In the UK many schools have already talked about banning camera phones for fear they may be used to take 'candid' photos that could fall into the wrong hands.
And in other countries camera phones have been banned from bath houses, changing rooms, gyms, saunas and other places where photography could be deemed an infringement of somebody's privacy.
Now the US is joining in on the action - pushing through a bill which will outlaw the use of such phones in a wide variety of public places.
And while there is nothing particularly new about such a bill, the timing will be the most interesting aspect for many observers.
After all, photography is a bit of a contentious issue in the US at the moment for fairly well-publicised reasons.
Such bans are only necessary because we cannot trust the people carrying the cameras. If the events of the past week have taught us anything it's that some pretty vile people know how to use a camera.
And it's a tricky sell for the US - balancing its puritan values with the right to bear arms. (And for arms read cameras).
Nobody in their right mind would argue in favour of being allowed to take photos wherever and of whoever they like. But similarly, people - especially those whose guns cannot even be wrested off them - tend not to react well to being told what they can and cannot do. Most tend to think they know how to police themselves and know what is right and wrong.
And then there is a freedom of speech argument. Could there be a compelling reason why somebody should be able to override the law and use their camera phone?
Famous footage of the Rodney King beating and its huge political and social repercussions angered some in authority at the time, but under tightening regimes would we ever want to near a situation where it can be decided who can use cameras and where?
How easily would the means - breaking the law - justify the end?
But the bottom line is that lack of trust for others - the likelihood that the majority of discreet photography is purely voyeuristic - and the fact that people's privacy should be sacrosanct means these bans will become an important item of law and in the main are welcome and necessary.
What do you think? Have your say by registering a reader comment below.
Comments
There are 21 comments. Join the discussion
1. Mini Stryoflove
why not just make sure all photos have to be uploaded via mms and not directly, so the govt can snoop them like text or voice calls.
you will be guilty until you die in our modern intelligent cctv world.
2. Guy Kirkwood
Four words: horse, stable door, bolted.
3. anonymous
It's not just USA, last week I was stopped in London:
The paranoia is spreading. Last week an officious security guard stopped me from photographing the attractive flood-lit entrance to St Thomas' Hospital in London, with an ordinary camera.
There are no signs, but apparently photos are banned in this public space.
No explanations, no justifications, no passing VIPs ... no reason?
4. David J Walker
So they've suddenly realised that for everyone to have the ability to clandestinely photograph anything anywhere anytime and instantly publish the result World-wide might not necessarily be a good thing.
Took 'em a bit, didn't it? I despair.
5. Tim
With reference to the comment about being stopped from taking pictures in London:
One reason that security guards will try to stop you taking photos is that the security industry has been told that terrorist organisations will generally try to take photos of a target as part of the planning for an attack. The security officers who work for me are instructed to challenge anyone taking photos of my buildings for this reason.
6. anonymous
Trying to prevent terrorists from planning attacks by banning photography in public areas is frankly laughable. The vast majority of non-MoD buildings have their plans publicly available, including 10 Downing Street at one point. Covert video and photography equipment provides high quality walkthroughs of buildings. People feel the need to do something but are not sufficiently informed to do something useful. Scan baggage, ban guns, but don't wantonly remove our liberties. Terrorism only works if we let it scare us.
7. Angus Doyle
What ever next..
8. Justin Wheatley
Video camera on plane not allowed.
I was with a bunch of mates on a Ryanair flight to Italy recently and was harmlessly filming my friends who were scattered about the plane. On the video you can clearly see one hostess indicate me to another, who then comes straight over and asks me to turn it off. Before I could ask why she'd wheeled round and gone. No justification or anything.
Would filming with video phones be seen the same way if they weren't already prohibited due to interference?
Perhaps they think we've already seen too much "Mile High".
9. anonymous
But it's OK for the government to install CCTV that monitors the population almost constantly?
10. anonymous
So what are we saying here? Will the average member of the public be stopped from taking photos with a camera? Are we just talking phones becasue they do not look like cameras? What about PDAs with cameras? Is the issue being able to upload pictures to a computer or is it that they can be sent instantly to somewhere else? Oh and by the way how does this all affect press photographers? Surely the issue is Privacy, not the tool used to breach it? In which case this legislation is totally misplaced!
11. anonymous
Reference "trying to prevent ... " Thank heaven for common sense. Does anyone with any grasp of technology really believe that a terrorist would openly use such an obvious device as a physically visible camera to gather information - I hope not. The UK has a long history of conservative and balanced reaction to events and so-called facts. Please do not follow in the footsteps of the USA where knee-jerk (autonomic - no thought involved) rection is a way of life.
12. Malcolm Ripley
Any terrorist who openly photographs his/her target (ie they end up on security camera footage) is such a moron that they'll probably get caught buying materials with Bin Laden's credit card ! A clever terrorist will photograph the building without being seen e.g. telephoto lens..duh...or a hidden camera in a bag...duh. Honestly the most frightening thing is the stupidity of the security personnel who think these restrictions up.
13. anonymous
Thanks for restoring sanity: "Trying to prevent terrorists from planning attacks by banning photography in public areas is frankly laughable..."
The area around St Thomas' Hospital is swarming with tourists, most carrying much more powerful cameras than mine, and most from overseas.
St Thomas' Hospital itself treats patients from all communities and many countries.
The area is saturated by CCTV cameras, security guards and police. (Although not enough to stop thieves with bolt-cutters from stealing bikes!)
Do UK anti-terrorist precautions really depend upon ordering an elderly person to not take a photograph of the outside of an attractive public building?
Note: There are no restrictions on taking external photos of Parliament or even the MoD buildings.
14. Simon
what a wounderful place this world is !
its a laugh a minute.
PEOPLE ! lets have a reality check !
15. Jan Huffman
Let's not forget that the US Constitution reserves rights not set out in the Constitution to the States and to the People. I fail to see anywhere in the Constitution that the people gave Federal Government the right to decide where one can use a camera.
16. Carey Tyler Schug
I realize it would take several years to implement due to existing phones, but how about requiring all camera phones have an infrared detector behind the same lens as the camera, and require they turn off the camera in the presence of a 45 Hz signal (for instance). Or maybe a visable light detector with a more complex decoding pattern. Then place such strobes in all places where camera phones would be forbidden (lockers, saunas, etc). Mere possesion of a tampered with phone would be a felony or of a strobe that would interfere with the system, as perhaps would be operating a strobe in a place where such phones should not be allowed for freedom of expression reasons. If the strobes occasionally fail, well, you can buy a spy camera so small it could not be detected, and take those pictures, so complete privacy from being photographed can not be guaranteed anywhere anyway.
17. Richard
Pity they're not banned in Iraq!
Also shame the press still can't distinguish Basra from Barnsley.
Seems that this technology has transformed us all into spies, perverts, or terrorists.
What a technological triumph: What a marvellous marketing message.
18. Ian Savell
It sure beats those little Minox things 007 used to use.
Imagine, a tiny camera hidden in an everyday device, sending pictures by wireless anywhere in the world. No wonder some people are worried. Industrial espionage? No problem!
Sevewral sites I visit have "no camera phone" signs, but whether anyone checks?
19. TC
Taking pix of Tommy's foyer is probably not the best advised pastime. It is, after all, directly opposite Westminster and the Houses of Parliament. However, the real reason for the ban is actually an attempt to protect the privacy of patients, famous, infamous, and joe public alike. Sick people and their relatives, for some odd reason, don't like having their pictures taken.
The guard was right. You might try asking Tommy's management for permission - if it's that important to you.
20. anonymous
Why differentiate between phone cameras and other types of camera. I can take pictures with my matchbox sized digital camera or even an old fashioned film camera and no-one would be able to see me doing it. Too many rules makes Jack an angry boy!
21. First Last
If you're going to be naked in public, assume someone may have a camera. Not a camera phone, but camera. They still manufacture the Minox and anyone can buy one. And some new digital cameras are the size of pens making them easier to conceal than even phones.