Slashdot Mirror
UK Group Wants Mandatory Flash For Phone Cams
meganthom writes "The BBC is carrying a story about some privacy groups' concerns about the new camera phones. Privacy International, a London-based group, is asking that all phones flash when they are being used to take a photograph. In Korea, the government would like phones to make a loud sound when taking a picture. Also mentioned, several companies/labs do not allow employees to have photo phones on site. Anyone remember that Dilbert?"
Tape would neutralize both "fixes" pretty easily.
Sigs cause cancer.
Paranoid idiots.
Oops, how did this get here?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
What's to keep me from putting electrical tape over the flash?
This is my sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine...
Im sure no-one will figure out putting their finger over the flash, or taping something over it, or opening up the phone, and cutting wires.
Get your own free personal location tracker
So you pass a law that makes all phones more anoying by having a manditory flash. Then do you outlaw the tape people will put over the flash?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
What is to stop perverts or spies from covering the flash with masking tape, or disabling it? Just forbid or jam cell phones anywhere where you wouldn't want pictures taken.
My rights don't need management.
This seems pretty pointless. I guess for the average cell phone "photographer" this would just annoy them. For the criminal that is using the cell phone to take pictures of your credit card or up your skirt I'm sure they will just find an easy work around.
photographic memories will be required to have a flash attachment installed with their RFID implant?
Now I'm the grandest Tiger in the Jungle!
Exactly how are people taking "illicit" pictures with cell phones, that they couldn't take with ordinary digital cameras?
Wow, For a second, I thought the title meant ppl in the UK wanted everyone to flash everyone for a phone
shot ! Those crazy Europeans. Nuk nuk
Help pay for my wedding! Go to my kickass website
These phones need to yell 'POTENTIAL UPSKIRT IN PROGRESS!' at a high decibel level whenever a picture is flashed. That may be the only way to solve this problem.
In other news black eletrical tape is banned in the US under the DMCA as it may be employed to cover the 'flash' on camera phones.
Tape will simply be outlawed, like magic markers and the shift key.
They should make it shout, "Hey, I'm taking your picture."
Many schools and workplaces are banning camera phones. These definately pose a privact risk, but not more so than regular cameras.
Camera phones must fire a bullet at the person being photographed so that they are aware that their privacy is being invaded. A bullet wound is nothing compared to privacy invasion, right?
Dilbert is too real to be funny anymore.
Silent camera phones don't take steamy uncensored barely legal gym shower room photos, people take steamy uncensored barely legal gym shower room photos.
Given that I've seen digital cameras that are far smaller than even the tiniest camera phones, it seems like a knee-jerk reaction to condemn camera phones. I can understand the banning of camera phones from a workplace, but only if cameras in general are banned. Otherwise, it's an arbitrary knee-jerk reaction.
Besides, the image quality is quite poor on camera phones as opposed to an equal-sized (and equally small) digital camera.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
While it was a funny strip, there are some places that really do need to ban cameras.
Where I work we have equipment that we do not to have pictures taken of. Cameras are banned on the location and cell cameras have been banned as well. Visitors are warned and have to leave their cell phones at the front desk if they have cameras.
...they've had mandatory clicky-clicky noises for ages.
:)
But it's quite a famous problem there - women being felt up on busy trains, the upskirt photos and so on. Here in the UK, if a bloke did that, it'd be prison, pure and simple. People just don't really do that kind of thing.
Groups calling for this are the same kind of idiots who, when all else fails, will simply wail "Won't somebody please think of the children!"
iqu
For the love of Pete, please stop with the "tape" posts, yeah, yeah, ok tape fine, brilliant idea.
Using the flash everytime a shot is taken will greatly decrease the battery life. What about
companies that sell disposable cameras, who'll pay for the extra battery on those ?
What about shots where a flash will ruin the picture ? This seems terribly stupid !
Help pay for my wedding! Go to my kickass website
It's just another way for government to control the flow of information.
How about just "CHEESE!"
so do regular old cameras have to use flash every time as well?
Aside from the utter stupidity already pointed out by others, how the hell is this flash supposed to improve privacy? Once the flash goes off the supposed "harm" has already been done.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
How about... "CHEESE!" instead?
Let me be the 427th person to suggest using tape to cover the flash.
Blaze a trail to the New World
...then outlaws will just buy cameras.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
..motivating change since 1692.
Many schools, fitness centres and local councils have also banned them over fears about privacy and misuse.
I find it suprising they don't concern themselves with cameras the government or private corporations put up and the ramications those impose! Somehow they fear cell phones because they are somehow 'innocuous' and therefore capable of great harm. What about the cameras stores already put in the dressing rooms? Or the ones taping 24/7 in public areas? That aside, won't this impair the functionality of a camera phone? ["It's not a bug, it's a Feature!"] It would drain the battery some, you'd have no way of turning it off, and now you'd have to add a halogen bulb and a powerful capacitor - that may or may not leak - into the design, ruining the life expectancy of the phone, making it larger and hence less convenient, and more expensive. I'm sorry but this seems like a knee jerk reaction to me.
Lastly, you can't even stop the detemined people, who will use Duct Tape to get around it anyway, thus inconveniencing everyone BUT the targets. I understand not wanting a camera in a Top Secret environment, but I don't want some mother's coalition ruining a product I am paying money for, out of misguided fear no less.
Just appeared on Suprnova. Damm hackers...
Flash "protection"
Search for place_your_thumb_over_the_light_DEViANCE.torrent
Sound "protection"
Search for cut_a_wire_on_the_speaker_(RELOADED).torrent
for a moment I thought this had to to with Macromedia.
Tape would neutralize both "fixes" pretty easily.
Easy problem to solve there, friend. All you need to do next is make a law banning tape as a circumvention device.
After all - look at what banning felt pens did for the music industry!
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
PI host the Big Brother awards. They are champions of the right to privacy, and I think this campaign does have a valid viewpoint... but won't ever be implemented.
Funny how when it's the companies invading your privacy it's bad, but when it's you invading someone else's, it's fine!
Think about no-camera-phone policies in the R&D department of Nokia...
:-)
I once was an intern at a Nokia R&D center and that was a policy. At the time I was there, the "hot new" project was a camera-phone.
http://www.gbppr.dyndns.org/PROJ/mil/herf/
I'm not sure how the /. article could vary so far from the content of the bbc article, but the part about flashing is practically an afterthought, one sentence about it at the very end. "The government also considered the use of a default flash, but plans were abandoned after concerns from manufacturers."
When are lawmakers going to learn that it's the action that should be legislated, not the capability? You don't fine people who own sports cars because the are capable of speeding.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
The real point of these laws isn't to stop people from abusing camera phones. The real purpose is to give the lawmakers the appearance of "doing something" about the problem. Next time they're up for reelection, watch for ads saying "I protected families and children by making it harder for pedophiles and perverts to use camera phones to hurt children. Vote for me." They're hoping most people don't stop to think about whether what they did had any real effect (and they're probably right).
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
It does click, but apparently not loud enough for most people holding it up to their head to hear.
Think Deeply.
Camera phones in Japan make a distinctive sound when you take a picture. Been that way for a couple of years.
Funny thing is, so many people are taking so many pictures so often that I doubt if one pays much attention to the sound anymore. If you were in Mr Donuts and looked around every time you heard that annoying sound, you would never finish your donut. If you are in a train station, you probably wouldn't even hear the sound.
A chikan who wants an upskirt shot probably has a better chance now than he would have a couple of years ago - partly because people are used to the cameras and partly because they are used to the sound.
Absurdly idiotic 'security measures' that don't make anything more secure, but just convince people that this or that politician really cares about them
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
"Fears grow amid the ever improving resolution of picture phone" replace with: "Fears grow amid the never ending march of technological improvement"
- This and all my posts are public domain. I am a Physicist. I am not your Physicist. This is not Physically advice
Funny how everyone has the same idea to defeat the ideas these folks have.
Funnier still is that they're all getting modded up.
Anyway, I had a slightly different idea. How about making the cameras broadcast an RF signal to make nearby tornado warning sirens go off or something.
Makes me glad that my phone doesn't have a camera. Of course it is a b/w display that can go a week between charges (with some use, not just standby), no internet browsing (does do SMS and internet email).
For those that have cameras, how often do you actually use the camera on the phone?
And for the photos you take, what are they of?
Did the camera on the phone fill a niche that wasn't there before you got it?
Do we have an expectation of privacy in public? Somebody with a telescopic lens can snap photos of you from hundreds of yards away, and shotgun microphones can record your conversations.
And (in the USA at least) the police can record what you do in public without any warrant. I'm as big of a civil liberties backer as any slashdotter, but I really don't think you have much of a right to privacy in public. And common sense says if you don't want it to be public knowledge, don't do it in public.
Also, with those tiny button-sized spy cameras and so forth, which are designed to be even less noticeable than somebody pointing a phone at you, is a cell phone a covert enough form of photography to even worry about it?
I'll send you some spam and mod you off topic!
They looked at me like I was on crack. I was shown the prepaid phones with an insinuation that I must be too cheap to afford the camera phones. I then had to explain that I was already a customer and had no interest in prepaid.
They could not get past this point. After 20 minutes I finally got them to show me the phones they had that met my requirements. Tri-mode and no camera. They had 3 in the entire store left (large store btw) that met these requirements. One of these was a close out model that wasn't being made anymore.
I tried explaining to them that I work in areas that a camera is NOT allowed in. I explained that turning the camera off wasn't going to cut it on a government or banking contract. They just didn't get it.
I have to have a phone for my work. I can't have a camera, and I know I am far from alone.
Verizon, Can you hear me now?
In fact, all recording devices are banned, whether they be audio, video, photo, or a mix. Considering where I work, it makes sense.
I just hope they keep making phones without all that crap.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Look out, look out! It's a paediatrician!
A paedwhat?
Who cares? Burn its house!
In Soviet Russia, you take picture of camera!
Lawmakers aren't exactly falling all over themselves to eliminate government and corporate owned cameras in public places, or create laws notifying people of their presence.
So, why are they pretending to be horrified by private cameras?
so it's "REEZE!!!"
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
What are they going to do when people routinely wear image capture/enhancement devices to compensate for disabilities or to improve their senses?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
-tfa-Many schools, fitness centres and local councils have also banned them over fears about privacy and misuse. -/tfa-
mmmmm, illicit fitness centre pr0n.
i'll have to make a new section of my gameboy-camera pr0n site.
I agree, all the sexy ladies must be made to flash when I'm taking a picture of them.
Sure, you could sneak a cell phone in, but you can also sneak a camera in. The point of using a cell phone rather than a camera is that the cell phone appears innocuous.
You are of course right that jamming them won't work.
So its ok for corporations and government to constantly have us on camera, but cameras in the hands of the average citizen, no that's bad.
It is interesting that the government is suddenly concerned about the privacy implication of cameras now that they are in the hands of citizens. When the government puts cameras up everywhere they certainly don't announce when your image is captured--in fact they usually make them small and tuck them hign in a corner. When people complain that 'security' cameras are encroaching on their privacy the typical response is: "you have no resonable expectaion of privacy here."
So I think a good piggyback for this legislation would be a requirement that the government inform you everytime it collects information about you--including taking your picture. That would kill it in a hurry.
I can find very small, compact, quiet digital cameras in the shape of watches and pens at the local Walmart. Some film cameras are also very small. I'd much rather do this than the ass 320x240 blurromatic I have on my Sanyo 8100.
Because cell phones appear to be just a cell phone, and that the person has another reason for having it other than taking pictures.
Where else are they going to store the pictures?
Sorry... just thought there needed to be a few more posts about tape.
This is really dumb. Any security measure that is placed in the control of the user is bound to fail. You can easily rip out the "loud" speaker, or tape over the flash bulb with some aluminum tape. They can either ban the cameras from public places (not an option IMO) or implement tough penalties for the violators. Those are the only two viable options. Well and banning all cameras... (shhh don't give them any ideas...)
.govs are treating this as a new problem. Portable cameras have existed for a long time. Pervs taking pics in public is nothing new. So there are a lot more cameras in public places now, so what? I for one always assume that I'm being watched when I'm in a public place, and I act accordingly.
I don't understand why
-- Mojo Tooth : exploring our world as only an idiot can.
I called the salesman over and explained that my work location is a military/government location where classified work is done, and cameras are prohibited on the premises. Only two phones did not have a camera. I told him that if all their cell phones had a camera, then it was pointless to subscribe to their services as I would not be able to use it at work.
He happened to be an ex-marine and understood my point, and would pass that on to his superiors.
Cell phones have way too many gadgets that I'll never use (games? text messaging? please), all at the expense of increased consumption of battery power. If I only use it as a phone, the battery only lasts a little over two hours use. This is not an attractive trend.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
... all cell phones make a "shutter" sound, precisely to prevent rouge snappers from taking underskirt shots.
This, of course, can go unnoticed in crowded, noisy areas.
(I should know... I took a DECENT picture of a schoolgirl group one day, they all gave me angry looks... Hey, I was just taking a picutre of a cultural icon!)
Except for member of the Official Monster Raving Looney Party (who are too nuts to be paranoid), that would be most of the population of the UK. Hmmm. Maybe we could tie this in with the Mars landings. But then you'd have to find a way to brew a decent cup of tea at such a low atmospheric pressure.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This is symbolic legislation at it's best. It is not designed to actually solve a problem, but to have the appearance of a solution. This way, some group of do-gooders can feel like they have accomplished something. Their opinion of the law would not change even if they were informed of how easy this "solution" would be to defeat. In otherwords, it's to save the children.
Speaking of which... (Yes, it is a shameless plug for Thinkgeek.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Anyone remember that Dilbert?
Hmm, the link says it was 3 days ago... Don't tell me! I'll get it! Let's see, today's Wednesday, that means yesterday was Tuesday, then Monday, then-- Oh, yeah, that would have been Sunday!
Ok, I know I got the Sunday paper because it's still here on the couch, keeping the pizza grease off the cushions. Dilbert... Dilbert... Let's see, back page of the funnies, right below "Frank & Ernest"...
Nope, it's just not there anymore. I'm a slashdotter. Anything more than four hours old has been flushed from the stack.I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
I am going to vouyerpatch my mobile's romz..... Im going out snap out the naughty bits of code, which are not allowing me to snap naghty bits of people....
It's called insurance.
that has video cameras everywhere? If it is ok for the government, why not the everyday citizen?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
It's actually one small organisation's attempt at getting pulibicity by re-hashing what's already been suggested in other countries as if they've ever had a novel idea.
I can't wait for a DRM solution for this problem whereby the CCD (or subequent image processing unit) will automatically reject any shot not sufficiently illuminated. It could even automatically erase bad shots.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
Camera Watch
I mean lets face it. With the convergence of technologies today eventually you would end up banning everything.
Phones with cameras are illegal in Saudia Arabia. The intersting part is that the law cannot be inforced, almost every body has one, and they are using abusively.
That said, i dont have one of those, and am not planning to get one, I consider it to be quite disturbing to have the feeling that someone might take a pic of me unkowingly what whether position i am in.
But i have to admit that the law is stupid though, so i consider it like spam, there is a law against it, but i keep on getting them, and there is nothing i can do about it currently.
In my opinion, using a flash attached to a camera will almost always ruin a picture. Having a light source at the same place as the lens means you lose shadows and everything looks flat. The lawmakers are clearly not artists.
My gym proihibits the use of camera-cellphones in the locker room. I can see their point. Peace
I had been thinking lately that people using cell phones in public weren't quite annoying enough, so really this legislation is an answer to my prayers.
Hopefully to follow will be something that will make phones emit garbled conversation loudly while they're being used as phones as well. Loud beeps to tell what numbers are being pressed would also be nice.
Seriously, if you go out in public, you run the risk of being seen. Sometimes you might even be recorded being out and about. There are privacy concerns, then there is silliness. Anything that other people are allowed around does not have an expectation of privacy, so invading my privacy further with noise pollution is not only non-productive, but counterproductive.
adam b.
The Register has an article explaining how barking, repressive and unworkable this idea is.
The same British who have 10 surveillance cameras on every street corner?
creation science book
Funny how the English are complaining about camera phones when they were one of the first to place the entire downtown core of a city under continuous video surveilance!
I have been saying for the longest time that people would start to hear the grumble turn to a loud roar once it became hard to buy a cellphone without a camera plus a dozen other funky widgets, and once people started to get photoed/taped/recorded form all sides without warning.
Of course, my employer doesn't care that it's getting harder to avoid recording features in products. I cannot come on-site with a complete video, photo or audio recording device.
Did you notice that most of the digital audio PLAYERS now include RECORD capabilities and provide built-in microphones for your convenience? I dunno about you, but the last time I wanted to RECORD something, I didn't reach for a shitty microphone and recorder that was added as an afterthought to bloat a feature list.
Honestly, I bought a Muvo TX a little while back to replace my older model, and damned if those fools didn't add a built-in microphone with the new generation. Suffice it to say, the mp3 player I bought to use AT WORK could get me fired...until I took the time to void the warranty, crack open the case, and disable the microphone with pliers. Here's a GREAT idea: how about a FIRMWARE update that physically disables the recording hardware, so I have SOME defense if I get caught with a MUSIC PLAYER that just happens to be a voice recorder at work. But no, companies don't give a shit...they pile on the features.
God, I hate some aspects of convergence. So many features that so many people WANT to think they're cool and useful enough to use often. Really, do people need the ability to snap crappy pictures every time they see a chicken crossing the road? Is a crappy, low-bitrate recording any better of a reminder to you than a post-it-note? We've gotten some NICE features from convergence that don't affect the usability of the phone, like say, simple organizers built-in to the phone. But CAMERAS and MICROPHONES add weight, plus they cross a line that most people weren't expecting to cross when they went shopping for a mobile PHONE. If this is the path convergence is going to take, all these small gains could be made worthless by the problems caused by this "recording mania".
Sorry, I just had to rant.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Everybody better hurry up and see that cartoon, coz the link expires 30 days after the cartoon is published. Try viewing the one for 31 days ago (the last date not included on the calendar at the top of the Dilbert window) and you won't be able to get it.
Due to lack of disk space this user has been discontinued
Exactly how are people taking "illicit" pictures with cell phones, that they couldn't take with ordinary digital cameras?
If some dude pulls out a cell phone in the locker room and starts snapping pics of you nude, how would you know? Is he checking voice messages and caller ID or is he reviewing his new vouyeristic collection for web posting?
As a regular visitor to Nokia buildings I have to mention that you have to sign a note, which bans cameras and recording devices. I've asked about the phones (some of which Nokia has given me for projects) those are fine according to the not so knowledgeable, but always so accomodating security staff.
A friend just sent me an email with an image of his new girlfriend taken with his camera phone. It was incredibly small and had horrible resolution. I think she was hot. I am also fairly certain she was a girl, but from that wondeful camera phone photo, there was just no telling.
If I want to take a picture, I'm going to go buy a camera. I can get a ultra low end $50 digital camera that will make me look like Ansel Adams compared to the crap those phones turn out.
Perhaps I am missing the big pictures. Ha Ha.
The issue here isn't that there's technology that can take your picture without you knowing - no, that technology has been around for the best part of a century, the issue today is that the peasant masses now have access to that technology! Its like giving caveman lighters - they could make fire before, but now they're all gonna be burning down everything in sight! I think governments have to face facts: cameras are not going to go away, forcing them to flash or make noise is going to last as long as one of the commoners discovers that you can put your finger over the flash or speaker, or break it. The thing is, most people don't intend to do anything wrong with their cameras, they have loads of great uses and anyone who does want to do something dodgy is just going to do it anyway, like they have done for years. The greatest privacy issue with camera phones isnt that people have cameras, its that there are situations when you say "i wish i had a camera" and now you do.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
the phone i'm currently using (Samsung E700) seems to have the compulsory noise when taking a picture, luckily though you can turn it off using the service menu, which can be reached through typing a code in.
please note that i did not do this so that i can take some upskirt photos or anything, however tempting that might be, but simply because that infernal noise irritates the shit out of me.
Now when I take out my camera phone in the U.K. around pretty girls, they'll be required to flash me!
... Flash of light? Bah.
Yay!
What's that? The phone has to flash? That's dumb. Who'd want to see a naked phone?
What?
