Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Law Will Require Camera Phones To "Click"

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the pointless-wastes-of-time dept.

Privacy 1235

An anonymous reader writes "A new bill is being introduced called the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act, which would require any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken with the phone's camera. It would also prohibit such a phone from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone."

cancel ×

1235 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LOL (5, Funny)

Beat The Odds (1109173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611623)

And because it's a law, there will be no way to circumvent this.

Re:LOL (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611775)

"because it's a law"

And as its "law", then how about the CCTV's all making a noise when they photograph everyone. If they want everyone to respect their law, they should lead by example and prevent their CCTVs from filming without people knowing.

Re:LOL (5, Funny)

lordsid (629982) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611899)

From a loudspeaker next to the camera: "Fear not citizen, you are being filmed for your own protection. Be Well."

That would sure make me feel better.

Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611797)

Since any hacked camera will NOT make a sound ... will the cops randomly demand that people with camera-capable devices "demonstrate" that they click when a picture is taken? Since they will NOT be able to tell if someone was actually taking a picture or just seeing if they could frame the shot.

Excuse me sir. I see you're talking on your cell phone. I will ask you to take a picture of me so that I may ascertain whether your phone is "Camera Phone Predator Alert Act" compliant.

Re:Just think about ENFORCEMENT. (4, Funny)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611883)

At which time, I, as the wiley "bad guy", press the button telling the camera to make the clicking noise when taking a picture. After the mean ol'cop has left, I press it again and resume taking illicit photos of manhole covers.... ohh.. look, that one has some bubble gum stuck in the lettering.

Re:LOL (0, Offtopic)

tritonman (998572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611871)

I only have two words for this: HA HA

Re:LOL (4, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611969)

When camera phones that don't click are outlawed, only outlaws will have camera phones that don't click.

What about open source phones? (3, Interesting)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611627)

What does this mean for open source phones? Does this mean that Android would be illegal in the US?

Re:What about open source phones? (1, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611747)

It probably means they will have to add a hardware feature to put a sound over the ringer speakers (even when muted!) when the camera is activated. I imagine that the worst offenders would just patch out a firmware fix.

This is bad news for things like the iPhone however, since it would mean you would have to disallow third party access to the camera to insure your phone doesn't run afoul of the law, which would be a problem for people who want to use the camera for things besides taking pantyshots, like games.

Re:What about open source phones? (3, Insightful)

Unending (1164935) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611831)

What about capturing a frame of video, how are they going to handle that?
Obviously they haven't thought this out and it will like many other bills die a quiet death.

Re:What about open source phones? (5, Funny)

pieterh (196118) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611975)

Wait, the "Video Phone Predator Act" is in preparation, it requires all video-capable phones to make a government-mandated "heavy breathing" noise when filming.

Next, the "Spy Glass Predator Act" will make it necessary for any hidden camera to marked with blinking red/blue LEDs and make a "pshooost!" sound each time it takes a frame.

And finally, we have the bi-partisan "Window Predator Act", which requires all Glass Windows to be painted in black. This bill was sponsored by the Ink Manufacturers Association of America (IMAA).

Happily Obama has promised "transparency", so the windows are probably safe.

Re:What about open source phones? (4, Insightful)

anss123 (985305) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611755)

What does this mean for open source phones? Does this mean that Android would be illegal in the US?

No. But if the police catch you and you're Android doesn't 'click' - even if you don't have anything illegal on the phone - they have something to charge you with.

Re:What about open source phones? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611771)

Android is a piece of shit that claims to be open but its SDK only runs on x86. Fuck Android.

Re:What about open source phones? (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611805)

No, but I bet Microsoft or Apple will make that argument, since it would eliminate a competitor to their respective mobile OSes.

Re:What about open source phones? (4, Insightful)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611821)

Nevermind that, you could open up the phone and cut the wire to the speaker! So not only does this leave a large area to interpretation, it's easy to circumvent with a little determination.

Re:What about open source phones? (1)

billster0808 (739783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26612011)

Or even better, just change the sound to be completely silent. No hardware mods required

Re:What about open source phones? (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611847)

You know how it goes. The phone will be released with the US OS, which doesn't include the stuff that is illegal here.

But you can go immediately to sites overseas and download a version that has all the good stuff pre-included. Since the phone OS is basically designed for this sort of swapping, it's hard to see how they could prevent this.

Re:What about open source phones? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611865)

Would open source cars not require turn signals?

Stupid question.

Re:What about open source phones? (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611923)

I guess it depends on how the law is written.

It would also prohibit such a phone from being equipped with a means of disabling or silencing the tone.

What does it mean to be "equipped with a means" to do something? If I don't include any option in my list of settings, but it's easily hacked to silence the click, is that "equipped with a means of disabling the tone"?

If so, then it seems like a potential engineering problem. How are you going to make a tamper-proof phone? With many phones, the speaker isn't that loud anyway, and you could probably muffle a single clicking sound by taping over the hole in the case in front of the speaker.

If being able to alter the phone in such a way as to disable it doesn't count, then open source software shouldn't be a problem so long as it's distributed without exposing that setting by whomever is distributing it.

And because of all that, I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be a dumb law. It's either going to be very hard for manufacturers to comply with it, or else very easy to circumvent for the consumer.

but.... (1)

neo8750 (566137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611633)

What about all my pantyshots?

Re:but.... (2, Funny)

PIBM (588930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611701)

Just use a high definition camera with hours of recording time. You'll have lots of fun with that, I guess.

Re:but.... (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611935)

Use a camera, not a cell phone with a camera?

Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611637)

Ooops, by portable Digital Video Camera doesn't click.

yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611639)

What about video?

I find it's difficult to get a good upskirt shot by taking still pictures anyway...

oh my head (3, Insightful)

spikedvodka (188722) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611645)

Why not just legislate that every time you take a picture, it bleats out "HEY EVERYBODY, I'M TRYING TO TAKE A PICTURE HERE, DO YOU MIND?"

and anyways, adding a hard-wire normally closed switch to the wire leading to the speaker isn't hard to do.

Re:oh my head (3, Insightful)

tritonman (998572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611905)

don't forget, the next headlines will be about SECRET CIA CELL PHONES THAT DON'T CLICK!

Re:oh my head (1)

ITJC68 (1370229) | more than 5 years ago | (#26612015)

The problem is people have been using this "technology" to steal credit card information let along invasion of privacy (hence panty shot). Let's face it. Although I think they are trying to stop some people from illegally using the camera phone we all know the current phones will not have it and hacks to the phone to disable will be all over the web. If people were more careful (like when giving a credit card to a waitress/waiter in a restaurant) turn it so the damn numbers can't be photographed. Also people who handle them should be taught how to prevent theft of the numbers. This is borderline insane to propose a law like this. Next all cars will have to have constant beeping when backing up (like some trucks)!! And women, wear panties when out in public if you don't want pics of your lower half to be viewed by many. LOL

Whew... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611649)

Good thing I still have my pen camera [google.com] !

Ok, I'm kidding. But do they actually think this solves the problem?

Yes (1)

Brain-Fu (1274756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611895)

Those who do not actually understand the technology do think that this law will solve the problem.

Leave well enough alone (5, Insightful)

onemorechip (816444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611651)

Next will have complaints from parents whose children's recitals are marred by clicking cell phones, newlyweds whose vows were interrupted by the same, etc., etc.

Re:Leave well enough alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611913)

Next will have complaints from parents whose children's recitals are marred by clicking cell phones, newlyweds whose vows were interrupted by the same, etc., etc.

Won't anyone think of the parents?

I don't see why this should be limited to camera phones. This should be a feature of ALL cameras, if for no other reason that any press conferences of sponsor will be drowned out by constant beeping. [house.gov]

Or, maybe we should just outlaw skirts. "upjean" shots probably don't turn out too well. Take THAT, Scots!

Leica shutters don't click (4, Interesting)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611959)

One of the things that photographers really liked about Leica film cameras is that they use very quiet shutters, allowing them to be used for unobtrusive candid shots.

Perhaps this law might consider banning Leicas too.

Like most laws of this sort, there is almost no chance of making it work.

Eh? (5, Funny)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611653)

What next, requiring digital camcorders to make that old 8mm sounds while recording?

Soon to be followed by... (2, Funny)

dillpick6 (699618) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611655)

A high pitch noise whenever the mic is turned on.

japan (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611657)

i'm pretty sure they have this law in japan

Because we all know... (1)

Firemouth (1360899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611661)

... that it's impossible to remove the speaker!

Re:remove? (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611781)

Why remove the speaker? Just put a piece of tape over it. Of course, if they use the handset speaker for the "click," that'd be more difficult to disable with tape ... unless you desire one-sided telephone conversations. Might be desirable for those of us who are married.

Re:remove? (1)

spikedvodka (188722) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611837)

if you want to listen... ever think of "remove the Tape"?

Tax dollars at work! (0, Redundant)

guysmilee (720583) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611665)

Tax dollars at work!

Keeping the honest, honest? (1)

Ustice (788261) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611669)

So... This law somehow prohibits either snipping a wire or replacing it with a small resistor?

All this does is prevent me from taking pictures of my god-son in concerts and the like.

Idiots.

Thank god (5, Funny)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611675)

I was worried that congress had stuff to address that actually matters.

Re:Thank god (2, Insightful)

K_E_Morr (463022) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611931)

I agree. I read that and thought "Really!? These people have nothing better to do?" I have to call MI UIA on Wednesday. First time I've been unemployed since 1981 and "we're" worried about silent cell phone cameras

Re:Thank god (1)

2phar (137027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611991)

Yup. Rep. King also hard at work with resolutions [loc.gov] to deal with the pressing matters of supporting the goals and ideals of the Knights of Pythias, and establishing a United States Boxing Commission. The economy will just have to wait.

fucking retarded government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611679)

our lives and economy are in meltdown and all these taint stains can think about is a new 'camera clicking law'?

for the love of all thats holy what the fuck is wrong with these people?

Re:fucking retarded government (0, Redundant)

rtconner (544309) | more than 5 years ago | (#26612005)

Yep, that is exactly what was running through my mind.

What about movies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611687)

a click for every frame? are you required to install a speaker on every photo taking device? how can you possibly enforce this?

Japan (5, Informative)

Ninjaesque One (902204) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611689)

I recall that Japan has a similar law, to prevent photos being taken of. . . things that Japanese men want to take pictures of, I guess.

Well (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611691)

If you outlaw non-clicking photo capable cell phones, then only outlaws will successfully take upskirt photos. Of course, this is already the case.

Not bad. (0, Troll)

VariableGHz (1099185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611703)

Maybe there's a need for this law. There are probably examples cited throughout the legal text of the proposed law.

Insanely stupid. (4, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611705)

May as well pass a low mandating all shoes to have "clicky" heels so that we can't sneak up on anyone. Silent shoes are the highest contributors to predatory actions!

Seriously, this is stupid. And besides, we all know someone will find a way to disable it, so it'll only make the non-bad people have to live with the click, right?

I guess legislators don't know what else to do with their time. You'd think they'd start, I don't know, spending less.... nah.

Re:Insanely stupid. (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611909)

Clicking heels give a good audible warning on when I need to be stalking. Usually it's only the thin ones that can handle the heels and the young ones that have the ankles for it.

Thank goodness for tiled hall ways (and marketing).

Buy them now.. (1)

HexaByte (817350) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611709)

I see a run on non-click cell phones right before the law goes into effect.

I also see.. (2, Insightful)

HexaByte (817350) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611791)

I also see a market for digital cameras that look like cell phones. Hold it up to your as if talking, snap a silent pic, and no one knows because cell phones all click now when picture taking, right?

Just more stupid laws giving us a false sense of security!

All cameras? (4, Interesting)

Imagix (695350) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611721)

Does this apply to _all_ cameras? Security cams, webcams, etc? What about cell phones taking videos? Do they now have to play a whirring sound so that people know that the video camera is running (and then back to security cams, web cams, etc)?

Re:All cameras? (1)

Dolohov (114209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611937)

The text of the bill is explicitly mobile phones taking photographs.

Re:All cameras? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611957)

Too lazy to read the article, eh? Or even too lazy to read the headline posted to slashdot. It specifically says "Camera phones".

Re:All cameras? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611967)

Wouldn't Benny Hill music be more appropriate?

Republicans (2, Funny)

Zolodoco (1170019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611727)

I'm glad to see that someone's stepping up to fill Katherine Harris's crazy shoes.

Surveillance (5, Insightful)

pipatron (966506) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611729)

So the state can secretly monitor everything we do, but we are not allowed to do it ourselves?

Now *that's* conducting the People's Business! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611731)

Next: a law that requires politicians to spout blood when they surreptitiously waste trillions of dollars.

What about all the security cameras (1)

eagle486 (553102) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611735)

If this is law then all security cameras should be beeping continuously.

Would this apply to regular cameras also?

Re:What about all the security cameras (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611855)

also, all undercover cops must repeat "beep!" every fifteen seconds

Re:What about all the security cameras (1)

SoundGuyNoise (864550) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611941)

They do in the movies. Flashing red light, beeping noises, and load motors when zooming and sweeping back and forth.

Expect to see... (5, Funny)

Nrbelex (917694) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611739)

Expect to see a lot more ads for: "UPSKIRT SHOTS OF DEAF CHIKZ!1one." They should really require a strobe light to go off at the same time as the shutter sound.

Already in japan? (1, Redundant)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611741)

Wasn't this law just borrowed from japan, which has been dealing with this kind of stuff for a while? I could have sworn that I read about some similar law a few years ago due to the gropey-nature of japanese city dwellers.

Re:Already in japan? (1)

SkankinMonkey (528381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611921)

mod parent up! This law does come Japan which tries to have very strict laws for guys who enjoy taking upskirt shots.

Grrrrrrrr, goddamn upskirters. (1, Redundant)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611745)

I hate this crap because my kid is camera obsessed, and, upon hearing the click, stops doing the cute crap that he was previously doing and demands to see the picture.

Just another example of the perv's ruining things for the rest of us, and I'm sure that a modified firmware will be released in like 10 minutes to take it off, so the only people who will be inconvenienced are people like me (who will...hem...not get screwed after I accidentally brick my wife's phone).

Re:Grrrrrrrr, goddamn upskirters. (4, Insightful)

linzeal (197905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611843)

It is not pervs ruining it for the rest of us, it is craven idiotic politicians. Pervs will just use the publicly available hack which will come out less than 12 hours after this is passed into law.

Re:Grrrrrrrr, goddamn upskirters. (1)

manekineko2 (1052430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611859)

Just another example of the perv's ruining things for the rest of us, and I'm sure that a modified firmware will be released in like 10 minutes to take it off

Well, really then given that this in all likelihood won't hinder pervs in any way as you pointed out, this is just another example (if the bill passes, and I have no idea of the likelihood of that) of politicians ruining things.

Well I guess I only get one shot .... (2, Funny)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611753)

... at a picture of my dog.

Re:Well I guess I only get one shot .... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611915)

or the cop executing some dude at a train station.

Ugh... (2, Informative)

tiny1877 (1060160) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611761)

My phone already does this and it is EXTREMELY annoying. In fact, all of my Motorola iDen phones with cameras have done this (i860, i870, i880).

Crimes in progress (5, Insightful)

ewg (158266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611765)

Probably a rare occurrence, but this means bystanders won't be able to photograph crimes in progress without alerting criminals.

Re:Crimes in progress (5, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611951)

"Probably a rare occurrence, but this means bystanders won't be able to photograph arrests in progress without alerting the police."

Fixed that for ya'

Re:Crimes in progress (1)

AnthropomorphicRobot (1460839) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611987)

My thought exactly. There are many reasons a person may wish to discreetly take a photo/video.

See a crime in progress? Police abusing power? Infant sleeping? School play? This law puts people in danger in the first two, and is an annoyance in the latter two. Meanwhile, anyone up to no good will just use one of the millions of available silent cameras.

No effect. (1)

Hodr (219920) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611783)

Something tells me that unless this law was specifically targeting people who take opportunity shots when presented, but otherwise are not actively engaged in these types of activities, it will not be effective.

I cant imagine it would require more than the most rudimentary knowledge of electronics to disable the speaker in a camera phone (and set phone to vibrate for normal use), or even put a switch in so that its functionality as a phone isn't inpinged.

Ah, another job for Ethan Hunt (2)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611817)

Can't be silenced huh? So this magic speaker, or other sound emitting device, can't be covered by a pillow, and can't be destroyed by a paper-clip?

Again, we're talking about intentional malice. Anyone with something to gain -- i.e. getting away with it -- can easily solve the problem.

Electrical Tape (1)

leroybrown (136516) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611823)

Surely there's a provision to stop me from placing electrical tape over my iPhone speaker?

Re:Electrical Tape (1)

spikedvodka (188722) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611885)

<Humor> Of course... the DMCA, you'd be circumventing a "digital protection device"</humor>

Great!!! (4, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611833)

So now, when you take a picture of police shooting a restrained person in the back, they'll be alerted and shoot you!!!

Silent camera phones are an important instrument to keep authorities in check.

WTF? (4, Informative)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611839)

Seriously. What. The. Fuck?

