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."
What about open source phones? (Score:3, Interesting)
All cameras? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is bad news for things like the iPhone however, since it would mean you would have to disallow third party access to the camera to insure your phone doesn't run afoul of the law, which would be a problem for people who want to use the camera for things besides taking pantyshots, like games.
Re:Well I guess I only get one shot .... (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
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:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:3, Interesting)
That relates to the manufacturer, not the user.
There's no law to stop you hacking the phone to stop clicking, you just couldn't get that nice little CE stamp or the right to sell it.
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.
Re:LOL (Score:3, Interesting)
Try this at night on the highway / motorway. It really reduces the speed of cars around you! :-) Been there, done that .....
And no need to disassemble a disposable camera. Any electronic flash has that little button to flash without making a picture.
Re:LOL (Score:3, Interesting)
Several phones have 2 speakers. One for the tanking part, the other for the rest. So yeah, cutting those wires might make the phone stop ringing, but it wouldn't stop you from using it to talk.
Re:Already so in Japan (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps this law will remove my left thumb and save me from myself.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)
They're only illegal without a license in 38 states. You can get a license by paying a $200 federal tax fee and a thorough criminal background check. In the other 12 states, they're illegal period.
Also, I have to point out that the object in question is actually called a "suppressor," as it does not actually silence the sound of the gun. It also doesn't make the whistling sound you hear in the movies. The actual sound of a gun firing with a suppressor attached is closer to the sound of a staple gun. Suppressors are more effective in disguising the nature of the sound than in actually eliminating it (even 22-calibur rifles still fire at 130-145 decibels with a suppressor attached - see this wiki article [wikipedia.org] for more information on that.)
For the record, I know all of this not because I'm a gun buff, but because I'm a writer, and I like to write about assassins. I find it best if an author knows how something actually works before she goes and writes about it.
Re:LOL (Score:2, Interesting)
Stupid Nanny State (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is bad for public safety (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Well, officer, if you didn't hear it click (Score:3, Interesting)
... then I didn't take a picture!
Let's Make This Simple (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Context (Score:3, Interesting)
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
when I was young.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:LOL (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's in public someone can still take pictures of your kids and it will be completely legal. Silly shutter sound or not. If anything, that sound is just going to anger you into doing something excessive. Then not only does someone have pictures of your kids, you get to go to jail to.
Re:My flatulent cellphone (Score:2, Interesting)
I also teach a little English.
Video Phones (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Can I buy a new phone without a camera please? (Score:1, Interesting)
Why is it impossible to purchase virtually any modern cell phone without a camera? We should have the choice. They should be constructed in a way the camera is easily removable by the end user.
I don't need or want a fricken camera in my phone!!
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:3, Interesting)
To clarify, that's why I identified the problem as the mentality. People don't value foresight and the kinds of suffering (most of which we call "accidents") it can avoid and that is the problem. The identifiable flaws in the way people often drive are merely symptoms. That's why the application of rules or a list of "do's and don'ts" designed to modify behavior will not really solve this problem once and for all, for they are superficial solutions aimed only at symptoms. That is not how you bring about a future where people have to read history books to remember that there ever were these kinds of problems. At best, that approach can only manage the situation which is what we do with problems we don't really know how to solve or are unwilling to solve.
If people truly loved and respected one another, if doing things right for the pure joy of doing the right thing were their delight, they would take care of these things quite naturally whether it's NYC or a 100-person little town. They would have the correct understanding and it would find a way. The difficulty of doing that in a densely populated place like NYC would be their thrill to overcome. It would not be a struggle or a battle. This is harmony and this is possible. That's my real point; I just have to start with what you may call the "problem domain" to get there. This is not a mental effort or a deductive process though I often have to phrase the output in those terms. The inspiration that does the real work of "getting there" is a joy.
Welcome to city 17 (Score:5, Interesting)
It's safer here."
Silly (Score:1, Interesting)
Step 1 - Download the firmware to your camera
Step 2 - Replace the sound in the firmware with nothing
TaDA!
Though FYI, nokia phones, if you put them in silent mode (as in silent ringer), it also silences the camera click. However it does nothing for the AF light, so so much for taking candid pictures of parking violations :p
Though seriously, if every phone was required to beep when a photo was taken, it would just deter use of it since people DO NOT WANT to be caught taking pictures of things, even if they are within their right to take a picture of it. Since it attracts unwanted attention.
I turn the phone's sound off because when I take a picture, it has an ear piercing noise which is annoying.
Re:LOL (Score:2, Interesting)
Good Idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Reinstalling The Law (Score:3, Interesting)
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl64.htm