin the video and the ambient sound (well, you can require that, but it would be stupid). Frame grabber software is easy to get, so you can have still photos from the video (although generally at poorer resolution).

They have good intentions, but the law is way too easy to circumvent even on phones with a required shutter sound.

However, if they do this, why not have a real sound, like a voice saying "A picture is being taken".

Steve

[Ed Hansberry]

The difference is that all of the things you mention are personal decisions made to protect oneself. None of them are on the books as a law. You are equating a personal decision one makes to protect themselves with a law that takes away the rights of law abiding citizens because it might in some rare circumstance "protect the children".

What tangible right is it that grants you the ability to have a camera that is silent? Until digital cameras came along, all consumer cameras made a click. As to laws and the choices I listed, those are all there to protect people. Traffic laws, door locks, consumer product safety laws, etc. Laws or personal prudent decisions - there to protect you.

[whydidnt]

What tangible right is it that grants you the ability to have a camera that is silent? Until digital cameras came along, all consumer cameras made a click. As to laws and the choices I listed, those are all there to protect people. Traffic laws, door locks, consumer product safety laws, etc. Laws or personal prudent decisions - there to protect you.

Please Ed, I think your stretching now. What tangible right? I believe I have the right to pursue happiness. This means if I want to enjoy a silent shutter on a camera I can. Now if I abuse that right by snapping an elicit, unauthorized picture, then you prosecute under the already existing laws.

We don't need to outlaw non-harmful technology just because SOMEONE might use it in the commission of crime. Outlawing silent camera's is similar to Outlawing cars because some jerks drive drunk and cause accidents. As a society, most of us have accepted the fact that people break laws, not technology. All that happens when we try to limit technology via law is that law-abiding consumers are inconvenienced, and law breakers continue to abuse the law.

Your previous list did not include any laws (at least as I remember it), simply good personal safety measures. There is a huge difference. There aren't laws that require me to lock my door, or password protect my financial information, etc. Those are simply things I elect to do to protect myself. Even traffic laws that you now mention address action (speeding, drunk driving, careless driving, etc.) not the tool, or vehicle. I can buy a Ferrari (if I could afford it) that goes 170 MPH. It's not illegal until I drive it that way. The same should be true with a camera phone. I should be able to buy a phone that takes pictures silently if I so chose.

[Gerard]

What tangible right is it that grants you the ability to have a camera that is silent? Until digital cameras came along, all consumer cameras made a click. As to laws and the choices I listed, those are all there to protect people.

In 1980 I bought a Leica M3. Fine little 35mm camera. The next year I bought an M4, a few years more recent model. I bought these two incredibly well engineered cameras for a few reasons, but first and foremost, before even the amazingly clear and bright optics of the lenses, were the near-silent actions of the shutters. At the time, I was in art school, specialised in photography. My preferred avenue in this craft was to follow in the footsteps of Henri Cartier Bresson, who was also a Leica user, starting quite a few decades before I did with one of their earliest models. Why did he choose the Leica? Because the shutter was nearly silent. And then because the cameras were very compact and easily concealed and easily made ready for use. And then because the quality generally, the lenses, the reliability, made his work easier. And what did he photograph, to want a silent (or nearly so) shutter? People.

I too, like Bresson though of course with far less aptitude (I'm a violinmaker now, as my photography never made it past one gallery show), preferred to watch and photograph people. Still do. People are more interesting than other creatures, at least to a lot of artists of many kinds, because we understand our own species so much better than we do any others... and yet we do not, and our continual wish to understand ourselves and eachother better is met, in part, by photography. And what sort of photographic exercise better exposes the uniquely human in us all? Candid photography. Captured unaware, while going about our daily business, we show ourselves in our truest forms, more so than most studio-posed photographs could ever hope to reveal. I was passionate in my youth about this quest, admired so many great photographers' work before me who had a similar desire to see those elements of the human spirit which are so often ignored, passed by without a glance, and make them visible to anyone afterward with interest enough to really look.

The Leica has offered a nearly silent shutter since about 1930. Scarcely an innovation of the digital age! Of course nearly silent is not absolutely silent... but in my experience, a Nikon F2 SLR (my previous 35mm camera) was like a gunshot going off in public places, where a Leica was a mere flicker, a soft whisper I barely heard myself, and never once did it call attention to my photographing of subjects, even those a few feet from my lens. Of course subtlety of body language and speed in getting the camera focused and ready were important too, but that quietness was a great tool.

In less lofty artistic terms, today one can buy any number of 'spy' cameras on eBay which fit inside a pack of stick gum or in a picture frame or just about anywhere. There are radio controlled models, wired USB models (I use one to examine the interiors of musical instruments, for non-destructive analysis and estimations of repairs), and simplest of all the pocket pen type which look every bit like a real ballpoint pen, but take a picture clear enough to be of use to any wandering, changing room type pervert. Digital cameras with no noise making machinery in them abound in the hundreds of models. And most can be had for less than the price of a cellular phone.

So, who is being punished by such a law? Who is being prevented from enjoying their photographic gadgetry? Normal, everyday people who just want a picture without calling attention to the act of photographing, who wish for example to shoot a candid video of a family gathering without having three goofs interrupt the audio track with "Hey, are you shooting a video!?" every time they point and click.

For my use these days a waterproof Sanyo 6Mp digicam is enough. Not great resolution, but good enough. It's a great little camera, but I wish sometimes for the old days of film, for my Leicas. They were so non-descript, attracted so little attention. My bright blue Sanyo practically calls out to people to stop what they're doing, stop being themselves, and suddenly start acting for the camera. I've always hated that aspect of human nature, and it seems so often that modern cameras call it up more than anything else can. If I get out my 1935 Kodak folder, no one takes it seriously enough to even pause in their conversation. And yeah, when it clicks, it's like a distant spark from a fire, hardly capable of drawing attention. No law against it either.

There's a law in England now, or they're trying to pass one anyway, which says you can't have a knife with you. I wish them luck with that. Won't work of course. Bad guys carry whatever they like. Get away with it too, more often than not, as the courts really don't have much of a clue what to do with criminals.

[virain]

What tangible right is it that grants you the ability to have a camera that is silent? Until digital cameras came along, all consumer cameras made a click. As to laws and the choices I listed, those are all there to protect people. Traffic laws, door locks, consumer product safety laws, etc. Laws or personal prudent decisions - there to protect you.

What tangible right? How about FREEDOM of CHOICE, Freedom of expression, freedom of privacy, FREEDOM in GENERAL! You so much in love with your academics that you miss common sense. And from all those so called "choices" you actually named only one that can be categorized as the choice, the rest are LAWS. Laws that are abused by government on a daily basis. Just take the firs of your examples: Traffic laws. It is good in theory- protect people on the roads, but in reality it is major income source for the local government. It is not a secret that revenues from Traffic Violations are included in budget of such cities as New York, Dallas, etc. I live in NYC and I know first hand how these laws are abused. And I don't blame cops for that. They have quota that must be met, so they do what they have to do. So the best thing to do is let technology to develop naturally, without any useless interference of State, so someone could promote his/her political agenda.
And BTW B. Franklin also said:
"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse."
Think about it.

[Ed Hansberry]

I am truely cracked up by the number of people that think that having a cell phone camera that operates silently is a right. We'll see what happens as this bill makes it way though congress. Be sure to contact the ACLU so they can fight for your right for silent cell phone photography. ;)

[whydidnt]

I am truely cracked up by the number of people that think that having a cell phone camera that operates silently is a right. We'll see what happens as this bill makes it way though congress. Be sure to contact the ACLU so they can fight for your right for silent cell phone photography. ;)

Well Ed, I find it just as much of a right as you find it a right to chose your own church. What's the difference? Before you say your church of choice won't hurt anyone, I think you review the history of religion in the last 3000 years.

