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."
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.
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!
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.
So the state can secretly monitor everything we do, but we are not allowed to do it ourselves?
c++;
What does this mean for open source phones? Does this mean that Android would be illegal in the US?
No. But if the police catch you and you're Android doesn't 'click' - even if you don't have anything illegal on the phone - they have something to charge you with.
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
"because it's a law"
And as its "law", then how about the CCTV's all making a noise when they photograph everyone. If they want everyone to respect their law, they should lead by example and prevent their CCTVs from filming without people knowing.
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.
Nevermind that, you could open up the phone and cut the wire to the speaker! So not only does this leave a large area to interpretation, it's easy to circumvent with a little determination.
What about capturing a frame of video, how are they going to handle that?
Obviously they haven't thought this out and it will like many other bills die a quiet death.
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.
It is not pervs ruining it for the rest of us, it is craven idiotic politicians. Pervs will just use the publicly available hack which will come out less than 12 hours after this is passed into law.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
You know how it goes. The phone will be released with the US OS, which doesn't include the stuff that is illegal here.
But you can go immediately to sites overseas and download a version that has all the good stuff pre-included. Since the phone OS is basically designed for this sort of swapping, it's hard to see how they could prevent this.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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?
I guess it depends on how the law is written.
It would also prohibit such a phone from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone.
What does it mean to be "equipped with a means" to do something? If I don't include any option in my list of settings, but it's easily hacked to silence the click, is that "equipped with a means of disabling the tone"?
If so, then it seems like a potential engineering problem. How are you going to make a tamper-proof phone? With many phones, the speaker isn't that loud anyway, and you could probably muffle a single clicking sound by taping over the hole in the case in front of the speaker.
If being able to alter the phone in such a way as to disable it doesn't count, then open source software shouldn't be a problem so long as it's distributed without exposing that setting by whomever is distributing it.
And because of all that, I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be a dumb law. It's either going to be very hard for manufacturers to comply with it, or else very easy to circumvent for the consumer.
When camera phones that don't click are outlawed, only outlaws will have camera phones that don't click.
Like many other bills die a quiet death, but nonetheless expending taxpayer dollars and making sure there is no time to read the earmarks of major bills.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Neither do camera phones. Which actually does bring up an interesting question: what about the phones that can film, as opposed to single frame photography? Constant clicking?
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
It just strikes one as a bit hypocritical for our representatives to be worrying about improper use of cell phones by some random pervert, when the NSA's domestic surveillance operations have systematically violated our civil liberties on an industrial scale over the past few years.
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
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 ?
If you disable the loud speaker on the phone, how do you hear it ring?
What makes you think the pervert cares if it retains functionality as a cell phone?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The accuracy of this post depresses me.
Yes it was.
As an aside, camera-phones have almost completely ruined the Mardi Gras experience. When everyone has a phone taking pictures to be immediately posted onto the internet where they will remain forever, the curtains quickly fell on the lovely era of chicks flashing random strangers in the street.
Western culture is apparently in that ugly teenage phase of the Information Revolution, in which we have the ability to generate ubiquitous data but have not yet matured enough to appreciate the occasional massive value of data impermanence.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
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.
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.
Theres this wonderful technology called pants. I'm sure if upskirt photos were that much of a problem then these japanese ladies could employ this technology that men have been using for centuries.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
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.
If they didn't care about it working as a phone, why wouldn't they have just gotten a stand-alone camera instead?
I don't support this proposed law, but just to answer your question...
If you planned to take "creepy" photos of one sort or another and someone semi-caught you fiddling with some strange device in a peculiar situtation, would you rather be able to answer "oh that's just my cellphone" or would you rather have to explain why you were pointing a camera in awkward places?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Both my digital camera and the camera on my phone DEFAULT to making a click noise when you take a picture but it can be turned off. The click noise is just hokey and annoying, I can't believe you won't be able to turn it off in the future. That's just ludicrous.
Time makes more converts than reason
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.
You do realize that the FISA court of review has stated that the TSP was legal and constitutional even when one person was inside the US right?
I could say I don't know why this didn't make it onto the Slashdot site but then again I already know the answer to that. But seriously, look it over, you can find the complete redacted ruling and see for yourself what it says. I would caution doing a google search over it, it seems about every liberal site that has caught wind of it has blew gaskets at the prospect of their belief system being destroyed and have attempted everything possible to "say it isn't so" including accusing the courts of being uneducated idiots to somehow pandering for reelection to somehow being obligated to the administration who was leaving office. Take them with a grain of salt.
"But, think of the children!"
