Slashdot Mirror
New Law Will Require Camera Phones To "Click"
An anonymous reader writes "A new bill is being introduced called the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act, which would require any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken with the phone's camera. It would also prohibit such a phone from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone."
And because it's a law, there will be no way to circumvent this.
What does this mean for open source phones? Does this mean that Android would be illegal in the US?
What about all my pantyshots?
Ooops, by portable Digital Video Camera doesn't click.
What about video?
I find it's difficult to get a good upskirt shot by taking still pictures anyway...
Why not just legislate that every time you take a picture, it bleats out "HEY EVERYBODY, I'M TRYING TO TAKE A PICTURE HERE, DO YOU MIND?"
and anyways, adding a hard-wire normally closed switch to the wire leading to the speaker isn't hard to do.
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
Good thing I still have my pen camera!
Ok, I'm kidding. But do they actually think this solves the problem?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Next will have complaints from parents whose children's recitals are marred by clicking cell phones, newlyweds whose vows were interrupted by the same, etc., etc.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
What next, requiring digital camcorders to make that old 8mm sounds while recording?
A high pitch noise whenever the mic is turned on.
i'm pretty sure they have this law in japan
... that it's impossible to remove the speaker!
Tax dollars at work!
So... This law somehow prohibits either snipping a wire or replacing it with a small resistor?
All this does is prevent me from taking pictures of my god-son in concerts and the like.
Idiots.
One never knows when one might need a rotten tomato... - King's Quest IV: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow
I was worried that congress had stuff to address that actually matters.
our lives and economy are in meltdown and all these taint stains can think about is a new 'camera clicking law'?
for the love of all thats holy what the fuck is wrong with these people?
a click for every frame? are you required to install a speaker on every photo taking device? how can you possibly enforce this?
I recall that Japan has a similar law, to prevent photos being taken of. . . things that Japanese men want to take pictures of, I guess.
Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
If you outlaw non-clicking photo capable cell phones, then only outlaws will successfully take upskirt photos. Of course, this is already the case.
Maybe there's a need for this law. There are probably examples cited throughout the legal text of the proposed law.
May as well pass a low mandating all shoes to have "clicky" heels so that we can't sneak up on anyone. Silent shoes are the highest contributors to predatory actions!
Seriously, this is stupid. And besides, we all know someone will find a way to disable it, so it'll only make the non-bad people have to live with the click, right?
I guess legislators don't know what else to do with their time. You'd think they'd start, I don't know, spending less.... nah.
I see a run on non-click cell phones right before the law goes into effect.
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
Does this apply to _all_ cameras? Security cams, webcams, etc? What about cell phones taking videos? Do they now have to play a whirring sound so that people know that the video camera is running (and then back to security cams, web cams, etc)?
I'm glad to see that someone's stepping up to fill Katherine Harris's crazy shoes.
So the state can secretly monitor everything we do, but we are not allowed to do it ourselves?
c++;
Next: a law that requires politicians to spout blood when they surreptitiously waste trillions of dollars.
This requirement is actually already in practice in Japan. In fact, Apple recently had to adjust the Japanese iPhone software to accommodate this. http://cultofmac.com/to-prevent-upskirts-japanese-iphone-3g-always-alerts-when-taking-photos/2356
Would this apply to regular cameras also?
Expect to see a lot more ads for: "UPSKIRT SHOTS OF DEAF CHIKZ!1one." They should really require a strobe light to go off at the same time as the shutter sound.
Wasn't this law just borrowed from japan, which has been dealing with this kind of stuff for a while? I could have sworn that I read about some similar law a few years ago due to the gropey-nature of japanese city dwellers.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
I hate this crap because my kid is camera obsessed, and, upon hearing the click, stops doing the cute crap that he was previously doing and demands to see the picture.
Just another example of the perv's ruining things for the rest of us, and I'm sure that a modified firmware will be released in like 10 minutes to take it off, so the only people who will be inconvenienced are people like me (who will...hem...not get screwed after I accidentally brick my wife's phone).
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
... at a picture of my dog.
If you can't be good, be good at it!
My phone already does this and it is EXTREMELY annoying. In fact, all of my Motorola iDen phones with cameras have done this (i860, i870, i880).
Probably a rare occurrence, but this means bystanders won't be able to photograph crimes in progress without alerting criminals.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Why remove the speaker? Just put a piece of tape over it. Of course, if they use the handset speaker for the "click," that'd be more difficult to disable with tape ... unless you desire one-sided telephone conversations. Might be desirable for those of us who are married.
Something tells me that unless this law was specifically targeting people who take opportunity shots when presented, but otherwise are not actively engaged in these types of activities, it will not be effective.
I cant imagine it would require more than the most rudimentary knowledge of electronics to disable the speaker in a camera phone (and set phone to vibrate for normal use), or even put a switch in so that its functionality as a phone isn't inpinged.
Just more stupid laws giving us a false sense of security!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
Since any hacked camera will NOT make a sound ... will the cops randomly demand that people with camera-capable devices "demonstrate" that they click when a picture is taken? Since they will NOT be able to tell if someone was actually taking a picture or just seeing if they could frame the shot.
Excuse me sir. I see you're talking on your cell phone. I will ask you to take a picture of me so that I may ascertain whether your phone is "Camera Phone Predator Alert Act" compliant.
Can't be silenced huh? So this magic speaker, or other sound emitting device, can't be covered by a pillow, and can't be destroyed by a paper-clip?
Again, we're talking about intentional malice. Anyone with something to gain -- i.e. getting away with it -- can easily solve the problem.
Surely there's a provision to stop me from placing electrical tape over my iPhone speaker?
Founder, Americans Allied Against Alliteration
So now, when you take a picture of police shooting a restrained person in the back, they'll be alerted and shoot you!!!
Silent camera phones are an important instrument to keep authorities in check.
if you want to listen... ever think of "remove the Tape"?
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
Seriously. What. The. Fuck?
That annoying fucken' sound is the fist thing I fucken' disable when I get a new phone, simply because it pisses me off.
I've never taken "candid" photos, for which I'd need complete silence, I just don't like the extra noise. I disable my desktop sounds, as well. I'm just like that.
And at a concert or other public event? I've never heard someone's camera phone making noises (other than ringing) at one, but I know they're being used to take pictures. ... actually, I have been in situations where silence was golden. I have no drawing skills and needed to copy down a diagram my instructor had drawn on the whiteboard. My (instructor approved, so ling as it didn't disrupt the class) answer? Camera phone.
Not anymore, if this law passes!
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I have no verifiable source for this, but some friends who are into Japanese culture say that several years ago, voyeuristic pics became such a problem that the Japanese government required all camera phones to have a hard coded audible click. And that totally put an end to the problem(?)
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Some worried about open source phones, :) come on, whether it's open source or not you could disable that clicking, if really wanted to, on some even so-called closed-source devices (iPhone)
o_O
The volume makes it reasonably quiet compared to background noise in crowded places, but in quiet places it is horrendously loud. Lets start putting it on all digital cameras, good luck every getting a shot of that cute deer family that visits your back yard or that rare shot of some endangered bird as your camera flashes and plays a siren just so that everyone can be sure you aren't a pervert. Because in both of those cases you are going to be sure to have your expensive professional shooting rig on hand and ready to go...
I LOVE upskirt republicans!
So this is kinda pointless. And I can tape over the speaker to make it quieter, Or puncture it.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
Does this law also apply to spy cameras used by CIA operatives? How about warrantless wiretaps having a Beep when ever the line is picked up legislated into them?
Don't forget to include a bright flashy light so deaf people are also aware when their picture is being taken. Of course this means that cameras should also be unable to take pictures of anyone that can't see the camera. I fear for the future of my upskirtcomapatient.com porn site...
Those who do not actually understand the technology do think that this law will solve the problem.
The law is being introduced, it hasn't passed. I doubt it will, so it was probably created solely so a congressman/woman could say they introduced a bill to protect your privacy.
Occasionally, I help school concert bands record their concerts.
No amount of CoolEdit/Audacity can help me remove the shuttles in the middle of the flute solo.
What the hell is wrong with these people? Is this the one pressing issue at the moment? Don't they have something to do that is really worth their time? And who the hell silently takes photos of people with their phone? This will just inconvenience the innocent and have no next to no effect on anybody who is actually crazy enough to run around taking silent photos of people. They can muffle the speaker, they can get a silent camera without a phone attatched to it. They can RECORD VIDEO on their phones for crying out loud. Will they pass a law requiring the phone to make a screeching or barking noise or something when it records?
The sound the phone makes upon taking a picture will be Anthony Hopkins in his Lecter voice doing that slurping sound after he says "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti".
I want a law that also requires toilets to make happy sounds when I flush.
Seriously, this is what we are doing instead of spending time and resources monitoring the $350B of taxpayer money we just "invested?"
Next they will require us to make hand jesters to signal the direction were heading when exiting all elevators.
Watch the law get passed, but fail to specify a minimum volume limit. Technically, the camera goes "click", but everyone will turn the volume all the way down... It's not disabled, just very, very, very quiet.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Perhaps this law might consider banning Leicas too.
Like most laws of this sort, there is almost no chance of making it work.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
One would think with the current economic issues, unemployment skyrocketing, the war in Iraq that the government would work on those first before worrying about a phone clicking or not.
I can still take movies without incessant racket, right?
sig fault
This is a law?
hahahaha... omg... sucks...
Just means some intrepid soul will hack either the hardware or the software to simply disable the click. Probably not take all that long, considering how phones like the IPhone run on well-known systems (an OSX/Darwin case in this instance).
Also doesn't account for the people who simply take a real camera that doesn't click, or an older camera phone from before this law is enacted.
Or a camera phone acquired out-of-country.
Or will the government prosecute anyone with an old/foreign phone, and tell them they are required by law to destroy it and replace it, at their own cost?
Maybe cell phones with cameras should have to have to have a lever that the user has to pull between each frame, and every 36 frames (or 37 if the user is really cleaver) they should have to open the battery door, take the battery out, and then put it back in.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
It'll be a little bit easier for police officers engaging in brutality to identify bystanders who snap incriminating pictures of their actions.
I'm coming to the conclusion now that any legislation that forces changes on technology is a violation of the right to free speech.
Think about it. Source code is speech. It can do what you want, say what you want, be what you want. If you accept that, then legislating that you can't do certain things with technology is restricting the number of possible ideas that you can express.
So then, the question becomes "is this a valid restriction on the free speech of the populace?" There are some that most people agree with, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre where no such fire exists. But these are very limited; they generally directly endanger one or more other people by that speech alone (in this case due to trampling, etc).
In this case, we're dealing with a hypothetical: Some people may use their cell phones to stalk other people, putting them in danger. Is it right to restrict everyone due to the actions of a few? Especially when there are valid reasons why someone might want to express an idea (in this case, have their cell phone's sound off), the answer should be no.
Lawmakers get around this because most people don't associate mechanisms and software with speech, but the sooner we all understand that fundamentally it's all the same, the better.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Clearly you haven't met my wife.
or better yet, a revolving red light on top so the cops know when they are on tape.
Still, having a cop on tape will not always help you out, it all depends on how hurt the other party was.
I am waiting for "THE CHILDREN" tag...
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
...now's your chance. It's been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Please check the membership list to see if your representative is on it. If so, please call them and ask them not to support this bill when it is considered by the committee. Be polite. Try to have a good reason prepared before you call.
What happens when an police person "sees" you take a picture, demands to inspect the phone, and starts to delete pictures?
If this applies to Phones, then what about actual cameras? Can they be silent? God, how come people that makes laws are so ignorant of the subject matter of those laws? And does this mean it's now unlawful to put a piece of tape over my phone speaker? Seriously....
What's up with this box everyone has to think inside of or outside of? Why does there have to be a box?
... only outlaws will have silent cellphone cameras!
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
My Japanese phone has an option called "manner mode" that has a dedicated button on the side of the chassis that eliminates all potential for being cell-phone-rude. Some societies find phone clicking etc kind of annoying? Let's say I'd rather not bother people while clicking away at the museum etc. Am I a criminal? Would I be a criminal just for carrying my phone since its tone can be disabled?
This is a redundant law anyway. If the photos were being taken of something inappropriate and for illegal usage, the "artist" is already a criminal. As prevention, the existence of a manner mode option on my other phone demonstrates how out of step the legislation is with other concerns of the ordinary citizen.
Lastly, tell me this isn't national legislation. Surely there is something better to be done than trying to eliminate the wave of opportunistic camera-phone wielders waiting for that perfect chance to slip a shot that will put smiles on coworkers' faces...like fighting obesity so said pervs will be taking more flattering pictures on their ninja phones? Economy? Anyone?
Oh my God...fire them all.
"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
Cell phone cameras help catch criminals. By forcing the cameras to emit a noise, this will alert the criminals to the presence of the witness putting the witness at risk of murder or worse. Please, fight this law to help the police catch criminals.
But that doesn't save people from my 300mm telescopic lens :)
I have no verifiable source for this, but some friends who are into Japanese culture say that several years ago, voyeuristic pics became such a problem that the Japanese government required all camera phones to have a hard coded audible click. And that totally put an end to the problem(?)
What, can't they just buy digital cameras?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I heard (maybe wrongly) that this was already a law in Japan.
Makes me wonder... if they grandfather older phones, would they grandfather the firmware version, or just the physical hardware?
In other news, the Restriction of Freedom Alert Act, which requires the government to sound an air raid siren for 3 minutes in the 40 most densely-populated metropolitan areas of the United States whenever a bill is passed that limits the freedom of its citizens, was quietly taken out back and shot.
Officer, you can't hear the click, but it's there, honest! My phone plays the click sound summed to itself 180 degrees out of phase!
Step 1: Buy camera
Step 2: Remove speaker from camera
Step 3: Profit!
It's not that hard...
now duct tape will be illegal as well, great going!
It's a good job that cameras are only available on phones then. I mean, hypothetically speaking of course, if there were some way to obtain a camera that wasn't attached to a phone then this law would be ludicrous. Thankfully that's not the case. You and your children can sleep safe tonight.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
So people can't just buy small cameras which aren't phones? WtF?
The Predator already makes noise when it takes pictures.
THL phish sticks
seeing your name, I might have...
but seriously, what about when the mistress calls?
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
Is there really a problem they are addressing or is it an unfounded fear? Some of you more pervy than I may have a better answer. Is there really an epidemic of inappropriate pictures surreptitiously taken with cell phones? or is this something created to combat a problem that does not actually exist?
Anyone have some surreptitiously taken cell phone picture porn?
Easy. A video will make an annoying whirring sound like a Super 8 camera, drowning out the clever comments of your friends, family and kids in each and every video. What I find most bewildering about this proposed legislation is that they'd have to mandate a specific volume level for shutter sound. A typical "click" would be inaudible on a dance floor, in a subway car, on the bus or at a party. You'd have to duct tape a nice 100W amplifier and bookshelf speaker to the back of your camera in those situations. Come to think of it, you'd have to protect hearing-impaired citizens by affixing a 6 inch flashing strobe light on a bright orange pole where the flash mount resides on international versions of the same camera.
What does this exactly mean? No such option in device configuration? Who get to interpret such rule?
Next step could be "means of changing any factory default" or even changing dashboard.
As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.
After all, it's the idiots who elected them that are really at fault.
There are far too many clueless $#%!@ out there fantasizing that making something illegal will somehow prevent it, despite the innumerable counter-examples ("Prohibition", for example).
Upskirters should simply be beaten/stabbed/shot to death on the spot. Pass a law making that legal and see how much longer it continues.
Couldn't we protect thousands of citizens from unwanted advances if all zippers emitted a loud scream when lowered?
...and gone to Japan!
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
It used to be, you would write a law to punish those who used technology unwisely. For example, robbery vs. armed robbery. You bring a gun you get additional charges. Now they try and use technology to prevent the crime from happening at all.
This is a free country. Our laws are not supposed to prevent us from doing anything, only to punish those who fail to respect the societies wishes. A better law would be to increase the penalty against those creating explicit images without consent. Call it the upskirt law or some shit.
More and more, our law makers are trying to create laws that FORCE us to behave properly... not acceptable!
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
TFA even has a link to the bill's page at Thomas (which is the server that Congresspersons use to keep track of legislative business, and is open to the public). Current status is:
Also note that the bill's sole sponsor, Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), does not sit on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The most likely scenario is that this bill will sit in committee until it quietly dies (a very common fate, I would add).
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
My first project with a clicking cellphone, will be to replace the clicking sound with a 8.0 Richter scale flatulent sound.
"Hey, did you just take a picture of me?"
"Hey, dumb-ass, can't you tell the difference between a camera click and a fart?"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Now the cops will know when you are taking pictures of them beating on the current object of their wrath. Now the guy in the next cube will know that the whistle-blower is taking pictures for some reason.
There's an ulterior motive here disguised as protecting the women and children from voyeurs.
We are the 198 proof..
If you click the link, and then click the link on that link to the actual source, it's a bill introduced by Rep Peter T. King [NY-3] introduced 1/9/2009 with no cosponsors; referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Most bills submitted to committees never get out of committee, espercially the ones with no co-sponsors, buried under the press of other stuff that congress can do which they think will actually get them votes. By introducing the bill he can tell the constituants that were lobbying for this "I introduced a bill in Congress to solve that very" and make it sound like he actually did something.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
to my "hot chick sleeping in subway" blog . . .
For one thing, this law would do NOTHING to alert deaf victims they are being photographed! Some of them could be kids!
yes, i'm am sure no one will figure out how to disable the click. if you're the type of person that's going around sneaking pictures, you probably have the time to figure that one out.
Ha! Who quotes Bananas? I actually own that movie, so I guess I'm not one to judge.
Rebel Leader: You are accused of killing over a thousand people in your term of office... of torturing hundreds of women and children. How do you plead?
General Emilio M. Vargas: Guilty... with an explanation.
Any requirements on frequency and decibels?
this will create a false sense of security. they'll never get the 6 billion phones already sold into the landfills. but because of this law, everyone will assume that nothing bad is happening because they don't hear the camera tone...
now, when i request the fast-food cashier show me what she was doing with her phone and my debit card, i will truly look like an ass because no one heard a camera tone...
What if I'm deaf? Are they going to introduce another bill that requires the devices to flash?
Are outlawed, only outlaws will have headphones!
Well, we know where this is really going. They want to eventually outlaw use of cameras in public.
Leave it to the government to enact stupid laws that takes even more of our freedom away. And of course, the real grit will be found in the complete text of the bill. I'm sure they will not stop at camera phones....
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
This is gonna suck if you get stuck in a bus with some crazy terrorists, and you try to use your phone to email photos of the perps to your FBI/law enforcement buddy.
How about this link instead? It has the membership of the 111th congress, not the 110th (as is linked by the parent). You have to click on the "Membership" tab. If you didn't read the parent, this is who is on the committee; find out if your representative is on the list and contact them.
So what about my actual digital camera, it is small, about the same size as a some cellphones, it makes no noise and I can turn the flash off.... what is the difference? Who is this law designed to protect? Surely not the sexting youths....
...does the click have to be loud enough for everyone to hear? That is, does the phone have to measure the ambient noise level and "click" sufficiently louder?
Just grab a few seconds of video and extract the interesting frames at your leisure. What sort of 'click' sound should occur in this mode? And how will we keep it from interfering with the audio track?
Have gnu, will travel.
Congressman Peter King (NY) is responsible for this waste of floor time. Next thing we know, the representative will wanna push something through for funding some obscure secret society... Oh wait... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.63:
...that our elected officials might have one or two other things with which to better occupy their time.
Failing that, they might manage to come up with a way to prioritize all the demands on their time, so as to put the tasks that affect the *entire country* at a higher level than camera phone noises.
It's bills like this that should never see the light of day. At least until we're all a bit less worried about whether we'll have jobs next year.
the phone should be required to broadcast a recognizable sound bite to alert people that a picture is being taken: We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky- ecky- ecky- ecky- pikang- zoop- boing- goodem- zoo- owli- zhiv'.
FUCK OFF!!!!
We're a free people. Stop with the Nancy state...
Mod parent way up.
Um, you can turn off the click on regular digital cameras. So why the hell are cell phones being targeted?
Are they going to outlaw placing your thumb over the tiny speaker hole in the body of the camera phone too? Stupid.
The nanny state really needs to be beat back down.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That's going to be awesome at your kid's recital as all the parents click and tone away. It's really going to add to the violin playing.
The defence is 'it did click, the accuser didn't hear it'. How do you prove that the camera emitted an audible sound? The intuitive notion of audible is too flexible for law, so it will be interesting to see what requirements they come up with.
John_Chalisque
Thousands of loyal, freedom loving /.'ers are now changing their ringtones to the sound of camera clicks and planning a mass "ring in" on 4/1/09...
I look forward to trying to take a photo in an environment where you are trying to be silent, like a musical performance, animal photography, church, etc.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
But it is seriously the simplest thing one can do to alert someone they are being photographed, potentially against their will. And if I am not mistaken isn't a similar law in effect in japan? And besides you can always COVER THE SPEAKER!
Mistress? Look, I've got enough problems maintaining the needs of one woman. Why would I voluntarily adopt the stress of a second woman?
...
Besides, if my mistress was calling me, I'm certain she'd be yammering about how I never bring her flowers or that I'm not serious about our relationship. Leave the tape in place
I won't be able to hear any normal click. Should I sue to make sure any camera-like device is required to have huge, distracting, flashing lights and a wake-the-dead alarm? It should at least tap me on the shoulder and sign "camera".
It also discriminates against purse cameras, pen cameras, eyeglass cameras, hat cameras, lapel cameras, traffic cameras, PDA cameras.
No, sorry, I must be allowed to record my experience without distracting people. There's a reason I take notes and pictures: my memory is all but worthless otherwise. You might make an argument against publishing the racier pictures, even with the 1st amendment, but against me recording my own experience? Or do I have to rig up something that will click at regular intervals? I suppose I could wear a metronome.
I'm only partly kidding.
*cough*click*coughcough*
Alright, with the economy in shambles, this is what the house is focusing on? Stopping camera's from going off on unsuspecting people. Go new office already!
I guess once we finally have affordable and perfectly silent electric cars, instead of breathing a sight of relief and listen to birds when you walk down the streets, those same asswipes will force them to be just as noisy...
All for your (and your children's) security, of course.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
I've seen several models of cell phones where you could not possibly disable the fake noise of it taking a picture without replacing the firmware or removing/destroying/muffling the speaker. Even in 'silent' mode it would still do it.
I don't know what good this kind of thing could do. So, you have to warn people when you're taking their picture. What if they don't want their picture taken? Well, there's about as much as they can do if they don't want to be shot, pinched, made fun of, or ripped off.
If they're going to make any stupid laws about anything, then make a law that makes it illegal to use someone's picture to harm them. Oh, wait, that falls under extortion and harassment...
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
How hard is it to open up a phone and remove the ringer? Voila free 2 mp camera.
The only way I can see this hack not working is if the CCD has a piezo built in.
Good luck with that.
Even better, if you're in Dingell's district, contact his office and let him know that you'd like it to conveniently never come up for consideration (which is what happens to a lot of bills).
I am officially gone from
... think about the children.
Since one could simply use a finger to cover the speaker opening which would reduce the volume of the sound, the new law would require everyone to have their fingers cut off.
It's a very dark ride.
Your signature made me chuckle when I read your post.
Prove it.
You can track the bill here on Govtrack. If this gets past committee please write or call your representative and ask them to reject yet another unnecessary regulation.
In addition, if you live in New York's 3rd Congressional District, please remember how your representative wants to waste our tax dollars when you vote next year.
After doing a little more research on him, here's another very good reasons to vote him out. Quoting his campaign website:
Pete was a strong supporter of the PATRIOT Act, creating the Homeland Security Department, profiling for terrorists at airports and allowing the National Security Agency to wiretap foreign terrorists making telephone calls into our country.
Please vote this guy out.
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
IANAL, but this would be something enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, not by the local constable on patrol. In other words, they couldn't get a product imported without this feature, or a local manufacturer wouldn't get a license from the FCC, or something similar.
Not that I agree with the principle, but at least read up on it before you jump off the deep end.
Full text follows:
Well this bill [HR414] was sponsored 1/9/2009 by Rep. Peter King, R-NY.
Looking here, it seems that Peter has been a busy boy this month. (11 bills by himself)
Some gems:
H.RES.63 : Supporting the goals and ideals of the Knights of Pythias. *
H.R.521 : To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the national collection of data on stillbirths in a standardized manner, and for other purposes.
H.R.523 : To establish a United States Boxing Commission to administer the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, and for other purposes.
H.R.549 : To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish the Office for Bombing Prevention, to address terrorist explosive threats, and for other purposes.
*"Membership requires "Belief in a Supreme Being"."[from the wiki link above]
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Well this is and has been the law for some time up here in Canada.
Does this mean my supply of breast and coochie shots of Britney Spears and Jessica Alba will be no more?
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
to "click it or ticket"
Clearly you haven't met my wife.
Actually, most of us have ;)
*rimshot*
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This is obviously for the police: They do not want to be photographed doing thier job. If they are, they will hear it. If they are, they can 'test' the phone for compliance and delete pictures while doing so.
Any chance the government can mandate Night Vision Goggles to make that on/off noise from our favorite video games?
1. Cut the wire where it is soldered to the speaker. You just need a second phone for your child porn.
2. Use a small digital camera and not a cell phone. Just remember to turn off the flash.
This is kind of like putting up a 10 mile long wall along the Mexican border to stop illegals. You can pretty much guarantee they won't go over the wall, but that is a pretty useless guarantee.
I think living in USA must be really hard. Things are more... normal in good ole Yurop.
Great idea. I just emailed Rep. Anna Eshoo. Hopefully other Silicon Valley nerds will do the same. Here is the URL:
http://eshoo.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=420&Itemid=44
...think.
that is all.
they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
My canon elph has the sound configurable. it's not much bigger than a cell phone.
I'm old school, i have a film camera (canon Elan 7) which is pretty quiet. would that need to be changed?
Did you notice the sweaty bald fat guy in the corner with the coffee stains on his shirt? Well he's been taking pictures of your :-) .. oh and of course after he is done he will upload his "catch" to usenet and share it with his voyeur buddies.
girlfriend's legs and boobs all morning. Yeah well he left in a hurry a few minutes ago, probably because I was staring at him
so by now he's probably halfways home already. Man I'm sorry I have no idea which way he went. Anyhow he's probably all anxious now
to get home, Home being that smelly appartment of his where he is going to sit down on a semen stained
chair in front of his computer. There he's going to stroke his mishappen penis all afternoon while gloating over your girlfriend's
appearances
Muhahaha...
Yeah right. Only this guy wouldn't just bring a cheap ass camera phone on a 'photo safari'. More likely he's going to have it figured
out by now and he'll have a professional camera with a nice and wide aperture. Now that will capture the soft hairs on the backs of your
girlfriends knees from 20ft away and don't even get me started on the foot-long zoom he has when he goes to the beach.
If a guy like that ever felt the need to use a camera phone, how hard is it to disconnect the speaker / run it across a few ohms
of resistance?
Obviously another law to keep the public from filming public executions such as the one in Oakland, CA 2-3 weeks ago. Google for
BART and Execution.
Disguised as a pen, or whatever.
Like here, for instance.
http://www.spycameras.com/
It seems that the more laws and regulations we have, the less liberty we have. When I see someone calling himself conservative advocating using the government more, I get annoyed. Eight years of that junk got old. And another thing, it appears that the 10th Amendment is de facto nullified as it is obvious that the federal government does whatever it darn well pleases.
They now have to 'whrrr'?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Perhaps in Canada? Without going looking, I'm not sure. I seem to remember hearing about such laws in Korea and Japan as well, and the comments I've read attached to this article at least suggest that it is true about Japan.
I know that my phone makes that click noise, and it's quite loud. I can replace it with things like a quacking duck if I want, but there's no "silent" option (without hacking).
The click sound is worthless because the picture has already been taken.
I find I can silence my phone very effectively by putting my thumb over the speaker ports. The phone may be mandated to drive its speakers to produce a click, but that does mean it'll be audible.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
FTA - "While its a good gesture, I do not believe having such a law would deter criminals from hacking their camera phones to take pictures in inappropriate ways.
What's an inappropriate way to take a picture? Hitting the shutter button with your wang?
o.O
This is so profoundly retarded! While I'm sure people will hack their phones to remove the click, that isn't even required to render this pointless. All you need to do is cough (or tap your foot, or...) while snapping the picture and most likely nobody will hear the click. And unless you're in a really quiet setting even that probably isn't necessary, since the ambient noises of public places are probably going to drown out the click unless someone is right next to your phone.
You people are the worst kinds of people in this world and you have no idea.
Seriously, I hope you all die soon. I hope the entire world dies soon. Humans are a virus and you need to be stopped.
Self-entitlement is the worst disease on this planet and you are all infected.
Thieves, cowards, and pseudo-intellectuals. That's all the internet has to offer. Pathetic.
(From here, oddly, the bill text page on Thomas is not linked from the summary information page on Thomas, which was linked in TFS; this seems to be a pretty boneheaded way of designing a bill tracking system.)
A BILL
To require mobile phones containing digital cameras to make a sound when a photograph is taken.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Camera Phone Predator Alert Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDING.
Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.
SEC. 3. AUDIBLE SOUND STANDARD.
(a) Requirement- Beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, any mobile phone containing a digital camera that is manufactured for sale in the United States shall sound a tone or other sound audible within a reasonable radius of the phone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera in such phone. A mobile phone manufactured after such date shall not be equipped with a means of disabling or silencing such tone or sound.
(b) Enforcement by Consumer Product Safety Commission- The requirement in subsection (a) shall be treated as a consumer product safety standard promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056). A violation of subsection (a) shall be enforced by the Commission under section 19 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2068).
It doesn't have to be 50/50 by any means, simply vote for a non-incumbent. Change is good :)
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
So they're gonna ban Super-Glue too?
Table-ized A.I.
And because ALL photos taken with cameras are indecent, the "click" will actually be a "bow-chicka-wow-wow" at maximum volume.
congress has also been looking into a way to install triggers in newborn brains that will sound an audible click each time a person sees and remembers something.
If they're going to do this, then I demand that they make it illegal for any cellphone to 'ring' with anything other than the sound of an actual telephone ringing rather than all the annoying-assed crap that I hear people use as ringtones!
In similar news, lawmakers will require all horseless carriages (we call them "cars") to periodically whinny like a horse. (Ford Escorts do that anyhow after it rains, although I don't know if it's intentional.)
Table-ized A.I.
It's VERY important. In fact, one of the best things we might do to protect against abuse of power is to explicitly PROTECT the use of photographic/video/audio recording devices, because it's obvious that there isn't enough protection right now.
