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?
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!
What next, requiring digital camcorders to make that old 8mm sounds while recording?
I was worried that congress had stuff to address that actually matters.
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.
Just use a high definition camera with hours of recording time. You'll have lots of fun with that, I guess.
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.
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++;
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
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.
... 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
Clearly you haven't met my wife.
...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.
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
For one thing, this law would do NOTHING to alert deaf victims they are being photographed! Some of them could be kids!
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
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
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
Godzilla?
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
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 ?
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. -
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.
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.
Is there actually something that Japanese men don't want to take pictures of?
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
>> 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
... friends don't let friends vote Democrat.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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))
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*
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:
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
It's safer here."
"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
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion