New Law Will Require Camera Phones To "Click" 1235
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."
oh my head (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
Well (Score:1, Insightful)
If you outlaw non-clicking photo capable cell phones, then only outlaws will successfully take upskirt photos. Of course, this is already the case.
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.
Surveillance (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: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.
I also see.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just more stupid laws giving us a false sense of security!
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.
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.
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about capturing a frame of video, how are they going to handle that?
Obviously they haven't thought this out and it will like many other bills die a quiet death.
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.
Re:Grrrrrrrr, goddamn upskirters. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:1, Insightful)
Would open source cars not require turn signals?
Stupid question.
Re:oh my head (Score:4, Insightful)
Cretins.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Thank god (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. I read that and thought "Really!? These people have nothing better to do?" I have to call MI UIA on Wednesday. First time I've been unemployed since 1981 and "we're" worried about silent cell phone cameras
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'
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
When camera phones that don't click are outlawed, only outlaws will have camera phones that don't click.
clicking phones (Score:1, Insightful)
One would think with the current economic issues, unemployment skyrocketing, the war in Iraq that the government would work on those first before worrying about a phone clicking or not.
Re:Insanely stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
My camera already clicks! (Score:1, Insightful)
But that doesn't save people from my 300mm telescopic lens :)
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.
Not just stupid...chilling (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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....
Leica (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [newscientist.com]...
All for your (and your children's) security, of course.
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it means that concerts, plays, parties, weddings and nearly every other event is going to filled with incessant beeps and clicks.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
If you disable the loud speaker on the phone, how do you hear it ring?
What makes you think the pervert cares if it retains functionality as a cell phone?
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
The accuracy of this post depresses me.
For the police (Score:1, Insightful)
This is obviously for the police: They do not want to be photographed doing thier job. If they are, they will hear it. If they are, they can 'test' the phone for compliance and delete pictures while doing so.
Two unstoppable idiot hacks (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahhh - That's what they tried to do with handguns, and actually did in Massachusetts. They couldn't get gun control laws passed, so the AG declared guns to be under the jurisdiction of the Mass CPC. The stuff that required was "interesting" from a safety standpoint - hidden serial numbers, requiring that all handguns pass a "temperature" test (800F, so no Glocks, et al.)
So now the federal CPSC is going to regulate how cell phone cameras work, NOT to protect the user, but to protect everyone else FROM the user.
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose all of the digital cameras and video cameras in the world must also have their shutters tied to a beeper/speaker/noisemaker also?
-->I have often thought, amputation of the genitals seems a much more effective solution to controlling child predators and sex offenders than to make their camera phones make clicky sounds!
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Already in japan? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:LOL (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
It WOULD make me feel better.
If they all did that people would freak out. There would suddenly be a much larger cost to people who install such cameras and many of them would likely go away.
Or more likely the silly law would be repealed or amended in the next round of Walmart legislation purchases.
Even better (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't have to be 50/50 by any means, simply vote for a non-incumbent. Change is good :)
Re:Leica (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the quietness of electric and hybrid cars is already an issue, and a real one. There is a measurable rise in car/pedestrian accidents in ares with a lot of electric or hybrid cars.
VERY important instrument, needs protection (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [sfgate.com]. 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 [cbs5.com] showed a different story [sfgate.com]. 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 [kingmandailyminer.com] 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).
Re:Japan (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
As far as bad ideas go... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:LOL (Score:1, Insightful)
It's a bird -- It's a plane -- Wait, no it isn't! (Score:3, Insightful)
>> 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
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:2, Insightful)
My thoughts exactly. Here is a fine example of how this law really would hurt society more than help. How many times have those who have the power been taken down by camera phones? I dunno but I think that its important to keep this feature in phones for just this reason. Afterall, who is watching those who watch over us?
What about good uses? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish this were much more common and lots of people did it. Maybe that's what it would take for people in general to understand why a good following distance is important. No, really, you're supposed to drive in such a way that something like this would never make you have an accident. People who refuse to do that are unfit to use a shared resource like the public roadways and I do not recognize their right to pose an unnecessary hazard to others (and why should you?).
Ever notice those people who tailgate you until you approach a traffic light? Then they back off because they know you may have to slow down or stop and they know that their following distance is unsafe for that. Their arrogance is that they think they will always know when you have to slow or stop, that there is no such thing as deer or dogs or pedestrians or impatient drivers who suddenly create hazards and that everything always goes smoothly the way you intended with no unforeseen complications.
I think this mentality also has something to do with the amount of debt that the average person (in the USA) carries and why so many people live from paycheck to paycheck when most of them have other options. That is, it's the unthinking "leaf in the wind" mentality, again, where people don't realize that they are living in such a way that leaves them open to what appear to be sudden and surprising events. The only amazing thing about the situation is that people can be so wide-open to these problems for so long before something finally does happen. That is no excuse for denial of what should be plainly true, but if someone wants to be in denial, this alone can help prevent them from seeing the cause and effect.
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
If they didn't care about it working as a phone, why wouldn't they have just gotten a stand-alone camera instead?
I don't support this proposed law, but just to answer your question...
If you planned to take "creepy" photos of one sort or another and someone semi-caught you fiddling with some strange device in a peculiar situtation, would you rather be able to answer "oh that's just my cellphone" or would you rather have to explain why you were pointing a camera in awkward places?
-
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Both my digital camera and the camera on my phone DEFAULT to making a click noise when you take a picture but it can be turned off. The click noise is just hokey and annoying, I can't believe you won't be able to turn it off in the future. That's just ludicrous.
give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that the FISA court of review has stated that the TSP was legal [nytimes.com] and constitutional even when one person was inside the US right?
I could say I don't know why this didn't make it onto the Slashdot site but then again I already know the answer to that. But seriously, look it over, you can find the complete redacted ruling and see for yourself what it says. I would caution doing a google search over it, it seems about every liberal site that has caught wind of it has blew gaskets at the prospect of their belief system being destroyed and have attempted everything possible to "say it isn't so" including accusing the courts of being uneducated idiots to somehow pandering for reelection to somehow being obligated to the administration who was leaving office. Take them with a grain of salt.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
"But, think of the children!"
F*ck the children! -- George Carlin
How about taking care of your own children and leaving the rest of us the f*ck out of it? Stop involving the rest of us in your reproductive choices. That goes for schools(speed zones), tax exemptions, various child laws, etc that screws the rest of us because you, ya that's you, decided to have a kid, a "ha ha" -- little darling, ah hell a little trouser stain. Stop dumping your responsibilities on the rest of us.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
And BTW, questioning your government's authority is never "pathetic". Pathetic is being a pablum fed lemming and never questioning anything the government does - regardless of who the figurehead in charge happens to be.
Re:LOL (Score:2, Insightful)
I am unconvinced that camera phones have separate speakers dedicated to the camera functionality. If you disable the loud speaker on the phone, how do you hear it ring?
Vibrate Mode?
Re:LOL (Score:1, Insightful)
From a loudspeaker next to the camera: "Fear not citizen, you are being filmed for your own protection. Be Well."
Or how about "Sleeeeep, Sleeeeep, Sleeeeep, Sleeeeep" a la John Carpenter's They Live?
Re:LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
"complete redacted"
There is no such thing. Complete is an absolute term, and once a portion is gone (redacted) it is no longer applicable.
I find your sincere use of Newspeak disturbing.
Re:Japan (Score:1, Insightful)
...ahhhh...the "If they weren't dressed like sluts" defense. I was waiting to see how long this one would take. Strangely enough, some women assume they have the right to wear whatever they wish (within the rights of nudity laws) without being molested for it. In Japan, where there is a stronger gender binary it would mostly be expected for women to dress in skirts...with possible stigma if they didn't.
This is just as ridiculous as saying:
"Maybe if you didn't want to get into fights with random strangers on the streets you shouldn't wear macho shirts, or if you don't want to get arrested you shouldn't wear shirts with controversial slogans on them"
I'm not sure how I feel about this law honestly. I can see where they are coming from, but I wonder if maybe a harsher penalty (longer jail sentence or counseling) for upskirt photographers or child voyeurs would be the way to go rather than limiting phones like this. Though I doubt this will get very far in the lawmaking process.
Re:LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, All CCTV cameras should by law have a 75,000 Lumen strobe on them and a 190db air horn that goes off every 12 seconds. the other 12 seconds needs to have a 120DB alert in 4 languages that says, "ALERT! YOU ARE BEING RECORDED!"
Supporters of the bill are sure that nobody would have any legitimate arguments against it.
Seriously, this "bill" is designed for entrapment. Arrested at a protest? Your phone dont make noise when a photos is taken? Ohh that's a federal violation, off to prison for you." This bill is pure unadulterated evil that is typical of all laws passed over the past 12 years.
Re:give me a break (Score:3, Insightful)
"Predator" Alert Act? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Deaf victims? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let 'em play pinball.
Re:LOL (Score:1, Insightful)
Digital SLR cameras have a mechanical shutter that makes the real sound, although the new Canon 5D Mark II is so quiet that you can barely hear it.
I suspect the reason for this is to dampen the vibration of the shutter movement rather than just to make the camera quieter, but does this mean that quiet 'real' cameras have to make an artifical shutter sound?
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact some Democrat may have taken a position you (and I) don't like is not terribly relevant to the story at hand. The story at hand is that Rep. Peter T. King is, in this case, advancing a stupid position.
If you really want to compare the cases, I'd note that, according to your link, Rep. Berman (D-CA) frequently supports the interests of the monied and powerful among his constituents over what technically savvy people such as you and I might consider the interests of the greater good. This is a fault I would actually say was common across parties, and I certainly never implied Rep. Berman was not prone to it, or that I even liked him, (or any Democrat). Rep. King, on the other hand, is his own special brand of stupid, advancing an incoherent position in the interests of nobody. I'll not tar "politicians" nor even "Republicans" with my criticism here, as nobody but Rep. King appears to support this bill.
Feel free to think poorly of politicians. Feel free to think even less of one party or another. Just don't let these feelings prevent you from singling out particular politicians that are even stupider than the rest. Such as Peter T. King, Congressman from New York, Republican, and moron.
Re:If this is the camera crew who -were- filming u (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not accurate; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review held that the Protect America Act was within the Constitutional power of Congress, and, therefore, that the portion of the TSP conducted within the confines (temporal and legal) of the PAA was legal. The TSP began before the PAA was proposed, much less adopted (and, as far as I know, continued after the PAA sunsetted, but that's another issue.) So at least some of the TSP is outside the scope of the ruling, even before considering whether all actions conducted under the TSP while the PAA was in force were, in fact, compliant with the PAA.
It is impossible to "know" the reason why something didn't happen when, in fact, it did happen.
Sorry if that interferes with your fact-deficient rant.
Incorrect (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:4, Insightful)
I wasn't referring to "debt ratios" as that sounds like an actual term that is much more specific than the principle I was highlighting. I was referring to debt as a lifestyle choice; "choice" implying that I am limiting my description to those for whom other options are available. My point in mentioning debt is that there is such a thing as Truth. If you tell me that there isn't, I will say "oh really? is that ... ... true?" and it will immediately contradict itself. So, there is a "right" way to do things and it's usually much simpler than our ideas of the "optimal" way to do things, if you can grasp the difference.
Apparently using such a mundane thing as financial debt to illustrate the point was a stumbling block for you. I know that because I was referring to a mentality and you responed as though I had made a positive claim about the reliability of it as an indicator of anything, which I did not. The idea is that a thing like debt does not happen by itself; it requires the indebted person's active participation and most of the time, that person had other choices. In this way debt is like obesity: a very tiny percentage truly honestly cannot help it, while the vast majority could have chosen differently. The victim mentality is quite popular and rather precious to a lot of people because they consider recognizing their mistakes, learning from them, and moving on to live a better life to be a painful process, so I'm sure I just "offended" lots of people by implying that they should do this. They'll blame me for that if they even have the courage to speak up, nevermind that I bear no malice (this isn't some immature "gotcha" game) and what I said is self-evident truth. What'll really "fry their noodle" is when they realize how much happier and more complete they'll be when they lose the victim mentality. That choice is theirs; all I can personally do is refuse to be another enabler for what I know to be wrong.
In a similar spirit, it is not difficult to recognize that rear-ending the vehicle in front of you is the most easily preventable accident you could ever cause. It's so preventable that in most (all?) states of the USA, not taking steps to prevent it is a traffic violation, typically known as "following too closely", though unfortunately it is rarely enforced unless an accident has already happened.
If it were up to me, we'd quit worrying so much about speeding (it should be obvious it has little to do with safety and much to do with revenue) and we would instruct police officers to look for people who follow too closely and people who fail to yield right-of-way, the two primary causes of accidents. A very close third would be people who get in the passing lane and then refuse to either pass the vehicle beside them or get out of the passing lane. I'm actually having people pre-emptively cut in front of me on the highway because they think I'm going to do that too, which is (no good, yet) understandable, considering that they probably got stuck an inconsiderate person for the duration of their trip the last time they extended benefit of doubt.
And here we get to the real heart of the matter. The best way to make sure that you never run out of bullies is to reward that behavior by giving them what they want. For that re
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
If taking pictures covertly of women isnt right then why do people buy magazines with pictures of celebrities taken by the paparatzi in this manner?
This is retarded (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
As the father of a daughter with another coming very soon, I have to say this is ridiculous. There are so many ways around it that it becomes pointless.
Do you get the idea yet? This is only for politicians to look like they're doing something when they aren't actually doing anything. Perhaps the intention is to throw another crime at someone when this happens. That's the intention now, but eventually it'll be abused. Also, it ignores when you might want to have a silent photo for legitimate purposes.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
It's ridiculous until one of your kids ends up with pics on the net that weren't authorized.
It's ridiculous regardless of that.
The issue isn't that people are taking pictures, the issue is that people don't ask and you don't know what they're taking pictures of.
Who said that it was?
The issue is that this law would be micromanagement to a laughable degree... almost as bad as requiring windows to make noise when someone looks through them. They're trying to require that technology enforce manners, and this is utterly useless in regards to safety. If passed, it will be an idiotic law that people and companies have to worry about violating (and spend money to make sure they're "compliant"), and that provides no benefit to society.
Luckily, I think this one is too ridiculous to go very far. As it is, it's only in committee.
Did someone use their phone to take a picture of a Congressman's daughter drunk at a college party?
You are missing the point (Score:1, Insightful)
Despite what we all might think, there ARE a few people in congress that aren't morons. This has NOTHING TO DO with the rare unannounced pantie shot. The whole point of this law is to prevent average citizens from photographic the police doing illegal things.
If your phone beeps when it takes a picture the police can come over and treat you like a king "accidentally" destroying the phone and its evidence of their wrong doing.
If the phone doesn't beep they can have any photographs suppressed in court since that evidence was "illegally obtained" by a non-compliant cell phone.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Even without turning off the sound, I can silence the ringer on most cell phones by placing my thumb over the speaker holes. How do they really expect this to work?
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Then maybe we should make laws about the taking of pictures, not silly little sounds.
Re:LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
Not gonna fisk, so match these up with your mind.
All we're trying to do here is silence the camera click. The rest of the phone functionality is somewhat irrelevant. If I need people to contact me, there's always vibrate, or I could use a different phone for talking.
Most (at least many) phones have provisions for firmware to be installed. It is usually used for carrier approved updates, but firmware is firmware. The phone doesn't know where it came from. iPhones have been jailbroken. HTC phones have had many unofficial firmware updates. Just because *you* can't personally do it, it doesn't mean it can't be done.
There are plenty of ways to extract a single frame from video. The phone is just the capture device. The video can be processed later on a computer.
There are add-on lenses for many phones that give wide-angle or telephoto capabilites. The lens attaches in front of the cameraphone lens. You can do the same thing by putting a telescope (or binoculars, or whatever you have handy) in front of your cameraphone. You have to play with the distance a little, but it works great. Though if you're far away using a telephoto lens, you are probably better off with a real camera with better optics than found in most cellphones.
Again this is all hypothetical, and an exercise in proving the law is idiotic. The point is, there are plenty of ways to silence a cell phone, even without a menu item.
Why does everyone scoff at this? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
How will you hear your phone ring, or hear someone talking on the phone?
I don't think it's a fair assumption to say that someone with the desire to take pictures in a locker room actually cares if the phone is functional.
Hell, there's really no reason it has to be a phone at all. It just has to look like a phone.
I don't think phones have the ability to extract a single frame from a video.
Once the video is on a computer, there are 6,742 ways to extract a single frame.
Re:LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
The odds are the kids will be doing "self portraits" and sending it to their friends.
http://www.wpxi.com/news/18469160/detail.html?taf=burg [wpxi.com]
And seems the Government appears to be the greatest danger and source of harm to those kids.
"but taking pictures covertly of women isn't right"
Why? What if you have photographic memory?
It may well be that in the future people would have artificial eyes (and the way things are going they'll probably have DRM deeply embedded).
Be careful about the laws you ask for (and the other laws as well).
To me the problem that should be addressed is probably the publishing and distribution of the pictures.
If you want to secretly take pictures of me, it doesn't really affect me.
But that could change once you publish or distribute them. After all context is important and the pictures could be published out of context. Or someone could manipulate the images.
Reinstalling The Law (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Committee (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that we're currently led by a Democrat supermajority, so there is a real danger that the nanny government will butt in and demand this (meanwhile, Obama has publicly expressed his support for warrantless wiretapping...and the government grows ever more powerful).
Morons! Idiots! Fools! SFB! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Model Tee Hee Hee (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
The Pedophiler laughs in the face of danger, MWAHAHAHA *twirls mustache* *adjusts monocle*
But in all seriousness, I felt I needed to point out that you really can't stop the supply of "child porn" without seriously infringing on our rights (and I mean hardcore middle eastern rights infringement, not the pussy liberal infringement we're still going through). In any case, I fail to see why people correlate sexual orientation with nurture more than nature. I wanted to point out through the use of satire that there is no "fuel" for the despicable actions of sexual offenders, other than the existence of children itself. I guess I did go a bit over-board seeing as it flew over some peoples' heads. I also feel the need to point out that this really is a witch hunt where the pedophiles are seen as some evil villains. In earlier centuries, it was normal for a 15 year old girl (sometimes younger) to get married. Personally, if she does it consensually, then it's none of my business as far as I'm concerned. However our society is still seeing sexual oppression reminiscent of Britain's Victorian era, where you could literally hang for being a slut.
Re:LOL (Score:2, Insightful)
But thanks for letting us know your opinion of Obama...
Re:Crimes in progress or; if you are lucky... (Score:1, Insightful)
you will simply be arrested, at which point you will be informed that " you have the right to remain silent... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning [wikipedia.org] (in the US of A at least, by law YMMV)
Re:you've benefited (Score:1, Insightful)
Then let's keep it even. Repeal all child safety laws back to what they were in the 1920s (let's say the oldest living person here is ~110, minus 18 to account for their youth). Allow an 18 year 9 month window of grace before enforcing the laws for the current generation + gestation for the to-be born. That way, there will only be an 18 year long generation of kids who received benefits but didn't have to put up with stupid laws as adults. Lucky them.
Whoosh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:LOL (Score:3, Insightful)
This is my point exactly. The pervs won't stop taking pictures because of this law. They will find a way around it but it makes life more difficult for the average consumer who doesn't want some hokey clicking noise. It's like DRM music, it makes life very difficult for the average consumer who wants to move their music from their old PC to their new one, or from their PC to a portable device but it hasn't stopped the proliferation of ripped music.