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."
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.
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.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
From a loudspeaker next to the camera: "IGNORE ME! IGNORE ME! IGNORE ME! [ytmnd.com] "
Fixed it for you.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
From a loudspeaker next to the camera: "EXTERMINATE!"
Fixed it for both of you.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
I want CCTVs to state in a loud, offcial voice "I see you, [Insert Name]!".
...and when you knock them down, they should remind you that they "don't hate you".
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
CCTV: I see you Mr. Screamustache. Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
Scrameustache: Who? What? That's not me, and I'm not armed!
CCTV: You now have 15 seconds to comply
Scrameustache: I'm not the face you're looking for!
CCTV: You are in direct violation of Penal Code 1.13, Section 9.
CCTV: You have 5 seconds to comply.
Scrameustache: Help!
CCTV: Four... three... two... one... I am now authorized to use physical force!
Yay. _Safe_.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
"if they implement face recognition, I want CCTVs to state in a loud, offcial voice "I see you, [Insert Name]!"
That's just crying out to be hacked in order to add "shaking that ass" on the end.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
*HISSS* Curse your resourcefulness US government! You have ruined the plans of me, the evil(TM) Pedophiler! Now I shall have to resort to new phone-independent cameras with their accursed proficiency in range and resolution, like all the normal pedophiles. I'll get you yet! *Twirls mustache* And your little children too!
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: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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Stop thinking abut the children, you pervert!
;)
-
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: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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
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: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.
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 :)
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:give me a break (Score:5, Funny)
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:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Unless you're filming a bike with cards stuck in the spokes.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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)
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?
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?
Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)
Then maybe we should make laws about the taking of pictures, not silly little sounds.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
>> 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. :)
ps to Slashdot - I gotta tell ya, Pedantic-Man(tm) wants his HTML character entity for the trademark symbol to work. SO stupid to filter that out; you're allowing the Greater Than symbol. Gah.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
Pedantic-Man®, what are you talking about?
Pedantic-Man(tm) is talking about ampersand-trade-semicolon, 'trademark,' not ampersand-reg-semicolon, 'all rights reserved.'
Pedantic-Man(tm) has to be a stickler for the legalities, you know. It's kinda implied by the name. :)
Please note: Pedantic-Man(tm) is trademarked by Fly By Night, Ltd.(tm), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Harkonnen Heavy Industries(tm). Discontinue reading posts by Pedantic-Man(tm) if any of the following symptoms occur: itching, vertigo, dizziness, tingling in extremities, loss of balance or coordination, slurred speech, temporary blindness, profuse sweating, or heart palpitations. Pedantic-Man(tm) may stick to certain types of skin. When not in use, Pedantic-Man(tm) should be returned to his special container and kept under refrigeration... Failure to do so relieves the makers of Pedantic-Man(tm), Fly By Night, Ltd.(tm), and its parent company Harkonnen Heavy Industries(tm), of any and all liability.
Special permission is granted to the readers of Slashdot to taunt Pedantic-Man(tm), as he feeds on taunts. Taunts fed to Pedantic-Man(tm) automatically become the property of Pedantic-Man(tm).
Pedantic-Man(tm), accept no substitutes!
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: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.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Funny)
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.....
That's the best thing about the gene pool - there's no lifeguard. I really wish they'd take those warning stickers off hairdryers and such, though. Some of these 'tards are living long enough to reproduce.
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: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).
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, Funny)
Ahhh - That's what they tried to do with handguns, and actually did in Massachusetts.
They must have already passed that in Missouri too -- all of our handguns make a noise when they are fired. They seem to be permanently set on the 'car backfiring' setting too. I tried changing mine to 'birds chirping' to be less conspicuous, and all I ended up with was a bunch of dead birds.
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Funny)
JESUS CHRIST! DON'T GIVE THEM ANY FUCKING IDEAS!
Fuck! Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
When camera phones that don't click are outlawed, only outlaws will have camera phones that don't click.
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.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
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:5, Informative)
In the U.S. it's a class 3. It can easily take over 6 months to take possession of something like a silencer... then your application, even when granted by the Federal Gov't, will most likely be refused by the the local law enforcement; even after you've purchased the item, paid the $200 license fee, $100 holding fee, cost of the product, and $50-$100 to the sheriff to run his back ground check. They'll refuse it for some "public safety" reason in most municipalities. Oh, and you have to pay the licensing and holding fee for every product you purchase (silencer, high capacity firearm, short barrel shotgun, box of armor piercing ammunition, etc) so there's effectively a $300 tax on each item as a barrier to ownership as well.
Disclaimer: I don't own a single firearm, bullet, or even an axe. I don't think most people need them. But if we're going to have the right written in the constitution, then we shouldn't have barriers like this. Amend or get out of our way.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
He isn't a naturalized citizen. He is a natural born citizen. The official records reflect a Hawaii birth. If that is true, he was born in the US to a mother that was a US citizen, and thus there is no question of his legality as a natural born citizen. However, there are people that assert he was born in Kenya. There is no evidence of this, other than a wish to have him declared ineligible to serve, and the fact that there isn't any evidence which eventually shows that there is a cover-up (incidentally, the Republican governor of HI would have to be in on it, as well as a number of foreign governments). Oh, and also, they are asserting that a minor mother can't convey citizen status to their child when foreign born, though I have not seen anything in US law establishing that, because if a child born abroad to a US citizen is a US citizen, then he is a natural born citizen as well.
The details of where he was born is that he was born in a US state (not a territory, HI was a state at the time) to a US citizen mother, and thus was a US citizen at birth, making him a natural born citizen, and thus eligible for the office of the President of the United States. There exists no document that has been released (by any side) which disputes this. And if he were born a Kenyan citizen and
Hillary Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State is blatantly unconstitutional (because the pay of that office was raised by congress during her current term).
I'm confused as to which part of the Constitution this is in violation of. I'm guessing you were listening to conservative talk show radio or something. The 27th Amendment says "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." There is no conceivable reading of that law which makes her appointment unconstitutional, but based on your wording, it's the only thing that seemed close. Perhaps you could share your reasoning on this. However, from the lack of details, but not lack of conviction, I'm guessing that you have no idea what was violated, other than someone once said it violated something, and you hate those Democrats. Or have you been bashing Bush solidly for the past 8 years for his numerous violations of the Constitution as well?
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.
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!
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?!
Re:Deaf victims? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh no! What about the deaf *and* blind?!
A probe to poke the target that would spell out in morse code that you're being photographed.
Govtack (Score:5, Informative)
You can track the bill here on Govtrack [govtrack.us]. If this gets past committee please write or call your representative and ask them to reject yet another unnecessary regulation.
In addition, if you live in New York's 3rd Congressional District [wikipedia.org], please remember how your representative wants to waste our tax dollars when you vote next year.
After doing a little more research on him, here's another very good reasons to vote him out. Quoting his campaign website [peteking.us]:
Pete was a strong supporter of the PATRIOT Act, creating the Homeland Security Department, profiling for terrorists at airports and allowing the National Security Agency to wiretap foreign terrorists making telephone calls into our country.
Please vote this guy out.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
They do say that make-up sex is the best.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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?
Re:Japan (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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)
Re:Already so in Japan (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps this law will remove my left thumb and save me from myself.
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'
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.
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.
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).
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)
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....
Model Tee Hee Hee (Score:5, Funny)
In similar news, lawmakers will require all horseless carriages (we call them "cars") to periodically whinny like a horse. (Ford Escorts do that anyhow after it rains, although I don't know if it's intentional.)
WHERE is the law being introduced? (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously why isn't this in the article summery?
It would take less than a sentence. Can the mods please wake up and at least require a bare minimum standard?
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: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.
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: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.
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: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: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.
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.
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.
Re:What about open source phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
The accuracy of this post depresses me.