US mulls clicks for cameraphones Dumb law of the day comes from the US where consideration is being given to making it illegal to sell cameraphones which do not make a click noise when a still picture is taken. The "Camera Phone Predator Alert Act" would forbid selling of phones which have a means to disable or silence the tone. Should the law ever pass it …
Disco the speaker, wear the Bluetooth headset...done.
I apologize for the stupidity of our Colonial Government for even letting this see the light of day. On the other hand, England's total attack on photogs seems to be an even more mean-spirited (and violent) attempt to get to the "root cause" of the issue...
Makes one proud to be human, eh?
US mobile phones are all out of date and rubbish anyway, thanks to their horrific custom network frequencies. The rest of the world benefits.
I say let AT&T and other US networks fund development of US handsets from Nokia, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, LG, and the other main manufacturers from now on. They don't want to do that? Do what big companies in the US do best, buy a few lobbiests, and get is turned down.
...I live in the good old U to the K, where I can go about my surreptitious snapping unhindered by irritating faux-shutter noises. Seriously though I hate fake shutter noises- they're so annoying! It's like the key-press tone that seems to be enabled by default on anything with buttons these days. Man that winds me up.
iPhone with the silence switch on doesn't make a sound when you take a picture, also if you were wearing headphones nobody else would hear it anyway.
Sure its not that uncommon.
More to the point, my current CAMERA doesn't make a sound when I take a picture (as I've turned it off) likewise my pocket video camera makes no sound. So why just aim at camera phones?
This post has been deleted by its author
The iPhone is completely silent if you flick the little switch to vibrate mode.
However, you do of course have to thumb repeatedly at the screen to get it to camera mode, wait a good few seconds for it to wake up, then hold the iPhone rock steady in good light to get a remotely passable picture. To do this without the subject's consent would be pretty tricky. And then the result could hardly be called pornographic, when it's just a vague blur which may or may not be a photo...
When I last bought a camera, in the UK, there was an extra slip of paper in the box telling you how to disable the shutter sound forever by holding down certain buttons while switching it on, or something like that. The manual doesn't mention this option. Presumably the extra slip of paper is added only in the boxes shipped to certain countries.
So, just because the manual doesn't tell you how to do it, doesn't mean you can't. If the stupid simulated shutter sound is annoying you, try Google.
Well in the UK I just tested my phone and both the flash and click sound can be turned off !
That is on a new model nokia phone!
What will they do about people who have phones which do not comply with these laws if passed? arrest them on sight?
Will the mad laws never stop?
Im with D@v3,
i don't think i have ever seen a cameraphone that you <can't> turn the shutter sound off, be it in the camera settings, or by changing the 'profile' to some varient of silent.
even my brand new samsung can have no shutter sound setting...
This is by far the daftest law I have heard of in a country that allows guns... Blame the tools for camera crimes and the user for gun crime [Only in America! - for Stephen Fry]
I know they have this law in Korea - I think it is Samsung phones where it impossible to turn off the camera noise - also has to be above a certain decibel level as well? Never owned a Samsung though and all my old handsets have been silent when asked.
As usual, this law will punish the 99.9% of people who just want a quiet phone - and will be pretty easily bypassed by the people whose hobby is sneaking blurry upskirt pics (disconnect/break speaker or European/Asian handset). So by that logic, I expect this law to be adopted here in the UK also by Christmas.
No good reason why people should be sneaking around taking pictures. When civility fails, law has to intervene. If it's a problem for a camera to alert the subject that they're having a picture taken, the problem is the user of the camera.
Those who don't like this law, lead by example in your life so it isn't necessary. Apparently as mentioned they do have justification, or at least a perception of it. If it truely isn't necessary then it would be folly to consider it compared to repeal of other laws that are far more detrimental to societal freedom (or whatever illusion of that you hold when it seems a click sound is important to disable).
To Parax who tried to equate this to guns in America. Silencers for those aren't quite legal either, fortunately so, as this means it is a bit more likely someone snapping pictures stealthily might be pummeled instead of shot.
Following thorough investigations I can report that my Nokia 6070 has a option of camera sounds. These are now set to off so I'm heading out for an evening of upskirt thrills. However, I must hurry up and get to the skirt shop before it shuts.
Oh, has anyone else noticed their mobile pictures always have part of a thumb visible on them? I presume it is some sort of biometric feature.
Tim#3
Here in the US this law discriminates against hot fluzy pantyless deaf chicks. So I'm promoting the idea that phones (and cameras, etc.) should emit a piercing sound, blinding light and pungent smell everytime you're about to take a video, a picture or turn on the microphone. Yes, this would be a little annoying everytime you're about to make or receive a call, but it's for the children.
-Bounty
p.s.
At least every picture you take would be funny, watching everyone gag, hold up their hands to the light etc. Maybe I should add a lazer at the focal point... maybe some sort of heat or freeze ray? This would be extra cool in the UK where there are CCTV's everywhere.
Canada here - all phones click when you take a pic, and have for years. i've tried turning off the click on my sony ericsson K790 - no go.
Presumably, the reason for targeting PHONES is because anyone knows when a camera is being pointed at them, but phones are not as obvious, duh.
Paris - she may not know the diff btwn a cam and a phone.
Wthere your ohone allows for the disabling of camera sounds, or displays an LED light when video recording etc, depends on which country it was originally shipped to. Some countries (including some EU ones) already have similiar laws, though they tend to apply to all picture/video taking devices, not just phones.
"No good reason why people should be sneaking around taking pictures"
I don't need a reason, other than photography being my hobby. Taking pictures of people in public is perfectly legal (at least in the UK) and I don't have to get permission, notify the subject or give a "good reason". I'm pretty sure that "sneaking around" is not actually illegal either. It sounds like your complaint is that YOU don't like having your picture taken.
Why are you sneaking around avoiding having your picture taken? What are you up to?
"If it's a problem for a camera to alert the subject that they're having a picture taken, the problem is the user of the camera."
No. The problem is that the camera is of poor design and useability and therefore I wouldn't purchase it. I often photograph wild animals. Shutter noise disturbs them. They behave unnaturally or just disappear if they know you are there. The reason I turn off the shutter is that I get more shots and I get more natural shots. This applies to phone cameras too. Sometimes it's the only camera handy when a good photo-op turns up unexpectedly, thus turning off the shutter noise is essential.
Conflating photographers who wish to remain unnoticed with perverts is simplistic and frankly obtuse.
This isn't a new law or even serious attempt to make it one, just a Bill submitted to a committee with no co-sponsor that will die long before it ever gets a single vote. The only reason it was put out there was so this idiot from New York can list it as something he actually did when he tries to get re-elected.
when some tourist in the rockies sees a bear and thinks "hey, Ma, lookie there". <LOUDCLICK> <Grrroooaaar....munch>
Surprised they haven't just legislated some sort of Miranda rights; anyone taking a photo must inform the subject that they have the right to see the photo, and if they choose not to do so then the photo may be used against them on a pr0n website.
Shutter sounds are annoying. The only people they inconvenience are people legitimately using cameras and camera phones. There are plenty of legitimate places for me to take photos, but I am unable to do so because the loud crap sound will not only disturb others around me, but most likely arouse their ire as well.
Criminals using the phones for nefarious purposes will just disable the shutter sound in whatever fashion is necessary.
Stupid, stupid law. How about we just beat the fuck out of people who use their cameras and camera phones for perverted practices? Yeah, not much better, but it would get the point across without causing problems for non-asshole people who want to take pictures of a skittish animal, without waking up a baby, or fecking off library patrons.
BTW, there is a way to disable the shutter sounds in the CyberShot phones, but it requires firmware (the gdfs specifically, I believe) to do so. Check out XS++ and Wotan. But do not come crying to me if you brick your phone... read the instructions CAREFULLY.
Paris, no was to disable her shutter sound.
Well, as I see in the comments, it is, but I didn't know it was even an option to disable. They passed a law like this already in Japan I think, to stop the train hentais from taking up-skirt camera photos with their phones. I haven't tried too hard to look, but I didn't realize there were still noise-free cameras available here.
@Glad...
I agree! Those squishy-fake mouse click noises PISS ME OFF!!! Arghhhh!
Anyway....
The Bill Cosby doorbell. He wanted one that would say "SOMEONE IS AT THE DOOR" with proper volume, when the doorbell button is pressed.
For me, I'd just get a simple "annoy-a-tron" (http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/8c52/) and make it make the "click" sound at random intervals, and leave it in a dressing room (after the bill goes into effect!). Then wait for the fun to begin at the department store.
My current problem is that the new camera I just purchased for Christmas won't lock on the flash for all pictures (for fill lighting), but that is another story.
It's much better to spend some money on a small high-megapixel camera, remove the tiny little speaker (if you can't turn it off) and then use it. They're just about the same size as cell phones anyways.
I have a rather large digital camera at work with the sound turned off. It's damn annoying. Everytime some idiot borrows it, the sound is back on. I'd open the thing up and remove the little speaker if it wasn't for the fact that it's not mine (in which case it wouldn't get borrowed).
I can't see the point of this law in the states, since most camera phones are in the 1 megapixel range and usually suck. Like I really want to see some VGA pic when it's just as easy to go online and download some higher quality staged pic.
"The "Camera Phone Predator Alert Act" would forbid selling of phones which have a means to disable or silence the tone."
Surely the "have a means" should be "provide a means". All phones have the means to disable or silence the tone, as someone's pointed out you can unscrew the back and remove/disconnect the speaker. So now all mobile phones are going to be illegal in the US.
...right up until all the quiet bits of a school play or music recital get interrupted by faux shutter noises. (Parents who can't work out how to turn off a flash are bad enough.)
Incidentally, the reason that people might think of applying this to camera phones rather than just cameras is that someone holding a camera is obviously in a position to take a photograph. Someone on a tube train with a camera phone can just look like they're making a phone call (rather than trying to take blurry, grainy, out-of-focus shots up someone's skirt).
But it's still a dumb idea. I'm also inclined to take photographs of wildlife, including sleeping pets, in aesthetic places of worship, and - should I see one - would quite like to be able to take a quiet picture of a crime in progress without putting my life at risk. Taking stealth photographs in locker rooms might require more forethought if phones go beep, but it's hardly going to become impossible to hide cameras all of a sudden - unless a lot of undercover reporters are going to be in trouble.
Ignore this. King is just trying to keep some constituents happy and not look "soft on pervs". This kind of thing happens a lot, since the individual representative is not beholden to his national party the way MP's are enslaved by the Parliamentary party. The bill will go into committee and never be seen again (unless it pops up as a clause in some Omnibus Keep The Bluenoses Happy bill later).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
