Proposed bill would require all cameraphones to make themselves heard
By Donald Melanson 
posted Jan 26th 2009 7:14PM
posted Jan 26th 2009 7:14PM
There's already similar laws in place in Japan and South Korea, and New York Representative Pete King is hoping that the US will soon have a law requiring that all cameraphones make a noise when they snap a picture as well. To that end, King has re-introduced the so-called "Camera Phone Predator Alert Act," which was actually first introduced in 2007 but went nowhere at the time. The bill, as the name not-so-subtly suggests, aims to prevent folks from taking cameraphone pictures without others people's knowledge by forcing the phones to make a sound that's "audible within a reasonable radius" and not able to be disabled. Somewhat curiously, however, the bill apparently wouldn't apply to digital cameras and, as blogger Thomas Hawk points out, it also doesn't take video into account, or do anything to address the millions of camera-equipped phones currently in use that are able to snap pictures silently. No word on any movement of the bill just yet, but it has picked up one co-sponsor and, on the odd chance it actually becomes law, it'd be enforced by the Consumer Products Safety Commission.
I'll just stick to telephoto lenses instead.
is there anyway to turn the sound off on the blackberry 8310?
Hell, if you're really that dependant on taking dirty pics with your phone, why not just put your thumb over the speaker? No hacks necessary.
So if the public is required to make themselves noticed when they are taking pics, can we assume that the government is going to put speakers on all the surreptitious cameras they watch us with? No? They leave my damn phone alone...
First comment translated into english:
"I'll just stick to 20x zoom instead."
In case you didn't know whats telephoto lenses (large zoom).
By the way whats reasonable radius? A mile?
Since were arguing over semantics... Telephoto ≠ 20x but 20x = Telephoto
We pay these people with our taxes to waste time on stuff like this. There are way better things he could be doing 'on the clock' like helping build more jobs and improve the state of this economy. But i guess he doesn't want anybody taking a picture of him while he does his 'tax paid and provided government approved prostitute' without him finding out and getting a chance to bribe or disappear him.
This is Thomas Hawk.
I meant, this is Thomas Hawk.
http://flickr.com/photos/jakerome/2761314315/
Since no one else on the planet will have this "law", it'll be equipped through software, meaning that it'll be disabled by anyone malicious with software. Probably just flipping a registry bit or replacing the sound file.
This is just useless political pandering. It's like politicians who try and ban violent games or child porn through website blacklists - it causes a lot of expense and headache for those hit with splash damage, but doesn't actually do anything to make anyone "safer" from an invisible threat.
But anyone who opposes it? "Think of the victims!!! You must be a predator"
You know, someone will just build a switch to disconnect the speaker and the whole system will be avoided.
exactly. If a "predator" wants to use a device for something, they will either find a way around things like this or find a device that doesn't have this "feature". It won't actually stop them, just annoy the hell out of everyone else.
I hate all those needless sounds. The first thing I did when I bought my cell, digital camera and netbook was turn off all annoying noises. I don't need any of these devices beeping at me.
The shutter noise on digital cameras was a stupid carryover from film cameras. It wasn't necessary to begin with (if my old film camera had a silent mode I would have turned it on).
This would be like having a fully electric car make loud engine noises. Yes, it could alert you to it moving (like how the Prius has a backup beep) but it's not necessary. How about we adjust our lives to new technology instead of hampering technology to how we used to do things? Can you imaging in 30 years having fully electric vehicles making fake motor sounds for safety reasons?
> Can you imaging in 30 years having fully electric vehicles making fake motor sounds for safety reasons?
Not only can I imagine it, it is seriously being considered.
>How about we adjust our lives to new technology instead of hampering technology
well, because we are the boss, and technology is supposed to serve us, not the other way around.
i thought the point of having electric vehicles make engine noise was so blind people would still be able to hear them?
Look this is starting to go way off topic from the original post but what I was trying to get at with the car example was that hampering technology because we are used to doing something a certain way isn't always the best solution.
Along with electric cars, we are starting to have cars become aware of their surroundings and can even reduce the cruise control speed automatically if it senses itself catching up to a car and resume the original speed if that car moves out of the lane. Technology can evolve to help make roads safer in many different ways instead of purposefully making cars louder.
Artifical engine noise could help blind people hear upcoming cars, but traffic noise also reduces property value all over the world. How about we concentrate on innovating technology to keep us safer and make the world more pleasant then holding onto the past?
Thats all.
I'd be sticking to my Sony Ericsson K700i when taking *ahem* shots.
What's the worst thing that could happen? So some pedo takes a few shots of your kid and faps to them later; who exactly did that hurt? This bill is another example of our government's inability to put their efforts towards things that matter, instead contenting themselves by focusing on trivial crap like this.
True, this sounds like something the UK gov would impose here.
lol, true, they'd go all this way to make sure all cameraphones make sounds rather than spend that time putting pedophiles in jails.
Worst thing is when someone takes a photo of the cops torturing someone and they don't notice and can't take away the evidence.
I expect the UK government will bring in a law that says every photo taken on a phone will have to be routed via the police so they can make sure that you're not taking pictures of kids.
Any 'offensive' photos will be automatically deleted.
What, you're against this idea? You must be a paedophile.
I would just revert back to my old phone.
I guess I'll just have to starty taking embarrassing photos of Pete King from 2 blocks away, with my ultra-mega-digital-zoom-cell-phone- camera so that he can't hear me.
I agree with law although I hate it lol. Camera phones are too damn sneaky. So well for camera phone amateur porn vids lol
Yet another reason for foreign companies to save the nice stuff for outside the US.
This is to prevent public officials and senator douchebags from being indicted by hidden camera pics.
Bingo, we have a winner
Hidden phone cameras? I don't think this makes sense, because Bond-style spy camera in a pen still doesn't make any sound. And video recording doesn't make sound. And digital cameras of all sorts don't make any sound.
US of A government has too much free time on their hands...
This is sick. This is a good example of why liberalism is a form of mental dis-order and occasionally borderlining evil.
These politicians don't really care about predator use of cell phone cameras, they simply enjoy introducing useless legislatures to tell you how to live your life, or to have a say on how to have an impact on your life, not for the sake of good, but for the sake of having an impact on your life.
If politicians REALLY care about protecting the innocent, how about we just add stiffer penalty to criminals who commit to evil behaviors? How about giving death sentence to pedophiles who did it to so many innocent children?
How about mendatory 5 years in prison who using a cell phone camera to shoot pictures of girl's underwear when they're wearing skirts?
liberal? Rep. King is a republican.
Are you crazy? You just totally contradicted yourself!
Please don't make ill-informed comments and make them seem believable to those who do not know better. =)
Agreed, this is actually a much more conservative point of view.
Liberals and libertarians would just be like "fuck it do what you want"
stupidity have no political affiliation.
justin your an idiot. Liberalism a mental disorder. Whenever a tard like you sees something out of place you call it liberalism; then to only get stung in the rear to find out its a republican. And still you'll never learn
Without viewing King's voting record, there is a term that could very well apply here: RINO (Republican In Name Only). Just because he slaps an 'R' at the end of his name doesn't mean he subscribes to any conservative ideals whatsoever.
Neo-cons pretty much are democrats, with a different party color and primary voting audience.
Peter King is a political clown who loves feigning outrage over sensational issues.
Liberal barely even means much to me these days. Republicans want bigger government that spends an assload of money. Democrats want bigger government that spends an assload of money. We've legalized corruption in the form of lobbyists and we allow our lawmakers to pay themselves and decide when to work. So I think arguing about liberal this and conservative that is pointless because we're fucked either way.
If you care about your country, your family, and your future please support the Libertarian party. We're the cool kids on the conservative block.
I'm so glad that our government has so completed solved the pressing issues of today that they can worry about things like forcing cell phone cameras to make a noise when you use them. This is the best idea since the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998.
America to Congress: You're irrelevant, and this is the reason why.
The FAIL is on the name of the bill: "Camera Phone Predator Alert Act."
Can't they come up with a better name? The post also makes a good point about the silent camera phones that are out there already.
Politicians use names like that so that opponents will hesitate to oppose them.
Who would want to support "cameraphone predators"?
Now how am i supposed to take upskirt photos of girls now?
"aims to prevent folks from taking cameraphone pictures without others people's knowledge"
Is this illegal or something?
I love how we are in the worst economic conditions in over 80 years but we're going to worry about cameras. I rather get the 6% of America back to work before I worry about a few creepers with their cell phones.
This bill was co-sponsored by Matt Leinart of the Superbowl-bound Cardinals.
So will my spy camera have to make a snap sound now ?
As far as digital cameras go, there are many good reasons to not require a sound. Photographing events like weddings and funerals can be difficult enough. Adding an obnoxious noise to the shutter would only make things worse.
Rogers in Canada is already forcing the manufacturers to have this feature implemented. Can't buy a damn phone from them that has a silent shutter.
mods/hacks will always be able to get around this. for example the iphone you can easily replace the sound file with a blank sound file.
@chris
or you can turn the phone on silent.
well there you go, rogers does sell a phone where the camera can be muted.