Slashdot Log In
New Law Will Require Camera Phones To "Click"
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Jan 26, 2009 03:08 PM
from the pointless-wastes-of-time dept.
from the pointless-wastes-of-time dept.
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."
Related Stories
Submission: New Law Will Require Camera Phones to 'Click' by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Parent
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
From a loudspeaker next to the camera: "Fear not citizen, you are being filmed for your own protection. Be Well."
That would sure make me feel better.
Parent
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
From a loudspeaker next to the camera: "IGNORE ME! IGNORE ME! IGNORE ME! [ytmnd.com] "
Fixed it for you.
Parent
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
It just strikes one as a bit hypocritical for our representatives to be worrying about improper use of cell phones by some random pervert
But, think of the children!
Parent
Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Funny)
At which time, I, as the wiley "bad guy", press the button telling the camera to make the clicking noise when taking a picture. After the mean ol'cop has left, I press it again and resume taking illicit photos of manhole covers.... ohh.. look, that one has some bubble gum stuck in the lettering.
Parent
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Funny)
I, as the wiley "bad guy", press the button telling the camera to make the clicking noise when taking a picture.
Oh wow, you're advanced. I would have just made clicking sounds with my mouth.
Parent
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Funny)
At which time, I, as the wiley "bad guy", press the button telling the camera to make the clicking noise when taking a picture. After the mean ol'cop has left
I had a "friend" once who had a similar button in his car that would disable his brake lights. He made a living for a few years by getting "accidentally" rear-ended. Always managed to flip 'em back on by the time the cops showed up.
Of course, said friend later died in a shootout with the police at a meth lab so I guess he wasn't born into the deep end of the gene pool.....
Parent
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Informative)
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?
The police will apparently have nothing to do with it.
The text of the bill [loc.gov]
(b) Enforcement by Consumer Product Safety Commission- The requirement in subsection (a) shall be treated as a consumer product safety standard promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056). A violation of subsection (a) shall be enforced by the Commission under section 19 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2068).
Parent
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
When camera phones that don't click are outlawed, only outlaws will have camera phones that don't click.
Parent
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
First they came for those whose phones did not click when taking a picture, and I did not speak up because I did not own a phone that did not click when taking a picture.
Parent
Committee (Score:5, Informative)
If you click the link, and then click the link on that link to the actual source [loc.gov], 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.
Parent
Deaf victims? (Score:5, Funny)
For one thing, this law would do NOTHING to alert deaf victims they are being photographed! Some of them could be kids!
Parent
Re:Deaf victims? (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly in addition to a piercing shriek (to alert the merely hard of hearing), the flash should be required at all times.
Oh no! What about the deaf *and* blind?!
Parent
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
They do say that make-up sex is the best.
Parent
Leave well enough alone (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Leica shutters don't click (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps this law might consider banning Leicas too.
Like most laws of this sort, there is almost no chance of making it work.
Parent
Re:Leave well enough alone (Score:5, Funny)
...marring the children's rectals...
That is quite a freudian slip there buddy.
Recitals; yeah that would be the word you are looking for.
Parent
Eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Thank god (Score:5, Funny)
I was worried that congress had stuff to address that actually matters.
Japan (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Japan (Score:5, Funny)
Godzilla?
Parent
Insanely stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
All cameras? (Score:5, Interesting)
Surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
Already so in Japan (Score:5, Informative)
Expect to see... (Score:5, Funny)
Crimes in progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably a rare occurrence, but this means bystanders won't be able to photograph crimes in progress without alerting criminals.
Re:Crimes in progress (Score:5, Insightful)
"Probably a rare occurrence, but this means bystanders won't be able to photograph arrests in progress without alerting the police."
Fixed that for ya'
Parent
Re:Crimes in progress (Score:5, Funny)
Probably a rare occurrence, but this means bystanders won't be able to photograph crimes in progress without alerting criminals.
On the bright side, the cops will have to stop beating the guy cuffed on the ground to confiscate your camera and start beating you.
Parent
Great!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Technology is Speech, Don't Restrict It (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
If you would like to see this killed in committee. (Score:5, Interesting)
...now's your chance. It's been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Please check the membership list [house.gov] 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.
Re:If you would like to see this killed in committ (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Much ado about nothing (Score:5, Informative)
TFA even has a link to the bill's page [loc.gov] 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).
One of the most stupid Bills in history... (Score:5, Insightful)
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....
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
What does this mean for open source phones? Does this mean that Android would be illegal in the US?
No. But if the police catch you and you're Android doesn't 'click' - even if you don't have anything illegal on the phone - they have something to charge you with.
Parent
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevermind that, you could open up the phone and cut the wire to the speaker! So not only does this leave a large area to interpretation, it's easy to circumvent with a little determination.
Parent
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:5, Funny)
Nevermind that, you could open up the phone and cut the wire to the speaker! So not only does this leave a large area to interpretation, it's easy to circumvent with a little determination.
And then I could also cut the wire to the earpiece speaker, and then my phone also wouldn't have to play those annoying "mother/wife/boss talking" sounds.
Parent
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know how it goes. The phone will be released with the US OS, which doesn't include the stuff that is illegal here.
But you can go immediately to sites overseas and download a version that has all the good stuff pre-included. Since the phone OS is basically designed for this sort of swapping, it's hard to see how they could prevent this.
Parent
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it depends on how the law is written.
It would also prohibit such a phone from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone.
What does it mean to be "equipped with a means" to do something? If I don't include any option in my list of settings, but it's easily hacked to silence the click, is that "equipped with a means of disabling the tone"?
If so, then it seems like a potential engineering problem. How are you going to make a tamper-proof phone? With many phones, the speaker isn't that loud anyway, and you could probably muffle a single clicking sound by taping over the hole in the case in front of the speaker.
If being able to alter the phone in such a way as to disable it doesn't count, then open source software shouldn't be a problem so long as it's distributed without exposing that setting by whomever is distributing it.
And because of all that, I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be a dumb law. It's either going to be very hard for manufacturers to comply with it, or else very easy to circumvent for the consumer.
Parent
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:5, Informative)
It is a bill, introduced by single Republican Congressman, and not co-sponsored by anyone. To become law it just needs the support of 215 more congress people, 50 senators and the President...
It means nothing except that Peter T. King (R-NY) is an idiot, a fact already well established, IMO.
Parent
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, the "Video Phone Predator Act" is in preparation, it requires all video-capable phones to make a government-mandated "heavy breathing" noise when filming.
Next, the "Spy Glass Predator Act" will make it necessary for any hidden camera to marked with blinking red/blue LEDs and make a "pshooost!" sound each time it takes a frame.
And finally, we have the bi-partisan "Window Predator Act", which requires all Glass Windows to be painted in black. This bill was sponsored by the Ink Manufacturers Association of America (IMAA).
Happily Obama has promised "transparency", so the windows are probably safe.
Parent
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent