Mobile phones form the basis of human connectivity in the market place today. It is within this form of technology, however, that problems arise with regard to ones privacy. The various attachments founded in recent years further amplify such concerns. In particular, camera phones emerged in November 2000 in Japan, courtesy of Sharp and J-Phone. These discrete devices (which are either attached to the phone or embedded in them) allow users to aim a lens at a desired subject and snap a photo which can then be viewed on the mobile phones screen. Subsequently, photos can be saved to the phones memory, sent to another mobile phone, transferred to the Internet or, in some instances, printed and distributed. Eurotechnology Japan K.K. reports that four years after the introduction of the camera phone ‘about 75% of mobile phones in Japan are camera phones and we can expect that in 2005 the market penetration will saturate around 75%-85%, i.e. almost all mobile phones in Japan will be camera phones’ (Eurotechnology Japan K.K., 2004). Such statistics can be noted on a smaller scale within Australia. Due to the increasing popularity of camera phones and the different ways in which people have embraced this technology, controversy has arisen with consideration to the right to privacy.
It would seem that the ways in which a minority of the population chose to use camera phones has hampered with the rights of innocent victims. In July, 2004, The (Adelaide) Advertiser, reported on a possible ban of mobile phones in cinemas in an attempt to curb piracy. Emphasis would be placed on random checks for camera phones within the first few weeks of a movies release. Nevertheless, no limit currently stands as to how rigorous such measures could become in cinemas alone (N.A, 2004). Museums and concert halls, where the use of cameras is discouraged, are just two of a number of places that will also have to contend with camera phones.
More importantly, the concern of photographs being taken via camera phones without a person’s consent is causing a stir within society. Patrick O’Neil of the Herald Sun (Melbourne) made reference to real-life situations in his article ‘Tougher laws to blitz spy phones; Websites flooded with illegally taken pictures’ by stating,
And this is not to say that men have not experienced such invasions of privacy in the same manner. An increase in the misuse of camera phones in schools is also of prominent concern. Again, Patrick O’Neil in ‘School phones blitz’ discusses the damaging nature of the technology with reports from teachers that ‘photographs were often digitally altered to further embarrass students’ and that ‘with a camera phone some students have the potential of taking a photo in a gym change room, toilet or shower’ (O’Neil2, 2004: par 4 & 13).
As noted earlier, camera phone offenders have the ability to share their images with countless other mobile phone users. The potential for photos to be instantaneously transferred to the Internet further amplifies the concerns of camera phones and related privacy issues.
Related Topics in the Wiki
List of References
N.A. 2004. ‘Camera ban at cinemas’, The Advertiser (Adelaide), July 5, http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=200407051009379712&db=anh (accessed 08/08/04).
Eurotechnology Japan K. K. 2004. ‘Camera phones: disruptive innovation for imaging’, October 11, http://www.eurotechnology.com/store/camera-phone/ (accessed 21/10/04).
O’Neil1, P. 2004. ‘Tougher laws to blitz spy phones; Websites flooded with illegally taken pictures’, Herald Sun (Melbourne), July 20, http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=200407202003900717&db=anh (accessed 08/08/04).
O’Neil2, P. 2004. ‘School phones blitz’, Herald Sun (Melbourne), July 27, http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=200407271010521518&db=anh (accessed 08/08/04).
Back to Mobile Phones - Security and Privacy
Rebecca Praden 10:49, 27 Oct 2004 (EST)
