Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Communications Privacy

UK Group Wants Mandatory Flash For Phone Cams 438

Posted by timothy from the sound-of-a-presumptuous-hamhanded-kneejerk dept.
meganthom writes "The BBC is carrying a story about some privacy groups' concerns about the new camera phones. Privacy International, a London-based group, is asking that all phones flash when they are being used to take a photograph. In Korea, the government would like phones to make a loud sound when taking a picture. Also mentioned, several companies/labs do not allow employees to have photo phones on site. Anyone remember that Dilbert?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Group Wants Mandatory Flash For Phone Cams More

UK Group Wants Mandatory Flash For Phone Cams

Comments Filter:

  • Electrical Tape (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cpt_Kirks ( 37296 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:33PM (#10847246)
    Tape would neutralize both "fixes" pretty easily.

    • Re:Electrical Tape (Score:5, Insightful)

      by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdot@spamgoe ... c a l u m . org> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:37PM (#10847297) Homepage
      How will they address the video capture mode of new phones then? Require the light to stay on all the time? Make it emit an annoying bleep while it is recording? Battery life will suffer too. Sure to be popular.
      • I know my digital camera take time to charge the flash before you can use it, making it take much longer between shots. Plus the battery drains quick when using it a lot. Lame, people will just mod it out one way or another.

        • Re:Electrical Tape (Score:5, Insightful)

          by a1cypher ( 619776 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @06:02PM (#10847629) Homepage
          I think maybe they dont mean a flash as in a high voltage camera flash to illuminate the shot, but rather something simple like a red led next to the lense that can be seen by those in the photo.

          They could even market it as a feature. Red Eye reduction... although I am not sure you have to worry about red eye when theres no flash, but you get the point.

          For a recording video, you could just have this light stay blinking (or on constant) much like many existing camcorders already do. Wouldnt drain battery life too much and 90% of those buying the phone wouldnt mind, unless you are explicitly using the phone for things that you shouldnt be.

    • Simple problem, simple solution (Score:5, Funny)

      by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:45PM (#10847420)

      Tape would neutralize both "fixes" pretty easily.

      Easy problem to solve there, friend. All you need to do next is make a law banning tape as a circumvention device.

      After all - look at what banning felt pens did for the music industry!

    • True, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daveo0331 ( 469843 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:47PM (#10847445) Homepage Journal
      The real point of these laws isn't to stop people from abusing camera phones. The real purpose is to give the lawmakers the appearance of "doing something" about the problem. Next time they're up for reelection, watch for ads saying "I protected families and children by making it harder for pedophiles and perverts to use camera phones to hurt children. Vote for me." They're hoping most people don't stop to think about whether what they did had any real effect (and they're probably right).
      • Are lawmakers really necessary anymore? At what point can you say the laws are "done"?

        Why don't we just kill all the politicians and allow the courts to decide how the existing laws should be interpreted, instead of buggering around with making new laws?

    • Symbolic legislation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @06:04PM (#10847658)
      This is symbolic legislation at it's best. It is not designed to actually solve a problem, but to have the appearance of a solution. This way, some group of do-gooders can feel like they have accomplished something. Their opinion of the law would not change even if they were informed of how easy this "solution" would be to defeat. In otherwords, it's to save the children.

    • Re:Electrical Tape (Score:5, Interesting)

      by deglr6328 ( 150198 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @06:07PM (#10847684)
      I think we're all in agreement here about the hilarious idiocy of aforementioned legislation. However as long as we're here I cannot allow this opportunity to discuss nerdly things go unexploited.

      The cell phone LED market is really interesting. You basically have the problem of producing a lot of light very quickly with a very limited amount of power available and an even more limited volume of space to fit your electronics (no room for that big capacitor seen in conventional camera flash drive circuits) to drive the flash since cameras these days are tending ever more toward the positively lilliputian. Many cameras include a simple and cheap Cerium:YAG [wikipedia.org] coated 5mm blue led which can be safely overdriven for a very short amount of time, producing a moderate burst of light. Luxeon [lumileds.com], the maker of the current most powerful white LEDs recently entered the market with their much improved version of this method. Certain other companies are trying to miniaturize [pennnet.com] conventional xenon flash units for use in cell phones. Still other companies are eyeing different methods. The story is, interestingly, somewhat analogous to the development of cell phone electronics themselves, a maximization of efficiency in terms of converting power from the battery to the display, processor and transmitter. Except now it's a game of getting the most photons out of a flash using the fewest electrons to do it.
    • Next law would require all tape to be clear...
    • Motorola flip phones sold in the UK don't have the capibility to take a photo while they are closed. There is a shutter button on the outside to enable this but I believe it is disabled by software in the UK following concerns such as those raised in the article.

  • Silly initiative? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:33PM (#10847249) Journal
    Privacy International, a London-based group, is asking that all phones flash when they are being used to take a photograph
    I'm skeptical of any regulation that can be defeated by a tiny piece of tape...

    • Luddites (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chembryl ( 596546 )
      From TFA:

      "Fears grow amid the ever improving resolution of picture phone" replace with: "Fears grow amid the never ending march of technological improvement"

    • Re:Silly initiative? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Zarks ( 783916 )
      Any regulation like that would be completely unenforceable. They have tried to ban camera phones at my school but everyone just ignores the rule. Soon almost all phones will have a camera in them so people won't even be able to go along with the rule if they want to.
    • Or yet another illicit use for a Sharpie.

    • Re:Silly initiative? (Score:5, Funny)

      by IronChef ( 164482 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @06:17PM (#10847778)
      You just make putting tape on the flash illegal and restrict web sites that talk about adhesive technology. Make the phone emit a piercing whistle whenever it takes a picture so the blind are protected too... and an odor for the deaf and blind peoples' benefit. We'll all be a lot better off with strobing, screeching, farting phones and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

      BOOYAH, what you got to say NOW, mr. big brain?! You and your prohibited adhesives are gonna land in the slammer.

  • I think the UK should ban... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IgLou ( 732042 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:33PM (#10847251)
    Paranoid idiots.

  • It's a silly solution. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdot@spamgoe ... c a l u m . org> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:34PM (#10847260) Homepage
    Im sure no-one will figure out putting their finger over the flash, or taping something over it, or opening up the phone, and cutting wires.

  • And this solves what? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:34PM (#10847261)
    So you pass a law that makes all phones more anoying by having a manditory flash. Then do you outlaw the tape people will put over the flash?
    • You don't outlaw tape. You make it illegal to tape up the flash. Problem solved!

      What, you think I am kidding? Guns are legal in america and the problem of people shooting one another was 'solved' by making this practise illegal.

      • Re:And this solves what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:59PM (#10847588)
        "Guns are legal in america and the problem of people shooting one another was 'solved' by making this practise illegal."

        Boy, thank God no one ever got shot in the US since they passed that law.

        In truth what your talking about would be leaving the phones alone and passign a law saying that you cant take peoples pictures without their permission. Which in fact we allready have.

  • Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thebra ( 707939 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:34PM (#10847269) Homepage Journal
    This seems pretty pointless. I guess for the average cell phone "photographer" this would just annoy them. For the criminal that is using the cell phone to take pictures of your credit card or up your skirt I'm sure they will just find an easy work around.

  • Does this mean doodz with (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sai Babu ( 827212 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:35PM (#10847270) Homepage
    photographic memories will be required to have a flash attachment installed with their RFID implant?

  • Shrug (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MikeMacK ( 788889 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:35PM (#10847276)
    The popularity of camera phones has made it much easier to take illicit photos without permission.

    Exactly how are people taking "illicit" pictures with cell phones, that they couldn't take with ordinary digital cameras?

    • Re:Shrug (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sik0fewl ( 561285 ) <xxdigitalhellxx@h o t m a i l .com> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:37PM (#10847295) Homepage

      Not to mention key chain cameras. Those things are small and blend in quite nicely with a set of keys.

