Total absurdity - Cell phone mandatory noise bill in HR. [Telecom]

"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."

Well, this is a fact, and adults are being targeted as well.

The same could apply to modern digital cameras, which are also silent compared to film cameras which have a mechanical shutter that make a click.

This is a weird issue. On the one hand, we don't like the idea of secret picture taking, especially in private areas. On the other hand, serious photographers always could take pictures secretly using telephoto lens cameras. Further, computer mini-cams are easily hidden.

Generally, picture taking is an protected right of free speech; restrictions apply toward how pictures are published. In other words, you may freely (usually) take a picture of anyone or anything in a public place, but you may be limited on how you publish it (for example, you can't use it for advertising purposes without the subject's consent and you are subject to libel/slander laws).

On the other hand, existing laws already protect privacy in non-public places or issues of a personal matter. (If someone's bathing suit flies off at the beach that's an private matter and you can't take a picture of the naked person.)

How about a huge flash like the old plate cameras?

Like the Congress has nothing better to do then add stupid bills.

As an aside, the big flash reflectors of the past created a much better picture since the light source was larger and not as specular. Today's flash units are so tiny that very harsh shadows and flatness making pictures look like a lousy ID card photo. Those old flash reflectors were much more powerful as well, so the photographer could be further away from the subject.

On the other hand, dealing with disposable flashbulbs was a real pain. They could fail or break before use, and after use they were very hot and uncomfortable to handle. They could shatter on occassion. They were expensive.

Coming back to telecom, it took many years before both film and electronic (video) were sensitive to utilize existing light indoors. TV and movies used to be shot under horrendously bright--and hot-- lamps, I'm surprised actors didn't suffer high damage.

I don't know how Bell managed to make a tiny Picturephone video camera that would work without auxillary lights, although it was intended for relatively bright offices and the resolution and image size was relatively low. (Though Bell offered a special lens to allow document transmission as well.)

Today of course both still and motion video sensors work in low light, although high quality TV and film production still requires strong lighting.

Except for some Internet users, Picturephone service still never caught on. People very frequently send still or movies attached to emails, but see-and-talk still seems more of a novelty than day to day standard practice. Can cell phones go to live video mode while someone is talking on them, a la Picturephone style? Do they make landline telephone sets capable of that, or does someone require a computer and Internet connection?

Video conferencing is apparently quite popular, especially as a way to save money from travel expenses.

It doesn't "address" anything. It's already illegal to take pictures of someone in a dressing room without their consent. If you're going to do that, sticking a piece of tape over a speaker isn't going to change anything.

And you're going to hear a cellphone click from the bottom of a flight of stairs?

Stupid law. *

If that person is on a public beach, or on private property that can be readily seen from a public location, you can take the picture.

My cell phone clicks when I take a picture with it; I would hope that this noise would qualify. I don't know if I can disable it (I never looked.)

While I'm not generally in favour of the government passing a law to take care of every little thing, it seems to me that requiring cameras to alert their subjects when a picture is taken is not in itself a bad idea and probably not particularly difficult to implement.

Except, of course, that it screws the people who actually have a legitimate need to take photos in silence. (For example, because they are in a television studio, as I was today. I hope the noise my camera makes didn't get picked up on any of the mikes.)

-GAWollman

The news media might argue that their work in reporting news, particularly news a public official might not want published, could make good use silent shutters and they shouldn't be banned for that reason. Indeed, IF (a big if) this bill has a serious chance of being enacted I would suspect the news media would fight it.

readily seen from a public location, you can take the picture.

I am not a lawyer, but in photojournalism class we were taught that normally private things were not allowed to be secretly photographed even in public places. So, yes, you may take a picture of a person suntanning themself on the beach, but no, you can't take a picture of someone when their bathing suit accidently fell off. Obviously secret picture taking in locker rooms, under stairs, etc. would be not allowed (and people are prosecuted for that sort of thing).

In any event, after thinking about it, I wonder if this law is such a good idea (see other post).