Take the recent case of Oscar Grant. He was fatally shot by a BART officer on New Year's. Witnesses said the man was restrained and essentially helpless when the officer shot him, but of course, the BART spokesman Jim Allison said the victim was not restrained when the gun discharged.
Funny, Mr. Allison, because independent footage taken by a witness with a cellphone showed a different story. And guess what? That footage almost wasn't available because an officer attempted to confiscate the camera (see the cbs5.com article: "[Vargas] also said she resisted an officer's attempt to confiscate her camera") -- she's probably lucky she wasn't shot as well.
And take the recent case of Marilyn Parver who was bullied by Jet Blue staff and threatened with actions from being banned from flying to "$10,000 in fines and 25 years in jail" -- because she videotaped an incident on a Jet Blue plane from her seat and refused to delete the footage. I don't know about you, but my reaction to this is to want to contact Jet Blue and ASKING them to put me on their no-fly list until they apologize to this woman and change their policy.
Overall, I think there needs to be law explicitly stating that in any space (public or private) in which there's no reasonable expectation of privacy, recording devices are not only allowed, the right to use them can't be infringed, and that no private entity or public agency can demand either surrender or destruction of the device or recordings (although it does seem reasonable to let the law compel delivery of unaltered copies).
Tweet, tweet.
Well it's too bad they don't make stand alone digital cameras that would circumvent this law. Just another example of a well-intentioned, poorly thought out law.
There's a small loophole there - CCTV's do not use film!
Neither does the digital camera built into your phone.
Right. So how do you "film" anything with such a device?
Bow-ties are cool.
How much anyone want to bet, there'll be a hardhack within 24 hours?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
My friends-and-family Flickr stream is full of idly-taken photos of my baby son as he sleeps in his car seat. It is not always inappropriate to take photos of a person discretely.
"I'll say it again for the logic-impaired." -- Larry Wall.
In other news, information on disabling the "click" freely available on Intratoobz
In other other news, reading information on disabling the "click" makes you a tuhhrist.
In other other other news, the executive order involved in the previous "other other news" was overturned by President Obama
In other other other other news, you can't legislate morality, and technological measures can always be overcome by those with determination.
The Digital Sorceress
Normally I would produce a long-winded dissertation on this kind of thing. But all I can come up with right now is "Are you fucking kidding me?"
Yes I believe it is a law in Japan. The iPhone sold there has been modified to have a shutter sound that can not be shut off.
It has HUGE privacy implications and honestly... IT'S A GREAT IDEA.
Here is how it helps:
- No more sneaky upskirt pics
- No more sneaky downblouse pics
- No more sneaky pedophile pics
- No more sneaky locker room pics
- No more corporate espionage, taking pics of confidential cad drawings / design specs
Here is how it hurts:
- You can't jack off to sneaky pictures on the internet anymore
- That girl's boyfriend is going to kick your ass for taking a picture of her butt
- Your cat might lose their cute lolcat pose when it hears the click
Seriously, before everybody gets all pissed off about the law, consider the fact that the right to privacy is one of the basic (and most overlooked) parts of America's constitution. Giving people the knowledge that their privacy is potentially being violated is a big step in the right direction.
Good thing I just bought a pair of these
Bill Introduced != Law Passed
Alchemist: Be Thou For the People
How am I supposed to take pictures of funny people for my friends to laugh at later without making the target feel bad about their funny looks?
Has the old saint in his forest not yet heard of it? That God is dead?
Yes, my phone is a ventriloquist. When it clicks, it can throw the click to a nearby location. Predators may use this phone excessively while the victim stares down some innocent bystander!
Phone may throw the click up to 50 feet.
Why not just legislate that every time you take a picture, it bleats out "HEY EVERYBODY, I'M TRYING TO TAKE A PICTURE HERE, DO YOU MIND?"
Well, that oughta be enough to end the privacy threat from cameras in orbit. Getting a megaphone powerful enough to reach citizens in the photographed area on satellite cameras is pretty much going to ground them all, right?
Oh, wait, that assumes some kind of symmetric application of the principle involved here...
Tweet, tweet.
CPSC? Those are the folks who dropped the ball on melamine in food and lead in childrens toys. Have those issues been solved?
(b) Enforcement by Consumer Product Safety Commission- The requirement in subsection (a) shall be treated as a consumer product safety standard promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056). A violation of subsection (a) shall be enforced by the Commission under section 19 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2068).
Forcing Camera Phones to "click" is as ridiculous as forcing electric cars to emit "engine noises". It makes no sense whatsoever. If this law got anywhere it would be another example of laws that only punish law abiding citizens and don't stop criminals at all. Last I checked taking pictures isn't a crime. And "predators" probably wouldn't be dumb enough to use a camera phone if they are trying to be sneaky. If you live in NY call Peter T. King and tell your representative to get his head out of his ass and work on meaningful legislation.
You're supposed to ask, "To WHAT?"
It is rather unfortunate that nobody did. 2 Trillion dollar debt. Reduction in population to "reduce costs." Space weapons bans. Oprah for congress. I'm certainly going to enjoy this ride.
>> If they want everyone to respect their law, they should lead by example and prevent their CCTVs from filming without people knowing.
> There's a small loophole there - CCTV's do not use film!
Pedantic-Man(tm) approves! It should also be noted that Pedantic-Man's VW TDI (diesel) has no 'gas' pedal. :)
Right on! XD
Bow-ties are cool.
that's crap. all i have to say about that
Won't somebody please think of the lolcats?!?
This is not a law, it's a bill that's been introduced into a House committee (House Committee on Energy and Commerce).
Honestly, why is everyone so upset about this?? Making your phone click isn't an invasion of privacy, in fact it's the government FINALLY trying to do something about the invasion of privacy that's been going on since the camera phones came around.
Anybody who is against this law is a total pervert who just wants to wank off to voyeur pics.
why not make it so that it is obvious anywhere you are that there are cameras present, i mean obviously the black bubbles in department stores and airports are easily spotted, but why not make it illegal to have any type of "hidden" camera, do all cars with the back up camera need to make an obnoxious noise now? how about hidden cameras at someone's home, business, etc? do i need to have my computer make a constant tone when I'm on video chat? what about just normal digital cameras, they are no bigger than cell phones, and without the flash you may never know they went off. This law is synonymous to the DMCA, there are people who will circumvent DRM one way or another, and there are people who will circumvent the camera noise one way or another, this only inconveniences the honest consumers.
Seriously why isn't this in the article summery?
It would take less than a sentence. Can the mods please wake up and at least require a bare minimum standard?
without being caught by the bad guys.
I mean in some cases victims have sent a picture to friends or relatives that would have been caught before they got sent.
It just sounds too stupid to require it.
The law is specifically about digital cameras. I suspect cell phones will soon be equipped with analog cameras. (They might throw in a photo printer as well, but it must be a noisy one.)
Not gridlock, just lots and lots of pork to grease the palms of the opposition. We the people still lose.
This covers Mobile phones with cameras... What about plain 'ol cameras? Man these people are dumb.
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
New law..
All people of the predatory nature, must submit themselves for exterm^h^h^h^hamination. Examinations will occur at the closest protein processing plant. Please enter the door marked in red "Raw protein intake".
Be sure your wills and insurance are up to date.
Your dogs and cats will love you for this.
How about a law standardizing the dc power interface on cell phones so I don't have to buy a new car charger every time I upgrade my phone?!?
So, Instead of clicking and taking a photo, I take a movie and just find a still frame that I want to keep later. Even worse, I actually get to record the sound when the stuff is happening.
COUGH/click
A lot of comments are suggesting that this is to prevent surreptitious upskirt shots. Is New York's 3rd Congressional District really so replete with women exposing themselves in public that random people taking pictures of them is becoming a serious problem?
Why don't I live there?
Being a computer scientist means you tell people how computers should work, not that you know how they actually work.
Ah, therein lies the rub. A digital camera /looks/ like a digital camera. But one can be snapping pics with a camera phone in the girls locker room while pretending to innocuously chat with friends.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Or does it need to click 24 times a second (or whatever framerate is uses) when taking a video?
The great thing about this law is that with all the people making clicking noises with their cameraphones & cameras, my Model M keyboard won't be any more annoying than anything else. w00t!
This kind of gov't BS just makes me angry.
They can't get the economy working - like it is really up to them....
So they distract us with more stupid laws.
What next?
Make something that grows out of the ground naturally illegal?
Seems to me that it wouldn't do much to prevent videos, which would be just as much of a problem as the photos if not worse...
Maybe I shouldn't give them ideas.
Umm, this appears to apply to camera PHONES. I can't see professionals using those for their pictures.
What if I am robbed and I snap a picture of the perp? Now that he hears the phone he might just decide to kill me....
What if the police are brutally beating someone and I snap a picture to report them later. Now they may decide to brutally beat me...
This is just stupid. I mean yes there are bad uses for the phone. But there are also good uses.
The first question would be to define a camera phone. I have a Sony Cyber-Shot with a microphone [for recording video] and a speaker [for playing back video]. With Sony having just released a digital camera with integral wi-fi, does that count as a camera phone? It has a microphone, speaker, camera, and wireless communication method. Same thing with most laptop computers today.
For those of us using GSM, what's to stop us from ordering an illegal phone from Canada and putting the SIM chip in there? What's next? A law requiring SIM chips to be locked to phones by the cell phone carrier?
Wrap the entire phone in sound-proofing material and leave the lens uncovered.
Not like those tiny phones can emit a sound loud enough for a person a hundred feet away could hear.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
What about video instead of a picture? Why not use that and avoid the 'click'?
This is ridiculous and stupid. Typical of government bureaucracy. Next thing you know all cameras will be required to make a buzzing noise for ten seconds before snapping each photo, followed by the announcement, "The moving carousel is about to start. Parents supervise your children. Do not sit, stand, or place fingers on the moving carousel."
Phones in Japan all make the clicking sound (which you can usually choose from several - a camera shutter sound, "cheese!" etc.). I believe it's for similar reasons - so people can't take photographs of people incognito in trains etc.
Let me tell you something, pendejo. You pull any of your crazy shit with us, you flash a camera phone out on the lanes, I'll take it away from you, stick it up your ass and pull the fucking shutter button 'til it goes "click."
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Yes, we could legislate this issue...and add flashing strobes to also help the deaf...and task a government agency to manage this mandate...and add more burden to customs, law enforcement, and the courts...and then also potentially create additional legislation to also outlaw the crop of non-phone-based portable silent cameras that will surely come to market if this legislation passes...
...or women could start wearing underwear.
Seriously, what can these perverts photograph if you are a women and wearing underwear beneath your dress? Anything more than they see of you at the beach? If so, are you concerned that a nice breeze will also expose your thong to the world? Perhaps you should wear pants.
OK, I'm not saying that I'm agreeing (or disagreeing) to this, but if you need the Mobile Phones to make an audible sound when a picture is taken, wouldn't you expect that a digital camera should follow the same rule? Or, am I totally missing something, like you know??? ;)
New Law Will Require Camera Phones To "Click"
Same old finger will continue to cover the speaker.
I've got digital cameras that already click when I take a picture. A finger over the speaker usually mutes it to next to nothing.
Anyone actually wanting to commit a crime will find it stupidly easy to circumvent. Everyone else will just get the joys of even more noise polution as every teenager that doesn't give a damn about people around them clicks endlessly at their friends.
To be in line they will also have to add flashing lights, put out a warning odor, and slap everyone nearby just to be safe.
I have a nice PDA/Smartphone. I enjoy catching up on my favorite RSS feeds and other news while I eat at the local fast food restaurant.
Since I'm usually holding my phone up with my left hand and eating with my right, I often wonder if someone sitting nearby thinks I'm taking their pics.
On another note; in public, don't you have the right to photograph someone?
If someone can unlock/jailbreak a phone, they'll obviously be able to get around this...
So if I have a small digital camera that is NOT part of a cell phone, and it doesn't make a clicking noise, that's ok? So the next bill will include digital cameras? So then every digital camera must then be outfitted with sound capabilities just for this reason alone? Am I the only one taking crazy pills here or what???
your finger over the speaker?
Sticking some chewing gum in any digital camera's beeper-hole should bring the decibels back down to illegitimate levels.
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
they will even see the picture, now will they?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Refrigerators that won't open for minors in case there's beer inside? Can't this "Nanny State" go a little too far???
A nice gunshot sound for when you take a picture, that will surely prove to the police your camera is lawful.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
When you can actually afford to buy a nuclear weapon, maintain it, and store it safely - and you're actually interested in a thoughtful answer to your question instead of just waving an emotional strawman argument - we'll talk.
BTW: you can, in fact, legally* own nearly anything short of a WMD by filing appropriate paperwork and paying a $200 tax. People who can actually afford the big scary stuff are smart enough to not do anything stupid with it.
(* - your local jurisdiction may vary ... and is ripe for SCOTUS challenge if it doesn't.)
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
The representative who sponsored this bill in 2007 (not so new is it?) has had other ideas, like HR 769 (making English the official language of the United States).
This is a stupid law. What if someone breaks into your home and you are hiding in the closet and want to MMS a photo of the attacker to someone just in case they find you and take your phone. CLICK, ooops they found you now.
Its the same as how they have mandated 911 calls do all kinds of crazy stuff to the phone. I know I wouldn't call 911 in certain situations do to the fact that when you do mobile phones make a distinctive "I'm calling the police" chime. I called 911 to report a car break in progress in front of my condo a few months ago and it completely locked my blackberry up afterwards. It came up with a "Emergency Number Called" Message, and wouldn't make or receive calls until I removed the battery. I understand that alot of mobile phones end up dialing the police while in pockets, but I'm guessing that is because phone's are forced to allow emergency calls even when locked. My phone has three options when locked "'Unlock', 'Emergency Call' and 'Cancel', which means its really too easy for it to call 911. There is no way to disable the option. I mean why can't I disable it. There is no law that says I need to cary a mobile phone, so why does it have to have an easy way to make an emergancy call. That should be my choice.
Instead of mandating these things, how about a simple message and then charge me for the call. If I got charged $25 a false call, I would be equally cautios about falsely making these calls.
... and physically disable the sound module in it.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I get your point, but gridlock is not a good thing. Take it from someone living in California, waiting for the state to run out of money because these idiots in the legislature refuse to agree on a budget. We're $43 billion in the hole without a plan to fix it. Gridlock is not the answer.
Men, women, children... up against the wall... of science!
Many states, counties, and cities have bans on auto and/or silencers. Normally you have to be a sheriff, police chief, mayor, etc. or be best friends with one to get permission. You also can get one if your company is allowed to have one for sale and jumps through those hoops.
You also have to submit to finger printing and random searches by the ATF. There are stamp taxes for buying and selling. Plus, silencers aren't cheap and automatic weapons are unbelievably expensive since they haven't been legally imported or manufactured since 1986.
So yeah, anyone can get one. Sure. Just like Obama isn't going to ban guns.
I can't ever get new "dates".
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Or is your mouse making too much noise?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I have always said that there is a list of situations that, if any of them occurred, I would do what I could to move out of the USA. I have several relatives abroad who could help me find a job and get settled somewhere else. These are situations that would directly impact my day-to-day life to the point that I would, personally, feel a sudden loss of personal liberties:
- Checkpoints, internal passports, national martial law, or other internal movement restrictions.
- Mandatory national loyalty oaths.
- Being ordered for conscription into the armed forces.
- Mandatory government house-key, alarm-code, or online password escrows.
- National web filtering.
I think I'll add any type of camera ban or restriction to that, and this camera phone noise law would fall under that.
Now, do I expect this law to see the light of day? Absolutely not.
My wife has said she wouldn't leave the country with me, but I think she'd feel different if one of the above actually happened...
Trying to make technology obey social rules is idiocy.
Adding a clicking sound for everyone who does not have a strong enough desire to switch it off...
How do I send more of my tax dollars to enforce *that* one?!
Actually, how about a system allowing taxpayers prioritize how their tax dollars get allocated?
And, how about banning lobbyists from creating deceptive names for laws?
That's right. A heavy breathing, overweight guy that sweating profusely while taking happy snaps in a girls locker room would look more natural with a camera phone. I'm guessing that you've never done this before.
.
The law only governs the manufacture of phones. It provides no guidance or penalty for possession of an 'unapproved' phone. If Bush were still in office, I would expect to see a division of the Department of Homeland Security created to monitor cell phone pictures, but...
Besides, if a bill is passed that says all cars manufactured after 2010 have to get at least 100 mpg, that doesn't mean that every other car has to leave the road. Eventually all of the older cars will stop working and only the high mileage cars will be left. Similarly, when all of the 'predatory' phones meet their demise, only the 'safe' phones will be left.
The real question is, why the hell is Congress wasting time with this tripe? Is this supposed to fix the economy?
Good luck with that. Simply place your fingers over the speaker holes and fire away. Your fingers muffle just about anything; even the ringers on many phones.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Since it is an introduced bill it should read "new law would require..." The title suggests that it has been signed into law. Better yet would would be "Newly introduced bill would require..."
... friends don't let friends vote Democrat.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
so what about film cameras like this that are silent? (there are many more film cameras that are very very quite. http://www.minox.com/index.php?id=16&L=1
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
use of camera video functions goes up 300%. So taking covert videos is better than stills? Of my digital still cameras only the pro ones click. Cell phones may not be as obvious but there's always a way and all the clicking will get really annoying.
While I wholeheartedly encourage your call to political activism in general; I'd suggest picking a better battle. Asking for this bill to get killed in committee is like asking for gravity to keep working. Sure, it's important, but it's just not in question. If you're going to make a phone call, pick something with more support than one unpopular minority party member.
My guess, Rep. King introduced it, and can now say that to his one loony-tunes donor who was upset about it, and not even he will ever mention the bill again.
Your expensive professional shooting rig makes a shutter sound as well.
Can you say hyperbole?
Ah - think of Night Clubs, Car Races, random New York Streets. Just how loud do we have to make this "click"? I'd suggest someone needs to give this some serious thought, but this is Congress...
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
H.R.414 Title: To require mobile phones containing digital cameras to make a sound when a photograph is taken. Sponsor: Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] (introduced 1/9/2009)
Please do everything within your power to reject this bill and eliminate it from any further consideration. It has many flaws: 1) it will be a nuisance at a wide variety of occasions and circumstances for phones to emit constant noises; 2) a modestly motivated individual will be able to circumvent the law by a) disconnecting the speaker that emits the click, b) removing the sound file responsible for the click from the phone's memory, c) modifying the phone software in a variety of ways to prevent the clicking noise from occurring, d) using a small digital or film camera that makes little or no noise instead of a phone, or e) taking photos from a distance or with artificially high ambient noise (there are no doubt many other ways); 3) This is an intrusive and in practice pointless case of nanny-state disruption of citizens' everyday affairs, more appropriate to a soviet-inspired regime than one that cherishes freedom and liberty.
If illicit photos are taken and used for stalking or other predatory behavior, they can be used in a court of law as evidence to prosecute criminal behavior as no doubt occurs today. To restrict the general use of all camera equipment in this way to address a very narrow and infrequent problem is absurdly cumbersome and unwarranted.
This is the sort of legislation that motivates the almost universally held belief among US citizens and residents that congressional representatives are corrupt and incompetent parasites. It is dangerous to a democracy for such a view to become entrenched in the public mind, and I am shocked each time legislation is proposed that confirms such a notion. HR414 is a shining example of such rubbish.
I still harbor hope that you are neither corrupt nor incompetent, your vote in favor of the "bailout" of financial institutions notwithstanding. Please stop this moronic claptrap as soon as possible.
Thanks!
What is stopping someone from using an older cell phone that doesn't have this feature implemented?
There seems to be some inconsistency between the subject and the body of this article.
Last I heard, a bill is not a law.... yet.
The Slashdot posting, the article, and the bill in question all say specifically what this is referring to, cameras in cell phones.
Suppose I witness a robbery or other crime. If I think I can photograph the perpetrator without drawing attention to myself, I will, and I'll give that photo to the police. On the other hand, if my camera makes a noise whenever it takes a picture, I won't, and the police will have one less lead. Catching actual criminals is more important than making life difficult for voyeurs, especially since they could easily find a workaround.
./
If you don't want camera phones used in your establishment, put up a sign and enforce it.
Why in God's name is it that every time some "save the children" whack job finds something (s)he doesn't like, they have to make a big stink about it and not only force their views on everyone else, but make us all *pay* for it as well???
Take some responsibility, you pathetic mindless drones and leave the rest of us the hell alone!
Maybe Congress should pass a law saying that everyone's phone must emit a high-pitched beep all of the time. Like when a truck is backing up. Then we'd all know when someone is approaching us.
On a serious note, what happens if the speaker is broken or the phone malfunctions and no tone is sounded? Does that person now posses an illegal phone?
From the Bill:
==============
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/9/2009--Introduced.
Camera Phone Predator Alert Act - Requires any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera's phone. Prohibits such a phone from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone. Treats the requirement as a consumer product safety standard and requires enforcement by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
============
The guy wants the CPSC to police this. The CPSC is responsible for *safety*. Let them inspect toys for poisonous lead or fire hazards, not this!
What's with the language of this.. are they actually serious? Fake click sounds are stupid.
Exactly what do they think a sound being made AFTER the phone has taken the picture will do? Who is protected from this?
This is a FEDERAL LAW too, now generally in most states a party only needs to be *informed* they are being filmed or recorded.. You don't need their *consent* In some States (TX) only one person needs to be aware.. So in TX, you can mount an array of hidden cameras to record anyone without their knowledge or permission.. but your phone needs to click, man that's smart.
I wish these idiot bureaucrats and politicians would just STOP thinking they know whats best for everyone.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
... then I didn't take a picture!
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Am amendment addresses digital camcorders such that they automatically make a loud KER-CHUNK sound every time they change tracks.
What will they do when I upgrade to a bionic eyeball with a connected storage device implanted in my brain, capable of uploading images to my laptop via wifi?
Skeuomorph
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
... the stupid legislate?
Ten minute tops to write your own camera app.
Start here: http://code.google.com/android/samples/ApiDemos/src/com/example/android/apis/graphics/CameraPreview.html
"It would also prohibit such a phone from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone."
Well, that's OK; mine doesn't have a built-in soldering iron, either.
So my preference for candid photography now makes me a "predator"? This is ridiculous. If you are out in public--the main thing this bill likely addresses (no, I haven't RTFA--this is slashdot)--then you have no right to complain if someone looks at you, records you, paints a picture of you using spaghetti, or even erects a statue in your honor made from live weasels and horny roads.
You.
Are.
In.
PUBLIC.
Why is this so hard to understand?
This isn't interesting, filming is a verb meaning shooting video. You don't get modded interesting for complaining that shooting people ought to leave them dead or maimed.
I can mute the sounds from my phone pretty well by just covering the speaker with my thumb.
Parent is missing the intended hyperlink to the earlier slashdot story (which was intended to be placed in the last sentence) on the Court of Review ruling: see here.
that will prevent my phone from taking pictures of the inside of my pocket. How many pictures of the inside of my pocket does my phone think I need?
I am not left-handed, either!
...because then the user could just go //sndPlaySound(CLICK); or whatever and circumvent it.
If there had been gridlock, your "idiots in the legislature" would not have been able to pass laws implementing programs that cost $43 billion. Gridlock is great, and the founders of the country were geniuses for designing the government to make sure there was plenty of it. If only there could be more.
On the one hand, I would support this, as we can draw an example from Japan, where perverts riding busy subway/metro trains would put their camera cell phones on telescoping or other poles and aim them upwards to shoot pics of panties. When I bought my cell in Tokyo, in Dec 2004, (Vodafone Sharp V402SH) it had a selection of immutable click or whooshes from which to choose, but silence was not one of them.
Now, where i smell a rat is the scenario where alert citizens who might film evil-doing law enforcement officers in the past, they now will think twice if concerned/fearful that a cop-watcher (cop protector) may be in the crowd watching the citizen filming the civilian-beating cop.
Then again, this may be a good feature to keep in line any school-age kids abusing photography privileges, disrupting classes. Possibly in other environments like airports, train stations and so on, this will deter less-sophisticated civilians into simply not shooting pics....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Damn, guess I'll have to shoot in video mode; I mean, surely the camera won't continue to make clicking noises the whole time I'm recording video?
They'll be doing Terry stops of cell phone users...
Officer: I see you're open carrying a cell phone. Does it make a clicky sound?
Citizen: Am I free to go?
using a rubber band and some cloth will make me break the law?
what about people worried about having their phone being "rude" to the people around them, so they also muffle the sound their cellphone makes?
god, what a fucking nightmare to enforce. It's weird, my individual rights are at stake, but i'm most sympathetic to the cops trying to explain this law to a 18 year old girl who muffled her cell phone because "it sounded annoying" and being forced to arrest her.
Even if everyone complied with this law, within time the entire population would be so used to hearing the 'click' sound effect, that we would all be numb to it. It would have the exact opposite effect that the politicians want!
Y'know, because, we CAN, when we reach law #23bazillion, finally, at long last, legislate morality! Surely! Perhaps it's going to take an ammendment to the constitution to ensure that congress has a mandate to pass fewer laws of higher quality. Or maybe a 3(fluff-legislation)-strikes-you're-out deal would work.
Congressman Peter T. King (R-NY) should instead introduce a Bill that requires all evil-doers to warn their victims prior to engaging in any evil acts. That would make it simple and what a benefit to the Free World(TM) it would be!
It would be nice to know what event inspired this Bill, but it's probably from an incident involving his family or a friend of the family. Sadly, that is a common impetus for inane Bills which seek to right some wrong without thinking about the sheer implausibility of the idea or the violations of the Constitution that would be involved. But as long as that VIP is happy . . .
A quick look at the list of Bills he's sponsored (http://tinyurl.com/botwpv) is illuminating as to the kinds of things he believes are important uses of taxpayer money. My favorite is the establishment of the Office for Bombing Prevention. Perhaps the camera prohibition he proposes should be handled by the Office of Candid Camera Prevention.
Seriously, when a cop is beating your buddy's ass for no reason, do you want to warn them you are taking a picture? I think not.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Will existing phones be exempt from this new law or will the Gov make providers force firmware updates to every phone they service? If forced updates do happen how well can the infrastructure support something like that?
I dunno, calling on bills like this seems like a good idea to me. Why did King bring it up in the first place? Because he got more than one call from someone asking for this, and he hasn't heard from anyone opposing bills like this. Give him a whiff of a constituency that would support him being reasonable instead of an asshole, and he might not even advance a bill like this.
And anyway, this is no less insane than COPA. That took almost a decade and many millions of dollars, plus a lot of precious court time, to kill. Nipping this shit in the bud is extremely cost effective compared to litigating it after it passes. And we are the ones picking up the tab.
They are already doing this in Japan. The problem is that it is so loud, it prohibits photos at some events.
My question, if they are forcing this, then why do they not require this on security cameras?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00414:@@@L&summ2=m&
Thanks, Congressman Peter T. King - a Republican, is serving his eighth term in the U.S. House of Representatives.
http://peteking.house.gov/bio.shtml
Despite what we all might think, there ARE a few people in congress that aren't morons. This has NOTHING TO DO with the rare unannounced pantie shot. The whole point of this law is to prevent average citizens from photographic the police doing illegal things.
If your phone beeps when it takes a picture the police can come over and treat you like a king "accidentally" destroying the phone and its evidence of their wrong doing.
If the phone doesn't beep they can have any photographs suppressed in court since that evidence was "illegally obtained" by a non-compliant cell phone.
I never got the point of digital cameras making a (badly recorded and replayed) camera sound when they @$%$$%$# don't need to. This is always the first âoefeatureâ (though I would call it a bug) that I disable. Then I can start using it.
I can definitely get the point of such a law-enforced feature. But being supported by law won't make it any less anoying. One can hope this will be implemented using a separate speaker. At least a soldering iron-operated switch could be considered, then.
Is it too much to ask that Slashdot correctly title these stories as "New law would..." rather than "New law will..."? It probably is.
Just to put this in context, let us remember that Peter King has repeatedly defended warrantless wiretapping.
So his priorities are obvious - he's all for making sure the police know when they're being watched, and ensuring you don't.
Mmmm - I love the smell of Republican hypocrisy in the morning - Smells Like Victory!
Or Turdblossoms, one of those two.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Ummm... what about wilderness wildlife photographers? Sometimes making a sound ensures you can't do your job.
I just pray to God they will remember to outlaw all circumventing devices.
They will next require all phones that can record video to have a constant clicking sound to let you know your being recorded.
Its in the House committee of Energy and Commerce, is that even remotely related with the bill's subject matter? And don't we have far more seriously problems in ENERGY and COMMERCE.
Congress needs to stop thinking about girls skirts and start thinking about the economy, etc..
This, like everything else like it, including anti-virus products, will simply give people a false sens of security. After all, everything can be circumvented...
What we need is a car analogy. I don't have one. How about a motorcycle analogy?
My step-dad rode an old BSA (British bike, leaked oil) when I was a kid. It had a minor fault -- the required (in California) stoplight button on the rear brake pedal didn't work, and he never bothered to fix it. In those days and that area, cops would randomly pull over bikers ostensibly for safety checks, but actually to check their id and registration, run the plate, and generally look for trouble.
Step-dad would be required to demonstrate that the rear stoplight function worked. So he'd get in the bike, steady himself with his left hand on the handlebars, push the rear brake pedal down while simultaneously squeezing the front brake lever, which did turn on the stoplight. Ran it like that for years, was stopped many times, cops never caught on.
This is a feel-good law. I can't imagine that the people writing it really think it'll work. At most it'll nail a few people on false positives, but the true hard-core perverts, and the geeks who can't resist a challenge, will figure out work-arounds in next to no time. It's just software, after all. If you can jailbreak a phone, you can probably figure out how to temporarily turn off a mandatory feature.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
It's the silent farts that are deadliest. A law requiring all farts to be noisy would be much more important that this stupid phone camera law.
Lots of running gags here, but honestly Japan has had this law for ages. They also apply it to point and shoot cameras, so I guess wait for that story to show up in North America during the next year or so.
And my Motorola KRAZR already makes a shrill click that can't be turned off. So much that I don't bother using the camera.
The only time a camera doesn't make a noise seems to be when it records video. How long until there's a law requiring a steady klaxon?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your right to bear muzzle-loading smooth-bore muskets and rifles has not been infringed!
paintball
You sir, are exactly right, and this is the kind of tactics that the state has been using for years. The more trivial laws the pile on the books, the greater their ability to pick any individual for any reason and find some "law" that that person has violated. And the public will accept it. Juries will convict. After all, "it's the law".