    • Re:Shrug (Score:5, Insightful)

      by legirons ( 809082 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:43PM (#10847384)
      "The popularity of camera phones has made it much easier to take illicit photos without permission."

      In other news, the installation of CCTV surveillance cameras every 50 f*ing metres has made it easier to take illicit photos without permission.

      • Re:Shrug (Score:3, Interesting)

        by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 )
        God, I'm so tired of reading this sort of uninformed bullshit on Slashdot from people who have little or no experience of the typical British town or city.

        Let's just sprinkle in some facts:

        1. There aren't CCTV surveillance cameras every 50 metres in Britain. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying through their teeth or delusional.

        2. The majority of the cameras that are installed are privately owned, in shops, etc to deter shoplifters, etc.

        3. A great deal of the "publicly operated" cameras are in

    • Re:Shrug (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jameth ( 664111 )
      When you look at them, it is not apparent they are holding a camera, so this is more on par with a concealed camera of some sort.

      (Note: I think the initiative is stupid and I disagree with the privacy advocates in this case. I'm just trying to help explain the situation.)

    • Re:Shrug (Score:2, Informative)

      by adam31 ( 817930 )
      "Oops, excuse me ma'am. I dropped my phone..."

      doesn't work nearly as well for cameras.

      trust me.

    • Re:Shrug (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:50PM (#10847491)
      Exactly how are people taking "illicit" pictures with cell phones, that they couldn't take with ordinary digital cameras?

      I think instead of "permission", the original post meant "attracting attention. Come on, even though requiring flashes might be overreacting, since this is pretty obvious. Say you're on the subway, and you see some guy sitting on a seat, and next to him is a woman standing with a skirt on. The guy has his cell phone in his hand - it's pointing with the cover facing down, but so what, lots of people hang on to their cell phones. That's not real suspicious. Picture the same scene with a guy holding a camera in his hand. You can clearly see it's pointed up the woman's skirt. That's pretty obvious.

      Also, plenty of workplaces do in fact ban cameras (or would at least start asking questions if you walked around with a camera) - the Dilbert comic strip is the exception, not the rule.

      Personally, I'd like to see camera phones banned not because of the legal issues, but because I want to be able to buy a damn cell phone that isn't loaded with useless features.

      • The guy has his cell phone in his hand - it's pointing with the cover facing down, but so what, lots of people hang on to their cell phones. That's not real suspicious. Picture the same scene with a guy holding a camera in his hand. You can clearly see it's pointed up the woman's skirt. That's pretty obvious.

        That is exactly why we need undetectable cameras dude, didn't you notice the spy sex cams quality is not what it used to be ? Free the skirts !
    • "Exactly how are people taking "illicit" pictures with cell phones, that they couldn't take with ordinary digital cameras?"

      Ordinary digital cameras, even the relatively small ones, are more conspicuous than cell phones, and what they are actually being used for is obvious from the fact that they look like cameras. Cell phones, on the other hand, are useful for illicit pictures because the photographers can pretend to be talking on them. Most people wouldn't object to your making a cell phone call while

      • The gym I go to has banned the use of all cellphones in locker rooms because some of them now have cameras on them.
    • Well, I don't think the advantage will last for long once camera phones become even MORE ingrained in our culture, but for now, when someone has a cellphone, at least in America, you don't automatically assume they have a camera in them as well, so you're not on guard for having your pic taken.

      I'd be curious to see what people from Asia think who have adopted camera phones long before they ever reached our shores. Over there do you just assume someone has a camera in their phone?

  • in other news (Score:2, Redundant)

    by sPaKr ( 116314 )
    In other news black eletrical tape is banned in the US under the DMCA as it may be employed to cover the 'flash' on camera phones.

    • Re:in other news (Score:4, Funny)

      by mcmonkey ( 96054 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:40PM (#10847340) Homepage
      First, they came for our shift keys, now our electrical tape. What's next?

      Think of the children!

      • Re:in other news (Score:5, Funny)

        by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @06:03PM (#10847642) Homepage
        First they came for our shift keys, but I did not speak up because I did not have a shift key.

        Then they came for our felt tip markers, but I did not speak up because I did not have a felt tip marker.

        Then they came for the electrical tape, and I did not speak up for I did not have electrical tape.

        Then they came for me and there was nothing left to crack the DRM they installed in my brain.

    • Why the U.S.? The article is about the U.K.

      In fact, in the United States there are rules that specifically protect taking pictures in public. It's what allows the media to take pictures of news events.

      Or were you just talking-out-your-ass-American-bashing like the other anti-U.S. Slashdot zealots?

  • Better idea: (Score:3, Funny)

    by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:36PM (#10847291)
    They should make it shout, "Hey, I'm taking your picture."

  • That Dilbert... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rd ( 30144 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:38PM (#10847313)
    Dilbert is too real to be funny anymore.

  • come on (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:38PM (#10847321)
    Silent camera phones don't take steamy uncensored barely legal gym shower room photos, people take steamy uncensored barely legal gym shower room photos.
  • Given that I've seen digital cameras that are far smaller than even the tiniest camera phones, it seems like a knee-jerk reaction to condemn camera phones. I can understand the banning of camera phones from a workplace, but only if cameras in general are banned. Otherwise, it's an arbitrary knee-jerk reaction.

    Besides, the image quality is quite poor on camera phones as opposed to an equal-sized (and equally small) digital camera.
    • I'm amazed at the number of these types of responses. There must be a lot of people who just don't get it.

      The reason is simple. Seeing a phone in someone's hand is so commonplace as to be ignored. If you see someone with a camera, you take notice. It is nothing to see someone walking thru the mall with a cellphone dangling in their hand.

      Size of digital cameras has nothing to do with it. If a digital camera is noticed, then mental alerts go off. If a cell phone is noticed -- nothing.

      -Charles
  • While it was a funny strip, there are some places that really do need to ban cameras.

    Where I work we have equipment that we do not to have pictures taken of. Cameras are banned on the location and cell cameras have been banned as well. Visitors are warned and have to leave their cell phones at the front desk if they have cameras.

    • Re:That Dilbert (Score:3, Insightful)

      by slapout ( 93640 )
      If security is that tight, why do you allow visitors in the first place?
    • We actually had that policy at Michelin too. I don't have any qualms about businesses banning all photographic equipment. After all, trade secret legislation is not easy. Michelin was nice in that it had regular training sessions explaining what a trade secret is and why it's important to follow their draconian confidentiality policy (every thing you do there, including emails asking your coworkers where they want to go to lunch, is supposed to include a confidentiality code)...
    • Do you tell the secret ninja teams that routinely penetrate your security to steal your trade secrets to leave their cameras up front, too?

      Speaking of which... [thinkgeek.com] (Yes, it is a shameless plug for Thinkgeek.)

  • In Japan...! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ickoonite ( 639305 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:40PM (#10847347) Homepage
    ...they've had mandatory clicky-clicky noises for ages.

    But it's quite a famous problem there - women being felt up on busy trains, the upskirt photos and so on. Here in the UK, if a bloke did that, it'd be prison, pure and simple. People just don't really do that kind of thing.

    Groups calling for this are the same kind of idiots who, when all else fails, will simply wail "Won't somebody please think of the children!"

    iqu :)
  • Aside from the utter stupidity already pointed out by others, how the hell is this flash supposed to improve privacy? Once the flash goes off the supposed "harm" has already been done.

    -

  • If you outlaw cameras on phones... (Score:3, Funny)

    by zakezuke ( 229119 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:44PM (#10847401)
    ...then outlaws will just buy cameras.

  • Cracked already! (Score:3, Funny)

    by neil.pearce ( 53830 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:45PM (#10847408) Homepage
    Just appeared on Suprnova. Damm hackers...

