Will Making Cameras “Click” Again Stop Digital Voyeurism?

by on January 27, 2009 · 21 comments

I’m intrigued by this new bill that Rep. Peter King has introduced to prevent video voyeurism. H.R. 414, the “Camera Phone Predator Alert Act” finds that “children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.”  To remedy this problem, King’s “Phone Predator Alert” bill would require that:

any mobile phone containing a digital camera that is manufactured for sale in the United States shall sound a tone or other sound audible within a reasonable radius of the phone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera in such phone. A mobile phone manufactured after such date shall not be equipped with a means of disabling or silencing such tone or sound.

In other words, cameras would have to get noisy again!  Old timers will recall the days when our cameras were noisier than a box of rocks. Today’s digital cameras and camera phones, by contrast, are increasingly silent, but that also opens up the door to potential abuse by some creeps out there. While I don’t believe there’s evidence pointing to a national epidemic of digital voyeurism, there’s no doubt that some people — including many youngsters — are having their privacy invaded in this fashion.

I find King’s solution at once to be both ingenious and futile. It’s ingenious in that, if we could truly force it upon everyone, it might actually go along way towards solving this problem. The noisy camera would again act as the prime deterrent to such an act.

It’s futile, however, in that the real bad guys would likely get around the law pretty quickly. After all, if they are really determined to try to surreptitiously snap some shots in a locker room or elsewhere, it’s likely that they’ll quickly find a way to hack the device and disable the noise-maker. (By the way, exactly how loud do will our phones need to be to comply with the law?) Moreover, the market for old, unregulated phones would grow longer and a black market of illegal devices would likely spring up, too. (However, Wired reports that such a law is already in place in Japan, so it would be interesting to see how it is working out there.)

That being said, I don’t really have a better solution than Rep. King.  There are already laws on the books dealing with invasion of privacy that can be tapped to deal with this problem, but there are obvious problems going that route in terms of time and expense. The damage is already done once the photo is snapped. And usually you can’t find the creep who originally took the shot after it has been around the Internet a zillion times.

Self-regulation in semi-public spaces might help. My gym has clearly posted policies about where mobile devices can be used and makes it clear they are not to be used in the locker rooms. That’s a good first step that others should follow to help protect the privacy of people in areas where they are likely to be disrobing.  And schools can do the same thing for their locker rooms. Of course, that’s still going to be difficult to enforce. There’s just no easy solution here.

[Further discussion over at Washington Watch.com]

  • http://srynas.blogspot.com/ Steve R.

    This country is faced with numerous national concerns that need to be fixed, Congress should stop itself from getting involved in micromanagement. We don't need these types of distractions, but then it alleviates our Congressional folks from actually solving real problems.

    In the end, the law would be futile anyway. The “click” feature would soon be hacked. Not to mention all the existing cameras that are currently out in the market place.

  • Pingback: A Downside to Banning Silent Cell Phone Cameras? | The Technology Liberation Front

  • http://jerrybrito.com Jerry Brito

    I think the more fundamental question we need to ask before imposing on manufacturers is whether King's findings (“children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone”) are correct. What's the evidence for this? I don't know, but it sounds to me like poisoned Halloween candy and razor blades in apple–it never once happened but the myth has been strong enough that some states have legislated.

  • http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/ John W.

    “children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone”.

    What that really means is that there are some pissed off man-hating feminists who are trying to get this passed. It's just another shot in the endless Gender War that feminists have declared on boys/men/fathers. They know that in order to convince the American Public they have to say that children are being hurt. It's the same old feminist tactic they've been using for decades.

    Their next tactic will prevent men from attending public parks because “they're all predators and perverts” who might “harm the children”. If you're new to the war on Men, then perhaps it's time you wake up.

  • http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/ John W.

    “children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone”.

    What that really means is that there are some pissed off man-hating feminists who are trying to get this passed. It's just another shot in the endless Gender War that feminists have declared on boys/men/fathers. They know that in order to convince the American Public they have to say that children are being hurt. It's the same old feminist tactic they've been using for decades.

    Their next tactic will prevent men from attending public parks because “they're all predators and perverts” who might “harm the children”. If you're new to the war on Men, then perhaps it's time you wake up.

  • http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/ John W.

    “children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone”.

    What that really means is that there are some pissed off man-hating feminists who are trying to get this passed. It's just another shot in the endless Gender War that feminists have declared on boys/men/fathers. They know that in order to convince the American Public they have to say that children are being hurt. It's the same old feminist tactic they've been using for decades.

    Their next tactic will prevent men from attending public parks because “they're all predators and perverts” who might “harm the children”. If you're new to the war on Men, then perhaps it's time you wake up.

  • Pingback: baby model

  • Pingback: Obuvi

  • Pingback: topsail island

  • Pingback: Goedkope vakantie

  • Pingback: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzcwbO9XfRo

  • Pingback: Trade Show Exhibit Displays

  • Pingback: prix de l'immobilier

  • Pingback: Jurken Sale

  • Pingback: Seo Zen Bonus

  • Pingback: PALS Coupon

  • Pingback: Learn More

  • Pingback: How To Make A Million Dollars In A Week

  • Pingback: anime stream

  • Pingback: payday loans direct lender

  • Pingback: www.nhcps.com

Previous post:

Next post: