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."
i'm pretty sure they have this law in japan
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
It means nothing for open source or anything else because it is not a "New Law".
It is a bill, introduced by single Republican Congressman, and not co-sponsored by anyone. To become law it just needs the support of 215 more congress people, 50 senators and the President...
It means nothing except that Peter T. King (R-NY) is an idiot, a fact already well established, IMO.
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?
The police will apparently have nothing to do with it.
The text of the bill
(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).
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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
Guns with silencers make a 'bang' sound, too. It's just that most of the sound doesn't leave the gun.
Yes, but when you record the police or other government officer breaking the law, they will be able to suppress the evidence because you obtained it without an audible click (an audible click that would have alerted them to pretend to be obeying the law themselves). And remember, when you had your phone not click you were just as bad as the police officer/government official, so you cannot complain about their lawbreaking. This is all for your good!
Oh, and don't try to record lawbreaking by the police or government official. That's bad for morale.
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.
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:
It's national. And it's a proposed consumer safety regulation, not a proposed criminal act. Similar to how the government can say, require airbags in all new vehicles, but can't arrest you for having an old car that has no airbags.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
I would guess that enforcement would only be on the manufacturer and/or distributor. If I'm selling you a phone that doesn't make a clicking sound, then I get in trouble, but you don't get in trouble for owning a phone that doesn't make a sound.
...which makes the whole thing that much more useless. If you're an actual dangerous predator, I doubt this will present much of an obstacle.
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. -
Unless you have a license for them. I think it is a Class "A" license? I think it will also allow you to possess and use fully automatic weapons too.
If your record is clean, pretty much anyone can get this license.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
In the U.S. it's a class 3. It can easily take over 6 months to take possession of something like a silencer... then your application, even when granted by the Federal Gov't, will most likely be refused by the the local law enforcement; even after you've purchased the item, paid the $200 license fee, $100 holding fee, cost of the product, and $50-$100 to the sheriff to run his back ground check. They'll refuse it for some "public safety" reason in most municipalities. Oh, and you have to pay the licensing and holding fee for every product you purchase (silencer, high capacity firearm, short barrel shotgun, box of armor piercing ammunition, etc) so there's effectively a $300 tax on each item as a barrier to ownership as well.
Disclaimer: I don't own a single firearm, bullet, or even an axe. I don't think most people need them. But if we're going to have the right written in the constitution, then we shouldn't have barriers like this. Amend or get out of our way.
The bill was introduced by Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3], a Republican. If you'd like more of his kind, feel free to turn back the clock.
neither does my camera phone or my regular digital camera. CCTV still allows recordings weather its a VCR or some other device (say a PC). If the law is only applicable to cameras/photos then why not take video instead (most camera phones are capable now). You could then pick out the frame that you wanted as a photo on a PC. How many decibels does the click have to be or how faraway does the click have to be audible? While there trying to reduce pervy crime they just show there ineptitude with technology.
I think you should direct your comments to /.'s so-called "editors", not the "mods". Mods rate comments, they don't have any particular influence on the stories that get posted.
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.
Similarly, as I understand it Obama isn't technically a naturalized citizen of the US, because of the details of the laws where he was born.
He isn't a naturalized citizen. He is a natural born citizen. The official records reflect a Hawaii birth. If that is true, he was born in the US to a mother that was a US citizen, and thus there is no question of his legality as a natural born citizen. However, there are people that assert he was born in Kenya. There is no evidence of this, other than a wish to have him declared ineligible to serve, and the fact that there isn't any evidence which eventually shows that there is a cover-up (incidentally, the Republican governor of HI would have to be in on it, as well as a number of foreign governments). Oh, and also, they are asserting that a minor mother can't convey citizen status to their child when foreign born, though I have not seen anything in US law establishing that, because if a child born abroad to a US citizen is a US citizen, then he is a natural born citizen as well.
The details of where he was born is that he was born in a US state (not a territory, HI was a state at the time) to a US citizen mother, and thus was a US citizen at birth, making him a natural born citizen, and thus eligible for the office of the President of the United States. There exists no document that has been released (by any side) which disputes this. And if he were born a Kenyan citizen and
Hillary Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State is blatantly unconstitutional (because the pay of that office was raised by congress during her current term).
I'm confused as to which part of the Constitution this is in violation of. I'm guessing you were listening to conservative talk show radio or something. The 27th Amendment says "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." There is no conceivable reading of that law which makes her appointment unconstitutional, but based on your wording, it's the only thing that seemed close. Perhaps you could share your reasoning on this. However, from the lack of details, but not lack of conviction, I'm guessing that you have no idea what was violated, other than someone once said it violated something, and you hate those Democrats. Or have you been bashing Bush solidly for the past 8 years for his numerous violations of the Constitution as well?
Learn to love Alaska
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!
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.
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 may be easier to just replace the sound file for the click-noise with a file containing silence.
I did something similar with my RAZR for the count down picture function. In stead of playing goofy music I've got it counting down (spoken) from 10 (or 5 depending on the preference) to zero. So you actually know when the picture is being taken.
This law would have no effect on anything that was actually trying to take sneaky pictures.
If you would have read the decision itself instead of letting some liberal blogger dissect the ruling to the bash Bush benefit, you would have seen that the primary charge was that the PPA violated the fourth amendment provisions because it didn't require a warrant. The Court rulled that a Warrant was not required even though the supreme court has not specifically recognized a special exception for foreign intelligence because even though they alluded to it, they left another open with a well established provision of special needs. The court specifically said
Now don't get hung up on a then legal definition of foreign agent and foreign power not including a terrorists because the courts further address this with the fallback position of the petitioner who asseverates that if there is an exception, it should be specifically for foreign intelligence purposed as defined in US v Tuong. The courst specifically said "that dog will not hunt"
It then goes on to describe problems with the FISA pre-patriot act when someone attempted to challenge the change from primary purpose to significant purpose. The specifically addresses the conditions before the patriot act and the FISA laws specifically in 2001 when the TSP came about. The court said
But wait, it keeps getting better and better. Like this next little nugget.
You should actually read it because the issues at hand in why the PAA was challenged are the exact same as with the TSP. The court also said that the fears of the boogerman and all the possible wrong doings were hogwash until it actually happens. It said there was no reason to believe that the government would not act in good faith without a warrant.
BTW, if some of those statements I quoted from the court looks familiar, it's because it is the exact same line of reasoning given in support of the TSP.
"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
Obviously you haven't been to mardi gras lately. Nothing has change, absolutely NOTHING. Cameras have been flashing as often as girls in New Orleans for many many years.
The "lovely era" of girls flashing people in the street during Mardi Gras is more lively than ever. Last year, as often as I pulled out my camera there were untold girls turning around showing their tits, its what drunk youngins do during Mardi Gras. Pictures be damned.
I'm not even an old perv, just a tourist freaking out on the spectacle. Mardi Gras sucks, believe me, but its the puke and piss filled streets that really bring you down. Tits just do not make up for that.
A person who seeks out sex with an adolescent is not, by proper (vs popular) definition, a pedophile -- they are correctly called Ephebophiles. Pedophiles are people who have sex with PRE-PUBESCENT children.