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."
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)?
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.
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
...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.
Good Grief....with all the problems the country has right now, and THIS is the type of law they try to get passed??!?!?
Man...next election cycle, let us PLEASE fill the Senate and HOR 50/50 with each party. I feel so much safer in my country, and its progress when there is complete gridlock in the federal govt.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The funny thing about this is when I hold the iphone to take a picture, I hold it with my left thumb on the bottom edge and my left index finger on the top edge. This keeps me from blocking the tiny lens on the back and also lets me look at the preview on the screen, while keeping my right hand free to push the button to take the picture. My left thumb naturally falls over the speaker. It also happens to block the camera sound (not because I want it to, it's just the easiest way for me to hold the camera).
Perhaps this law will remove my left thumb and save me from myself.
They're only illegal without a license in 38 states. You can get a license by paying a $200 federal tax fee and a thorough criminal background check. In the other 12 states, they're illegal period.
Also, I have to point out that the object in question is actually called a "suppressor," as it does not actually silence the sound of the gun. It also doesn't make the whistling sound you hear in the movies. The actual sound of a gun firing with a suppressor attached is closer to the sound of a staple gun. Suppressors are more effective in disguising the nature of the sound than in actually eliminating it (even 22-calibur rifles still fire at 130-145 decibels with a suppressor attached - see this wiki article for more information on that.)
For the record, I know all of this not because I'm a gun buff, but because I'm a writer, and I like to write about assassins. I find it best if an author knows how something actually works before she goes and writes about it.
The same thing they did recently when a cop shot a restrained BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) passenger. They would seize every cell phone that they could find calling it "evidence", and the CCTV cameras in the area would just happen to not be working. Of course, just like in the recent shooting, it might turn out a week later that one of the cctv cameras was working after all, as long as nothing incriminating can be seen from it's angle.
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 safer here."