Use of In-Phone Cameras Prompts Bans

[beevul]

"Use of In-Phone Cameras Prompts Bans"

"February 11, 2004 08:24 PM EST"


"CHICAGO - Tiny cameras used to be the stuff of spy novels. Now they're everywhere, built into cell phones, digital organizers and other devices. A little too everywhere."

"The proliferation of Internet sites filled with pictures shot surreptitiously in public bathrooms, locker rooms and other places has prompted some schools to ban the phones (the most common devices with cameras). And lawmakers in such states as Iowa and Colorado are considering their own measures to protect against what you might call the candid camphone."

"In December, for instance, police in Sammamish, Wash., charged a 20-year-old man with felony voyeurism for using a cell phone camera to take photographs up a woman's skirt."


"One Web site allows visitors to rate shots of women's behinds, often taken in public places. The site touts itself as "the real reason mobile phones have cameras." (Some phones make a shutter sound when a photo is shot, but often that sound can be disabled or muffled."


""We're convinced the next Rodney King is going to be on a camera phone," says Greg Clayman, co-founder of Upoc Inc. The company's technology allows groups of cell users to exchange photos over their phones - no need for Internet."

The article is an interesting read. Both pro and con views seem represented. Kind of a nice diversion from gun-blah-blah-blah-gun...


http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.asp?cat=news&referrer=welcome&id=211064622_5311_lead_story.xml

[Adams Wulff]

1. There is a bill in the Colorado State Senate about this...

as we speak.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_2549315,00.html
My favorite line:
"I think when you go into a locker room and change, you should have some expectation that your behind is not going to end up on the Internet,"
Good point.

[alwynsw]

2. Once again, people take a good idea

and abuse it in every way imaginable. Should such cameras be banned? I think they shouldn't. Perhaps we should look at invasion of privacy penalties of some sort.

One must admit that the advertising campaigns touting the use of these things - especially the phone cams - have promoted their use at inappropriate times without cautions to the users concerning privacy. Of course, if such warnings are ever given, they'll likely be in a 2 font running at 90 MPH at the bottom of the screen during the final 1/2 second of the commercials.

Now I'll go read the article and proposed legislature and make a more informed post.

on edit: Beev, I couldn't get your link to work. The Colorado article seems to be another example of an attempt to legislate morality. Sadly, it is justified.

What happened to personal integrity?

[CO Liberal]

3. The Ban Has Already Happened Where I Work

But for a different reason - security.

You see, I work for a major defense contractor, in a secure facility where classified information is stored and used. Per company policy (as posted at the entrance), no guns, alcohol, cameras, or recording equipment of any type are allowed on the premises.

I had to register my cell phone with Security when my department first moved in to the facility. And I had to show that the phone did NOT have photo capability.

[alwynsw]

4. When cell phones came around

I recommended carrier pigeon as an alternative for defense contractors. It was rejected as being "too Mata Hari".

[-..__...]

5. Watch your back.

Someone sent me an article a few weeks ago about one of the latest misuses of picture capable cell phones. Apparently they're being used to
take pictures of credit card info of unsuspecting victims.