By CNET Asia Staff, 22 October 2003 09:25
NEWS All companies, not just those handling highly sensitive materials, should ban employees and visitors bringing camera-enabled phones into the premises, according to one analyst.
"A clear policy of no camera-enabled phones - just as there is a clear policy in most companies that no cameras are allowed on the premises - is required and desirable," said Jack Gold an analyst with IT research firm Meta Group.
Most organisations will "look unfavourably" on camera-enabled devices and will wish to "restrict their acquisition and use", he said, meaning they should set firm policies for such devices.
While the image quality of cameras in most phones is poor, they are a channel for leaks of sensitive data or other images that can produce "unintended consequences", said Gold.
In few years, as the cost of putting cameras into phones drops ever further, most phones will sport one, he said.
"Although small, easy-to-carry digital cameras are also a threat, the sheer number of mobile phones with cameras represents a far larger installed base. Very few people currently carry digital cameras with them everywhere they go, as they do with mobile phones," he said.
Gold recommends that firm that supply staff with phone ensure that the mobile operators permanently disable the camera hardware. He also believes that firm should ask visitors to hand over phones for inspection before allowing them in.
For organisations that value security even higher, he suggests that they screen all mobile devices, not just phones, for cameras.
Analysts have predicted that there will be almost 1 billion camera phones in use within five years, which has led companies such as LG Electronics and Samsung to bar employees from using camera phones in research and manufacturing facilities because of fears over the security of sensitive data.
Besides corporate espionage, the growing popularity of camera phones has also sparked concerns over individual privacy. In some countries, the uses of these gadgets are already prohibited in public areas such as swimming pools and changing rooms to protect consumers against the wandering lenses of voyeurs.
Bookstore owners in Japan are also mulling measures to stop female shoppers from snapping pictures of magazines with their camera-phones, a trend they termed "digital shoplifting".
Korean authorities are reportedly considering a law which makes it mandatory for phone makers to install a "noise emitter" in their camera-equipped handsets.
Under the proposed bill by Korea's ruling Millennium Democratic Party, manufacturers will have to design their camera phones to emit a loud noise when pictures are taken. This will alert the public when their pictures are snapped to prevent human rights infringements and industrial espionage.
Electronics firm Iceberg Systems is beta-testing Safe Haven, which combines hardware transmitters with a small piece of control software loaded into a camera phone handset. When the handset is taken into a room or building containing the Safe Haven hardware, the phone is instructed to deactivate the imaging systems. The systems are reactivated when the handset is out of range.
What do you think? Should camera phones be restricted? Let us know by posting a Reader Comment below.
Comments
There are 7 comments. Join the discussion
1. K King
This guy gets paid how much to come up with this fluff?!?
Anyone who is going to spy in the workplace has probably been using a regular camera or a digital camera to take pictures of sensitive material. Or even better, a video camera. Isolating camera phones as a standout is plugging a gushing dike with your pinky finger.
How will companies keep employees from bringing in camera phones? Search at the front door? Secondly, cameras are quickly becoming standard equipment in phones. Are we going to tell employees to keep their cell phones in their cars if they have a camera in their phones?
And as for keeping customers from bringing camera phones with them into public places of business, that's so bogus, I won't even bother to reply.
Gold might as well have published a study saying that employees should be banned from bringing weapons of mass destruction to work. The eyes roll...
2. Derick Irvine
Our Company (THALES) has banned them already but the resolution is pretty poor on them so what's the point?
3. Mike
What a berk - how are you going to implement that?
4. Mohd Shuib Pook
No. I don't think banning or restricting camera phones is the solution instead it will increase incidences as the challenge is increase. Try to promote responsible usage and increase penalty for those caught violating or abusing the use of camera phones
5. Michelle Kaye
My company has also banned these camera phones from the buildings. It means that I can't bring my phone into work, as I do not have an alternative. So no calls to the office if I have travel problems on the way in. I'm unable to have the phone with me if I go out in the evening.
If companies decide to ban them, then I feel it's their responsibility to either supply a replacement, or to accept any liability for anything that should happen to them, if they have to be left somewhere - neither of which my company is prepared to do.
6. Interested Policy Writer
Corporations are clearly banning camera phones through fear of protecting employee privicy. As it won't be long and from what I've read some people (?) in the US have already started waving the Privicy flag. Most large Corps. already have a Camera policy in place (IBM, Microsoft) banning camera's, it's just Joe public has never had a camera attached to an everyday device that they bring to work before.
7. Mick James
If I was an employer I'd be more worried about what peoplemight be taking out on those little USB pen drives and MP3 players. Surely a couple of gigs of sensitive data can do more damage than any number of low-res images?