Slashdot Mirror
How the Camera Phone Changed the World
theodp writes "Ten years after the amazing Philippe Kahn married a cell phone and a digital camera to capture the birth of daughter Sophie, Slate takes a look at the impact of the camera phone, the gadget that perverts, vigilantes, and celebrity stalkers can all agree on. 'With this kind of device,' Kahn told Wired, 'you're going to see the best and the worst of things.'"
The good: as a tool to conveniently record crime or emergency. (in addition to quotidian snapshot use) The bad: abuse/invasion of privacy. neither: as tool to do work (as an evidentiary tool recording what one has done or has observed in a job role) So, the variable is intent.
But I still keep my cell phone picks. Pictures are mementoes for most people. That crazy night when me and the girls snuck into the basement of bio-sci just as it closed and rode around on carts and chucked dry ice into the toilets.... Those types of memories don't need a 20 megapixel roloflex camera. Thats what I use it for.. and also naughty photos. just too pervy pulling out a SLR to take those pictures. It makes girls a bit nervous.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
> I also have to leave mine at home when I go to parents evening just in case I might possibly take a picture of a school pupil.
what?
When parents can't take photos at school events, it may not be the terrorists, but someone has certainly won....
I know that my daughter's school has no problems with parents with cameras, whether they be phone cameras, handicams, or SLRs. Have things really sunk that far elsewhere?
Advanced users are users too!
Actually, camera phones do have uses beyond taking fuzzy pictures of your drunk friends. Unfortunately they don't seem to be coming over to the states for some reason.
If you've seen any Japanese magazines or websites lately, you'll notice square barcode-type things on some ads or sites. See the bottom left of this site. They allow you to use your phone camera to take a pic, then your camera web browser goes to an address encoded in the pic without having to type in the address. Basically the same thing Cue:Cat did, but on commodity hardware.
Okay, now you're thinking, "So what? I can get ads easier?", but there are other uses for the technology, too. I've heard some European countries have methods of paying for stuff using a cell phone, where you take a pic of a barcode like that, and the price is charged to your cell account.
Basically, don't just think of it as "A crappy camera glued to a cell phone", but as "An optical sensor attached to a pervasivly-networked device". There is a world of possibility in using it as an input device for ubiquitous computing. Where other attempts to make computer interaction seamless in the real world have failed, the camerphone might succeed because it uses technology that is useful for other things (camera + phone, regular printer + ink), and widely adopted by the public already. It's all a matter of software to make it useful, no new harware needed.
Because there are so many companies with so many standards and technologies. Look at how many different audio formats there are for cell phones. It's like each handset had to come up with its own format that it would accept. Plus in America we use are cell phones for 2 things, making calls and texting. In other countries cell phones are used for everything, so the demand for richer and better features are higher.
Can I bum a sig?
The advise of G.Gordon Liddy on his radio show echoes in my ear.
"All these traffic cameras are just another violation of your privacy and more governmental control.Take a bb gun and aim for the lens.Fight the power"
It was something to that effect.
Occasionally I fight the power.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Actually I'd say that's more Insightful than Funny. While I don't need 70% of the functionality on most modern handsets (phonecalls & texts, anything else is a waste) - a decent bloody camera in the same device (IE. a replacement for a decent point-n-click digicam, I'm not talking SLRs here) is something I would consider using.
To me the greatest thing that camera phones (and cheap digital cameras in general) bring is a possible curb on government oppression. Around the world in both totalitarian regimes and democracies, people gather to protest about various government actions and decisions. In totalitarian regimes and sadly also in our democracies, these protests are often met with grossly excessive force from riot police. In democracies the police often wait until the media finish and leave before making their move on the protesters.
However, now that so many people have camera phones (even in non-democracies), it's much harder to get away with such oppression. All it takes is for one person to film a police officer beating an unarmed man cowering on the ground and it will be around the world very quickly.
I think this prevalence of cheap and portable video-capable devices has lead to a change of tactics in some countries. In an environment where everything the police do is being recorded on video, governments are seeking to avoid confrontation altogether. It has become increasingly popular to either herd protesters into "Free Speech Zones" (in the US) or just effectively ban protests altogether as is the case in the UK, for half a mile or so around parliament square.
