Camera Phone Predators!!
I read the following article yesterday over at network world news and it made me chuckle a bit and then it made me a bit annoyed. I thought I’d share it here and see what you all thought.
No, we’re not joking. The Camera Phone Predator Alert Act (H.R. 414) is the real deal. Fresh off the legislative desk of New York Representative Peter King (R), the bill–currently cosponsored by goose egg–would require an audible tone to accompany all cellular phones with an installed camera that are created in the U.S. This tone, likely a clicking noise of some sort, would sound, “within a reasonable radius of the phone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera in such phone.” And don’t think that evildoers would be able to conceal their predatory ways by flicking an iPhone-style audio toggle switch. Any mobile phones built after the bill becomes a law would be prohibited from including any way to eliminate or reduce the volume of said noise.
And the reasoning for this legislation? But a single sentence: “Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.”
While this bill might very well age into irrelevance within the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, it’s not as far-fetched as it might sound. Camera phones in Japan already have features like this enabled by law: A rude awakening to new phone owners that would like a way to turn off–or turn down–shutter noises that have had their volumes jacked up for this reason specifically.
It seems to me us photographers get a raw deal these days (worldwide) and this is just another example of proposed legislation that supports the idea that anybody with a camera is up to no good. I constantly get to hear of stories of photographers getting moved on or treated with suspicion by members of law enforcement.
It appears anyone with a lens is a suspicious character. I fully understand and support that people exist out there who are dangerous and can take photos for purposes we as a society should not allow or encourage. I think though its time the people driving such legislation like this get some perspective. In this time of economic crisis is it really worth investing all this time and money into making camera’s noisier and generally making people paranoid of anyone who decides to walk the streets taking pictures. Anyone who would be abusing the use of a camera phone will easily bypass this technology anyway….All this serves to do is frustrate us law abiding photographers and tie up the bureaucratic system which would be better employed dealing with the causes of the problems they are trying to legislate against.
grrrrr rant over
your thoughts?
8 Comments to Camera Phone Predators!!
Leave a comment
Recent photos
- don't you love me baby, don't you love me wooooo-o-o-o #photowired #notdead #maybe #just #sleeping
- follow us on twitter
Hmm . . . tricky. While I understand that there’s plenty of sickos around taking advantage of people, maybe governments worldwide would be better off trying to dig themselves out of the mess that we call ‘The Economy’?
There’s pros and cons, and if I’d been directly affected by someone taking inappropriate pictures of my loved ones I may have a different view – it’s a tricky subject and no mistake.
Hmm . . .
I also have mixed views on this – and I totally agree that people shouldn’t be taking candid shots in dressing rooms, that’s obviously wrong. But surely there are laws against that already? It’s the mention of ‘public places’ that worries me… Also, I don’t really mind if the legislation only applies to mobile phones (as they’re obviously seeking to target a certain ‘type’ of individual – I’m sure I don’t have to draw any pictures…) – but surely it would only be a matter of time before it’s applied to other cameras?
Seems that those that would do harm with their camera phones would be buying up the ones with out the sound attached. I have to agree with you that there are many other areas that these people should be concentrating their energy rather than making Cameras more obtuse.
I have had many interesting stories I could relate about encounters with law enforcement and the public with trying to take images in what I consider the public area where taking a picture shouldn’t be a problem (USA). It tis a problem indeed.
Beamer
This is a dude with nothing better to do but think up ridiculous laws. I’m not sure if it is the same guy but there was another knucklehead in New York that wanted to put whistles and crap on Toyota Prius cars because they were too quite.
I appreciate the pluses and minuses on both sides of this argument, but one piece that I think has been overlooked from the photographers perspective is the potential societal fear of cameras that is being instilled in the general public through all this legislative nonsense.
I can see a future where the general public starts taking offense and generally fearing having their photos taken while in public. Pretty soon, all photographers may be painted with the “pervert/deviant/creep with a camera” brush! How sad would that be!
Sorry to rant on your rant, but that’s my 2+ cents.
@ash rant away! I’m totally with you and that’s where my worry lies…..it’s not so much this small piece of the puzzle its the bigger picture which is being put out by authority that cameras and photographers = BAD
Above, most answers said I see both sides to this issue, but nobody actually pointed out this side really, so I’ll take it on for the sake of discussion.
Is there anybody here who thinks it’s ok that their or their loved one’s picture is taken covertly, whether on a train, or bus, or anywhere else, without their permission?
I’m physically different from the people around me, ( a white guy living in Japan) and therefore a curiosity at times for kids, who have pointed phone cams at me and clicked away, no big deal, but at least I know about it…
The legislation said phone cams, what does this have to do with photographers rights? Don’t photographers use real cameras that are fairly obvious when pointed and clicked? So from an “everybody is going to hate photographers” concern.. no.. it’s not photographers that are under fire, its secret picture taking. So the law passes, makes the news for 15 minutes, does this mean that everybody is going to turn against the guy who has a big obvious pro camera who is taking a picture of an apple in a tree? No, they won’t care. The ALREADY care about photographers who secretly take pics with big or small cameras, so that won’t change. From a photographers point of view, somebody please explain the actual problem with a sound coming from the phone came when you use it to take a picture, it will ruin wildlife shots? I do agree that gov. has better things to do, but what about those who have the right to know when their picture has been taken? I want to know. Anybody here with kids? you DO want to know, and you WOULD want that clicking sound… wanted to take the other side, as I didn’t see anybody backing up the reasons for not having the sound, how will the sound ruin the picture?
It’s a good point Will – and it’s nice to have somebody arguing the other side of the fence! I agree that there’s nothing wrong with this legislation if it stops with mobile phones – but as mobile phone cameras become more powerful (and they become more cameras with phones, than the other way around), the boundaries become blurred… The point about why would a click ruin the picture? Well, if this was a law rolled out to all cameras it would cause huge problems – what about the wedding photographer quietly working away in a corner of the chapel during the ceremony? And the art of street photography has an illustrious past – without the candid shots they’ve taken (since the dawn of photography) a lot of our social history would be forgotten. I’m not 100% against this law – despite it being a bit silly – and I think you’re right, I think it’s aimed at those sections of society who are intent on causing trouble anyway. But at the end of the day, if somebody is in a public place it’s perfectly okay to take their photo without them knowing – so long as it’s not used for profit (or other dubious reasons). How many times a day are you captured on CCTV without knowing it?