Today’s Episode of “The Onion or Reality”

By  •  Tuesday January 27, 2009 8:19 AM PDT  •  6 Comments

Earlier this month, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would ban camera phones from having a silent mode when taking a picture.

The Camera Phone Predator Alert Act (H.R. 414) would “require any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken.”

Even better would be a bill requiring shoes to make a particular noise. Or people to wear little bells around their necks.

I wonder if red-light cameras, satellite spy cameras, and other surveillance tools will be Rep. Pete’s next targets? (HT: cnet)

Tags: Regulation, Surveillance

6 Comment(s)

  1. And what about phones with video capability? Would they have to emit a noise constantly?

    I guess these people are never going to run out of bright ideas.

    Anthony Gregory | Jan 27, 2009 | Reply

  2. When are they going to introduce the Congressional Meddling Relief Act?

    Steve Hogan | Jan 27, 2009 | Reply

  3. I don’t think it’s legislated, but in Japan ALL cell-phones with cameras (i.e., ALL cell-phones!) have had this built-in, non-optional function from the beginning (and we’re talking over 5 years now). I suspect it was the phone companies covering their ass. I’m not in favour of gov. legislation, but I’m also not averse to cell-phone cameras making a sound. Japanese are very fussy about their privacy: there’s a group here now complaining loudly about Google Streetview.

    Marc Sheffner | Jan 27, 2009 | Reply

  4. Exactly: what about plain old cameras? What about tiny pinhole surveillance cameras? What about video cameras?

    What about regulating how much zoom or telephoto capability a camera is allowed to have.

    And what about, of course, exempting the Intelligence agencies, police, military, and other government officials from having this restriction.

    I predict that a lot of new jobs will be created when this passes; yippee. :)

    PLJ | Jan 28, 2009 | Reply

  5. Does the nanny state love some of her children more than others? Let her not forget those of us who are differently-abled. The deaf and hard-of-hearing could also be preyed upon, they pay taxes like the rest of us, equality demands equal protection. How about a requirement that the camera also flash several times, honk at a federal mandated decibel level, and perhaps send a low power RF signal capable of activating a special pre-recorded alert in the hearing aids of those who might not know their picture was being taken. A voucher can be sent to all Americans (or, to save money, perhaps we can allow citizens to reuse expired digital TV converter box vouchers for this purpose) so that this additional protection being provided by the government will not be prohibitively expensive for anyone, we will all split the cost.

    RDP | Jan 31, 2009 | Reply

  6. MORE IMPORTANT: Why are these politicians so fixated on “predators?”

    Do they have market research that shows that the Sally Soccermoms will support any political move if tied to the specter of child predation? YES!

    Although such crimes are EXTREMELY rare (even when including the alleged Catholic Priest scandal) politicians are increasingly tagging various legislation, usually those items that destroy civil liberties, with the “predator” label.

    They know that women and gutless men will give up every civil liberty they have if they are led to believe that in doing so they will save little Susie from getting felt-up by some dirt bag.

    The People need to get a sense of proportionality and a basic understanding of Probability and Statistics. We can’t self govern with such a stupid population as we now have.

    ClairLippincott | Feb 3, 2009 | Reply

Post a Comment