Posted by
Hemos
on from the where-do-they-end-up dept.
Da1ek writes "Bill Thompson has a article on BBCi, commenting on the flurry of picture messaging phones. 'With cameras everywhere, technology consultant Bill Thompson wonders if we should be worried about where the images of ourselves are ending up', check out the full article here."
Re:What I want to know is...
by
lxmeister
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Because essentially as far as being a phone goes todays phones are no better then those that came out last year, or the year before, or the year before that. (Except perhaps being a bit smaller).
In order for phone companies to make any money they need to make people who already have phones buy new ones and this is the only way they can think of.
Bah, who cares.
by
forged
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The same argument is coming back every time a new gadget comes around. We heard it with webcams, digital cameras, CCTV, etc. So people see my face and know I am here. Fine by me, I'm human, I exist ! (so long as they don't lodge cameras in embarrassing promiscuious places;)
...a recent tour of the electronics district, Akihabara, in Tokyo, shows that every new phone has a camera built in. Same in Seoul.
And who needs drive-by snoop photos, as long as Photoshop is handy. This thing about being worried over one's photo being snapped in public is overblown...I don't see anyone being up in arms over the video being captured by using ATMs or speed cameras.
I'm not sure about it being a matter of Privacy...
by
dWhisper
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm not sure about it being a matter of Privacy as much as it is a matter of paranoia. Anything that can be done with a phone could be done with a handheld digital camera, conceiled street camera, or hidden video camera. Getting your picture snapped asking for directions could be done anywhere, using the cameras that check for people running red lights to someone snapping a picture of friends and you being in the background.
In the age of American Parinoia, and the subsiquent squeeze that's been put on privacy and the right to freedom, we're all used to being video taped everywhere. Digital Cameras are all over the place, and most stores have some kind of video surveylance systems in place.
I believe the idea of employers asking for pictures of a sick person is a little out of place, since they could go so far as make you bring in a doctors note, but most don't.
Now I will believe that business will violate some sort of ethical boundry with devices like this, just like they have with their other surveylance devices. It's nothing new... as long as there has been a camera there has been someone abusing them. Things will get posted for people to see until someone does something about it, and then they will be posted for employees to see.
Not as popular as you think
by
ReVMD
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Picture Messaging has been no-where near as popular as its been made out to be, two of the four UK networks only got 10% of the take up they'd been expecting over the christmas period.
Then the problem is actually getting people to use them, now while three of the four UK networks are offering a free trial period in the hope that people will continue using it
A lot of people from the research we've done said that they'll use the phones to take the pictures, but copy them over to a computer and send them through the email rather than paying 25-40 pence per message, we don't expect this attitude to change for at least another 12 months on most users.
This won't be another SMS/Text Messaging phenomenom.
Cameras in the hands of citizens are good
by
Paul+Wright
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Much of the concern about the increasing number of cameras in the UK is because they enable Them (the government, law enforcement) to watch Us (ordinary folk). Cheap and ubiquitous cameras in the hands of ordinary citizens are a good thing, or at least, as David Brin argues, they are better than the other alternative.
I'm sceptical
by
StrawberryFrog
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I'm sceptical because
1) These are not good cameras. Compared to what's available these days as a stand-alone digital camera, the picture size and quality is pathetic.
2) Unlike text messaging, it is driven from the top down, not the bottom up. I can't speak for the USA, but for the rest of us, SMS (text messaging) has become a valuable social tool. The mobile phone networks did not predict this, it caught them by surprise when this added-on extra became one of the main events. Most mobile phones, with the 0-9 keypad, are appallingly badly designed for text entry. SMS is a killer app in spite of this.
Now they have come up with picture messaging - 1/10th the expressive power, 1000 times the bandwidth (and they can therefore charge more for it) backed by big ad campaigns here in the UK. Well, SMS never needed ad campaigns to make it popular, people made it popular because it worked for them, not because some company told them that they needed it. After you've had your picture-phone for a year, when the novelty has worn off, I wonder how often you'll use the photo-message function compared to the text message function?
the pictures phones are a gimmick, nothing more. Look at the commercials for god-sake: yeah, like I'm going to be at a yard sale and happen across a rare pure-ivory toad for $1, which I'll take a picture of and e-mail it to Christie's. And of course I won't have a $1 on me to buy the rare pure-ivory toad because I SPENT $300 ON THE PHONE!
uh-huh, sure. I can't think of one reason I would ever need a picture phone where I wouldn't have a much better digital camera, unless I'm at a bar one night and the girl's on the counter start taking it off...
