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."
"..last thing we need is some script kiddies mass mailing the goatse.cx guy to our cell phones."
Have you seen the resolution of these phones? People'd probably think you were playing Caverns of Mars or something.
More afraid of the phones' security holes
by
zzyrc
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
There has been the first picture phone that could be tricked into dialing 0190-numbers (in Germany, numbers where the receiver gets money from the caller) without user intervention just by a SMS message.
Now that these phones give any software the ability to use the phone fuctions, when are we to expect the first virus that spreads via multimedia messaging and automatically calls a number in a far away country outside of any jurisdiction?
Or even better, let the CIA & co. make your phone call back so that you pay for being eavesdropped and watched by the nice little camera.
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.
Re:Great for stalkers...
by
djupedal
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
too many steps in that dance...it is much easier than you surmise.
The next big thing, happening now, actually, is GPS data as one of the EXIF digital photo variables. You can match a photo to where it was taken, not just when, or of whom, and in what light, with what lens, etc.
I'm not allowed one of these.
by
sitturat
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If I get caught with a camera at my place of work, I can and will get fired. I have to carry a cellphone with me though.
The same goes for many other people.
I guess this means that they will still have to make many cellphones without picture taking capabilities.
Re:I'm not allowed one of these.
by
Detritus
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I was recently called up for jury duty. Besides the usual rules prohibiting weapons in the courthouse, there was a new rule that banned cell phones with the capability of recording sound, a common feature in recent models of cell phones.
-- Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
think outside the box, why don't you?
by
macpeep
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I find it odd how many readers of Slashdot, whom you'd think are more progressive than most other people, can't get over the term "phone".
Every time there is a story about a new advanced mobile phone, you hear people go "Why does my phone have to do X? it's a phone! Why can't it do one thing well?".
Well, first of all, at least with GSM, which is what most of the world except the USA and Japan use, the phone has worked "very well" for about 10 years now. Coverage is excellent. Sound quality is excellent. Text messages work great. No problems.
Second, "phone" is just a traditional term that is attached to these devices. Just because people call it "phone" doesn't mean that the only feature it should and could have is voice communication. PDA's are getting phone features now, and "phones" are getting PDA features. You might as well refer to all of these handheld computer & communication devices with some new term. But why? What's wrong with continuing to call them "phone" or "PDA"? It's just a name for crying out loud!
And as far as the features themselves go, some of them are quite convenient.
It's quite clear that North Americans have not yet grasped (based on statistics) the convenience and un-obtrusiveness of text messages. It's weird too, as they are basically the equivalent to instant messaging or email, which are both quite popular in North America. Text messages cut down on ringing phones and annoyance quite a lot.
Cameras, while clearly more of a novelty, can be quite cool too. "Hey, is the bar crowded?" "Here, I'll show you!", and then you send an MMS with a 10 second old photo. "You wouldn't believe how much fun we're having here on our vacation!", and a photo to go with it, like a post card, only instantaneous. Yes, it's not something that is necessary, but it's fun and can be quite convenient and nobody is forcing you to buy one of these devices.
Always on internet? You don't HAVE to surf or check your email, but if you're sitting in a restaurant, wondering if there are still tickets to that one movie you wanted to see, you can do it and you can reserve those tickets. Sport freak? You can check those soccer / name-the-sport scores. Or perhaps you're camping and want to check the weather forecast.
Java or native (compiled for the particular device and OS) games? With phones / PDA's that have CPU's as fast as the 486's of a few years ago and as much or more RAM, why not? It means your device doubles as a Game Boy Advance. If you spend a lot of time commuting, waiting on delayed planes on airports, then games can be great!
There are some "phones" now that also double as mp3 players. Why carry two devices if one is enough? Sure, they may not have a 20GB hard drive like the iPod, but the basic idea is good.
Bluetooth - it allows you to drive and talk on the phone at the same time, with a hands-free set but without cables to get tangled up in, without having to take the phone out from your pocket. It also allows you to - without cables - synchronize your address book from your PC to your phone. It allows you to use the Internet connectivity on your phone to get your laptop online from anywhere in the world (provided you use GSM, supported in countries on the planet).
And if you like your phone to be just a traditional phone for voice communication, then go right ahead and buy one of those models that are just that. The cellphone manufacturers still make those too.
You know MS's Stinger phone?
by
Anonvmous+Coward
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I'm gonna send people with those bsod.gif.
(it's a variant of the old 'sending "LO BATT" to people with alphanumeric pagers' joke...)
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.
Re:Non issue
by
Doctor+Hu
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Why would anybody be worried over this if they are not involved in anything fishy?...
I can think of two reasons:
Although CCTVs and webcams are quite widespread in public places, and digital camaras likewise in tourist spots and on special occasions, adding picture-taking ability to mobile phones makes coverage much more ubiquitous: essentially, you have to assume that you might get imaged anywhere where there are other people present.
There are lots of things that may not actually be "fishy", but which might at first sight appear that way, or which can cause considerable embarassment or worst if taken out of context - intentionally or otherwise.
I'm not so concerned about misuse as such, as that fear of misuse will make people even less willing than they are now to risk getting involved in day-to-day minor emergencies.
... It's clearly a non-issue.
I beg leave to differ.
AA Words Clog (to)
by
infolib
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
AA Words Clog (to)
The art of snapping someone in a compromising position in a pub or wherever with your camera phone and emailing it to a web site. VK
-- Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
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?