While you may consider arguing over congress passing a law regarding silent cell phone technology to be trivial, I find it one more erosion of rights in an area that the government has no reason to participate. Of course it's a right -- EVERYTHING is a right until it harms someone else, or the government passes a low banning it. Today it's a silent camera phone, tomorrow it may the banning of fire arms, the next day, the outlawing of a certain religion, after that what Dr. or Hospital you can go to, it just goes on and on, until the state decides your occupation when your born, where you'll and where you travel to. Sounds a little like our old friends in the USSR doesn't it?;)

[Bill Harrison]

I am truely cracked up by the number of people that think that having a cell phone camera that operates silently is a right. We'll see what happens as this bill makes it way though congress. Be sure to contact the ACLU so they can fight for your right for silent cell phone photography. ;)

I am going to have to believe that in the future, this generation will called the "Nanny" Generation. I am going to be harsh. But here is the truth. BAD things happen. Bad things have always happened, and likely always WILL happen. No amount of legislation, laws, etc are going to save you.

EVERY right you give up, especially those of you a little older than I am, I am angry for. I don't know what world you live in, but to me, anything NOT illegal is my right. I don't go by a list of things that are my rights, but I go by a list that I cannot do. Sounds like people like yourself are ready to end up with a list of what we CAN do.

I want to be free. No one mentioned this, but a major reason for me is wildlife. I like to take walks, and often see deer, or other wild animals, and love to take a few quick pics. But if you have your way, I will loose the ability to do that, or do it well, because they would be frightened off right away by the noise.

My family and myself don't need to be baby sat by the Federal or Local government. Provide services that the individual can't, public services, and provide sensible laws protecting people from harm.

I think there comes a time when we have to balance "Freedom" against things like this. First of all, in this case, its easy bypassed, so its a law with no teeth that only causes harm to the honest. Give me 20 seconds, and I can poke a quick hole in the speaker in my cell phone, and it will make a noise never again.

Finally, and I am perhaps going to come across as a real jerk here, but I for one am NOT going to give up my liberty and freedom for the protection of a VERY limited number of people. I just don't believe that the rights of the many should be sacrificed to protect a very few. Giving up freedoms that many of our forefathers died over to avoid a few cases of someones delicates ending up on the internet is simply not a good equation in my mind. The end does not justify the means.

And yes, I would say the same thing if it happened to me, or my child. It would suck, but I am intelligent enough to realize that it is a "Freak" thing, and not worth limiting millions of otherwise good intentioned people over.

Its like all the laws that have some childs name attached.... Sure, something really bad happened to that child, but should be be passing NATIONWIDE laws over ONE incident? A law to protect against something happening that has less odds than being hit by lightning, is a waste of time and energy, and simply an erosion of our rights.

[Gerard]

Speaking of religious freedoms... I want a law which exempts me from prosecution should I decide to bring a water pistol to the door and use it, when religious freaks show up at random times to talk to me about their pet fiction. Freedom FROM religion is as important to me as freedom OF religion is to them.

[doogald]

I am truely cracked up by the number of people that think that having a cell phone camera that operates silently is a right. We'll see what happens as this bill makes it way though congress. Be sure to contact the ACLU so they can fight for your right for silent cell phone photography. ;)

I wouldn't argue that it is a right so much as this is basically a waste of time, as the people this is designed to stop will not be stopped by it.

But, to everybody against this, it is a benign law. Are you really going to be inconvenienced to know that your (future) phone camera will make a fake shutter noise? I cannot believe that this is terribly restrictive to anybody. As others have pointed out, this only affects cameras on mobile phones, not other digital cameras. People will still be "free" to use those.

I wonder if this bill is being put forward because Mr. King has a constituent to whom this has happened? Fair enough, if so. I cannot believe that it will waste too much time in Congress or whichever federal agency must come up with the regulation (and the policing of it) or cost all that much for phone manufacturers to implement.

However, let's say that one of the reasons for this is to stop something like bullying from happening - i.e., the school bullies pant some kid and somebody takes and posts a cell phone photo. Do you really think that a noisy shutter is going to stop this from happnening? Is it really going to stop a pedophile from taking photos of some child? I don't really think so; as others have said, they will find a way around this. So, all that said, and knowing that there is a cost to this - regulations must be written; a process must be put in place to verify compliance; etc. Knowing that it will have a minimal effect, is it worth all that bother and cost?

