Cellphone cameras ring warning bells

Meanwhile, though, early next year isn't soon enough for some people. And bans on camera cellphone use only on federal lands don't always cut it. To avoid the problem altogether, last July the Sports Club/LA opted to ban the use of all cellphones everywhere in its nine US gyms, except for the lobbies.

"A single incident didn't trigger this decision," explains publicist Rebecca Harris. "Our security director recommended this as a protection to our members, many of whom are celebrities."

The YMCA of the USA has followed suit, says Erin Streeter, Washington spokesperson for the organization's national resource office. She is urging the 240 independent YMCA gyms nationwide to ban camera cellphones - a step already taken by the YMCA of Australia.

Some say that such bans might not be needed. "Social norms will develop, and people will not take [unsolicited] pictures because it's rude," says Douglas Thomas, associate professor of communication at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

Professor Thomas adds that the only revolutionary thing about these phones is their ability to distribute pictures on the Internet.

"There's really nothing new about taking photographs surreptitiously," he says. "For about 10 years now, any creep wanting to take 'up-skirt' kind of photography has had access to the technology. A camera that fits in the button of a shirt costs a mere $35."

High-tech phones are not all bad, adds Thomas. "If you have your phone, you've got your camera. One might ... be witness to a crime and take a picture that would be useful."

But, he adds, someone who intends to take quality pictures isn't likely to use a camera cellphone. With only one-third of a megapixel in most of these phones, the quality simply isn't there.

That's changing, however, says NOKIA's Keith Nowak. "Right now," he adds, "anything bigger than a 3-inch-by-5-inch photo loses its resolution and looks grainy. But next year, you're going to see these phones with triple the [number] of megapixels."

He and Marty Nee, his peer at competitor ATT, both view these phones as similar to other recording devices whose pictures could be be widely distributed if one were so inclined.

"There's always the [possibility] that people will misuse the phones," Mr. Nowak says, "but most people are buying them to document their lives, just as they would with any other camera."

"We don't see any need for additional controls placed on wireless camera phones," says Mr. Nee, adding that people must use common sense with all cameras.

But David Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, disagrees. "Congress hasn't squarely addressed this issue yet, and it needs to," he says. "This is a classic example of technology outpacing the development of the law."

Page: 1 | 2