F*ck the children! -- George Carlin
How about taking care of your own children and leaving the rest of us the f*ck out of it? Stop involving the rest of us in your reproductive choices. That goes for schools(speed zones), tax exemptions, various child laws, etc that screws the rest of us because you, ya that's you, decided to have a kid, a "ha ha" -- little darling, ah hell a little trouser stain. Stop dumping your responsibilities on the rest of us.
Bush was only a part of the larger problem with government. And his legacy (whatever that is) is still with us even if he is no longer president.
And BTW, questioning your government's authority is never "pathetic". Pathetic is being a pablum fed lemming and never questioning anything the government does - regardless of who the figurehead in charge happens to be.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Thanks for supporting my point.
The fact some Democrat may have taken a position you (and I) don't like is not terribly relevant to the story at hand. The story at hand is that Rep. Peter T. King is, in this case, advancing a stupid position.
If you really want to compare the cases, I'd note that, according to your link, Rep. Berman (D-CA) frequently supports the interests of the monied and powerful among his constituents over what technically savvy people such as you and I might consider the interests of the greater good. This is a fault I would actually say was common across parties, and I certainly never implied Rep. Berman was not prone to it, or that I even liked him, (or any Democrat). Rep. King, on the other hand, is his own special brand of stupid, advancing an incoherent position in the interests of nobody. I'll not tar "politicians" nor even "Republicans" with my criticism here, as nobody but Rep. King appears to support this bill.
Feel free to think poorly of politicians. Feel free to think even less of one party or another. Just don't let these feelings prevent you from singling out particular politicians that are even stupider than the rest. Such as Peter T. King, Congressman from New York, Republican, and moron.
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.
This is not accurate; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review held that the Protect America Act was within the Constitutional power of Congress, and, therefore, that the portion of the TSP conducted within the confines (temporal and legal) of the PAA was legal. The TSP began before the PAA was proposed, much less adopted (and, as far as I know, continued after the PAA sunsetted, but that's another issue.) So at least some of the TSP is outside the scope of the ruling, even before considering whether all actions conducted under the TSP while the PAA was in force were, in fact, compliant with the PAA.
It is impossible to "know" the reason why something didn't happen when, in fact, it did happen.
Sorry if that interferes with your fact-deficient rant.
If taking pictures covertly of women isnt right then why do people buy magazines with pictures of celebrities taken by the paparatzi in this manner?
See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
Nope. It's still ridiculous. Having the government regulate every little thing is silly and pointless.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
As the father of a daughter with another coming very soon, I have to say this is ridiculous. There are so many ways around it that it becomes pointless.
Do you get the idea yet? This is only for politicians to look like they're doing something when they aren't actually doing anything. Perhaps the intention is to throw another crime at someone when this happens. That's the intention now, but eventually it'll be abused. Also, it ignores when you might want to have a silent photo for legitimate purposes.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
It's ridiculous until one of your kids ends up with pics on the net that weren't authorized.
It's ridiculous regardless of that.
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.
Who said that it was?
The issue is that this law would be micromanagement to a laughable degree... almost as bad as requiring windows to make noise when someone looks through them. They're trying to require that technology enforce manners, and this is utterly useless in regards to safety. If passed, it will be an idiotic law that people and companies have to worry about violating (and spend money to make sure they're "compliant"), and that provides no benefit to society.
Luckily, I think this one is too ridiculous to go very far. As it is, it's only in committee.
Did someone use their phone to take a picture of a Congressman's daughter drunk at a college party?
Even without turning off the sound, I can silence the ringer on most cell phones by placing my thumb over the speaker holes. How do they really expect this to work?
blog
Then maybe we should make laws about the taking of pictures, not silly little sounds.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
The Pedophiler laughs in the face of danger, MWAHAHAHA *twirls mustache* *adjusts monocle*
But in all seriousness, I felt I needed to point out that you really can't stop the supply of "child porn" without seriously infringing on our rights (and I mean hardcore middle eastern rights infringement, not the pussy liberal infringement we're still going through). In any case, I fail to see why people correlate sexual orientation with nurture more than nature. I wanted to point out through the use of satire that there is no "fuel" for the despicable actions of sexual offenders, other than the existence of children itself. I guess I did go a bit over-board seeing as it flew over some peoples' heads. I also feel the need to point out that this really is a witch hunt where the pedophiles are seen as some evil villains. In earlier centuries, it was normal for a 15 year old girl (sometimes younger) to get married. Personally, if she does it consensually, then it's none of my business as far as I'm concerned. However our society is still seeing sexual oppression reminiscent of Britain's Victorian era, where you could literally hang for being a slut.
Help fight spam
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.