[virain]

Speaking of religious freedoms... I want a law which exempts me from prosecution should I decide to bring a water pistol to the door and use it, when religious freaks show up at random times to talk to me about their pet fiction. Freedom FROM religion is as important to me as freedom OF religion is to them.

Actually you have that right already. It is called protection of your privacy. And as you can't go to the church with your water pistol, you can do it at you home with no fear, unless of course, you intentionally invited those people in for the purpose of spraying them with your water pistol. And your atheism doesn't give you the right insult religion on a public forum as much as religious people should not insult your atheism. In a matter of speaking, atheism is a religion, religion of denying believe in creationism.

[virain]

I am truely cracked up by the number of people that think that having a cell phone camera that operates silently is a right. We'll see what happens as this bill makes it way though congress. Be sure to contact the ACLU so they can fight for your right for silent cell phone photography. ;)
I am truly cracked up by people that think that abortion is a right.... I am sure you have something to say about that Eddy, being so "progressive" and staff. :) The bottom line is the right is a right and it is responsibility of any democratic state to protect rights and not take them away.

[Ed Hansberry]

First of all, again with the angst on this urgent and critical need to have a device that can be palmed to be able to take pictures silently. Don't get it, and it isn't a right.

I don't know what world you live in, but to me, anything NOT illegal is my right.

Wrong. There are many things that aren't rights but are rather privileges. A drivers license is a privilege, not a right. A higher education is a privilege, not a right. Speaking your mind is a right, but speaking it on my property is a privilege. Eating fine food or driving fine cars are privileges, not rights. Owning a cell phone is a privilege, not a right, and for darn sure, owning one that has a silent camera or any other feature isn't a right. Perhaps it isn't us that is a "nanny generation" but it is some that are coming up are the "me generation" or "my rights" generation without any understanding of what a right really is.

And with that, I am done with this thread. No one has presented an arguement as to why a clicking cell phone camera would be an invasion of privacy or would deny anyone any right, other than the perceived right of "that is the way I want it to be." But I've learned not to argue with the "me generation" too much. It isn't the having that is satisfying, it is the getting and the claim that everyone else must stand back for thou must not infringe upon "my rights!"

[diar]

good intentions don't always make good law. i didn't read every response in this thread, but what about law-abiding citizens who want to take photos or video of people committing crimes? there have been many instances of people using their cameras to record robberies on the subway, instances of police brutality, recording the faces and license plate numbers of drunk drivers (though, of course, doing this means you're using your phone while driving, but anyway....) and other crimes. there was even a case where an attacker tried to abduct a little girl, he failed but someone snapped his pic before he fled and he was caught. imagine if this crazy nut, or any other law breaker, heard some shutter sound and turned his attention to the person taking the photo. it would be ironic if a law meant to protect young children actually put them in danger.

[Bill Harrison]

Wrong. There are many things that aren't rights but are rather privileges. A drivers license is a privilege, not a right. A higher education is a privilege, not a right. Speaking your mind is a right, but speaking it on my property is a privilege. Eating fine food or driving fine cars are privileges, not rights. Owning a cell phone is a privilege, not a right, and for darn sure, owning one that has a silent camera or any other feature isn't a right. Perhaps it isn't us that is a "nanny generation" but it is some that are coming up are the "me generation" or "my rights" generation without any understanding of what a right really is.

Well, see, thats where I get the short end of the stick. WHY is a drivers license a right, not a privilege? Who made this decision? Was riding a horse or driving a horse driven buggy a RIGHT, or a privilege? Why did this change because of cars? I mean, clearly a horse and buggy can be deadly. So that can't logically be the reason? I hear this said constantly, but I often wonder, WHY is driving a privilege, not a right? And SHOULD that be the case?

[doogald]

Well, see, thats where I get the short end of the stick. WHY is a drivers license a right, not a privilege? Who made this decision?

I think you have that backwards, but the answer is the government, of course. The government decides what are legal rights and what are private rights (i.e., privileges.) The laws state that you must be a certain age and you must satisfy certain requirements in order to acquire a license to legally operate a motor vehicle - a private right (or privilege) granted to a special class of people, as opposed to a legal right granted to all of the people.

[diar]

well, well, well.......

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=6750266&page=1

"The CIA's station chief at its sensitive post in Algeria is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for allegedly raping at least two Muslim women who claim he laced their drinks with a knock-out drug, U.S. law enforcement sources tell ABC News."

...

"A third woman, a friend of one of the alleged victims, reportedly provided a cell phone video that showed her friend having a drink and dancing inside the CIA station chief's residence in Algiers, which officials told ABC News provided corroboration the CIA officer had indeed brought the woman to his residence."

glad he didn't hear all that shutter-clicking so he could destroy the cameraphone.

[whydidnt]

First of all, again with the angst on this urgent and critical need to have a device that can be palmed to be able to take pictures silently. Don't get it, and it isn't a right.

Wrong. There are many things that aren't rights but are rather privileges. A drivers license is a privilege, not a right. A higher education is a privilege, not a right. Speaking your mind is a right, but speaking it on my property is a privilege. Eating fine food or driving fine cars are privileges, not rights. Owning a cell phone is a privilege, not a right, and for darn sure, owning one that has a silent camera or any other feature isn't a right. Perhaps it isn't us that is a "nanny generation" but it is some that are coming up are the "me generation" or "my rights" generation without any understanding of what a right really is.


So who decides what is a right vs. a privilege? In my mind higher education a right, using a cell phone is a right. I have the right to go to college if I so choose. I may not have the money, I may not have the grades, but those are things I control. A cell phone is a privilege not a right? In other words, politicians or some other higher body gets to decide which of the privileged class gets a cell phone? I don't have the right to a FREE cell phone, and Free coverage, as those are services that I have to negotiate from a provider of those services. A drivers license may be a privilege in that we must prove certain skill and abide certain rules to obtain one, but all citizens have the right to apply for one.

I take offense to you putting me in the class of the me generation. I am probably as old, or older than you, and if you spoke with my friends and family they would tell you I am firm believer in personal responsibility for ones actions, and that we are ALL responsible to provide for ourselves. No one owes us anything.

I do, however, believe that we as individuals have the right to make decisions about how we live our life and the tools we use to day to day. Provided I don't abuse those rights by infringing on your own rights. I am always disappointed when well-meaning individuals think they can improve society by artificially limiting the tools we have access to. Be it a silent camera, or banning a substance such as High Fructose corn syrup because some think it's unhealthy for me. A the end of the day we all need to take responsibility for our own actions, and let others do the same.

I think our difference is that I consider the opportunity to do something a "right", in other words eating at a nice restaurant is a right, not privilege. However, right's are not free - I still have to pay the fair if I want to exercise my right to eat at the restaurant. I don't have a right to free food, free cars, free cell phone, or to tell someone else how to use their camera. ;)

[Damion Chaplin]

Wow, hot topic! :cool:

Ed, don't be so serious! We're having a hot discussion here, with people expressing their opinions. Just because it didn't go in the direction you were hoping doesn't mean it's not a valuable thread. I, for one, love hearing the different arguments for and against. The whole point is to take these arguments in as a whole and form your own opinion. OK, so no one's ventured an viewpoint that counters yours. That's OK. I didn't really think there was a requirement here to do so...

And, as far as that goes, I have to agree with Bill. If it isn't illegal, it's our right to do so. As the old adage says "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". Just because assault & battery is illegal doesn't mean throwing your fist around is illegal. It's what you do with that fist that matters.

Also, a right is fundamental, wheras a privelage is usually right-based. It's my right to own whatever phone I want. It's my privelage to take pictures with it. So this bill would inpinge my right to own whatever cell phone I want and inpinge my privelage of taking silent pictures with it.

Of course, that said, I still couldn't care less about this bill because cell phone cameras suck regardless of what sound they may or may not make, and that's why I carry a real camera. That doesn't make noise. :D

[Rocco Augusto]

OK, this is probably going to be unpopular but...

My suggestion might be unpopular as well, but instead of adding in a useless sound that does nothing to help fix the problem why not just create stronger punishments for the people that are causing the problems.

If you're the type of person that likes to take upskirt photos of unsuspecting girls, or pictures of little boys using the restroom as suggested earlier, or of teenage girls in locker rooms or any other offensive sex based picture crimes which managed to spark this outrage then you deserve to have a punishment harsher than having your camera phone make a noise. I just don't see why we don't publicly out these pervs on TV. Think about it. You're caught taking a picture of a little boy using the restroom and next thing you know you're arrested and on the nightly news. Your mugshot is shown in a segment called "This night in perverts" and then everyone in your city would know you're the guy/girl that likes to take pictures of little kids using the restroom. Maybe that punishment is a little extreme, but so is the crime.

For those that are wondering, I got the idea from a news story I read a few years ago about a small town with a really big prostitution problem and they would put the mugshots of the guys they arrested picking up prostitutes on TV for all their neighbors to see. Needless to say, within a year the town was virtually prostitute free since the guys that did end up on TV were shunned by their community and scared other would be guys from going out and trying to purchase a date for the evening. Crude, but incredibly effective.

[gibson042]

No one has presented an arguement as to why a clicking cell phone camera would be an invasion of privacy or would deny anyone any right, other than the perceived right of "that is the way I want it to be."

How about the rights of people to design, manufacture, market, and sell a device that functions according to their specifications, rather than those of strangers who write down opinions and call them "laws"?

[Gerard]

And there there are lobbyists. Those guys are great. Disney Corporation, for instance. We just watched a Winnie the Pooh movie with our little boy, and imagine my surprise when the story morphed into Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol' practically word-for-word. Credit? Sure, Tigger said something like "this is a Dickens of a predicament!" Okay, so Charles Dickens is long, long dead, but Disney has pressured US legislators into making longer and longer copyright ownership into law, to protect their own precious Intellectual Property. Disney would just love it if the earliest Mickey Mouse imagery could be held indefinitely as their sole property, but sadly, this more than 60 year old material is now public domain. Disney, like most mega-corporate entities, wants it both ways. They play fast and loose with other people's work, while bringing some of the best-paid lawyers in the world to bear should any other creative folks dare to infringe on what they perceive as their property alone.

I've no idea whether this law-pusher is affiliated with someone who holds a patent on a cellphone with an independent hardware circuit for camera clicking noises, but if that proved to be the case I'd not be the least bit surprised. That's how a goodly portion of US law gets introduced; someone stands to make a buck, and fear is used as a lever. Witness 'Homeland Security.' The paranoia-related industries of America have profited immensely from that act. Has any citizen not working in such industries actually profited from it, or been made even a smidge safer? And will making cellphone cameras go *click* reliably actually prevent abusive, irresponsible people from taking pictures which ought not to have been taken? Not a chance.

[Pony99CA]

First of all, again with the angst on this urgent and critical need to have a device that can be palmed to be able to take pictures silently. Don't get it, and it isn't a right.
No, it's not a right, especially if you're a strict Constitutionalist. Those "rights" are guaranteed by the U.S. (and state) Constitution.

However, anything else not guaranteed but not specifically illegal should be OK. Something may not be a right, and proper legislation can make it illegal, but that doesn't mean it's OK to make all of those things illegal, either.

And with that, I am done with this thread. No one has presented an arguement as to why a clicking cell phone camera would be an invasion of privacy or would deny anyone any right, other than the perceived right of "that is the way I want it to be."
First, ducking out of a thread you started seems a bit, er, chicken.

Second, it doesn't matter if it's an invasion of privacy at all. I don't believe anybody claimed that (well, I think one person did, but he's clearly wrong).

Finally, good reasons were posted as to why you might want cameras without shutter sounds -- taking pictures at weddings, taking pictures of wildlife, personal safety when taking pictures of illegal acts, etc. (The last could even fall into the privacy category.)

Why does it matter if the camera is in a phone or another body? Because using a phone is less obvious? Well, somebody taking upskirts of girls walking up stairs would certainly be obvious with the back of his camera pointed up.

I agree that the behavior should be punished, not the technology. The Internet has led to a wider availability of kiddie porn, terrorist instructions, hate speech, etc. Should it be outlawed for those heinous reasons?

Many states have enacted laws against driving while using a cell phone without a hands-free device and against texting while driving. They didn't outlaw the ability of a phone to allow texting or talking, but the behavior of people in certain circumstances.

I can understand some lawmaker pushing this to further his "tough on crime" and "feel good" legislation stance (especially if one of his constituents complained), but that doesn't make it a good law.

Or, let's take one of your hot buttons and turn it around. You've railed against DRM regularly, but why isn't listening to music on multiple devices a privilege and not a right? Piracy is a big problem, as anybody should know, but DRM just keeps honest people honest, just like this law would. How can you argue against DRM and for this law?

Steve

[Ed Hansberry]

First, ducking out of a thread you started seems a bit, er, chicken.
Not a matter of ducking out. Just don't see the point of saying the same thing over and over. If someone presents something new, I'll see it and respond. Haven't seen it yet. :)

[Gerard]

Sounding a little bit disingenuous in my opinion Ed. Bored with the discussion, sure, I get that, or even irritated with having your arguments poked at repeatedly. But Steve just offered some very even-handed and insightful examples and arguments, and it seems somewhat small to just throw it back in his face as though there were no genuine effort being made.

[virain]

Well, see, thats where I get the short end of the stick. WHY is a drivers license a right, not a privilege? Who made this decision? Was riding a horse or driving a horse driven buggy a RIGHT, or a privilege? Why did this change because of cars? I mean, clearly a horse and buggy can be deadly. So that can't logically be the reason? I hear this said constantly, but I often wonder, WHY is driving a privilege, not a right? And SHOULD that be the case?
IMO it is very simple, really! Driving a car is a priveledge, driving lisence is a priveledge as well, so is a nice house, a horse, a plane a boat, education, and so on... But it is your got given right to earn those priveleges in life for yourself, your family and people you care. That is the foundation of a free society.

[doogald]

No, it's not a right, especially if you're a strict Constitutionalist. Those "rights" are guaranteed by the U.S. (and state) Constitution.

However, anything else not guaranteed but not specifically illegal should be OK. Something may not be a right, and proper legislation can make it illegal, but that doesn't mean it's OK to make all of those things illegal, either.

And the people who decide it is ok? Our elected representatives, as well as our President (though if he vetoes, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can override), and then the courts may ultimately decide if this regulation is constitutional. (As a matter of fact, I could definitely see the courts overturning this statute if challenged in court. As it inevitably will be, if passed.)

If you do not like this bill, send a letter to your Senator and Representative (not an e-mail - your public servants tend to give more weight to things mailed with postmarks within their district, rather than an e-mail that can be sent by anybody.)


Finally, good reasons were posted as to why you might want cameras without shutter sounds -- taking pictures at weddings, taking pictures of wildlife, personal safety when taking pictures of illegal acts, etc. (The last could even fall into the privacy category.)

Since this affects only cell phones with cameras, presumably you can still find a stand-alone camera with a quiet shutter.

Why does it matter if the camera is in a phone or another body? Because using a phone is less obvious? Well, somebody taking upskirts of girls walking up stairs would certainly be obvious with the back of his camera pointed up.

Well, photos taken by cell phones can be immediately e-mailed or uploaded, within several seconds of the photo being taken.

I agree that the behavior should be punished, not the technology. The Internet has led to a wider availability of kiddie porn, terrorist instructions, hate speech, etc. Should it be outlawed for those heinous reasons?

All of these behaviors are already outlawed. This bill is simply forcing regulatory agencies to come up with regulations that prevent cell phones from having quiet shutters. In addition to all of the other regulations that exist, by the way - use of licensed radios, use of particular frequencies and technologies, a minimal amount of radio power, etc.

If companies have a right to sell phones with quiet shutters, why do they not have a right to sell phones that have superpowered radios that can connect to towers at a long distance?

Many states have enacted laws against driving while using a cell phone without a hands-free device and against texting while driving. They didn't outlaw the ability of a phone to allow texting or talking, but the behavior of people in certain circumstances.

But removing the silencing of a shutter does not stop the ability to take a photo, while removing the ability to text or call makes a cell phone rather silly and generally useless.

And, again - this behavior is already illegal.

[Gerard]

Well, photos taken by cell phones can be immediately e-mailed or uploaded, within several seconds of the photo being taken.

Some digital cameras have had these abilities for several years already, with more 'connected' camera models coming available all the time. This is not uniquely a camera-enabled cellphone capability. Further, how many notebook PCs these days are without a webcam, often of 1.3Mp or higher resolution? It's easy to seat oneself such that the notebook can be turned slightly, recording whatever is happening just behind and to one side of the user or even the user themselves and a wide field of background activityy. For that matter, I have read of several cases where computer repairmen have installed software on notebooks so as to automatically stream video and audio to a server any time the notebooks were active. Sluggish PC performance has nailed a few of these guys, but how many notebooks are out there sending video of people's everyday, private lives to unknown viewers?

There are so many ways to abuse the privacy of others. Any determined creep, even one of relatively meager intellect, can easily acquire any number of spying tools from internet vendors, and anonymously too, using disposable credit cards or online payment tools like PayPal. A specific law forcing a hardware and software addition to all cellular phones might prevent the odd casual pervert from engaging so readily in abusive behavior, but that's one tiny corner of this technological age. It's a finger in a hole in a massive dam, and the waters behind that wall are growing faster every day. Again, education and communication are key here, not a new law. Kids must be taught both to respect others and to be vigilant regarding the potential for being abused. Hiding from our reality is no way to engage with it effectively.

[mmidgley]

This law, if enacted, will serve no useful purpose at all. I have four daughters and realize their protection is top priority--this just won't help.

Also, it would really annoy me to have such a capable device and have such a stupid setting stuck because someone might use it inappropriately. It would be like requiring all new guns to have a speaker to make some obnoxious noise for 60 seconds before allowing it to be fired. How many lives would that save? Surely criminals wouldn't attempt to disable such a thing.

m.

[Pony99CA]

Since this affects only cell phones with cameras, presumably you can still find a stand-alone camera with a quiet shutter.
Yes, and for things you anticipate going to, you can bring the camera. But you might not have your digital camera handy when you spot a crime in progress or the police abusing their authority.

Well, photos taken by cell phones can be immediately e-mailed or uploaded, within several seconds of the photo being taken.
Besides what Gerard said, who cares how soon it can be uploaded? Does it matter if I post nude pictures of your daughter 3 seconds after I take them or have to get home and post them 3 hours later?

All of these behaviors are already outlawed. This bill is simply forcing regulatory agencies to come up with regulations that prevent cell phones from having quiet shutters.
What behaviors that quiet shutters aim to curtail aren't already outlawed? I'm not seeing your point here. Peeping Tom/voyeur laws exist. If upskirt laws don't exist, pass them.

In addition to all of the other regulations that exist, by the way - use of licensed radios, use of particular frequencies and technologies, a minimal amount of radio power, etc.

If companies have a right to sell phones with quiet shutters, why do they not have a right to sell phones that have superpowered radios that can connect to towers at a long distance?
Those laws are to protect the public airwaves (a limited resource) from interference. I doubt a hoisy shutter has the same effects.

Oh, and some people do boost their radio's power. I remember back in the CB craze when people did that. So outlawing the devices didn't prevent lawbreakers from doing it themselves, just like this law won't.

Again, what prevents me from using a noisy shutter camera phone in video mode and taking a second of video? Nothing. The law, even in a noisy camera with no illegal modifications, would be useless -- unless you either outlaw video cameras in cell phones or require them to make noise, too. (Even a traditional red "filming" light wouldn't be sufficient to stop some of the behavior, as the victim has to be looking at the camera to see it.)

It's well-intentioned but a bad law.

Steve