3 ms·

This is a really cool solution to a problem that really seems like it shouldn't exist.

pliu 12y ago
It's all relative. There are probably a lot of subway riding Japanese ladies that would argue that this problem really really should exist.
- greggman 12y ago
  How do you figure? The same laws don't apply to digital cameras which come on all shapes and sizes.
  - sosborn 12y ago
    When you are holding a camera, the intent is somewhat obvious. When you are holding a phone, not so much. That's the real separation.
    - greggman 12y ago
      Cameras come in all different shapes and sizes. I can get cameras that look like cellphones. I can even get keychain cameras for $4 off eBay and put them in my shoes. Set them to video and shoot hours of up skirt shots. The law does nothing to stop people who want to take pictures without you knowing they're doing it. Anyone who wants to will. The law is pointless
      - Pitarou 12y ago
        No, it is not pointless. The point of this law is to create the perception that the authorities are doing something about the perceived epidemic of upskirt photography. The same authorities also erect signs next to escalators warning people that upskirt photography is a crime. They serve the same purpose: to make escalator-riding ladies feel that the authorities are watching out for them. Don't knock it. It works.
- wyager 12y ago
  I'm sorry, but I think if you buy that argument, your priorities are totally out of whack. Putting legal restraints on someone else's technology because a very small number of people were subjected to mildly embarrassing/uncomfortable situations is ridiculous.
  - wes-exp 12y ago
    Privacy concerns like the right not to be photographed are not just about minor nuisances. People who are victims of stalking, violence, harassment and so on, deserve to be alerted if someone is trying to photograph them. For example, imagine you're in witness protection and some random person snaps your pic and posts it online. Some face scanning thing finds the pic and it clues in the bad guys to your location. Now you're dead because someone didn't respect your privacy.
    - wyager 12y ago
      >People who are victims of stalking, violence, harassment and so on, deserve to be alerted if someone is trying to photograph them. Why does that imply that it's OK to dictate how I'm allowed to use my technology? I'd say everyone's right to own and control their own devices trumps a few people's right to feel a little better about all the dozens of scary icky boogy men hanging out on the train. >Now you're dead because someone didn't respect your privacy. Which is a completely separate issue from legally requiring someone's device to follow some ridiculous rule invented because of a negligible edge case. Do you really believe that requiring a camera to make a noise will actually protect anyone's privacy? People can always disable the speaker or do illegal hacks to the device. The only thing this law does is set a terrible precedent of allowing the government to control people's electronic devices.
      - wes-exp 12y ago
        People can always disable the speaker or do illegal hacks to the device In the example scenario I gave, the biggest threat to a person's privacy was not hacker types, but just everyday people who post photos online. I think it's pretty self-evident that the majority of people would not modify their device in this way, even if they could. Why does that imply it's OK to dictate how I'm allowed to use my technology Even the most freedom-loving libertarians among us generally concede that your freedom doesn't extend to harming others. In the issue at hand we probably aren't even really talking about your freedom, per se, but simply how devices are manufactured. As you mentioned, no one can really stop you from modding a device, anyway. By the way, you might want to try flipping your own reasoning around, and thinking about what a minor inconvenience it is to hear the camera sound, so that people's privacy can be protected.
- baddox 12y ago
  Why? What do you do if you notice someone taking a picture of you? Hearing the sound doesn't solve any problems.
- unicornporn 12y ago
  After all, there must be a reason that there's even A SIGN for it! http://main.makeuseoflimited.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/japan-warning.jpg http://main.makeuseoflimited.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploa...
cmelbye 12y ago
I don't think it's that hard to understand why they might have done it this way, is it? Privacy immediately comes to mind.
_jsn 12y ago
The front-facing camera doesn't have an indicator light, so this sound is the only thing preventing an app from stealthily capturing a photo or video recording of you while using it. I'd imagine analysis of your emotional reaction to some stimuli (gameplay elements, advertisements, whatever) would be fairly valuable.

pliu 12y ago

It's all relative. There are probably a lot of subway riding Japanese ladies that would argue that this problem really really should exist.

greggman 12y ago
How do you figure? The same laws don't apply to digital cameras which come on all shapes and sizes.
- sosborn 12y ago
  When you are holding a camera, the intent is somewhat obvious. When you are holding a phone, not so much. That's the real separation.
  - greggman 12y ago
    Cameras come in all different shapes and sizes. I can get cameras that look like cellphones. I can even get keychain cameras for $4 off eBay and put them in my shoes. Set them to video and shoot hours of up skirt shots. The law does nothing to stop people who want to take pictures without you knowing they're doing it. Anyone who wants to will. The law is pointless
    - Pitarou 12y ago
      No, it is not pointless. The point of this law is to create the perception that the authorities are doing something about the perceived epidemic of upskirt photography. The same authorities also erect signs next to escalators warning people that upskirt photography is a crime. They serve the same purpose: to make escalator-riding ladies feel that the authorities are watching out for them. Don't knock it. It works.
wyager 12y ago
I'm sorry, but I think if you buy that argument, your priorities are totally out of whack. Putting legal restraints on someone else's technology because a very small number of people were subjected to mildly embarrassing/uncomfortable situations is ridiculous.
- wes-exp 12y ago
  Privacy concerns like the right not to be photographed are not just about minor nuisances. People who are victims of stalking, violence, harassment and so on, deserve to be alerted if someone is trying to photograph them. For example, imagine you're in witness protection and some random person snaps your pic and posts it online. Some face scanning thing finds the pic and it clues in the bad guys to your location. Now you're dead because someone didn't respect your privacy.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >People who are victims of stalking, violence, harassment and so on, deserve to be alerted if someone is trying to photograph them. Why does that imply that it's OK to dictate how I'm allowed to use my technology? I'd say everyone's right to own and control their own devices trumps a few people's right to feel a little better about all the dozens of scary icky boogy men hanging out on the train. >Now you're dead because someone didn't respect your privacy. Which is a completely separate issue from legally requiring someone's device to follow some ridiculous rule invented because of a negligible edge case. Do you really believe that requiring a camera to make a noise will actually protect anyone's privacy? People can always disable the speaker or do illegal hacks to the device. The only thing this law does is set a terrible precedent of allowing the government to control people's electronic devices.
    - wes-exp 12y ago
      People can always disable the speaker or do illegal hacks to the device In the example scenario I gave, the biggest threat to a person's privacy was not hacker types, but just everyday people who post photos online. I think it's pretty self-evident that the majority of people would not modify their device in this way, even if they could. Why does that imply it's OK to dictate how I'm allowed to use my technology Even the most freedom-loving libertarians among us generally concede that your freedom doesn't extend to harming others. In the issue at hand we probably aren't even really talking about your freedom, per se, but simply how devices are manufactured. As you mentioned, no one can really stop you from modding a device, anyway. By the way, you might want to try flipping your own reasoning around, and thinking about what a minor inconvenience it is to hear the camera sound, so that people's privacy can be protected.
baddox 12y ago
Why? What do you do if you notice someone taking a picture of you? Hearing the sound doesn't solve any problems.
unicornporn 12y ago
After all, there must be a reason that there's even A SIGN for it! http://main.makeuseoflimited.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/japan-warning.jpg http://main.makeuseoflimited.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploa...

cmelbye 12y ago

I don't think it's that hard to understand why they might have done it this way, is it? Privacy immediately comes to mind.

_jsn 12y ago

The front-facing camera doesn't have an indicator light, so this sound is the only thing preventing an app from stealthily capturing a photo or video recording of you while using it. I'd imagine analysis of your emotional reaction to some stimuli (gameplay elements, advertisements, whatever) would be fairly valuable.