    Flash "protection"
    Search for place_your_thumb_over_the_light_DEViANCE.torrent

    Sound "protection"
    Search for cut_a_wire_on_the_speaker_(RELOADED).torrent

  • Flash (Score:2, Funny)

    by Neward Rylet ( 634838 )
    for a moment I thought this had to to with Macromedia.

  • Nokia (Score:2, Informative)

    by josecanuc ( 91 )
    Think about no-camera-phone policies in the R&D department of Nokia...

    I once was an intern at a Nokia R&D center and that was a policy. At the time I was there, the "hot new" project was a camera-phone. :-)

  • Not mandatory, default (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 3Suns ( 250606 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:47PM (#10847443) Homepage
    I'm not sure how the /. article could vary so far from the content of the bbc article, but the part about flashing is practically an afterthought, one sentence about it at the very end. "The government also considered the use of a default flash, but plans were abandoned after concerns from manufacturers."

    When are lawmakers going to learn that it's the action that should be legislated, not the capability? You don't fine people who own sports cars because the are capable of speeding.

  • Great Minds Think Alike (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Saltine Cracker ( 116414 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:50PM (#10847483) Journal
    Funny how everyone has the same idea to defeat the ideas these folks have.

    Funnier still is that they're all getting modded up.

    Anyway, I had a slightly different idea. How about making the cameras broadcast an RF signal to make nearby tornado warning sirens go off or something.

  • Public Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kwiqsilver ( 585008 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:50PM (#10847494)
    Do we have an expectation of privacy in public? Somebody with a telescopic lens can snap photos of you from hundreds of yards away, and shotgun microphones can record your conversations.
    And (in the USA at least) the police can record what you do in public without any warrant. I'm as big of a civil liberties backer as any slashdotter, but I really don't think you have much of a right to privacy in public. And common sense says if you don't want it to be public knowledge, don't do it in public.
    Also, with those tiny button-sized spy cameras and so forth, which are designed to be even less noticeable than somebody pointing a phone at you, is a cell phone a covert enough form of photography to even worry about it?

  • I want phones without cameras! (Score:5, Informative)

    by onyxruby ( 118189 ) <onyxruby AT comcast DOT net> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @05:53PM (#10847516)
    I recently had to replace my cell phone with another as the old unit was wearing out. I went into the Verizon store and explained that I needed a phone without a camera.

    They looked at me like I was on crack. I was shown the prepaid phones with an insinuation that I must be too cheap to afford the camera phones. I then had to explain that I was already a customer and had no interest in prepaid.

    They could not get past this point. After 20 minutes I finally got them to show me the phones they had that met my requirements. Tri-mode and no camera. They had 3 in the entire store left (large store btw) that met these requirements. One of these was a close out model that wasn't being made anymore.

    I tried explaining to them that I work in areas that a camera is NOT allowed in. I explained that turning the camera off wasn't going to cut it on a government or banking contract. They just didn't get it.

    I have to have a phone for my work. I can't have a camera, and I know I am far from alone.

    Verizon, Can you hear me now?

    • Re:I want phones without cameras! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Macgrrl ( 762836 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @06:08PM (#10847692)

      I recently replaced my handset and went through the exact same problems. Part of my role at work involves audits of physical plant for clients (as part of a larger cost of operation modelling exercise), we frequently enter places where cameras are not permitted, but ideally need to be contactable by the office or even other team members who are auditing other areas of the site.

      Ultimately I was given the choice of 2 or 3 handsets to pick from, once I added the requirement of bluetooth for a wireless headset there were none available through our preferred supplier. I ended up wth a Nokia 5100, no bluetooth but no camera.


  • In fact, all recording devices are banned, whether they be audio, video, photo, or a mix. Considering where I work, it makes sense.

    I just hope they keep making phones without all that crap.

  • Lawmakers aren't exactly falling all over themselves to eliminate government and corporate owned cameras in public places, or create laws notifying people of their presence.