They're about as practical as a segway.
Maybe in about 5 generations when the picture quality rivals that of today's digital cameras, but for now it's just another gee-whiz feature to get people to buy the latest-and-greatest.
Oh, and did someone forget about battery life? 1) Digital cameras have poor battery life 2) Cellphones have poor battery life.... hey I Have a Great Idea!!! Let's combine them and see what happens!!
REAL uses for picture phones
by
dpbsmith
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I just CAN'T believe that "social" uses of picture-taking phones will be more than a brief-lived novelty/gimmick/fad.
On the other hand, just imagine how useful one of these things could be for a field service engineer, customer service, etc. ("OK, you've got cover opened, right? See the board? Do you see a little switch pack down at the left?" "[Click] This one?" "Yes... could you get a little closer?" "OK [Click]" "Good, now see switch #6, set to 0... set it to 1."
Insurance adjusters (who now have to carry digital cameras and laptops with them)...
All sorts of situations where someone in an unfamiliar situation wants to CONSULT with someone at a remote location...
It's not quite that simple though :-(
by
Anonymous+Brave+Guy
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I agree with you up to a point: I'm naturally quite a private person, but I keep private things private.
However, I am slightly concerned by ever increasing surveillance of public life. It's just too easy to misconstrue something you see in a single photo. What about the girlfriend who sees an incidental photo of her boyfriend cuddling another girl in the park? She doesn't know it's an old friend who's just suffered a personal tragedy and needs comforting. She just sees her (ex-)boyfriend with another girl.
Your point about government surveillance is really just a special case of this problem. The "I don't care, I've got nothing to hide" crowd make the naive assumption that no-one will ever make a mistake in interpreting the data that's being collected. History strongly disagrees.
As far as the option of people to require photo evidence when placing phone calls.. this comes as a shock.. you could just refuse. It's your right not to take a picture if you don't want to. Tell mom or the boss or whomever to go blow themselves.
This I do have a problem with, and the problem is that "voluntary" things that become the norm are no longer voluntary. It's like a "voluntary" ID card: you don't need it. Unless, of course, you want to buy a drink, open a bank account, rent a car, take out a mortgage or travel abroad.
If you start telling your boss to go screw themselves then, unless everyone else is doing the same, you're just putting yourself first in the firing line. Fortunately, since many ailments serious enough to keep someone off work legitimately don't actually exhibit dramatic physical signs, this one's unlikely to catch on.
I can see the point in family cases and such, though. How am I supposed to go buy an engagement ring for my girlfriend discreetly if I can't tell her I'm going away with the lads at the weekend and I'll be back on Sunday? And would I want to marry a girl who felt that much need to check up on me anyway?
-- If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Slashdot Mirror
Because essentially as far as being a phone goes todays phones are no better then those that came out last year, or the year before, or the year before that. (Except perhaps being a bit smaller). In order for phone companies to make any money they need to make people who already have phones buy new ones and this is the only way they can think of.
The same argument is coming back every time a new gadget comes around. We heard it with webcams, digital cameras, CCTV, etc. So people see my face and know I am here. Fine by me, I'm human, I exist ! (so long as they don't lodge cameras in embarrassing promiscuious places ;)
...a recent tour of the electronics district, Akihabara, in Tokyo, shows that every new phone has a camera built in. Same in Seoul.
And who needs drive-by snoop photos, as long as Photoshop is handy. This thing about being worried over one's photo being snapped in public is overblown...I don't see anyone being up in arms over the video being captured by using ATMs or speed cameras.
I'm not sure about it being a matter of Privacy as much as it is a matter of paranoia. Anything that can be done with a phone could be done with a handheld digital camera, conceiled street camera, or hidden video camera. Getting your picture snapped asking for directions could be done anywhere, using the cameras that check for people running red lights to someone snapping a picture of friends and you being in the background.
In the age of American Parinoia, and the subsiquent squeeze that's been put on privacy and the right to freedom, we're all used to being video taped everywhere. Digital Cameras are all over the place, and most stores have some kind of video surveylance systems in place.
I believe the idea of employers asking for pictures of a sick person is a little out of place, since they could go so far as make you bring in a doctors note, but most don't.
Now I will believe that business will violate some sort of ethical boundry with devices like this, just like they have with their other surveylance devices. It's nothing new... as long as there has been a camera there has been someone abusing them. Things will get posted for people to see until someone does something about it, and then they will be posted for employees to see.
Picture Messaging has been no-where near as popular as its been made out to be, two of the four UK networks only got 10% of the take up they'd been expecting over the christmas period.
Then the problem is actually getting people to use them, now while three of the four UK networks are offering a free trial period in the hope that people will continue using it
A lot of people from the research we've done said that they'll use the phones to take the pictures, but copy them over to a computer and send them through the email rather than paying 25-40 pence per message, we don't expect this attitude to change for at least another 12 months on most users.
This won't be another SMS/Text Messaging phenomenom.
Much of the concern about the increasing number of cameras in the UK is because they enable Them (the government, law enforcement) to watch Us (ordinary folk). Cheap and ubiquitous cameras in the hands of ordinary citizens are a good thing, or at least, as David Brin argues, they are better than the other alternative.
I'm sceptical because
1) These are not good cameras. Compared to what's available these days as a stand-alone digital camera, the picture size and quality is pathetic.
2) Unlike text messaging, it is driven from the top down, not the bottom up. I can't speak for the USA, but for the rest of us, SMS (text messaging) has become a valuable social tool. The mobile phone networks did not predict this, it caught them by surprise when this added-on extra became one of the main events. Most mobile phones, with the 0-9 keypad, are appallingly badly designed for text entry. SMS is a killer app in spite of this.
Now they have come up with picture messaging - 1/10th the expressive power, 1000 times the bandwidth (and they can therefore charge more for it) backed by big ad campaigns here in the UK. Well, SMS never needed ad campaigns to make it popular, people made it popular because it worked for them, not because some company told them that they needed it. After you've had your picture-phone for a year, when the novelty has worn off, I wonder how often you'll use the photo-message function compared to the text message function?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
the pictures phones are a gimmick, nothing more. Look at the commercials for god-sake: yeah, like I'm going to be at a yard sale and happen across a rare pure-ivory toad for $1, which I'll take a picture of and e-mail it to Christie's. And of course I won't have a $1 on me to buy the rare pure-ivory toad because I SPENT $300 ON THE PHONE!
.... hey I Have a Great Idea!!! Let's combine them and see what happens!!
uh-huh, sure. I can't think of one reason I would ever need a picture phone where I wouldn't have a much better digital camera, unless I'm at a bar one night and the girl's on the counter start taking it off...
They're about as practical as a segway.
Maybe in about 5 generations when the picture quality rivals that of today's digital cameras, but for now it's just another gee-whiz feature to get people to buy the latest-and-greatest.
Oh, and did someone forget about battery life? 1) Digital cameras have poor battery life
2) Cellphones have poor battery life
I just CAN'T believe that "social" uses of picture-taking phones will be more than a brief-lived novelty/gimmick/fad.
On the other hand, just imagine how useful one of these things could be for a field service engineer, customer service, etc. ("OK, you've got cover opened, right? See the board? Do you see a little switch pack down at the left?" "[Click] This one?" "Yes... could you get a little closer?" "OK [Click]" "Good, now see switch #6, set to 0... set it to 1."
Insurance adjusters (who now have to carry digital cameras and laptops with them)...
All sorts of situations where someone in an unfamiliar situation wants to CONSULT with someone at a remote location...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I agree with you up to a point: I'm naturally quite a private person, but I keep private things private.
However, I am slightly concerned by ever increasing surveillance of public life. It's just too easy to misconstrue something you see in a single photo. What about the girlfriend who sees an incidental photo of her boyfriend cuddling another girl in the park? She doesn't know it's an old friend who's just suffered a personal tragedy and needs comforting. She just sees her (ex-)boyfriend with another girl.
Your point about government surveillance is really just a special case of this problem. The "I don't care, I've got nothing to hide" crowd make the naive assumption that no-one will ever make a mistake in interpreting the data that's being collected. History strongly disagrees.
This I do have a problem with, and the problem is that "voluntary" things that become the norm are no longer voluntary. It's like a "voluntary" ID card: you don't need it. Unless, of course, you want to buy a drink, open a bank account, rent a car, take out a mortgage or travel abroad.
If you start telling your boss to go screw themselves then, unless everyone else is doing the same, you're just putting yourself first in the firing line. Fortunately, since many ailments serious enough to keep someone off work legitimately don't actually exhibit dramatic physical signs, this one's unlikely to catch on.
I can see the point in family cases and such, though. How am I supposed to go buy an engagement ring for my girlfriend discreetly if I can't tell her I'm going away with the lads at the weekend and I'll be back on Sunday? And would I want to marry a girl who felt that much need to check up on me anyway?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.