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:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cameraphones, noise
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
New law, babies must be killed at birth to prevent ......
EVERYTHING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the real reason government wants cameras to click ...
The answer to that is longer lenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So presumably, then,...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
while we're at it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQCje-aUck
A PERVERT IS TAKING YOUR PIC, HES ,,,,,,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about video?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
digital cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) Replace mandatory click noise with blank sound file.
3) Proceed to take photos silently.
4) Hit ignorant politician with cluestick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the flip side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On the flip side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A great achievement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cleeeeeeeeck!
Cleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes sense to me.
The law proposed here sounds both reasonable and sensible.
I always thought camera phones were stupid anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non tech workaround
Tax funds to create a law...excessive
Criminals funds to circumvent the law...zero dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non tech workaround
Look on Rep. Smartypants' face when the silently-taken picture appears on Flickr: Priceless!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pure BS
its stupid, tax-paying-money-waste and sooooooo useless.
geez.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So true...
I actually lol'd because it soooo true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many laws are proposed and not made into law.
Relax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Many laws are proposed and not made into law.
Norm lobbied readers into complacency? And your right to have a quiet phone was taken away?
Sounds like its a law now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best option,..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best option,..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google sponsored this bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
get rid of the children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just more proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Father of 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My camera makes a click
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever heard of tape?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Useless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]