« Victory is mine! |Main| Week 258: Gaming, fireplaces, and beanstalks »
We wouldn't need a rule if people weren't doing it! March 4, 2004
The other day I noticed something odd in the locker room of my gym. Something besides naked old men with no sense of decency. I noticed a sign that forbid club patrons from taking pictures with those nifty little cel phones with built-in cameras while they are in the locker room or sauna.
I thought "They need a rule for this?" Were these high-tech peeping toms operating under the assumption that it was okay to take pictures of sweaty naked people before some fitness center employee hung up a sign telling them not to? And since the notice only mentioned camera phones, was I safe in assuming that taking crotch shots with normal cameras and camcorders was a-okay?
Turns out that this is turning out to be a widespread problem. Some analysts are recommending that employers ban camera phones in the workplace in order to protect not only privacy, but sensitive company information as well. As if execs think a secretary is going to go James Bond on them just because she's armed with a pocket-sized camera. So-called security experts are recommending that these devices be entirely prohibited.
I have a better, much more simple idea that would prevent both corporate espionage and locker room voyeurs: Require that all camera phones be equipped with a VERY loud audio warning that comes on when a picture is taken. "ATTENTION! ATTENTION! THIS CAMERA IS ABOUT TO TAKE A PICTURE. PLEASE COVER YOUR NAUGHTY BITS AND ANY CONFIDENTIAL COMPANY INFORMATION IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU."
Easy. Of course, this won't solve other problems, like doctors using camera phones to diagnose patients. I wish I were kidding, but I'm not.
Incidentally, I seriously want one of these phones. Not for shoving under the curtains at the J.C. Penny's changing rooms, but for automatically posting mobile phone pics to my blog. That would be very cool, so you should buy me one.
Comments (6) |
Permalink | 
File under:
General
Comments
Posted by Shawn on March 4, 2004 9:03 AM:
There was a story in the paper here where a guy used his camera phone to cheat on a college exam. He said he pretended to answer his cell phone during the exam and got the answers he needed. I cannot imagine a professor being too happy with you "taking a call" during the middle of an exam.
You'll also be happy to know that local strip clubs are banning them as well.
Posted by Jamie on March 4, 2004 3:27 PM:
There's something ironic about strip clubs banning these. Isn't the whole point of those places that they do away with privacy and decency? I guess it has more to do with seeing the goods without paying.
By way of followup, I noticed on TechDirt that politicians in Chicago are pushing laws to prevent the transmission of pics that violate others' privacy. Oddly, the laws won't cover pics taken with other kinds of cameras, nor will it cover taking the pictures. Just transferring them.
Posted by Shawn on March 4, 2004 4:32 PM:
I actually don't mind regulating these cameras, people may not realize they are having their photo taken (not sure why transmission v. actual taking the photo). I think these cameras raise a myriad of issues surrounding privacy and people's expectations in certain places (gym locker room).
As a new parent of a daughter, you will I'm sure be horrified that I saw a middle aged man at the mall using one to take photos up young teenage girl's skirts without their knowledge. VERY CREEPY! Certainly there are other laws to get this guy on but it illustrates the problem. (Yes, I reported him to security)
Posted by Jamie on March 4, 2004 4:38 PM:
For sure. And I felt that way before Sam was born. But don't we already have laws against that kind of stuff? Why have a new law (or fitness club rules, etc.) that's specific to one device or technology and not others?Posted by Shawn on March 5, 2004 6:37 AM:
Well, in a gym, I would say probably all cameras are effectively banned. I can only imagine if someone whipped out their 35mm camera in the lockeroom and started taking photos, there would be an uproar. The guy would be stuffed in a locker somewhere. The problems with camera phones is you don't realize the photo is being taken and you have an expectation of privacy in the lockeroom. Thus the need for banning them.
I don't think they would be able to ban them in a public place such as a mall where you really don't have an expectation of privacy.
Workplace bans will be interesting to watch. Traditionally the courts are less bothered by photo or video surveilence in the workplace as long as there was not an expectation of privacy (bathroom, lockeroom, private office without knowledge of camera). If you are in a giant maze of cubicles they figure you ought to know people can see you and your behavior should reflect this. (We read a case about a chronic nose picker in employment law).
I am also jaded enough after law school to know also that for creeps like the guy at the mall, the more you have to charge him with, the less chance he will wiggle out of it.
Are you becoming a Libertarian?
Posted by Christine on March 8, 2004 2:48 PM:
Hmmm...I have a camera in my palm pilot and it can be sneaky like the ones in phones. I wonder if it would be banned.