Camera Phone Predator Alert Act H.R. 414

Camera Phone Predator Alert Act H.R. 414

thomas.loc.gov

Legislation has been proposed in the House by Rep. Peter King (NY) that would mandate manufacturers of cellphone cameras to include a feature that would cause the camera to emit an audible tone when a picture is taken.

The main reason for this, the bill claims, is that 'children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.'

The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
arstechnica.com

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Camera Phone Predator Alert Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDING.

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.

SEC. 3. AUDIBLE SOUND STANDARD.

(a) Requirement- Beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, any mobile phone containing a digital camera that is manufactured for sale in the United States shall sound a tone or other sound audible within a reasonable radius of the phone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera in such phone. A mobile phone manufactured after such date shall not be equipped with a means of disabling or silencing such tone or sound.

(b) Enforcement by Consumer Product Safety Commission- The requirement in subsection (a) shall be treated as a consumer product safety standard promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission under section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056). A violation of subsection (a) shall be enforced by the Commission under section 19 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2068).

Ok, so why just do this on cellphone cameras when there are plenty of other small, pocket size non-phone cameras that can do the same thing with little or no click or tone??

Will this really stop pictures being taken without permission? Not hardly, imo.

And what about video? Why should they do this for just pictures and not video? That poses a problem because the tone would go down on the audio track.

And what about the tone? Should it be selectable or should one "standard" tone be the norm, allowing all to recognize it right away?

Is this more "wasted time" legislation costing taxpayer dollars?

Well it should be noted that Peter King has also proposed legislation to get the Congress to support the goals and ideals of the Knights of Pythias, considered a secret society. Click on his name to see more bills he has proposed.

thomas.loc.gov
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on Wed Jan 28th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

This will never pass. Can you imagine the effect this would have for example when parents want to take pictures of their children performing in a school play? Not to mention the million different models of point'n'shoot cameras that do the same thing without a sound.
Fear mongoring, pure and simple

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Fear mongoring, pure and simple

On whose part? His, or mine? Hope you're not shooting the messenger! I'm reporting on real legislation here. Your wonderful congressmen at work.

I dont have anything against messengers Congressman is totally to blame here.
[Edit] And you need to get the message out so people will see the idiocy and vote this guy out

[edit on 28/1/2009 by PsykoOps]

Fear mongering? Absolutely.

All this does is take away the privacy of users to take video or snapshots of governmental crimes in action. IE police harassment or abuse,

Cop slaps a skater with a baton, friend tries to take a picture, cop hears sound and slaps friend with the baton.

That's just an example guys, I'm not hating on all cops.

As you pointed out, there are many other ways pictures can be taken without someone knowing it. Just because certian devices manufactured after a future date will have this manditory beep thing when taking a picture, doesnt mean that previous devices cant still be used.

I dont think its anything all that important or critical to consider. Its just a beep when a picture is taken.


Cheers!!!!

Wait, doesn't this law discriminate against the hearing-impaired?

Sure, I see how it is: protect the children, just not the deaf children.

I f you havent got anything to hide why not.


I'd vote for it.


Louder the better.

Mungo

Originally posted by RFBurns
I dont think its anything all that important or critical to consider.

Exactly my point, but for a different reason. Was this guy so bored he couldn't write something a little more applicable and necessary and this is what he comes up with?

Maybe it's time to start judging these wasteful politicians by the legislation they propose, in addition to how they vote on it. Three strike system. Yer out.

Yeah I got some legislation to propose. The establishment of the Useless Legislation Department. The ULD. (Hey, it has a ring to it. ) This department would review by a panel all legislation, and if they determine that it is useless and stupid, 1 strike is noted against said congressman who proposed it AND all cosponsors. Three strikes, yer ALL out.

[edit on Wed Jan 28th 2009 by TrueAmerican]

Rather than a tone for camera phones to "protect the children", I would rather have a tone for when a politician is hoodwinking the public trust.

Unfortunately I think it would just lead more people to mistakingly believe they have tinnitus.

what utter twaddle - there are already too many beeps , tones and noises from gadgets that are just dammed anoying

some cameras even have a lous mechanical action - i have a nikon d200 DSLR - and the noise from the mirror / shutter actuation is LOUD - i have got dirty looks while filming in places that i had permission and the people photographed had given express consent

but as the event had no music / soundtrack and only sporadic narration / commentary - you could hear a pin drop - and i and the other 2 photographers were villified for being annoying and making a racket

and on a last note - the beep ONLY tells you that a photo has been taken - not what was framed - in a crowded / busy environment - how the hell will any one know if a pedophile is taking pics up girls skirts or an inocent man it staking a pic of the archtectural features behind them ?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Yeah I got some legislation to propose. The establishment of the Useless Legislation Department. The ULD. (Hey, it has a ring to it.

) This department would review by a panel all legislation, and if they determine that it is useless and stupid, 1 strike is noted against said congressman who proposed AND all cosponsors. Three strikes, yer ALL out.

It seems to me that it is all congress is good at... passing useless laws. When was the last time congress passed a law that you thought was REALLY needed? Laws compounding laws soundling like some Monty Python joke. Not only congress but states as well. There is a law in one of the states where it is illegal to get a fish drunk. WTF! Did that really require a law?

This is what lawmakers do. They pass silly laws and make them sound like you really needed them. This makes sure that you feel like they have done something worth their pay and position.

The reality is that we don't need them.