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?"

Comments

Electrical Tape

[Cpt_Kirks]

Tape would neutralize both "fixes" pretty easily.

Re:Electrical Tape

[caluml]

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.

Re:Electrical Tape

[a1cypher]

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.

I think the UK should ban...

[IgLou]

Paranoid idiots.

It's a silly solution.

[caluml]

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.

Pointless

[thebra]

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.

Shrug

[MikeMacK]

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?

Re:Shrug

[sik0fewl]

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

Re:Shrug

[legirons]

"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.

Re:Shrug

[jdreed1024]

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.

That Dilbert...

[rd]

Dilbert is too real to be funny anymore.

True, but...

[daveo0331]

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).

Public Privacy?

[kwiqsilver]

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?

Re:And this solves what?

[Kenja]

"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.

Symbolic legislation

[gcaseye6677]

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.

Isn't this the same country...

[nebaz]

that has video cameras everywhere? If it is ok for the government, why not the everyday citizen?