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?"

19 of 438 comments (clear)

  1. Electrical Tape by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tape would neutralize both "fixes" pretty easily.

    1. Re:Electrical Tape by caluml · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How will they address the video capture mode of new phones then? Require the light to stay on all the time? Make it emit an annoying bleep while it is recording? Battery life will suffer too. Sure to be popular.

    2. Re:Electrical Tape by a1cypher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think maybe they dont mean a flash as in a high voltage camera flash to illuminate the shot, but rather something simple like a red led next to the lense that can be seen by those in the photo.

      They could even market it as a feature. Red Eye reduction... although I am not sure you have to worry about red eye when theres no flash, but you get the point.

      For a recording video, you could just have this light stay blinking (or on constant) much like many existing camcorders already do. Wouldnt drain battery life too much and 90% of those buying the phone wouldnt mind, unless you are explicitly using the phone for things that you shouldnt be.

    3. Re:Electrical Tape by lazy_playboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... or people that dont want their photos taken..
      If you don't want your picture taken, don't go out in public. Easy :)

  2. I think the UK should ban... by IgLou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Paranoid idiots.

    --

    Oops, how did this get here?
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  3. It's a silly solution. by caluml · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Pointless by thebra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Shrug by MikeMacK · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The popularity of camera phones has made it much easier to take illicit photos without permission.

    Exactly how are people taking "illicit" pictures with cell phones, that they couldn't take with ordinary digital cameras?

    1. Re:Shrug by sik0fewl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention key chain cameras. Those things are small and blend in quite nicely with a set of keys.

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
    2. Re:Shrug by legirons · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The popularity of camera phones has made it much easier to take illicit photos without permission."

      In other news, the installation of CCTV surveillance cameras every 50 f*ing metres has made it easier to take illicit photos without permission.

    3. Re:Shrug by jdreed1024 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Exactly how are people taking "illicit" pictures with cell phones, that they couldn't take with ordinary digital cameras?

      I think instead of "permission", the original post meant "attracting attention. Come on, even though requiring flashes might be overreacting, since this is pretty obvious. Say you're on the subway, and you see some guy sitting on a seat, and next to him is a woman standing with a skirt on. The guy has his cell phone in his hand - it's pointing with the cover facing down, but so what, lots of people hang on to their cell phones. That's not real suspicious. Picture the same scene with a guy holding a camera in his hand. You can clearly see it's pointed up the woman's skirt. That's pretty obvious.

      Also, plenty of workplaces do in fact ban cameras (or would at least start asking questions if you walked around with a camera) - the Dilbert comic strip is the exception, not the rule.

      Personally, I'd like to see camera phones banned not because of the legal issues, but because I want to be able to buy a damn cell phone that isn't loaded with useless features.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
  6. That Dilbert... by rd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dilbert is too real to be funny anymore.

  7. Re:That Dilbert by slapout · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If security is that tight, why do you allow visitors in the first place?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  8. True, but... by daveo0331 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  9. Luddites by Chembryl · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From TFA:

    "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
  10. Public Privacy? by kwiqsilver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  11. Re:And this solves what? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Guns are legal in america and the problem of people shooting one another was 'solved' by making this practise illegal."

    Boy, thank God no one ever got shot in the US since they passed that law.

    In truth what your talking about would be leaving the phones alone and passign a law saying that you cant take peoples pictures without their permission. Which in fact we allready have.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  12. Symbolic legislation by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Isn't this the same country... by nebaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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