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.

Re:Electrical Tape

[deglr6328]

I think we're all in agreement here about the hilarious idiocy of aforementioned legislation. However as long as we're here I cannot allow this opportunity to discuss nerdly things go unexploited.

The cell phone LED market is really interesting. You basically have the problem of producing a lot of light very quickly with a very limited amount of power available and an even more limited volume of space to fit your electronics (no room for that big capacitor seen in conventional camera flash drive circuits) to drive the flash since cameras these days are tending ever more toward the positively lilliputian. Many cameras include a simple and cheap Cerium:YAG coated 5mm blue led which can be safely overdriven for a very short amount of time, producing a moderate burst of light. Luxeon, the maker of the current most powerful white LEDs recently entered the market with their much improved version of this method. Certain other companies are trying to miniaturize conventional xenon flash units for use in cell phones. Still other companies are eyeing different methods. The story is, interestingly, somewhat analogous to the development of cell phone electronics themselves, a maximization of efficiency in terms of converting power from the battery to the display, processor and transmitter. Except now it's a game of getting the most photons out of a flash using the fewest electrons to do it.

Silly initiative?

[SIGALRM]

Privacy International, a London-based group, is asking that all phones flash when they are being used to take a photograph

I'm skeptical of any regulation that can be defeated by a tiny piece of tape...

Re:Silly initiative?

[IronChef]

You just make putting tape on the flash illegal and restrict web sites that talk about adhesive technology. Make the phone emit a piercing whistle whenever it takes a picture so the blind are protected too... and an odor for the deaf and blind peoples' benefit. We'll all be a lot better off with strobing, screeching, farting phones and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

BOOYAH, what you got to say NOW, mr. big brain?! You and your prohibited adhesives are gonna land in the slammer.

I think the UK should ban...

[IgLou]

Paranoid idiots.

Re:I think the UK should ban...

[El]

The already did. They shipped them all out to the colonies... ;-)

Re:I think the UK should ban...

[Stephen Samuel]

Surely there must be some way for the Slashdot crowd to twist this into an anti-Bush/Ashcroft rant.

Thanks. You've just given me my new signature. My previous one was election based.

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.

And this solves what?

[Kenja]

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?

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.

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.

come on

[Anonymous Coward]

Silent camera phones don't take steamy uncensored barely legal gym shower room photos, people take steamy uncensored barely legal gym shower room photos.

Simple problem, simple solution

[Weaselmancer]

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!

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?

I want phones without cameras!

[onyxruby]

I recently had to replace my cell phone with another as the old unit was wearing out. I went into the Verizon store and explained that I needed a phone without a camera.

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?

Re:I want phones without cameras!

[Macgrrl]

I recently replaced my handset and went through the exact same problems. Part of my role at work involves audits of physical plant for clients (as part of a larger cost of operation modelling exercise), we frequently enter places where cameras are not permitted, but ideally need to be contactable by the office or even other team members who are auditing other areas of the site.

Ultimately I was given the choice of 2 or 3 handsets to pick from, once I added the requirement of bluetooth for a wireless headset there were none available through our preferred supplier. I ended up wth a Nokia 5100, no bluetooth but no camera.

Agreed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look out, look out! It's a paediatrician!

A paedwhat?

Who cares? Burn its house!

Re:In Japan they make a sound

[Karma Farmer]

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.

In America, if you want an upskirt shot, just ask the next ten women who walk by in in skirts. At least one will say yes.

Re:in other news

[Lord_Dweomer]

First they came for our shift keys, but I did not speak up because I did not have a shift key.

Then they came for our felt tip markers, but I did not speak up because I did not have a felt tip marker.

Then they came for the electrical tape, and I did not speak up for I did not have electrical tape.

Then they came for me and there was nothing left to crack the DRM they installed in my brain.

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?