That annoying fucken' sound is the fist thing I fucken' disable when I get a new phone, simply because it pisses me off.

I've never taken "candid" photos, for which I'd need complete silence, I just don't like the extra noise. I disable my desktop sounds, as well. I'm just like that.

And at a concert or other public event? I've never heard someone's camera phone making noises (other than ringing) at one, but I know they're being used to take pictures. ... actually, I have been in situations where silence was golden. I have no drawing skills and needed to copy down a diagram my instructor had drawn on the whiteboard. My (instructor approved, so ling as it didn't disrupt the class) answer? Camera phone.

Not anymore, if this law passes!

I think this is already illegal in Japan (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611851)

I have no verifiable source for this, but some friends who are into Japanese culture say that several years ago, voyeuristic pics became such a problem that the Japanese government required all camera phones to have a hard coded audible click. And that totally put an end to the problem(?)

disable click'ing (1)

f1vlad (1253784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611867)

Some worried about open source phones, :) come on, whether it's open source or not you could disable that clicking, if really wanted to, on some even so-called closed-source devices (iPhone)

Every phone I have had has this annoying feature (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611869)

The volume makes it reasonably quiet compared to background noise in crowded places, but in quiet places it is horrendously loud. Lets start putting it on all digital cameras, good luck every getting a shot of that cute deer family that visits your back yard or that rare shot of some endangered bird as your camera flashes and plays a siren just so that everyone can be sure you aren't a pervert. Because in both of those cases you are going to be sure to have your expensive professional shooting rig on hand and ready to go...

I read the tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611873)

I LOVE upskirt republicans!

I can silence my digital camera click (1)

DesertBlade (741219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611875)

So this is kinda pointless. And I can tape over the speaker to make it quieter, Or puncture it.

CIA Operatives? (1)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611879)

Does this law also apply to spy cameras used by CIA operatives? How about warrantless wiretaps having a Beep when ever the line is picked up legislated into them?

Don't forget... (1)

tool462 (677306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611893)

Don't forget to include a bright flashy light so deaf people are also aware when their picture is being taken. Of course this means that cameras should also be unable to take pictures of anyone that can't see the camera. I fear for the future of my upskirtcomapatient.com porn site...

It's being introduced (2, Informative)

DarkNinja75 (990459) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611897)

The law is being introduced, it hasn't passed. I doubt it will, so it was probably created solely so a congressman/woman could say they introduced a bill to protect your privacy.

What about classical music concerts (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611907)

Occasionally, I help school concert bands record their concerts.

  1. Audience (teenagers) taking photos will now attract more irritation from surrounding audience.
  2. My audio recordings will now have more shuttle noises - in full surround stereo.

No amount of CoolEdit/Audacity can help me remove the shuttles in the middle of the flute solo.

Cretins.. (3, Insightful)

TheCreeep (794716) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611911)

What the hell is wrong with these people? Is this the one pressing issue at the moment? Don't they have something to do that is really worth their time? And who the hell silently takes photos of people with their phone? This will just inconvenience the innocent and have no next to no effect on anybody who is actually crazy enough to run around taking silent photos of people. They can muffle the speaker, they can get a silent camera without a phone attatched to it. They can RECORD VIDEO on their phones for crying out loud. Will they pass a law requiring the phone to make a screeching or barking noise or something when it records?

In further news... (1)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611917)

The sound the phone makes upon taking a picture will be Anthony Hopkins in his Lecter voice doing that slurping sound after he says "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti".

Speaking of useless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611919)

I want a law that also requires toilets to make happy sounds when I flush.

Outraged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611939)

Seriously, this is what we are doing instead of spending time and resources monitoring the $350B of taxpayer money we just "invested?"

Whats next? (1)

imp7 (714746) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611949)

Next they will require us to make hand jesters to signal the direction were heading when exiting all elevators.

And at what volume? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611955)

Watch the law get passed, but fail to specify a minimum volume limit. Technically, the camera goes "click", but everyone will turn the volume all the way down... It's not disabled, just very, very, very quiet.

clicking phones (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26611973)

One would think with the current economic issues, unemployment skyrocketing, the war in Iraq that the government would work on those first before worrying about a phone clicking or not.

Movies? (1)

kreyg (103130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26611993)

I can still take movies without incessant racket, right?

Wait a moment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26612003)

This is a law?

hahahaha... omg... sucks...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?