--
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Re:I'm sceptical
by
jon_eaves
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I've used a Nokia 7650. I never wanted one until I got to play with it for a weekend. I write Java applications for mobile phones and I needed one to test an app, and I wasn't interested in the camera at all.
I was hooked, it was so much fun. Took photos of everything that moved (and didn't). The photo quality was *great*. 640x480x4096 colours. Perfect for "web-ready" images.
Now, you and I can use a digital camera, connect to a computer and email it to somebody.
But guess what, most people don't have the skills or equipment to do it. I expect these things will sell like hotcakes once the price drops to the "mass consumer" level.
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
...last thing we need is some script kiddies mass mailing the goatse.cx guy to our cell phones.
There has been the first picture phone that could be tricked into dialing 0190-numbers (in Germany, numbers where the receiver gets money from the caller) without user intervention just by a SMS message.
Now that these phones give any software the ability to use the phone fuctions, when are we to expect the first virus that spreads via multimedia messaging and automatically calls a number in a far away country outside of any jurisdiction?
Or even better, let the CIA & co. make your phone call back so that you pay for being eavesdropped and watched by the nice little camera.
The last thing I need is one of these phones...
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/imag es/dilbert20031828950102.gif
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.
too many steps in that dance...it is much easier than you surmise.
The next big thing, happening now, actually, is GPS data as one of the EXIF digital photo variables. You can match a photo to where it was taken, not just when, or of whom, and in what light, with what lens, etc.
If I get caught with a camera at my place of work, I can and will get fired. I have to carry a cellphone with me though.
The same goes for many other people.
I guess this means that they will still have to make many cellphones without picture taking capabilities.
I find it odd how many readers of Slashdot, whom you'd think are more progressive than most other people, can't get over the term "phone".
Every time there is a story about a new advanced mobile phone, you hear people go "Why does my phone have to do X? it's a phone! Why can't it do one thing well?".
Well, first of all, at least with GSM, which is what most of the world except the USA and Japan use, the phone has worked "very well" for about 10 years now. Coverage is excellent. Sound quality is excellent. Text messages work great. No problems.
Second, "phone" is just a traditional term that is attached to these devices. Just because people call it "phone" doesn't mean that the only feature it should and could have is voice communication. PDA's are getting phone features now, and "phones" are getting PDA features. You might as well refer to all of these handheld computer & communication devices with some new term. But why? What's wrong with continuing to call them "phone" or "PDA"? It's just a name for crying out loud!
And as far as the features themselves go, some of them are quite convenient.
It's quite clear that North Americans have not yet grasped (based on statistics) the convenience and un-obtrusiveness of text messages. It's weird too, as they are basically the equivalent to instant messaging or email, which are both quite popular in North America. Text messages cut down on ringing phones and annoyance quite a lot.
Cameras, while clearly more of a novelty, can be quite cool too. "Hey, is the bar crowded?" "Here, I'll show you!", and then you send an MMS with a 10 second old photo. "You wouldn't believe how much fun we're having here on our vacation!", and a photo to go with it, like a post card, only instantaneous. Yes, it's not something that is necessary, but it's fun and can be quite convenient and nobody is forcing you to buy one of these devices.
Always on internet? You don't HAVE to surf or check your email, but if you're sitting in a restaurant, wondering if there are still tickets to that one movie you wanted to see, you can do it and you can reserve those tickets. Sport freak? You can check those soccer / name-the-sport scores. Or perhaps you're camping and want to check the weather forecast.
Java or native (compiled for the particular device and OS) games? With phones / PDA's that have CPU's as fast as the 486's of a few years ago and as much or more RAM, why not? It means your device doubles as a Game Boy Advance. If you spend a lot of time commuting, waiting on delayed planes on airports, then games can be great!
There are some "phones" now that also double as mp3 players. Why carry two devices if one is enough? Sure, they may not have a 20GB hard drive like the iPod, but the basic idea is good.
Bluetooth - it allows you to drive and talk on the phone at the same time, with a hands-free set but without cables to get tangled up in, without having to take the phone out from your pocket. It also allows you to - without cables - synchronize your address book from your PC to your phone. It allows you to use the Internet connectivity on your phone to get your laptop online from anywhere in the world (provided you use GSM, supported in countries on the planet).
And if you like your phone to be just a traditional phone for voice communication, then go right ahead and buy one of those models that are just that. The cellphone manufacturers still make those too.
I'm gonna send people with those bsod.gif.
(it's a variant of the old 'sending "LO BATT" to people with alphanumeric pagers' joke...)
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.
- Although CCTVs and webcams are quite widespread in public places, and digital camaras likewise in tourist spots and on special occasions, adding picture-taking ability to mobile phones makes coverage much more ubiquitous: essentially, you have to assume that you might get imaged anywhere where there are other people present.
- There are lots of things that may not actually be "fishy", but which might at first sight appear that way, or which can cause considerable embarassment or worst if taken out of context - intentionally or otherwise.
I'm not so concerned about misuse as such, as that fear of misuse will make people even less willing than they are now to risk getting involved in day-to-day minor emergencies.I beg leave to differ.AA Words Clog (to)
The art of snapping someone in a compromising position in a pub or wherever with your camera phone and emailing it to a web site. VK
From The Guardians "Survival guide 2003"
Interesting guide, by the way
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
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
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.