WSJE on camera cell phones

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:09:15 -0400
> Subject: WSJE on camera cell phones
> From: "K. N. Cukier" <kn () cukier com>
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
>
>
> Dave,
>
> FYI, for you and IP -- a piece from today's Wall Street Journal Europe 
> that finally "gets" why camera cell-phones are important; "Photos used to 
> be means for storing information; they're turning into tools for 
> communicating it." (The author, Bruno Giussani, is one of the most 
> prescient writers on technology, and is a household name in tech circles 
> in Europe.)
>
> Chrs,
>
> Kenn
>
> Kenneth Neil Cukier
> Research Fellow
> John F. Kennedy School of Government
> Harvard University
> Tel: +1 617 723 7734
> Work: kenneth_cukier () harvard edu
> Personal: kn () cukier com
> _______________________
>
> Monday, July 28, 2003
> The Wall Street Journal Europe (op-ed page)
>
> Camera Phones Raise Privacy Concerns
> By Bruno Giussani
>
> Samsung Electronics, the world's third-largest maker of cell phones, has 
> forbidden staff and visitors (effective July 14) from using 
> camera-equipped phones in most of its semiconductor, flat-panel and 
> electronics factories and research facilities, for fear that they could be 
> used for industrial espionage. This from the company credited with 
> developing the first camera handset. On its Web site it enthusiastically 
> envisions "a time when camera phones will become not only a novel option 
> and nice-to-have feature, but a mandatory function, a permanent 
> requirement of the global mobile consumer." Except in its own factories, 
> apparently.
>
> Beyond the paradox, Samsung's attempt to protect its trade secrets is 
> obviously legitimate. Yet it exposes a disquieting issue: Mobile phones 
> that can take, store and share digital pictures and videos are the 
> fastest-growing segment of the wireless industry. More than 14 million of 
> them were sold world-wide last year; more than double that number are 
> expected to sell this year, and according to forecasters they may outsell 
> digital cameras by the end of next year. It won't be long before such 
> devices are commonplace. When that day comes, we will walk into someone's 
> digital eye just by leaving home. This has the word "abuse" written all 
> over it.
>
> When they first became available about 18 months ago, camera phones were 
> hyped by the wireless industry as life-changing devices, yet most people 
> regarded them with skepticism. Beyond sending an impression-of-a-moment 
> photo to a friend, it was difficult to imagine what they could be used for.
>
> Since then, some technical problems (interoperability, for example) have 
> been solved; prices have halved; and the quality of the pictures taken 
> with the phones, initially exceedingly low, is improving with every new 
> model reaching the market. It is today good enough for usage in small 
> format by newspapers: Last month the Swiss tabloid SonntagsBlick revealed 
> the interiors of a secret army bunker by publishing pictures apparently 
> taken with a discreet camera phone. By the end of the year, two-megapixel 
> phones -- equal in resolution to the average consumer digicam -- will hit 
> the market.
>
> Usage of camera phones is developing in totally unexpected ways. Photos 
> used to be means for storing information; they're turning into tools for 
> communicating it. They used to be meant to last; they're now becoming 
> disposable. People use camera phones to ask for instant advice on a 
> purchase, to set up meeting points or to document the scratches before 
> driving off with a rented car.
>
> In Australia, law enforcement agencies encourage use of the devices for 
> neighborhood-watch programs. In Switzerland, insurance agents are 
> instantly transmitting damage pictures to corporate headquarters. In 
> England a few weeks ago, the BBC Online asked its audience to submit phone 
> images of antiwar demonstrations. In Singapore, a student has caused a 
> national controversy by using a videophone to film a teacher berating a 
> classmate and tearing up his work, and then posting the video on the Web. 
> And "moblogs" are the latest online craze -- mobile Web logs: instant 
> online photo-journals created and updated using camera phones. There are 
> hundreds of them already.
>
> But with camera and videophones gaining in popularity, cases of misuse are 
> also on the rise. They range from privacy invasion (a Singaporean was put 
> on trial last month for trying to snap a picture of a woman in a public 
> toilet cubicle; a Briton was fined £250 in April for taking a picture of a 
> defendant in court) to copyright infringement and corporate espionage.
>
> Reactions have been of various sorts. A number of sport and fitness clubs 
> and public pools all around the world have banned camera phones. The 
> Italian government has defined a strict policy whereby users can only take 
> images of people "for personal use" and must "keep them in a secure place" 
> -- which would seem to preclude posting them on the Web, for example. In 
> Saudi Arabia, picture phones are banned altogether. Corporations are also 
> getting nervous: Even before the Samsung case, it had already been 
> reported that some car makers confiscate phones from visitors for fear 
> that pictures of not-yet-unveiled models could be leaked out.
>
> But for all the hand-wringing over the issue, it is not a totally new 
> phenomenon. The swift spread of digital cameras in recent years has 
> already raised flags about the risks of digital voyeurism or amateur 
> evidence-gathering. Still, the trouble with picture phones is of a 
> different magnitude. Consider the following:
>
> * Camera phones go into places where usually cameras don't go: courtrooms, 
> medical and psychiatric hospitals, restrooms, locker rooms, private homes, 
> research labs, military facilities, night clubs.
>
> * They make it possible to send the picture instantly to someone or post 
> it on the Web; digital cameras don't allow for this immediacy.
>
> * Most people are still unfamiliar with this technology and aren't 
> suspicious when you hold up a cell phone: They think you're just writing a 
> text message.
>
> * Future models may let users activate the device remotely to take and 
> automatically send pictures or videos. (You can imagine someone leaving a 
> phone hidden in his bedroom if he suspects that his spouse is cheating.)
>
> The key difference is that of connectivity. Digital cameras have made it 
> easier to capture and store images, but they improved only marginally 
> their communication and dissemination (through e-mail). On the contrary, 
> camera phones are primarily connectivity devices: snap-and-send. And once 
> a photo enters cyberspace, it is extremely difficult to stop it from 
> spreading. In a moment of anger, a reputation could be damaged without any 
> chances of recall.
>
> The incongruous Samsung case offers a hint on the possible impact of 
> camera and videophones in the future, which will certainly be vast. The 
> legal implications of their improper uses are being assessed in many 
> countries. Existing privacy and other laws of course fully apply, but 
> technology advances constantly challenge their enforcement.
>
> The wireless telecommunication industry is sitting in the hot seat. It is 
> easy to predict that it will soon be confronted with consumer anger, legal 
> battles and possibly even governmental intervention -- which will come in 
> the form of new regulations or bans.
>
> But recent history teaches, however, that new laws specifically drafted to 
> react to a given type of new technology are rarely good for society and 
> for business. This is particularly true because, as mentioned, usage often 
> evolves in unforeseeable ways, and the unexpected cannot be captured into 
> a sensible legal text.
>
> Observing the trajectory of other disruptive technologies, we also see 
> that over time society tends to adjust to the new situation and to develop 
> appropriate answers. To speed up this process, wireless manufacturers and 
> operators are for example twisting the design of the camera phones. Some 
> models now feature more-obvious lens covers, or emit a sound or a light 
> when the shutter is released so that people know when a photo is taken.
>
> A few operators have also started including warnings in the product 
> packages, trying to raise awareness about the issues described above. It's 
> a start, but it still misses the real target: the unaware people that are 
> on the other side of the lens. We all need to know that a pocket-size 
> connected camera may be watching us.
> ________
> Mr. Giussani, a Swiss writer, is a 2004 Knight Fellow at Stanford 
> University and the author of "Roam: Making Sense of the Wireless Internet" 
> (Random House).
>
> END
> </blockquote></x-html>

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/