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00414:@@@L&summ2=m&
According to THOMAS, he is also sponsoring several other stupid bills that would:
"Encouraging employers and online dating sites to use sex offender registries for background checks."
and
"To amend title 4, United States Code, to declare English as the official language of the Government of the United States, and for other purposes."
and
"To provide for the establishment of the Science and Technology Homeland Security International Cooperative Programs Office, and for other purposes."
Source - http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+King++Peter+T.))+00635))
Representative King's website is: http://peteking.house.gov/
According to it, Rep. King is Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee and also serves on the Financial Services Committee.
I'm already working on the application to play the accompanying ragtime piano.
This fellow has been a busy beaver -- besides the 'click' regulation, he's offered up a bunch of other "important" legislation. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+King++Peter+T.))+00635))
It's a sorry state of affairs that there are so few people like you (and I) who don't believe gun rights are particularly important and that we should should consider repealing the 2nd ammendment but nevertheless believe it does protect the rights of Americans to possess arms.
I mean a good estimate of most American's objectivity is how many things they think make for bad polity but are nevertheless required by the constituion. In my experience this number is depressing low if at all greater than 0.
Frankly, I think it's pretty damn clear that the 2nd ammendment gives US citizens a right to own and possess (in their homes) weapons equivalent to standard military issue personal weapons, e.g., M16/AK47 assault rifles and maybe even grenades but not squad level weapons like rpgs. This is certainly what a stupidly simpleminded totally literal reading of the ammendment using either the modern or historical meaning of the terms would demand. So any attempt to claim the 2nd ammendment doesn't protect the right to own personal combat weapons must look to the historical context and the motivations for the amendment.
Yet, examining the amendment in this more sophisticated manner just makes things worse for those who want to radically restrict the rights it guarantees. The 2nd amendment was clearly a reaction to various attempts by European powers such as England to disarm their citizens and thereby deny their ability to effectively resist tyranny. Thus far from curtailing the protections of the 2nd amendment this provides a plausible (but I think ultimately false) argument that the protections should actually extend to weapons like missile launchers to give the people a chance against tanks and planes.
Attempts to curtail this right to only members of the national guard by virtue of the "well regulated militia" clause miss the point that the militia was understood to be composed of the able bodied adult men (modulo felons, slaves etc..). It wouldn't even make sense to have an ammendment guaranteeing the right of federal troops to posses weapons and if they had intended to merely grant states the right to arm designated forces they would have just said so. Indeed, a situation where arms were only permitted to officially designated soldiers was exactly the sort of thing the 2nd amendment was designed to protect against. Since the federal government obviously was prohibited from restricting weapon possession to only federally designated troops (or equivalently passing laws restricting militia membership to individuals they choose) the incorporation of the bill of rights by the 14th amendment unequivocally entails that states are now barred from doing this as well and the perception of the 2nd amendment at the time of incorporation only strengthens this argument. Moreover, a federally controlled national guard surely does not meet the standards set by the 2nd amendment for a militia as it is exactly the sort of force the militia is supposed to resist.
On the other hand I think the 2nd ammendment may not provide any protection for personal self-defense. Indeed, I see no reason that it should be unconstitutional to ban pistols entirely and require that all guns be stored in a locked safe and the ammo in a separate safe. However, that just goes to show you how outdated the 2nd ammendment really is.
The idea that we need guns to we can repel invasions before the government arrives or to fight off a tyrannical regime are relics from an earlier era. Jet planes and radio make the idea of a amateur army absurd and if a meaningful percent of the population realizes the danger before their weapons are taken then the tyrannical regime isn't much of a danger. What's puzzling isn't that the 2nd amendment might be inappropriate given the transformation of the USA from a sparsely populated agrarian nation composed of loosely affiliated states and the huge technological changes. Rather, what's amazing is that so many people on both sides don't seem to think it needs to be updated.
P.S. Just because I thi
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
It'll be interesting to see how they, in software, prevent modifications to the hardware needed to emit the "click" noise in question.
Maybe what they should do is have the phone spew out paper chaff similar to tasers every time a shot is taken. Just match the chaff to a phone, and suddenly you know where and who took a photo with their device.
8==8 Bones 8==8
This isn't a stupid idea. They've been doing it for YEARS in Japan to try and curb all manner of lecherous covert snapshottery. I think if you're going to have a cow just because your cellphone beeps when it takes a picture, you're probably taking pictures of things you shouldn't be. I mean, the goddamn things beep for everything ELSE! Can we get some civilization up in here please? Thanks.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeuomorph
Skeuomorph or Skeuomorphism is a term used in the history of architecture, design, and archaeology. It refers to a derivative object which retains ornamental design cues to structure that was necessary in the original.[1] Skeuomorphs may be deliberately employed to make the new look comfortably old and familiar,[2] such as copper cladding on zinc pennies or computer printed postage with circular town name and cancellation lines. The word derives from Greek, skeuos for 'vessel' or 'tool' and morphe for 'shape'.[3]
One of the fixes was to change it so the one FISA judge couldn't rule government spying illegal. Now any one judge can pronounce it legal, but it takes a majority of the FISA judges to rule it illegal.
This is a perfect example of the intrinsic structural costs to democratic government.
There is some proposal (making phones click) that sounds appealing at first blush since it attacks some behavior/situation that is widely disliked. However, the issue isn't a high prority for the vast majority of people so few people give it more thought than, "Yah, it's bad for stalkers to take silent pictures." making it a pure political win for the legislators supporting it.
Worse costs of a law like this are in the applications that never get created. When we don't get the cool eyeglasses camera that snaps pictures to help us remember names we can't see what we didn't get so it's very very hard for anyone to challenge this kind of regulation.
Ultimately democratic government just does very poorly at properly weighing opportunity costs or balancing small harms to many people (who won't care enough to vote on that issue) against big benefits to a few.
-------
This is why I think that the law should simply be reset ever so often just like an install of windows. Say laws always last for a randomly determined number of years (don't want all the laws to sunset at the same time) with the standard being 5-10 years and a supermajority allowing 50-100. Various procedural hurdle would need to be enacted to prevent unrelated laws from being bundled too much.
Indeed, ideally we would restart many agencies from the ground up every so often. Say start up a second version of the FBI and slowly expand it's responsibilities while shrinking those of the current agency. One might even require that 90% of the old employees be hired by the new agency but simply giving them the chance to start over and fix the procedures that were thoughtlessly implemented could be a huge win if we did it only say every 50 years for every major agency.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
This law makes free open source phones illegal, because open source means the user is able to disable the click sound by modifying and recompiling the source. This is just another way the bourgeoise (people who don't need to work in order to live, the capitalists) enslave the proletarians (people who must work in order to live, people like you), as Marx explained.
Also will this mean I can't take a video clip on my phone without it always starting with a clicking sound? If I can what distinguishes taking a frame from a video and a picture?
What if I want to snap a closeup of a sleeping baby without risking waking it?
----
Moreover, what does this really stop? Anyone who is a serious stalker can just buy a telephoto lens and get better results. In most truly private situations like restrooms you would notice the person aiming the phone at you.
So what does this stop? People on the bus recording that hideous outfit you wore the other day? Girls snapping a pic of the cute guy at the coffee shop to show their friends?
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
What idiot thought that bill up? You can buy small cameras that don't go click. What about the times when you are expect to be discrete about taking a photo?
The click is nothing that can't be changed with a piece of tape of a pair of wire cutters.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Under US Federal law, suppressors are still quite legal, just regulated out the wazoo. Basically, you need to get a tax stamp and a local police sign-off, and you're good to go.
Some states ban them, but not many. In Pennsylvania, a silencer is not addressed in state law in any way - so if you had a tax stamped-silencer and a license to carry firearms, you could even pack silenced heat here.
Besides, it's a stupid regulation anyway. All firearms launching bullets that are supersonic make a really loud sonic "crack" (in many cases, louder than the muzzle blast) that can't be silenced anyway. Anyone nearby could still hear the shot unless the gun was firing a low-velocity bullet that's limited in range anyway.
I think that's hilarious - but how many times did you get your ass beaten to a pulp?
Sounds like there is a scourge of man-eating camera-equipped cell phones stalking people in the urban jungle. *insert Australian accent here* "Here we are today stalking the rogue Predator Camera Phone. See how it opens and closes it's terrible jaws, while taking a rather blurry photo of its victim. Crikey, if only it had a warning click its prey could escape!"
Insert witty sig here.
No, another girl takes picture to sale.
Why is it impossible to purchase virtually any modern cell phone without a camera? We should have the choice. They should be constructed in a way the camera is easily removable by the end user.
I don't need or want a fricken camera in my phone!!
If your record is clean, pretty much anyone can get this license.
Actually, XD cards are pretty terrible.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
please disregard the former comment. I was retarded when I posted it. thank you. P.S. If you can see the joke in there somehow, you are permitted to laugh. Thanks.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's safer here."
Step 1 - Download the firmware to your camera
Step 2 - Replace the sound in the firmware with nothing
TaDA!
Though FYI, nokia phones, if you put them in silent mode (as in silent ringer), it also silences the camera click. However it does nothing for the AF light, so so much for taking candid pictures of parking violations :p
Though seriously, if every phone was required to beep when a photo was taken, it would just deter use of it since people DO NOT WANT to be caught taking pictures of things, even if they are within their right to take a picture of it. Since it attracts unwanted attention.
I turn the phone's sound off because when I take a picture, it has an ear piercing noise which is annoying.
Instead of a phone that takes pictures, how about a camera you can make phone calls on. Or does this rule apply to cameras too?
Anyway, take this for a run...
you can record a short vid for the sake of taking it later to make a quick photo of a frame of it... you think we need a bill to have all VIDEO RECORDING devices or phones to emit a film rolling sound when your trying to record audio and video? fuck that?....
stupidity is always evident in the ones with power.. amazing. why isn't Darwinism doing its job?!? these kinds of reps should be shot in the face with a shotgun.
..making sure it's impossible to make anything intended for anyone under 12 via the CPSIA.
But note the bill has no cosponsor, so he couldn't even find one other Rep to go along with it. Never gonna happen, he just gets to say he introduced important legislation protecting the children.
Hrm. At first, I thought, this society is so secret, the web page is blank.
I wonder how many people thought you were joking. The reality is even funnier.
Here is the link
..so they know who to grab and get their camera.
I hope this law gets bitchslapped back to where it came from.
Your parents had at least one kid.
Those tax exemptions helped you. Now you don't
want to be fair to the next generation.
24 pictures per second, that should do it and I don't even need to press any button, just need to wave it in the air, it should be enough, and more discrete...
