RSS
Latest Pointless Law: Requiring Cameraphones To Click When Taking Photos
from the this-again? dept
History is littered with examples of new technologies causing people to freak out. When automobiles were introduced, laws were passed forcing people to walk in front of the cars, waving red flags. Years ago, I read a great article about how when regular film cameras were first introduced, there were regulations against them, due to fears about privacy violations (I could have sworn I wrote about it on Techdirt, but now I can't find it...). It seems that a similar concept may be showing up with cameraphones, as John writes in to let us know of new legislation in Congress that would require all cameraphones to "click" when taking a photo. The idea, of course, is to "protect the children" so that predators can't secretly take photos. The law is similar to one found in South Korea, so it's hardly a new idea -- though it still doesn't make much sense. Someone looking to do something illegal with their cameraphone will easily figure out a way to take silent photos. All this law will actually do is annoy those who have perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to take photos quietly. Hell, you could just as easily come up with some silly scenario how this law would be damaging to children... such as if someone wanted to photograph a predator stalking children without the guy knowing... Anyway, vote on what you think of the law below:
I have an idea...
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
Founders, Funders, Farmers, Fools, And Family
I have a business...
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Data Privacy & Security
Developers On Patents: Five Employees, Six Lawyers
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
New law, babies must be killed at birth to prevent ......
EVERYTHING!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
the real reason government wants cameras to click ...
The answer to that is longer lenses.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Two words
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So presumably, then,...
'Cos if they don't all the 'phone user has to do is start shooting video (whether or not this produces a click/beep) *before* going into the changing room/wherever...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
while we're at it...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
few questions
Heres just a guess but wouldn't the stalker stand far enough away where you can't hear the click anyways?
So congratulations to who ever introduced this, you just found another dumbass idea to waste time and money on,
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What about video?
Obviously the answer is to ensure that all phones have a big flashing red light that goes off when recording video, with a loud voice shouting "Recording in progress. Recording in progress". At least that won't be annoying....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQCje-aUck
A PERVERT IS TAKING YOUR PIC, HES ,,,,,,
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Absurd
Why camera phones only? Other, higher-quality digital cameras can still be silent? I can get a nice, tiny digital camera cheap. And of course a $200 HD video camera silently takes 30 pics per second, each of which is higher quality than most cell phone cameras.
So, perverts will get digital cameras to silently take higher quality photos legally, and the rest of us will be stuck with an obnoxious "feature" on our phones. It's a potentially dangerous feature, too... already I've read several stories of people discreetly taking pictures of criminals (and yes, even sex offenders) on their cameraphones. That won't be possible anymore.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What about video?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"THE ROBBER SEES YOU"
"THE ROBBER IS NOW A MURDERER"
"THE PHONE IS BROKE"
"THE MURDERED GOT AWAY"
"THE ARSEHOLES THAT MADE THIS LAW ARE SUED"
"MORE MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN"
This is a joke, treat it as such. When it becomes law, Someone is getting fired!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
digital cameras
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
2) Replace mandatory click noise with blank sound file.
3) Proceed to take photos silently.
4) Hit ignorant politician with cluestick.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Stopping it is as simple as finding a modding community for your brand of phone, downloading the file system editing tools they all use (if you have a nokia I think you're out of luck) and then deleting the sound file.
Worked for me anyway.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So presumably, then,...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
On the flip side
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
A great achievement
This law is being brought into committee now by a NY rep.
He's "protecting the children" the same way shutting down newsgroups does...or rather does not. The bill is currently in the Committee of Energy and Commerce...
Fortunately for us that committee has a boatload of more important bills to adjust and foul up. There is a good chance Rep. Amazing from the 3rd (I believe) won't get his bill anywhere.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. There's nothing wrong with enjoying what's on display. If you don't want people to see your body parts, then DON'T SHOW THEM!! Wear a Victorian-era outfit.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Cleeeeeeeeck!
Cleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeck!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: On the flip side
In any case, would this law make all current & older phones illegal? Do you have a phone with a camera on it? Can you silence it. Will this law make you a criminal for mearly possessing an older phone?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Makes sense to me.
The law proposed here sounds both reasonable and sensible.
I always thought camera phones were stupid anyway.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Non tech workaround
Tax funds to create a law...excessive
Criminals funds to circumvent the law...zero dollars.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A great achievement
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Makes sense to me.
If you think its reasonable and sensible to waste money, maybe I'll start to understand a bit better why the economy is the way it is.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
pure BS
its stupid, tax-paying-money-waste and sooooooo useless.
geez.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So true...
I actually lol'd because it soooo true.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Non tech workaround
Look on Rep. Smartypants' face when the silently-taken picture appears on Flickr: Priceless!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: On the flip side
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Reason to turn off the sound
So yea there is a perfectly legitimate reason why I would want to turn off the click. Dumb law thought up by dumb people.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Dear (idiotic) politician:
If I wanted to, I could easily zoom in on your house and take any photo I desire without you even knowing I was there. Then, I'd post on the internet to mock your stupidity for being caught by a "predator".
So, are you now going to propose we, digital cameras with zoom owners, stand and wave red flags to indicate we're taking pictures?
Of course you don't, so why are you wasting our taxpayer money on this stupid bill? I would surely think many other things, such as health care, could warrant change much more than a cellphone camera "click".
I'm beginning to think the older a politician is, the less likely they are to think properly despite years and years of experience.
Do us, the American people, a favor and resign.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Many laws are proposed and not made into law.
Relax
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Kinda funny...
I think I read an article on here a while ago (maybe more than 6-7 months) about how someone was in a little coffee shop/doughnut joint and the kid behind the cash register had his cell phone out while he was ringing up an order. There was something about how the writer thought the kids phone had a camera on it... and he might have taken a picture of the credit card numbers... and to be safe the writer canceled his card and got a new number issued to him.
Now I could be wrong, but I would bet it was here that I read that interesting piece of information.
At least, with this example... you can see how an audible "click" noise from a camera phone would be a USEFUL thing to have... just in case.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This is true, I am not making this up to make a point
But the camera generates an artificial shutter noise (and a noise with the redeye light a moment before the shot). So most every picture caught the kittens reacting to the noise, rather than in their natural position.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Best option,..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Google sponsored this bill
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I will let you all in on a little secret. When ever something doesn't make sense, look to see who is making money, or stands to loose money or power from it. There you will find your answers to "WTF?"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Best option,..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Kinda funny...
Now I could be wrong, but I would bet it was here that I read that interesting piece of information.
You are, in fact, wrong. We have not written about anything along those lines. In fact, the only post we've written on that topic is how there were fear-mongering reports about such photos being taken, but no proof that it had ever actually happened.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
get rid of the children
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Just more proof
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Father of 2
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Wonderful
Let's see some of that "change" we keep hearing about and get to work on REAL issues.
And steer clear of the "for the children" button. Never works out for anyone but the media crowd anyway.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
My camera makes a click
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ever heard of tape?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
-
1. would the act of disabling the speaker on a camera now be a criminal offense?
2. would possession of one of these "neutered" cameras be illegal?
ah, the moral dilemmas.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: -
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Polling the Techdirt readers
If others have made this point, I hope you'll forgive me. The polls you include should say "What Techdirt readers think..." rather than "What People think." I know some will see it as pointless, but if your readers are to be a force for change, they should not forget that their views are not the views of most people. It's important because that realization informs our arguments, and it’s entirely too easy to alienate someone with assumptions about their opinions. We should all keep in mind that most people probably think protecting the children is a good idea; if they didn't, this brand of political folderol would not work. Still: It’s your forum.
Keep up the good work.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Useless
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment