Those naughty camera phones

[SteveDallas]

I suppose this could have gone under Technology, but I decided the most important part of the story is the sharing enabled by the Internet.

So, camera phones. Mildly annoying nuisance? Fun but obnoxious? Or the downfall of Western Civilization As We Know It(tm)?


links/background:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1561814,00.asp

http://livingroom.org.au/photolog/ph...nd_moblogs.php

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12...ra_phones_eye/

[BrianR]

I don't like em. What's the real need?

They have been banned at most if not all leather events that I know of. I don't want my photo taken anonymously and posted somewhere that I can't track it.

And what happens when someone takes a pic of someone in the Witness Protection Program and posts it? The mob comes along and rubs them out and who's to blame?

Ban em I say.

[blue]

Please for the love of god, please don't elaborate on this.

[SteveDallas]

Elaborate, Brian... it'll do him good!

[Skunks]

I tend to take a lot of photos of people without asking. Most of them suck, because it's people walking and those are a bitch to time properly. I'd like to think I toss the shittiest of the photos that I take, which includes most if not all of the photos taken of people who weren't aware they were being photographed.

BrianR raised an interesting point, and I'd like to know where the line is drawn.

For reference, my camera is a bulkier-than-a-phone SLR-like (DiMAGE A1; 2.5" x 3.5" x 1.2"). I'm not a very subtle person. I take all the photos which I take on a public university campus, either outside or in the open-to-the-public libraries.

[wolf]

Originally posted by blue58
Please for the love of god, please don't elaborate on this.

It is what you think.

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by BrianR
Ban em I say.

Do you mean ban them from being carried or used in specific venues? Or a more blanket ban? Or do you mean banning their manufacture?

See, the reason I'm interested is because of that distinction. If the RIAA had had their way, the first Rio MP3 player would have been declared illegal. And it goes back to the whole VCR argument from the mid 80s. At what point does an electronic device, which is in theory morally neutral, need to be banned because of the uses to which people put it?

Another question is how all this fits in with existing laws on public photography. The law now is that you can pretty much take a picture of whatever you want (even another person, or another person's property) as long as you are on your own property or on public property. (There are exceptions for government security and stuff like that.) So if you're in, say, a bar, the owner has every right to prevent people from taking pictures. But there's nothing to stop you snapping people out on the sidewalk or at the park. The difference is you have a much smaller, much less obtrusive camera now.

[BrianR]

Perhaps I spoke too strongly too quickly.

It is against my capitalist nature to ban a safe, legal product just because. On the other hand, this product also takes (currently) lousy pictures, allows one to snap a photo in disallowed places where it may be difficult or impossible to ban cell phones in general just to be "fair" to the cell/camera people.

A bar is a good example. Pretend that I own a bar. I have a cabaret license and have topless dancers. Naturally. I do not allow cameras in the place. This is a normal ban in such establishments. But I allow cell phones. How do I ban a cell phone with a camera in it? Do I try to ban all cell phones to keep out cameras? This would be a tough sell, and I'd need a good bouncer to enforce this. I think I'd lose too many customers over that.

A leather event is another place where all cameras are banned.
Many of the attendees are prominent people who may be embarrassed if it got out that they liked "that" stuff. I can name for us (but I won't) a sitting Federal judge in our District who is gay and likes to be tied and spanked. I can also point out a State Trooper who loves it when you yank and twist his nipples.

You can see where knowledge of their proclivities would cause them distress. Pictorial evidence might well be enough to get them fired (or recalled). So cameras are banned. Cell phones have not been until now. I don't know what they will do about these camera phones.

I can guess that the security people will allow phones but confiscate or eject camera phones, or the users thereof, if they spot them. But what if they miss one?

I can gather a lot of blackmail material with one of those and I doubt I'd get caught. There was enough concern over those "spy cameras" that they used to have that could be easily hidden and took existing light pictures without a flash. True, the pictures could be grainy and out-of-focus at times, but they still did the job. It was only the fact that they never seemed to be used that kept people coming in and back. I tend to be a media slut at such places and don't care, but what of the judges? Or cops? I personally know of two members of Ronald Reagan's advisory panel (on economics, I think it was) who are both bi and submissive. I'm willing to bet Bruces house and farm (but not his doodad collection) that plenty of current people in DC are also like that privately.

End result, these camera phones are going to be a problem until society finds a way to control them or at least deal with both them and the larger issues of privacy and photography.

Brian

[blue]

Did I or did I not just ask you to not elaborate?

[SteveDallas]

Yeah, but I told him to go ahead!

[BrianR]

You want elaboration? I can do elaboration. Ad nauseum (a little latin there to show how smart and superior I am )

But I won't. Because those who want to know already do and those who don't, ... don't.

Besides, I haven't been to a leather event of any kind in two years. Things may have changed.

What I did was pull out a few easy examples to try to clarify my point, and I think I've failed. I just reread my post and I think the point is more muddled than it was before I started. Maybe I should go off on the Witness Protection tangent instead. That might be easier.

Brian

[mbpark]

Heya,

I don't have a camera phone. Work won't let me have one. And for good reason .

The issue I have is that they can take photos while not connected to a cell network. This makes for a really good device for subversion.

PalmOne has gotten the message and is putting out a camera-free version of the Treo. This is because the US Government and a large amount of corporate customers refuse to purchase the product since it has one.

And within the Beltway is a whole different world.

Mitch

[vsp]

Originally posted by BrianR
I can also point out a State Trooper who loves it when you yank and twist his nipples.

See, this is potentially useful information if I ever get stopped for speeding on the Turnpike. (As long as I get the right trooper, that is.)

[jaguar]

Nice mental image vsp.

I carry a p800 that has a camera, I can't honestly say I've used it more than once or twice, I don't seem the amusement in taking blurry, crappy, JPEGS full or artifacts, generally you can barely recognize the subject. I do feel though that there are many situations where they should be banned.

On the flipside, street photography is a rapidly growing hobby of mine (though I really need to get myself a nice little Lycia or something) and has a very long history, while there is potential for abuse I think banning or limiting public photography in most situations is counterproductive. There are laws to protect you from being stalked as it is. If you do something in public, where you know people will be able to see, you also must understand that may be recorded. The fuzzy line I find is with windows, the legality of shooting though a window is private space (restaurant, house or office) varies widely and I'n not sure of it's ethics. It does however have a photographic history all of it's own. I've shot some nice stuff though restaurant windows but I avoid houses and other non-public private property, including gardens.

There other issue is whether the photography is obvious or not. I feel if you're going to shoot people on the street you should be open about that fact and preferably engage with them rather than hiding with a tele. There are many great shots (and I've taken some) where the subject is unaware but many of the best are often when you connect with the subject, just for that second. Some people don't appreciate it and obviously aren't too happy, I just avoid them, the shots would be crap anyway.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by BrianR
What I did was pull out a few easy examples to try to clarify my point, and I think I've failed. I just reread my post and I think the point is more muddled than it was before I started. Maybe I should go off on the Witness Protection tangent instead. That might be easier.

Brian

Ooooo Brian, such lovely dirt (even tho you can not say names, but juicy enough anyway!). Federal judge..state trooper...people in high government...hell, you hold the power!

I am not worthy...*bows*