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson ...Or...
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
- Thomas Jefferson
They are legal in at least a few states. You do have to register with the ATF, and lose some rights relating to when/how your home can be searched. Other than that, and being flagged in a database somewhere, you are fine.
you will simply be arrested, at which point you will be informed that " you have the right to remain silent... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning (in the US of A at least, by law YMMV)
I heard somewhere that Sweden already have some regulation like this (I am a swede btw)
But I havn't really found some official source confirming this...
If everyone expects phone cameras to click then they will feel safe when someone is "texting" with a silent phone.
I remember one time at work, during my break, I caught my co-worker taking pictures of me from the other table. I have no idea how long she was doing this or how many pictures she took. I initially seen her holding her phone when I first sat down, not really paying it any attention. About half hour later, being bored to death my eyes began to wander, eventually stumbling upon my co-worker aiming her phone at me with a blinking green light. That green light is purposely exposed to the person facing the phone, alerting them that the camera is active. I confronted her, and she thought it was funny blah blah etc Making the click sound mandatory is great protection to everyones privacy.
I've been looking through all these posts and cannot seem to find the one with the obvious in it.
Soon as I read the article title, the first thing through my mind was "Great. Another law for paranoid cops."
Click. Cop now knows he is being photographed.
Fortunately, most people, including cops, know this is a waste of time as anyone that really cared would have disabled the fucking noise already.
There should be a law against idiots trying to make stupid laws like this.
Imagine you see someone holding his cellphone a bit weird, you think is he taking pics of me? But then you remember that they *always* make a clicking sound when they take pics, so you drop the sense of alert and let the creep take pics unimpeded because you think he isn't.
This law is such a good idea; it's such a piece of luck for the framer that there are no other devices capable of taking pictures, covertly or otherwise.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
But.....
1. You can usually select between a few sounds. My latest phone (Sharp Aquos) has one "shutter" type sound, that nobody would notice on a crowded train. One could also just take an old phone and cut the speaker wire. Problem solved.
2. You can just use a normal camera. I suppose you could say "But it will be obvious you are taking a photo!" Maybe, if you use a big SLR, but there are plenty of compact camera that fit in your hand. There are of course also various "Spy cameras", not to mention cameras on things like PDAs and even the PSP.
I turn on the "click" sound. It's more fun taking pictures that way.
A whisper quiet shutter sound, where my cell phone as the result of this law would need to make a loud annoying sound probably loud enough to be heard over normal crowd noise.
My current camera does not have a shutup-feature - So it has become instinct to me to grab it by the (conveniently located) loudspeaker. I can barely hear it. Should I fear?
this is just like farting loudly in public... you cover it with a loud cough!
you could still use the phone with bluetooth or any headset, to call the girl/boy friend (or prostitute).
On a more serious note, automatic weapons are illegal to buy in many states. Yet you can buy the various pieces and put them together and still make your own.
In a similar manner, what if cell phone manufacturers sold the hardware sans software? Couldn't some hack in China sell the software without the click? I'm thinking of DVDFab here which is illegal to sell in the U.S.
Is this really a problem? I don't get it. As the cameras in cell phones get more sophisticated, one will be able to stand far enough away to where the sound won't be heard anyway. Also, unless a lot of money is spent making the camera lens and the phone speaker one and the same then one will always be able to cover the speaker by hand; and it seems some cell phone manufacturer could make that operation trivial to sell more phones.
... would get wise to this pretty quickly. "Hey, another of our customers rear-ended Joe Schmoe? That's the third one this year." An investigation would get going pretty quickly.
2007 HR 3488 (the first iteration of the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act) was introduced but didn't make it out of committee. The bill had just one co-sponsor; Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]. Incidentally; the majority of bills "die" in committee (probably because they're at least as stupid the CPPAA).
Undeterred by his bill's previous failure to reach the floor, Rep. Peter King [R-NY] re-introduced the bill (2009 HR 414); this time without co-sponsors. I'd be amazed if it makes it out of committee.
So it's Not A Law. Not going to be a law. Just another waste of time for Congress. As if they needed more...
Seeing how the BART cops were trying to confiscate cell phone cameras of onlookers that took pictures of BART cop Johannes Mehserle murdering Oscar Grant who was handcuffed on the ground. If those people with cell phone cameras were not there Johannes Mehserle would not be getting charged with murder. The thin blue line would be covering up the murder and claim that Oscar Grant was resisting arrest. As far as I am concern all of the cops that were confiscating phones should also be tried for accessory to murder after the fact. Right now cameras used by citizens seem to be the only effective means of stopping police brutality. Legislating that phones click will have a chilling effect on citizens exposing police brutality. Perverts will just use a normal camera or old cell phone to do what they want to do.
This isn't interesting, filming is a verb meaning shooting video. You don't get modded interesting for complaining that shooting people ought to leave them dead or maimed.
<shrug> People can mod me how they like.
Don't mind me, I just have a bit of an affinity for traditional photography, is all.
Bow-ties are cool.
Now when I want to take naked pictures of myself in the bathroom people will know what I'm up to.
It's ridiculous until one of your kids ends up with pics on the net that weren't authorized. The issue isn't that people are taking pictures, the issue is that people don't ask and you don't know what they're taking pictures of.
As long as you're in a public place, people don't have to ask to take a picture of you or your children. They also don't have to ask you whether they can publish it, unless it is pornographic or misleading.
So, if you make a fool of yourself in public by showing your beer belly or your wife makes a fool of herself by showing her whale tail or you have your kids run around in little Lolita outfits, I can take a picture and put it on Flickr.
As for this law, it is pointless. There are so many ways people can take pictures of you surreptitiously and publish them anonymously that such a law is pointless.
Sorry, but you are responsible for your appearance and reputation, nobody else. If you don't want to be made a fool of on-line, don't run around like a fool in public.
Probably video too so that overly aggressive law enforcers are aware of who's rolling camera and can confiscate phones as needed.
Yes, yet another way in which the government intrudes with a feel-good yet useless restriction that is naturally enforced with a very clear threat of violence.
Now people who *really* are predators will be even more encouraged to continue their task, safe in the knowledge that their camera and telephoto lenses won't make a click loud enough for their victims to detect. Let's face it -- if someone is close enough to you that the click will alert you, then either you're as good as dead, or there wasn't much of a threat in the first place.
I like this world more and more with each passing day.
Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
No, I just said click...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Mine will play Rick Astley over and over.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does this mean that when I'm taking a video with my cell phone that it will click 30 times a second???
J
As a matter of fact, anything hot enough to melt solder will soon be illegal, such as internal combustion engines, the backs of refrigerators (you can still keep the front part), water heaters, and stoves.
Think of the children. They were all just burning themselves on this shit anyway.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
im demanding a new law that requires all guns to make a clicking noise when being fired. this will alert everyone to the fact that youre shooting a gun,and thus, preventing any and all homocides related to firearms...
Oh, did you manage to find a link to the law? Could you share please?
Or... maybe you're making things up?
I believe existing, similar laws in other places are more concerned with things like change rooms and washrooms. The required click is very comparable with what you get from a mechanical shutter.
I'm quite sympathetic to the possibility that you Americans will manage to take a reasonable industry regulation, take it for a ride through crazy town, and turn it into something overbearing. So far though, it seems like your post is just a bit of anti-hysteria hysteria.
Sounds strange but this has been introduced in Japan long time ago.
This just points to the ineptitude of the idiots that seek and gain political power in our country.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
After the shooting the police on the scene didn't arrest their own.. instead they went around the the crowd and started to collect any cameras. One cop went up to a lady right as the train doors closed and started baning on the window. That was the first video of this on the web.
Yeah, I wonder if this law has anything to do with that..
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
It probably won't apply to cameras, and I personally have three of them that are all about the same size as a cell phone, and none of them make noise when they take either snapshots or video (with sound, no less.)
Is this going to apply to existing phones that do not have sound on taking pictures or where the feature can be turned off? I doubt this is possible and I doubt they're going to order existing cell phones with cameras to be discarded.
Just another example of feel-good laws that don't really do much. So let me understand this correctly, if I take a picture with a still or video camera that does not make a sound, or if I take a picture with a cell phone that does not make a sound but is an old model I commit no crime, but if I take a picture with a cell phone that does not make a sound, but it's a recent model, I am subject to fines and potentially imprisonment?
And if I'm using a cell phone that takes pictures, I'm supposed to know the difference by...?
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
He was born in Hawaii after 1959 (when it became a state and was no longer a territory), that makes him a citizen. End of story.
The only possible exception - which is not applicable here - is if his parents had diplomatic immunity from some other country, and he also had it as the child of foreign diplomats, and thus was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Since no one has made the slightest claim that either of his parents were in the diplomatic service of another country, this possible exception does not apply.
Women all the time who are pregnant come visit the U.S. (usually California) from Mexico to have their baby in an American hospital. Since they (and possibly their husband or boyfriend) are Mexican nationals, the child is probably one too. But since the parents are not diplomatic personnel, the child gets that precious birth certificate issued by the hospital which indicates the child is a U.S. Citizen. So, years later, this man who has lived in Mexico all his life, can simply walk right up to the border, present his Mexican ID card and his U.S. birth certificate to the border patrol agent at the gateway, and walk into the U.S. just like any other American Citizen, because he is one same as anyone else born here.
This is a common issue in a number of countries where, because of laws of each country, a child of parents from one country are born in another, the child ends up having dual citizenship by birth. If someone is the child of two American Citizens and is born in a hospital in Toronto, what country are they a citizen of? Both the U.S. and Canada. And if their mother is Jewish and they visit Israel, by law they are also a citizen of that country as well, so they could be a citizen of three countries.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Who's afraid of a camera phone? 1. cops 2. sluts 1. cops should get their act together 2. sluts should put on some clothes Oh wait my bad, I just asked the people who are the potential problems to do whats right in the first place. On second thought I suggest stripping everyone else of their freedom so you can go on beating (presumably until proven guilty) innocent citizens and flaunting your half naked bodies for every eye other than that of a camera.
This is such a dumb idea for thousands of reasons (2,374 is the current count). But what about camera phones with the ability to record video? Must they sound a constant tone signifying that they are recording? I don't think so. And what's to prevent me from putting the phone in record mode, then casually walking by someone, then capturing a still frame... which is a photograph... god damnit I hate when obviously moronic ideas don't get killed in the incubator. Some special interest is behind this.