Like this one from Philips? Even smaller than any camera phone and 2megapixels to boot. The only thing these measures stop are "crimes" of opportunity.
.. is what it's all about. There are cameras in every SF Bay Area (CA) subway car, with silly little flashing LEDs that I'm sure serve no purpose other than to make people aware that somewhere there is some overpaid BART droid who gets $90,000 per year to rewind the VCR cartridges in every train car.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
I think some country in the Far East already requires an audiable sound when you take a picture on a camera phone.
A more reasonable approach is to say that when you are not in a public place, you have an limited expectation of privacy that includes not being photographed without notice. If someone does violate your privacy and takes your photograph, you have a right to enjoin them from distributing it and a right to recover damages if it has already been distributed.
Personally, I like the idea of cameras giving off some kind of warning before they take a picture. It's polite. Everything being equal, I'd buy a phone with that feature before buying one without it. However, this should be "disableable" on a per-picture basis, when the warning itself would ruin the picture. You don't want your camera-phone picture of a cute furry animal ruined because it flashed or beeped before it snapped.
Should this be regulated?
I'd prefer the industry to come to a standard "warning" rather than have it be a government mandate.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Not only is it a crappy way to suck up all of the power in a system, it also adds unnecessarily to to cost and hardly ever does what it's supposed to. Besides, with phones' built-in browsers, Flash is becoming standard anyway.
Oh, you meant the other kind of Flash. Nevermind.
The ______ Agenda
... because of worries of people taking pictures in locker rooms, etc, then I would like to make it manditory for old dudes to wear some sort of clothing in the locker rooms too
Do you have the right not to be photographed? Not anywhere I know of, and rightfully so. The abuse that would be possible with such a right boggles the mind.
If I'm not breaking some other law (trespassing, etc), why shouldn't I be able to take a picture of whatever I want?
Circumcised with duct tape??? Fucking jews.
oh wait...
Just set the do not copy bit in the rfid that the goverment will soon require to be imbedded into your person. If the camera takes the picture, it will be in violation of the DMCA or some other draconian copyright law and somebody will be in serious trouble.
Tiny digital camcorders will be required to use 100,000 candlepower illumination and emit a "whirring" noise of no less than 90dB.
The postman hits! The postman hits! You have mail.
AND YOU AREN'T EVEN BANNING REGULAR CAMERAS!!!b ert-20041114.html
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dil
they'll require your eyes to make a noise when you use them.
I have gas, but my car uses petrol.
... and I want everyone near me to wear a device that emits a thick purple smoke every time the person farts ..... too much beans here in Costa Rica :)
more seriously: what about my digital camera (nikon) that does not make a sound, and almost as small as my phone ?
What about non digitals, that are quiet ?
seriously, what if my phone does not flash ?
What if I duct-tape it so it does not flash ?
Let's just enforce more shit everywhere on people, we do not have enogh crap regulations, let's invent a few !!! yeee
How hard could they possibly make it to disable the flash and/or speaker? I also find it ironic that this is coming from the UK, the most surveilled country in the world (tinfoil hat conspiracies aside).
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Yeah a PHONE and a CAMERA -- TOGETHER! Brilliant! Brilliant! Because they are logically in the same functional category! I know, let's put a BLENDER and a PHONE together next! Oh, it's been done? Hmm. Are there two other trendy things we can slap together? Let's see, a Segway, and... A FREE LCD MONITOR... I can smell 3) Profit! a mile away!
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
Why not just outlaw dresses if everyone is so worried about it? If a woman is so afraid of someone seeing her panties then she should stop wearing short skirts. Pretty soon men will be arrested for merely glancing (staring has already been outlawed) at an attractive woman.
Any country where only the government can take your picture without permission is not one that I would want to live in.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
This is a great example of moral panic, for which UK is notorious. Have you personally witnessed a situation where a camera phone was used for illicit purpose? May be any of your friends or relatives fell fictim to camera-equipped voyeurs, who posted their gym pics on the web? Personally I think this is really blown out of proportions.
There's always been voyeur porn, much of which was "professionally" done with willing models. And there has never been a significant number of incidents with camera phones - may be a few tens, a few hundreds worldwide, hardly a reason to legislate (but of course, who needs reason today...).
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
I think it's more like:
#Include <Obligatory_anti-bush_rant.h>
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
maybe folks should not get so uptight about having a photo taken of themselves. so what if someone takes your picture? don't do things in public that you wouldn't want a picture of. don't want an upskirt photo of yourself? cross your legs when you sit down. don't want someone taking a picture of your cleavage? cover it up. i mean you if you go out in public like that, hundreds of people are looking at you anyway, so what's the difference?
... but ladies, don't flatter yourselves. do you think it is some prize for a guy to get a crappy out of focus blurry dark picture of 1/4 of your breast popping out of your shirt? it's not. that and more can be seen anywhere. on the tv, internet, in your local mall. whatever. everyone has seen an upskirt photo, and they are silly. some blurry low-quality picture of the dark inside of someone's skirt. who cares?!?!
i am not a woman, so i am open to the idea that i simply don't understand this
Quite right Farble, please post your address, and I'll arrange to take a few spicy shots of you next time you are in the toilet. Oh, the pleasure of catching you whilst urinating - I'm sure you understand. PS - What are you wearing at the moment?
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Most photographers hate flash... it fucks up detail.... granted camera phones suck at pictures to begin with, but this is an added level of suck because people can't use the damn things responsibly
Motorola flip phones sold in the UK don't have the capibility to take a photo while they are closed. There is a shutter button on the outside to enable this but I believe it is disabled by software in the UK following concerns such as those raised in the article.
UK Laptops
passign a law saying that you cant take peoples pictures without their permission. Which in fact we allready have.
Do you mean the US or the UK? In the States there is no law curtailing people's abilities to photograph people in public spaces, notwithstanding NYC's recent attempt to outlaw photography in the subways. From what I understand, there is an unwritten doctrine that the "eye cannot trespass" which protects people's abilities to take pictures of whatever and whomever they want from when occupying public spaces. In other words, I can set up a telephoto lense in the street and take pix of your living room without breaking laws concerning photography.
blog
Don't be surprised to see a menu option somewhere to disable this (or a hacked firmware update). My Sony Handycam has a buried menu option to disable the record light. Mind you though, this is the same camera that lets you activate NightShot in broad daylight, so a few things may have changed since then...
Divide by zero hurts my brain.
Check out the Dilbert comics, dude, last panel.
BTW, you are such a geek for checking this one out.
The Dilbert strip makes a good point.
I have a Canon SD-10, 4 megapixel camera. It's actually smaller than my Sony Ericsson cell phone.
-- b0rk.
Why should someone's rights to take public photos be abridged?
What's really funny about this, is that they really are just talking about cameras that are built into phones -- not cameras in general! So, if you're going to take a picture up someone's skirt, make sure you don't use a noisy/flashy camera phone, or she'll ask, "Mr. Smart, do you have a phone in your shoe, or are you just glad to see me?"
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Samsung has been shipping phones with the shutter sound permanently enabled, even in "silent mode"
I hate "interface noises", especially the shutter sound.
I emailed their customer service to ask about turning if off on my sgh-p107, they said it was not possible because of a government regulation
They might be there as a deterrent with regards to theft and violence.
Either that, or they're there to annoy you.
Either way, I win as I've never been to SF...
What will they do when stick-on wireless webcams and scriptable flashcams cost about the same as those cheap digital watches they give away as prizes in happy meals?
THIS WAR IS LOST, you better welcome the transparent society or prepare for a police state.
Yeah, instead of having visionary politicians, let's instead vote into office those who simply react to headlines.
No need for people who actually spend all their time looking into what can be done to make the world a better place, no we just need the papers to tell us what's wrong, and the right (wing?) politicians to start a fuss about these things.
Please note:
The reason I use the right wing as the example here is that where I live (Denmark), the most reactionaries are placed in right-of-(Danish-)center parties.
This would, in the US translate to somewhere around the centre.
Just ban phones altogether.
They just hinder the learning process anyway.
phone cams are the least of most companies worries... how about spy cams (actually meant for spying) or photocopiers that double as scanners... i would put usb storage devices way above cell cams on the security threat list
Get your torrents...
I'm pretty sure there was a case not too long ago where some teen was convicted for masturbating in a public toilet and was caught on cam, and the judge had said he had no reasonable expectation of privacy at said toilet...
first of all, please read what i said. there's a diff between photographing someone in public, and spying on them in their home. no one is breaking into people's homes and using their phone cams to sneak pictures of them on the toilet. that's not what we're talking about.
that being said, i could care less. if someone was interested enough to see me naked or on the toilet, i'd be flattered. what's to be embarassed or upset about? the last time i checked, everyone has to pee and poop.
if you really want to know what i'm wearing, send me an email i'd be glad to discuss it in detail.
You might not mind, but many people would mind having their privacy violated. In fact, I think it's safe to say that the majority of people want some degree of privacy even when they are in a public place such as a toilet, a breast feeding room, a public pool, a change room etc.
Woman are especially concerned for their privacy, as most women are modest more so than men, and like to be afforded some sort of respect. After all, most women are ladies, and not street hookers.
Perhaps you don't know many women, which may be why you can't sympathise, but the majority don't want to feel violated with some pervert's camera in a toilet etc.
Additionally, a great deal of people don't want to see you yourself going to the toilet or waving your genitals or arse around for all to see. Perhaps it would be better in that hypotetical case, if you instead stayed at home.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Perhaps you don't know many women, which may be why you can't sympathise, but the majority don't want to feel violated with some pervert's camera in a toilet etc.
oooh you've insulted my manhood by suggesting i don't know many women! that was the whole point. yes CLEARY people care which is why there is a thread about this and why you typed a message, right? the point was why should people care? no physical harm or violation happens from a picture of someone's leg or tight t-shirt. modesty is not a reason in itself. it's completely arbitrary.
Additionally, a great deal of people don't want to see you yourself going to the toilet or waving your genitals or arse around for all to see. Perhaps it would be better in that hypotetical case, if you instead stayed at home.
well that's really fascinating information. did i ever suggest that i was a proponent of exposing myself in public? there's a difference between not giving a @#$$% if someone takes candids photos, and getting off on it. notice that if everyone wasn't so uptight about this, the problem would solve itself. the only reason "upskirt" photos are popular is because this society is so utterly repressed.
Privacy International, a London-based group, is asking that all phones flash when they are being used to take a photograph.
A phone case can be easily designed to cover the flash light and not the lens or just the use of fingers to cover the flash might do the trick....
Moral panic? In the US, how much time was wasted as people huffed and puffed about a one-second exposure to part of Janet Jackson's right breast during this year's Super Bowl half-time show?
And how is it that a film like Saving Private Ryan can't be shown on US television for fear of somehow corrupting people?
Moral panic? Moral panic? I'm sorry, did you miss the US elections where the guy who won was the one selling a message of fear rather than the one selling a message of hope?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
oooh you've insulted my manhood by suggesting i don't know many women! that was the whole point. yes CLEARY people care which is why there is a thread about this and why you typed a message, right? the point was why should people care? no physical harm or violation happens from a picture of someone's leg or tight t-shirt. modesty is not a reason in itself. it's completely arbitrary.
No, there's no insult intended, it's just clear that you don't really know much about women and how they like to be treated and the way they wish to be respected. If you were around women more, you'd know about all this sort of thing. As for modesty being an arbitary thing, put briefly, Ethical Relativism is a very old argument, that says regardless of whether ethical dilemmas are infact culturally contextual ideas, they are decided by majorities, and these rules are what is deemed right and wrong. You can argue against them all you like, but I happen to agree with the mainstream on this topic. Most philosophers agreed a long time ago, that most if not all things are not arbitary (or relative). Of course, if things are arbitary, you've invalidated your own argument, hence the reason why most people stay well clear of what you're claiming, after all, your idea is just as good as anyone's by your own arguement.
did i ever suggest that i was a proponent of exposing myself in public? there's a difference between not giving a @#$$% if someone takes candids photos, and getting off on it. notice that if everyone wasn't so uptight about this, the problem would solve itself. the only reason "upskirt" photos are popular is because this society is so utterly repressed.
Well, unless you're prepared to walk around bare arse naked, I think it's safe to assume that you're not prepared to practice what you advocate yourself. The fact is that whether you think people are "uptight" or not, that most people, particularily women don't want people invading their privacy and harming their sense of modesty. You may think people are uptight, but I'd say that most people would see a disregard for a woman's modesty as showing an ill mannered lout who has no charm or respect.
I don't know where you come from, and your background, but it really isn't okay to violate people's privacy and modesty, and it's not something that they need to not be uptight about.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
very good, quoting arguments from your philosophy 101 class :)
if it were possible to lose those cultural hangups, then there'd be no demand for badly framed out of focus pictuers of a stranger's cleavage. hence, there'd be no need for silly laws requiring flashes on phone cams. now, the judgement of whether that would be a better world IS relative. i don't care either way because i don't take the pictures or look at them (usually). i am simply going on the feedback to this topic. seems to me that there are a lot of people that think it would be better if we could avoid such silly laws. but hey, if there is a demand for upskirt photos, then people will take them. like everyone has said, any technology that attempts to prevent this is easily or will easily be circumvented. i was suggesting a solution that gets at the root cause.
there's lots of examples where societal norms are actually detrimental to society. this is a sort of silly minor example, but the larger concept is important. if you want to accept things as right and correct just because the majority of people see it that way, you'll end up with a stagnant unchanging society that never progresses. it is absolutely better that woman can vote. it is absolutely better that slavery is outlawed. there were times in the past when only a very small minority of people held these views. but i guess you'd argue that it's all realtive. one way or the other, doesn't matter. it's arbitrary.
btw, i'm happily married with a 3 month old son. if i sure hope my wife doesn't read this and find out the truth about how i don't understand her.
very good, quoting arguments from your philosophy 101 class :)
Actually it was my third year Ethics class, but I digress.
I agree that some societal norms are good to break, but only if they're warranted. I personally don't like the thought of people taking pictures of women without their consent at a cost to their decency. My partner for instance was groped on the train a few months back and it was extremely upsetting for her. I wouldn't see someone taking a picture of her whilst she was undressing in beach changeroom as being any different. she would be terribly upset by such a thing. I agree that people could probably loosen their taboos around their bodies somewhat, but I still think that respecting a person's privacy should be mandatory.
I don't think that you're in danger of your wife being angry at your opinions, but I'd worry more if you suggested to her that she should allow people to photograph her breasts etc with camera phones.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Soooo it's ok for the government to have Cameras on every corner, alley, intersection and farm house. But I can't take your picture without a flash... Cause it's an invasion of privacy...
This system is alreay in place in Japan.
When your phone snaps a photo it makes a loud "click" which is pretty recognizable. Not all phones use the same sound, but they're similar.
This system was developed to prevent guys from taking pictures up girls skirts on the subway.
This is just the price of the social contract in Japan. Wanna have 25% of the female population wear a mini-skirt each day? Gotta have cameras that click. Doesn't seem like a bad deal to me at all.
The interesting thing is that this isn't a law or government regulated thing at all. The phone manufacturers just decided that it was the right thing to do. There's a monoculture at work for ya.
P.S.: No, tape will not really muffle the sound at all. It's been tried.
Hot grits are yesterdays news! I, for one, welcome our new steamy uncensored barely legal gym shower room overlords!
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
Judging by the gigs of hate-mail we've been recieving today it looks like our suggestion for mandatory flashes on mobile phones has been less than well received. Good. I'm weary of tech companies dodging their responsibility to provide solutions to problems their technology creates. This reminds me of one of our recent campaigns against GMail. You all sent us gigs of hatemail on that one too. Yet all we were doing was sending a signal to Google to get its act together and FIND A DAMNED SOLUTION. They never bothered to do so. Agreed. The flash proposal is fraught with problems, and it most likely isn't the best solution. But while the likes of Nokia (in their subsequent public statement) completely disown the problem, then we'll be out there promoting heat and debate. There will be a technical solution to the problem of camera voyeurism, and I'd expect to see that solution coming from the likes of slashdot. Please get your act together folks. You don't seem to be so vitriolic about us when we're hopelessly fighting government over the likes of US VISIT, the PATRIOT Act, PNR or identity cards. Simon (Privacy International)
On behalf of what I expect is most of the British nation: Sorry, everybody.
These kinds of daft stories are very popular in the UK. For some reason our nation suffers from a higher than acceptable proportion of stuck-up do-gooders who not only like to stick their noses into other peoples' business, but also like to form official-sounding organisations with committies, minutes, annual general meetings, ties, tie-pins, members-only bars and more pomp and circumstance than the last night of the Proms. I'd like to think it is related to the World War II home guard and air-raid warden mentality, where civillians were treated as little more than valuable cattle, but our long island history of Gentlemens' Clubs indicates that this is something more long term, inherrent to our core psyche.
The UK is not going to mandate that cameraphones have flashes. No way, no how, it ain't gonna happen. This is a headline-grabbing press release from a bunch of publicity-hungry nobodies. The UK has one of the highest penetrations of cameraphones, digital cellphones and general personal gadgetry in the world, not to mention our fascination with closed-circuit television monitoring (rendered pointless in a society that also invented the balaclava and tolerates the yashmack, on an island with weather so inclement that face-covering scarves and hooded clothing are a Jolly Good Idea at any time of year), so there is simply no chance of any Brit taking this suggestion seriously. It's simply bollocks journalism, press releases thoughtlessly regurgitated as sensationalist news, from the same newspaper school of dumbness that brought you the Hitler Diaries.
Why Oh Why do we as a nation suffer these fools?
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
There is no way in today's world to enforce such things since there are 100000000s other ways to take pictures. You might argue that camera phones just make it easy, but in case of companies/labs, it's just impossible. I work for a company that I have singed an NDA not to share my work info. with other third parties, and I honour my contract. But that wouldn't deter me from exposing any info. (in case i had my mind ****** up) either photographed or not. It's just impossible for them!
As for taking photos in public places, HOW ABOUT just covering the flash light? or just break it.
It's just rediciolus.
"Evil thrives when good men do nothing"
The 4.05 firmware in my Nokia 7600 camera phone forces a very load and noticeable simulated shutter sound when I take a still photo. The previous firmware gave you the option to turn it off. Sound comes out of the innards of the phone so no putting finger over the sound hole either.
:)
However the same camera will happily record motion video with no indication at all
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
Why bother? I have a Motorola v710, and the picture quality is so poor that I think you'd get better picture quality with a piece of chalk and a slate.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Your are renlentlessly beating him!
Show us where in the article UK politicians are mentioned!
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Right on!
Those Brits should devolve Guantanamo to Cuba and stop their shameful behaviour.
And they also should answer for their crimes in Abu Gharib.
And killing people hurt and unarmed.
And those Brits, executing teenagers and mentally deficient people.
Honestly, they should folow the shining US example.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think anybody who defends Ashcroft is inherently suspect.
i cs /main247248.shtml
I mean, here's a guy that when he ran for office, the Democrats put up a dead guy. A literal DEAD GUY.
Guess who won? Right. People who know Ashcroft (the people of Missouri) would prefer a corpse to represent them.
Don't believe me?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/06/polit
(You'll have to get around the lameness filter all by yourself. I think the editor sucks here at Amtrak).
The article pointed out that nobody had ever lost a senate seat to an actual corpse, so you could infer that Ashcroft must be very unique.
Since when was ignorance and hyperbole 'insightful'?
One of the problems of management is that what ever conclusion they decide is the correct one. Photos will not change the heartless, or the mediocre; But, images of the indescribable will convince the skeptical, and those who are truly concerned.
This is the dumbest proposal I've read about in a long while. As any camera user knows, there are situations in which flash would simply ruin a picture. And requiring a loud noise would not only be annoying, but it would drain the hell out of battery life too. Also, this regulation doesn't cover hidden or even very small digicams, many of which are far more discreet at their jobs than cellphones are or ever will be - so it doesn't solve the privacy problem. Privacy advocates are beginning to remind me of environmentalists - when they first started they were a level headed group with some good ideas. Now they've become concept fundamentalists declaring ridiculous jihads on everyday activities that are relatively harmless.
Not much more to say there...
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
. . . since in the past they have come up with footage of incidents to release to the press...
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Then only outlaws will have camera phones.