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."
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!
So the state can secretly monitor everything we do, but we are not allowed to do it ourselves?
c++;
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.
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.
Ahhh - That's what they tried to do with handguns, and actually did in Massachusetts. They couldn't get gun control laws passed, so the AG declared guns to be under the jurisdiction of the Mass CPC. The stuff that required was "interesting" from a safety standpoint - hidden serial numbers, requiring that all handguns pass a "temperature" test (800F, so no Glocks, et al.)
So now the federal CPSC is going to regulate how cell phone cameras work, NOT to protect the user, but to protect everyone else FROM the user.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
My worry is what the cop will do after he hears your phone click when you catch him beating the shit out of somebody. Makes it a little hard to conceal that you just caught him in action.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I wish this were much more common and lots of people did it. Maybe that's what it would take for people in general to understand why a good following distance is important. No, really, you're supposed to drive in such a way that something like this would never make you have an accident. People who refuse to do that are unfit to use a shared resource like the public roadways and I do not recognize their right to pose an unnecessary hazard to others (and why should you?).
Ever notice those people who tailgate you until you approach a traffic light? Then they back off because they know you may have to slow down or stop and they know that their following distance is unsafe for that. Their arrogance is that they think they will always know when you have to slow or stop, that there is no such thing as deer or dogs or pedestrians or impatient drivers who suddenly create hazards and that everything always goes smoothly the way you intended with no unforeseen complications.
I think this mentality also has something to do with the amount of debt that the average person (in the USA) carries and why so many people live from paycheck to paycheck when most of them have other options. That is, it's the unthinking "leaf in the wind" mentality, again, where people don't realize that they are living in such a way that leaves them open to what appear to be sudden and surprising events. The only amazing thing about the situation is that people can be so wide-open to these problems for so long before something finally does happen. That is no excuse for denial of what should be plainly true, but if someone wants to be in denial, this alone can help prevent them from seeing the cause and effect.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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
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.
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
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?