Camera Phones May be Required to Make Their Presence Known

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Someone might want to tell Rep. Peter King (R–NY)  about the huge problems facing the nation and world today – maybe then we wouldn’t have to suffer through another worthless proposal.

Recently, King sponsored H.R.414, the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act. Essentially, the bill would ban a silent mode when taking a picture with a cell phone.

The act “requires[s] any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken.” Furthermore, such a tone should be “audible within a reasonable radius of the phone.”

According to the market research organization NPD Group, 83 percent of cell phones sold in 2008 were equipped with built-in cameras.

King has not commented publicly about the Camera Phone Predator Act since it was introduced on Jan. 9. His language in the bill, however, speaks volumes.

According to the bill, “Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.”

Where, may I ask, are these kids shopping?

Every once in a while, you do hear stories about customers being filmed while changing in a store’s fitting rooms. But in those cases, the victims are filmed with a hidden camera that records every movement not a grainy, still shot from a cell phone.

Perhaps King’s heart is in the right place, but his proposal doesn’t do enough. If it really wants to protect unsuspecting children (and adults, I might add), it shouldn’t limit itself to cell phone cameras.

Personally, I’m more suspicious of other recording devices. Almost everyone has a digital camera, and it seems that other digital video recorders, like the Flip Video for instance are getting smaller and more discreet by the minute.

Even King himself acknowledged that the plan isn’t infallible when he said to Congress: “An audible tone can at least help warn people that they’re being surreptitiously photographed. Is it foolproof? No. But it is an extra layer of protection, that warning signal.”

If passed, the United States would join Japan and Korea on the list of countries with such a law.

In an interview with ABC News, Sascha Segan, lead analyst for mobile devices at PCMag Digital Network, explained that in Japan and Korea, the cell phone camera law was passed in response to the growing number of occurrences of “underskirting.”

For those of you who don’t know, “underskirting” is when men, usually on a crowded train or bus, position their camera phone under women’s skirts and take pictures. Segan also says that a similar problem, cleverly called “downblosuing,” is also a problem. (Just a side note – I guess Tracy Jordan was right about “sharking” being popular in Japan. “30 Rock,” anyone?

The frequency of these incidents forced Japanese and Korean governments to act. Apple wasn’t even allowed to sell the iPhone in Japan until the camera’s silent mode was disabled. But, says Segan, in the United States, “this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. …I haven’t seen any reputable source saying that there’s a major problem with secretly taken dirty camera phone photos.”

Don’t look for this law to pass anytime soon, though. King has yet to pick up any co-sponsors in the month-plus since the bill was introduced. It looks as though this act will follow the path of King’s 2007 version of the act - and that’s nowhere fast.