    So, why are they pretending to be horrified by private cameras?
  • What are they going to do when people routinely wear image capture/enhancement devices to compensate for disabilities or to improve their senses?
  • It is interesting that the government is suddenly concerned about the privacy implication of cameras now that they are in the hands of citizens. When the government puts cameras up everywhere they certainly don't announce when your image is captured--in fact they usually make them small and tuck them hign in a corner. When people complain that 'security' cameras are encroaching on their privacy the typical response is: "you have no resonable expectaion of privacy here."

    So I think a good piggyback for this

  • Why just camera phones? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by maokh ( 781515 )
    I dont understand how a camera phone is *any* different than a traditional camera or digital camera.

    I can find very small, compact, quiet digital cameras in the shape of watches and pens at the local Walmart. Some film cameras are also very small. I'd much rather do this than the ass 320x240 blurromatic I have on my Sanyo 8100.

  • ...was the cheering of cellphone battery manufacturers all over the world.

  • Work Issues (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @06:01PM (#10847618)
    I recently got a cell phone and of the models they had in the store only two did not have a camera.

    I called the salesman over and explained that my work location is a military/government location where classified work is done, and cameras are prohibited on the premises. Only two phones did not have a camera. I told him that if all their cell phones had a camera, then it was pointless to subscribe to their services as I would not be able to use it at work.

    He happened to be an ex-marine and understood my point, and would pass that on to his superiors.

    Cell phones have way too many gadgets that I'll never use (games? text messaging? please), all at the expense of increased consumption of battery power. If I only use it as a phone, the battery only lasts a little over two hours use. This is not an attractive trend.

  • Short term memory (Score:3, Funny)

    by UnHolier than ever ( 803328 ) <unholy_NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @06:02PM (#10847627)
    Anyone remember that Dilbert?
    Now, seriously? Anyone remembers it? It's three days old! Ok, slashdot readers might have a short attention span, but come on....

  • In Japan... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ChibiOne ( 716763 )
    ... all cell phones make a "shutter" sound, precisely to prevent rouge snappers from taking underskirt shots.
    This, of course, can go unnoticed in crowded, noisy areas.
    (I should know... I took a DECENT picture of a schoolgirl group one day, they all gave me angry looks... Hey, I was just taking a picutre of a cultural icon!)

  • Anyone remember that Dilbert?

    Hmm, the link says it was 3 days ago... Don't tell me! I'll get it! Let's see, today's Wednesday, that means yesterday was Tuesday, then Monday, then-- Oh, yeah, that would have been Sunday!

    Ok, I know I got the Sunday paper because it's still here on the couch, keeping the pizza grease off the cushions. Dilbert... Dilbert... Let's see, back page of the funnies, right below "Frank & Ernest"...

    Nope, it's just not there anymore. I'm a slashdotter. Anything more tha

  • Misleading (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BarryNorton ( 778694 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @06:06PM (#10847681)
    If the apostrophe were placed correctly we'd just be left with poor grammar suggesting that this is somehow a widely held and significant opinion.

    It's actually one small organisation's attempt at getting pulibicity by re-hashing what's already been suggested in other countries as if they've ever had a novel idea.

  • The British are wanting this? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mgkimsal2 ( 200677 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @06:20PM (#10847814) Homepage
    The same British who have 10 surveillance cameras on every street corner?

  • Moral panic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by danila ( 69889 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:09PM (#10848946) Homepage
    This is a great example of moral panic [wikipedia.org], for which UK is notorious. Have you personally witnessed a situation where a camera phone was used for illicit purpose? May be any of your friends or relatives fell fictim to camera-equipped voyeurs, who posted their gym pics on the web? Personally I think this is really blown out of proportions.

    There's always been voyeur porn, much of which was "professionally" done with willing models. And there has never been a significant number of incidents with camera phones - may be a few tens, a few hundreds worldwide, hardly a reason to legislate (but of course, who needs reason today...).

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer programmers do it byte by byte.

Close