RSSUS cell phone camera law might not really click
By Jacqueline Emigh | Published January 28, 2009, 10:53 AM
Although its intent seems to be in the right place, a newly proposed US law imposing an audible alert on cell phone cameras raises thorny issues about actual implementation in the real world.
Along the same lines as existing laws in Japan and Korea, the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act now introduced into US Congress is aimed at thwarting sexual predators.
"Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone," according to US Representative Peter King, a Republican from New York sponsoring the measure.
The law would "require any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken." Furthermore, companies would be barred from outfitting the phones with mechanisms for disabling the alerts.
But if the already controversial legislation ever gets passed, it could inflict an annoyance and intrusion on the entire (and huge) population of US cell phone owners, while still letting predators prowl practically unabated.
If other approaches to silencing the audible alert didn't work, an enterprising person could always place a piece of tape on the phone's speaker -- or maybe drown out the sound of the "click" by coughing, laughing, turning on a radio, or...yes...flushing a toilet.
As written, the law is supposed to be enforced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But how is that going to happen, exactly? Will the federal agency assign staff members to lurk in public restrooms, with watchful eyes (and ears) trained on any BlackBerry gadgets and other cellular gizmos that make an appearance?
Other questions remain unanswered, too. Would the new law apply only to new phones, or would it be retroactive? If the first of these possibilities ensued, consumers might just hang on to their existing phones for quite a long while, maybe spurring sales slumps in future generations of iPhones and Android devices.
If the latter possibility came to pass, would manufacturers and wireless service providers need to recall the zillions of cell phones already out there in the installed base, retrofitting them with click alerts?
After a while, in the din of everyday life, would most people start to tune out the click sounds, anyway? Who even listens to car alarms any more, for instance?
On the other hand, a cell phone camera has already acted to stop a predator on at least one occasion. But the camera in this case didn't have an audible tone -- and it was wielded by a potential victim, as opposed to a perpetrator. Back in 2003, a 15-year-old boy in Clifton, NJ got lured into a car by an man who offered to drive him to Passaic to look for girls, according to an account in a local newspaper.
When the older man showed signs of being a pervert, the boy managed to get out of the car. But the abductor kept following the teen down the street until the 15-year-old pulled out his Sprint phone and started snapping pictures.
Police were later able to identify and arrest that particular sexual predator based on a license plate in the cell phone photos.
Great. So if this law passes I will have to carry two pieces of equipment around. A silent standalone digital camera and a cell phone with a noisy camera I will never use.
Score: 0
|this is the stupidest, most useless law congress could possibly be spending time on. im not even talking in light of current economic situations, but ever. who the hell cares? whats the difference b/w a camera phone and an actual camera? you can disable shutter noises and flashes on those...
Score: 0
|Yawn...
More symbolism over substance.
And poor sjc is still blaming the camera manufacturer as he continues looking for the cheese. But, on the other hand and to be fair, his discussions with his camera are some of his more intelligent conversations...as opposed to his regular utterences which simply impress others as his having cut the cheese.
Score: 0
|My cell camera actually says; "Say cheese." when I use it.
Score: -1
|predators could open up the phone and wire a switch to the noise maker to disable it.
i think a better way would be to make the phones have to be able to communicate with the carrier not just be able to get a signal before the camera would work thereby allowing the sensitive location to be rigged with signal blocking transmitters so that it is not just good enough to have a signal witch is what a cell phone jammer would do.
Score: 0
|There would be multiple issues with this. First one is what if I want to take a picture where there is no cell signal. I enjoy hiking and and other trips where there is bad reception. (Not that I get to do it that much.)
Also, signals can be bad in the concrete jungle or even in buildings. I can just see it now, Wait a minute honey, no, lost the signal again, I need to move over a foot, ok, smile, dang it, lost the signal again.
Another issue, how long do you think it would take for your local parks public bathroom to get one of these signal blockers? More money that most local cities don't have. Not to mention trying to require this for playgrounds and parks just would not fly. Not to mention trying to require it for local businesses.
May last issue is for Emergency Services. I have friends that are on call 24/7. Weather it is the ambulance driver on call or the Network Operator, if you miss that call because you where in the crapper with a cell signal block, you are in deep doodoo. (Pun intended:-) This is one of the reasons the cell blocking paint or devices did not work well in Movie Theaters. Even though people have to be on call, does not mean they can't have lives.
I'm sure there are other reasons this would not work, but this is what I came up with off the top of my head.
Score: 0
|Thank goodness the economy, health care, and foreign affairs are in such great shape that Congress has time to turn its attention to more pressing issues.
Score: 0
|Can you focus on more than one task a day?
OKay, maybe not...but most folks actually can. :D
Score: 0
|"Can you focus on more than one task a day? [...] most folks actually can."
It is Congress we're talking about here. ;)
Score: 0
|Heh....I see what you did there.
Clever. :p
Score: 0
|Never mind The Tool. He's a corporate w.h.o.r.e. and his opinion means nothing.
Score: -1
|*laughing*
Cut and paste. How cute. You don't even have enough brain cells to come up with something a bit more clever, eh?
Just for grins, I clicked your name, giving me your post history. I think I'll throw it up on my blog. A shining example of how low a human being can truly become when apparently attempting to prove the "Greater Internet ****wad Theory".
Score: 1
|Don't want your photo taken? Don't go outside. Entering public locations is granting permission.
If you run a business and do not want photo's taken? Post signs and enforce them.
Pretty simple solutions people, but no... As usual, the "victim class" goes whining to the government to "take care of them"... I only wish they would. ;)
Score: 1
|By that logic, using a public bathroom is granting permission to photograph you.
Score: 0
|reasonable expectation of privacy
edit:
Hmph, this is a reply to vimm
Score: 0
|@Vimm
*shakes head*
Nice logic there.
...
I bet your parents are *so* proud of you.
Score: 0
|What about taking pictures of deaf people? :)
Score: 0
|Just like car alarms that most people totally ignore these days (usually due to people setting the sensitivity too high), I forsee the same thing happening here -- people are going to hear that stupid noise so much they are going to eventually tune it out.
Score: 0
|I agree most would tune it out, but if I heard a camera clicking in a locker room I know it'd turn my head. It all depends on the context. Granted, a serious predator would simply disable or muffle the sound, but if deters the "casual" perv would it not be worthwhile? I don't see the harm in it.
Score: 0
|This whole law is requested by the police state brought to you by your banking and corporate masters.
Score: -2
|*yawn*
Score: 0
|This is an extremely bad idea, this is not going to protect anyone from Predators, what this will do is it will alert a policeman who is being photographed doing something illegal and wrong. Then the police man with the gun will force who ever took his picture (ID'd) by the sound of the camera, to give the camera up. This law is an extremely bad idea for freedom.
Score: 0
|What about taking video? You obviously can't have the cell phone making an audible alert the entire time it is recording video.
Score: 1
|I agree, and add that if I had a shouting camera
I would not take pics of a crime in progress, no
matter who's committing it.
Score: 0
|That's it, I'm changing my camera tone to "Take it off, Baby!!!"
*evil grin*
Score: 0
|Never mind cell phones. Have you seen this today ??
U.S. retrieves MP3 player with military files
Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:00am EST
WELLINGTON (Reuters) - A New Zealand man who bought a second-hand MP3 player that contained U.S. military files on personnel who served in Afghanistan and Iraq handed it over to U.S. officials on Wednesday, New Zealand media reported.
Chris Ogle, 29, bought the $10 MP3 at a thrift shop in Oklahoma but when he plugged it in discovered it contained 60 U.S. military files, said New Zealand television program One News which broke the story.
The files contained the names and personal details of American soldiers, including ones who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as information about equipment deployed to bases and a mission briefing, said One News.
Some files contained active mobile telephone numbers and social security numbers of military personnel.
U.S. embassy officials in New Zealand spoke to Ogle on Tuesday night and swapped his old MP3 player for a new one on Wednesday, New Zealand Press Association said.
Ogle said the officials asked him what computers the player's files had been loaded onto and whether he had made copies and then photographed some of the files, but would not say how sensitive the information was.
"They asked where I'd bought it from, the timeframe that I bought it in," Ogle said.
http://www.reuters.com/a...e/idUSTRE50R26S20090128
Score: 0
|