In case you're wondering, I've never actually been on a protest myself. Like most people I am either too lazy or too scared of being clubbed by Police to attend (which is exactly the attitude governments like).
You mean 3D
That would be cool, having two of those tiny cameras in your phone and then being able to send 3D stereo pictures. Only thing to figure out is how to display them, but I've seen solutions for that too (single screen, no glasses / goggles).
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
I HATE camera phones.
Hot ticket, pal: don't friggin buy one then.
What I'd like is a good, tiny phone, where the batteries last for ages.Not knowing what your definition of "ages" is makes this a hard point to talk over but I get 5 days of regular use (normally 15 minutes of talk a day, 24-7 standby) out of my Samsung (with a camera!)
If I want to take a photo I get out my digital SLR and a 700 euro lens, I don't think "ah, now I've got my phone, I can leave my camera at home".
If you're toting that thing around with you every and you don't do photography professionally that's just foolishness. Don't get me wrong, carry what you like, but Joe Sixpack (and 95% of all slashdotters for that matter) don't want to carry a normal camera around with them let alone a SLR. It's nice that you pat yourself on your back with all your fancy equipment but the fact is that it hurts your debate against cell phone/camera integration. That's akin to say "I own a pair of Sennheiser Prestige HD590s, why would I want a small pair of ear pods for when I'm out and about with my mp3 player?". Some people would be impressed that I own the Sennheiser, some people would understand that it would be incredibly stupid for me to lug around my headphones when I'm out walking the track.
Here's the problem. The cellphone was supposed to make it easy for people to be reached on-the-move. For "security" reasons we are not allowed to use our phone everywhere
I don't know where you are but in my local area I've never seen this. While I do understand and know of areas where photos are banned I've never heard of anyone getting harassed in these areas for using a cell phone.
The rest of your argument deals with general technophobia and has nothing to do with the camera aspect of a cell phone. Oh well...
upgrading the phone's camera just gives the mobile phone industry another excuse to charge you a higher subscription than the previous year.
Really? Again, not knowing your situation... My cell service provider's plans have decrease since the introduction of the camera phone. I don't think the camera aspect has anything to do with it, they do charge 0.10 USD per picture sent over the cellphone without an inclusive package. They charge the exact same for text messages too.
Furthermore, not to beat a subject to death, I have used my camera phone for productive reasons. There's a million times that I found myself saying, "if only I could get a picture of this". Digital cameras were nice because there was no processing time, but I didn't carry mine unless I really felt I was going to use it. Now I don't worry about it.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Most high end phones used by serious people like blackberries etc have a NC model standing for no camera. On a related note the company I work for also bans camera phones but you can get a camera phone pass if you are at a certain job level. It has become a kind of status item. The untrusted masses have just ID cards. The intemediate have a camera phone pass , the executives have property passes which let them them take laptops in and out and the IT guy has a Gold pass which lets him move multi-million dollar servers in and out. Shows to go who on top :)
**Life is too short to be serious**
I took this photo with my phone last week as I walked to work. Nokia N80, 3mp. The original picture is bigger and sharper than the large one on flickr. As good as most pocket shooters, imho. Night time shots aren't great though.
Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
The thing is, there are people who would like a phone with other high end features, but can't have or don't want a camera phone. Most, if not all of the no-camera phones are very basic phones that are pretty stripped down. It would be trying to find a motherboard for a computer without integrated Firewire. There are plenty of boards out there that lack it, but try to find one with high end features like SATA Raid, gigabit eithernet, and PCI Express, but no Firewire.
I remember a couple of years ago I was in a swimming pool with friends. They had a little pool for kids to swim in, which was empty save for a gran & grandpa and their grandchild. They wanted to take a snapshot of the kid swimming for the first time, the lifeguard then came over and said they weren't allowed cameras and tried to confiscate it. They argued that it was only their grandkid even in the area let alone the shot. The manager was called and eventually the grandparents had to leave with no first photo of the kid swimming, which I'm sure would have been a treasured memory for the whole family.
That was a couple of years ago at least, but remember... I live in the UK. These rules are commonplace. I wouldn't be surprised if you're not allowed to take pictures of your own kid winning the race at sports days, just in case you're a pedophile.
Just had a thought... I know that there are photos of me and my sisters in the bath when we were very young. I think my mother has them in a drawer somewhere, should I report her to the authorities???