Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Handhelds Communications Hardware Technology

How the Camera Phone Changed the World 212

Posted by Zonk from the peeping-phone dept.
theodp writes "Ten years after the amazing Philippe Kahn married a cell phone and a digital camera to capture the birth of daughter Sophie, Slate takes a look at the impact of the camera phone, the gadget that perverts, vigilantes, and celebrity stalkers can all agree on. 'With this kind of device,' Kahn told Wired, 'you're going to see the best and the worst of things.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How the Camera Phone Changed the World More

How the Camera Phone Changed the World

Comments Filter:

  • Some Marriage! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20, 2007 @07:35AM (#17693518)
    Ten years after the amazing Philippe Kahn married a cell phone and a digital camera

    And people say gay marriage is unnatural!

    And, I didn't know that Kahn is a minister.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Camera" is feminine and "Phone" is masculine in my language you insensitive clod!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Snarfangel ( 203258 )
      >>Ten years after the amazing Philippe Kahn married a cell phone and a digital camera

      And people say gay marriage is unnatural!

      Well, marrying a cell phone with another cell phone is just silly.

      • Re:Some Marriage! (Score:5, Funny)

        by ddvlad ( 862846 ) on Saturday January 20, 2007 @08:04AM (#17693626)
        Well, marrying a cell phone with another cell phone is just silly.

        Yes, but marying a cell phone and two cameras is 3G. What is the world coming too?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by wwwillem ( 253720 )
          but marying a cell phone and two cameras is 3G


          You mean 3D ... :-)

          That would be cool, having two of those tiny cameras in your phone and then being able to send 3D stereo pictures. Only thing to figure out is how to display them, but I've seen solutions for that too (single screen, no glasses / goggles).

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      kaaaaaaaaaaahn!!!!!!

      sorry i had it do it

  • Camera Phones Suck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20, 2007 @07:43AM (#17693552)
    I do a lot of business with companies who for security reasons will not let you take a camera phone onto their premises. I also have to leave mine at home when I go to parents evening just in case I might possibly take a picture of a school pupil.

    Now, have you tried to get a non camera phone lately? Difficult to say the least.

    If I want to take a picture then I get my Digital Camera out (Nikon D2x) and do it properly.

    Current camera phones have the same quality as CCTV cameras did 10 years ago.

    I'm sorry (and will probably get modded down as a troll) this is one invention I could certainly do without.

    • Re:Camera Phones Suck (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mabinogi ( 74033 ) on Saturday January 20, 2007 @08:18AM (#17693666) Homepage
      > I also have to leave mine at home when I go to parents evening just in case I might possibly take a picture of a school pupil.
      what?

      When parents can't take photos at school events, it may not be the terrorists, but someone has certainly won....
      I know that my daughter's school has no problems with parents with cameras, whether they be phone cameras, handicams, or SLRs. Have things really sunk that far elsewhere?

      • Re:Camera Phones Suck (Score:5, Interesting)

        by celardore ( 844933 ) * on Saturday January 20, 2007 @02:26PM (#17695830)
        I remember a couple of years ago I was in a swimming pool with friends. They had a little pool for kids to swim in, which was empty save for a gran & grandpa and their grandchild. They wanted to take a snapshot of the kid swimming for the first time, the lifeguard then came over and said they weren't allowed cameras and tried to confiscate it. They argued that it was only their grandkid even in the area let alone the shot. The manager was called and eventually the grandparents had to leave with no first photo of the kid swimming, which I'm sure would have been a treasured memory for the whole family.

        That was a couple of years ago at least, but remember... I live in the UK. These rules are commonplace. I wouldn't be surprised if you're not allowed to take pictures of your own kid winning the race at sports days, just in case you're a pedophile.

        Just had a thought... I know that there are photos of me and my sisters in the bath when we were very young. I think my mother has them in a drawer somewhere, should I report her to the authorities???
    • Maybe you should try the Motorola W220 [motorola.com] Don't know if you can get it in your part of the world, but nice phone, no camera. Sorted.
    • I don't know what camera phones you've been using, but take a look at this photo [flickr.com] I took with a camera phone. I think the quality is rather better than you might suggest (3 mega pixel).

      Cameras within phones aren't yet perfect; the optical zoom hasn't yet been perfected and there's still the small issue of having to hold it quite still, but the camera phone is still good at the job it's intended for. If I'm going on vacation, then sure I'll take my proper digital camera with me. If I'm at a party or even out

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by juhaz ( 110830 )
        I don't know what camera phones you've been using, but take a look at this photo I took with a camera phone. I think the quality is rather better than you might suggest (3 mega pixel).

        Are you kidding? If not, no offense but that's a horrible picture. I wouldn't even talk about it the same day as quality.

        It's inevenly lit, blurry enough that the small text is almost illegible even at the original resolution, so it's got underpowered flash or too small lens (probably both), it's also noisy, light parts are ba
    • I've never heard of a parent's camera phone being a problem at school.

      Complain as much as you like, the problem is that I think for a non-camera phone to exist, people need to be willing to pay more for them. The market for a phone without a camera is apparently a lot smaller and the camera element is cheap enough that a non-camera phone will cost more than a camera phone just by economies of scale. Most people seem to value features, and the convenience of a camera on a phone has been shown to be extreme

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by llefler ( 184847 )
        Complain as much as you like, the problem is that I think for a non-camera phone to exist, people need to be willing to pay more for them.

        There is some truth to this. It's not necessarily that there aren't people who want to buy them, it's that those people aren't the ones that companies want to appeal to. I've had my Samsung E105 for a little over two years. During the same period, a friend has had at least 6 different phones. He's had camera phones from various manufacturers, PDA phones, and in just the l

    • Re:Camera Phones Suck (Score:5, Interesting)

      by identity0 ( 77976 ) on Saturday January 20, 2007 @09:23AM (#17693908) Journal
      Actually, camera phones do have uses beyond taking fuzzy pictures of your drunk friends. Unfortunately they don't seem to be coming over to the states for some reason.

      If you've seen any Japanese magazines or websites lately, you'll notice square barcode-type things on some ads or sites. See the bottom left of this site [nhk.or.jp]. They allow you to use your phone camera to take a pic, then your camera web browser goes to an address encoded in the pic without having to type in the address. Basically the same thing Cue:Cat did, but on commodity hardware.

      Okay, now you're thinking, "So what? I can get ads easier?", but there are other uses for the technology, too. I've heard some European countries have methods of paying for stuff using a cell phone, where you take a pic of a barcode like that, and the price is charged to your cell account.

      Basically, don't just think of it as "A crappy camera glued to a cell phone", but as "An optical sensor attached to a pervasivly-networked device". There is a world of possibility in using it as an input device for ubiquitous computing. Where other attempts to make computer interaction seamless in the real world have failed, the camerphone might succeed because it uses technology that is useful for other things (camera + phone, regular printer + ink), and widely adopted by the public already. It's all a matter of software to make it useful, no new harware needed.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by 1110110001 ( 569602 )
        That's very similar to Semacode [semacode.org]. They have readers for your mobile phone [semacode.org] and you can create tags [semacode.org] on their homepage. As usual you can find more information at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].

        PS: There's also a reader for your computer that takes a picture. Combine that with isightcapture and a little Dashboard widget and you could also use it on your Intel Mac.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dorceon ( 928997 )
        I do think QR codes are awesome. After all, why give out a pamphlet with a bunch of info printed on it when you can just put up a QR code that goes to a website with that info on it? (Answer: everyone has cell phones but tourists.) I especially like how when you enter Japan, your visa isn't a stamp--it's a sticker, and the sticker has a QR code on it.
      • This sounds like a service google could run--you snap a pic of the barcode, and your phone goes to a site where you read reviews about how great the product is/how much it sucks.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lord Apathy ( 584315 )

      I've been to events like that. Where some peon wants to check my phone for camera or some shit. I just said "no" and kept on walking. Most of these little shits are used to getting their way. When faced with open defiance they lock up. The key is to keep on walking, by the time they recover your long gone.

    • Most high end phones used by serious people like blackberries etc have a NC model standing for no camera. On a related note the company I work for also bans camera phones but you can get a camera phone pass if you are at a certain job level. It has become a kind of status item. The untrusted masses have just ID cards. The intemediate have a camera phone pass , the executives have property passes which let them them take laptops in and out and the IT guy has a Gold pass which lets him move multi-million doll

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by caveat ( 26803 )
      It seems to me that a pro photographer (if you aren't a pro and you dropped five grand on a camera body that does practically nothing more than my D70 for 99.98% of the populace INCLUDING pros...can I have some money?) should be tech-savvy enough to know that non-camera phones are very easy to come by; a quick check at the Verizon store shows at least five phones with no cameras.

      Make calls and send text messages, maybe a speakerphone and Bluetooth. If you want all the other bells and whistles (mobile web, m
  • The good: as a tool to conveniently record crime or emergency. (in addition to quotidian snapshot use) The bad: abuse/invasion of privacy. neither: as tool to do work (as an evidentiary tool recording what one has done or has observed in a job role) So, the variable is intent.

  • Washed out, grainy, bad contrast (Score:5, Interesting)

    by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Saturday January 20, 2007 @07:51AM (#17693584)
    But I still keep my cell phone picks. Pictures are mementoes for most people. That crazy night when me and the girls snuck into the basement of bio-sci just as it closed and rode around on carts and chucked dry ice into the toilets.... Those types of memories don't need a 20 megapixel roloflex camera. Thats what I use it for.. and also naughty photos. just too pervy pulling out a SLR to take those pictures. It makes girls a bit nervous.

    • Re:Washed out, grainy, bad contrast (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20, 2007 @07:54AM (#17693596)
      Tell us more of these "girls" you speak of.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Firehed ( 942385 )
      Agreed. The pics that come from my horrible cameraphone are, well, horrible. Grainy, poorly lit, low-resolution (640x480 max), and are a huge pain to get off of the camera without texting them to my email address at insane rates from Verizon. But I couldn't reasonably tote around my old point-and-shoot around in a pocket like I can with my cell, and I certainly don't expect my new SLR to be any more manageable in that respect.

      It's good for those spur-of-the-moment "I want to remember this" shots. Yeah,

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Where can we find pictures of this hampster stuck in one's ass?

        This could be the new "goatse"...
    • Washed out, grainy, bad contrast? That's how my eyes work when I'm trashed - my camera phone takes perfectly appropriate photos. Everything on my digital Leica job looks far too sharp.
    • That's why you need an 8x10; you can convince them it's "Art" (in capitals, no less). An SLR is just an invitation to end up on the front of "Weekly World News".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
      You just have to do it right. With a camera phone it's pervy. With an SLR it's art.
  • Its very small, but its still not as small as my RAZR, and considering all the other crap in my pockets, i dont need the added weight making my pants fall down. Its nice to have a camera with you at all times and not have the extra bulk of it. I was semi-involved in a car accident last week, once we all pulled over everybody whipped out their camera phones. Also for spur of the moment crap that i'd never have a picture of otherwise. Now if im doing dedicated photography, or am somewhere that i know ill want

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by kfg ( 145172 )
      i dont need the added weight making my pants fall down.

      Back in the day we solved this problem by buying pants that fit; although I admit it is amusing to watch the chavs trying to play basketball with one hand tied up in the problem of holding their pants up.

      And extra amusing when one of them manages to trip over their own pants.

      KFG

  • why o why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by localoptimum ( 993261 ) on Saturday January 20, 2007 @08:28AM (#17693698)
    I HATE camera phones. What I'd like is a good, tiny phone, where the batteries last for ages. If I want to take a photo I get out my digital SLR and a 700 euro lens, I don't think "ah, now I've got my phone, I can leave my camera at home".

    Here's the problem. The cellphone was supposed to make it easy for people to be reached on-the-move. For "security" reasons we are not allowed to use our phone everywhere, because the people who are taking photos of us and watching us on videos don't want us to take photos or videos of them (just count how many police brutality incidents on youtube also involve the rough handling of the guy capturing said incident on a camera). On european trains there are "quiet" zones where phones are banned, and if we use our phone on a plane then the phone will immediately detonate all of the explosive liquids stored in passenger's hand-luggage and cause sony lithium-ion batteries in apple G4 powerbooks to burst into flames.

    Lastly, and even more importantly than plane death, upgrading the phone's camera just gives the mobile phone industry another excuse to charge you a higher subscription than the previous year.

    • then buy an old nokia 8210 and a modern li-poly battery for it. it is small (although not very light) and you can get 10 days standby without a problem.

    • Re:why o why? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by east coast ( 590680 ) on Saturday January 20, 2007 @11:28AM (#17694602)
      I HATE camera phones.

      Hot ticket, pal: don't friggin buy one then.

      What I'd like is a good, tiny phone, where the batteries last for ages.Not knowing what your definition of "ages" is makes this a hard point to talk over but I get 5 days of regular use (normally 15 minutes of talk a day, 24-7 standby) out of my Samsung (with a camera!)

      If I want to take a photo I get out my digital SLR and a 700 euro lens, I don't think "ah, now I've got my phone, I can leave my camera at home".

      If you're toting that thing around with you every and you don't do photography professionally that's just foolishness. Don't get me wrong, carry what you like, but Joe Sixpack (and 95% of all slashdotters for that matter) don't want to carry a normal camera around with them let alone a SLR. It's nice that you pat yourself on your back with all your fancy equipment but the fact is that it hurts your debate against cell phone/camera integration. That's akin to say "I own a pair of Sennheiser Prestige HD590s, why would I want a small pair of ear pods for when I'm out and about with my mp3 player?". Some people would be impressed that I own the Sennheiser, some people would understand that it would be incredibly stupid for me to lug around my headphones when I'm out walking the track.

      Here's the problem. The cellphone was supposed to make it easy for people to be reached on-the-move. For "security" reasons we are not allowed to use our phone everywhere

      I don't know where you are but in my local area I've never seen this. While I do understand and know of areas where photos are banned I've never heard of anyone getting harassed in these areas for using a cell phone.

      The rest of your argument deals with general technophobia and has nothing to do with the camera aspect of a cell phone. Oh well...

      upgrading the phone's camera just gives the mobile phone industry another excuse to charge you a higher subscription than the previous year.

      Really? Again, not knowing your situation... My cell service provider's plans have decrease since the introduction of the camera phone. I don't think the camera aspect has anything to do with it, they do charge 0.10 USD per picture sent over the cellphone without an inclusive package. They charge the exact same for text messages too.

      Furthermore, not to beat a subject to death, I have used my camera phone for productive reasons. There's a million times that I found myself saying, "if only I could get a picture of this". Digital cameras were nice because there was no processing time, but I didn't carry mine unless I really felt I was going to use it. Now I don't worry about it.
      • Hot ticket, pal: don't friggin buy one then.

        If you only want a really basic phone, then you can buy one without a camera. But, if you want one with other features (like WAP, which I use to check my email), it's almost always bundled with a camera. I'm only seen one exception: Palm makes a "corporate" version of the Treo 650 without a camera, but it's a special order.

        I don't know where you are but in my local area I've never seen this. While I do understand and know of areas where photos are banned

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by east coast ( 590680 )
          If you only want a really basic phone, then you can buy one without a camera. But, if you want one with other features (like WAP, which I use to check my email), it's almost always bundled with a camera.

          Yeah but that's not the issue. The issue was that the original poster wanted a phone with no crap with a good battery life. At the point where you're going to be willing to carry a phone with extra features who cares if there is a camera included? Don't use it.

          I'll tell you the first time I bought a camer
    • I have a Motorala V235 and it lasts for about a week to ten days before I have to charge it again -- it has a readable colour screen, a good UI, and a camera. Who ever said cameras and battery life were mutually exclusive?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )
      "If I want to take a photo I get out my digital SLR and a 700 euro lens, I don't think "ah, now I've got my phone, I can leave my camera at home"."

      A real photographer doesn't have to get out his camera because it's always with him. Furthermore, for convenient use, real photographers with commonly use a PnS rather than their SLRs. What you are is a photography poser, and one that needs to mention the cost of his lenses at that.

      Do you also carry around a two-way pager for your text messages since you abhor
    • When I was in the Ueno train station, my friend and I had a problem meeting because I can't read Japanese. So, I shot a pic of where I was and in 30 seconds, he texted back, "Oh, I'm very near... there in under a minute", basically.

      Now, here, you go to SSA and IRS officers and they ban cameras for the privacy of the clients, and maybe for the security through obscurity thing. But, anyone going to those offices can be filmed from a tenant window across the street. And, once inside, one can survey WHERE the o
  • Ultimately all the new technologies are putting an end to privacy. England has largely drunk the Kool Aide and put cameras on every street corner but the rest of the first world is following their example. At anytime you can be photographed or filmed without your knowledge. Even my PDA has a decent built in camera. Newer cars have black boxes and many have tracking devices. Emails are routinely monitored whether at work or by the government. When I was growing up in the 60s such a loss of privacy would have

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by flyneye ( 84093 )
      The advise of G.Gordon Liddy on his radio show echoes in my ear.
      "All these traffic cameras are just another violation of your privacy and more governmental control.Take a bb gun and aim for the lens.Fight the power"
      It was something to that effect.
      Occasionally I fight the power.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Teresita ( 982888 )
        The advise of G.Gordon Liddy on his radio show echoes in my ear. 'All these traffic cameras are just another violation of your privacy and more governmental control.Take a bb gun and aim for the lens.Fight the power'"

        In other news today, policeman Adam Jones was suspended with pay yesterday pending the investigation of the shooting death of talk show host and third-rate Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy at the corner of 5th and Broad yesterday. "I thought he was brandishing a rifle at other motorists, O

  • HOWTO: Improving a crummy cell camera (Score:5, Informative)

    by dino213b ( 949816 ) on Saturday January 20, 2007 @08:56AM (#17693816)
    I think many people have a problem with the cell phone camera quality: If manufacturers bother putting a camera on a cell phone, they may as well have decent quality, right? Well, one thing that is overlooked with these cameras is the possibility of digital (panoramic and frame) stitching.

    By using OSS such as Hugin and Enblend one can increase the resolution of images, add to the field of view and basically achieve the following results:

    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/bedroom .jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/diversi ty_of_books.jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/room33. jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/jsd-van .jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/car.jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/car3.jp g [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/ariz.jp g [cardope.com]

    Slightly wider shots:
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/livroom 1_corrected.jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/par-ph0 _corrected.jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/pan-ph1 _corrected.jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/grandca ny_corrected.jpg [cardope.com]
    - http://www.cardope.com/misc/razr_panoramic/dd_corr ected.jpg [cardope.com]

    Please note that some of these processed images have not been color corrected with enblend - otherwise they would have turned out much better.
    • what they need is the ability to stitch the picture on the fly so you can just wave the camera around and paint the image in your camera.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That's cool, but your place is a mess.
    • Sure, but how many keypresses does it require to store a single picture? Making panoramas this way is an exercise in frustration. This is the big failure of cell phone cameras. Unlike normal digital cameras, they don't automatically save images to a folder. On my phone, it takes 5 "clicks" to save a picture, not counting the button I have to press to get into camera mode in the first place.

      I wish it would just save them all, instantly, so that I don't have to waste 15 seconds on each shot and miss th

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by syousef ( 465911 )
      Yes you can go to all that trouble and end up with a bunch of slightly blurry or over processed pics, or you could just use a real freaking camera and get it right. What you've posted is technically interesting but of little practical use. Who's got the time to do all that?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Or live in a Faraday cage in your mom's basement making money for your World of Warcraft subscription through eBay.

    • I think we just have to accept that as a society we are moving to the point where we lose our privacy and it seems like you can either embrace the loss or try to fight it.

      We may be caught on camera a lot, but it isn't just security cameras; there is a lot of photographing of the public by the public.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15994151/site/newsweek / [msn.com]

      From the referenced link:

      Certainly one would have thought that George Allen, running to retain his Virginia senatorial seat, might have understood that direc

    • We are photographed 1000s of times every day without even being aware of it (ok I pulled this number out of my ass but we are photographed a lot).

      On the flip side of the coin, abuses by the police and government are more likely to be recorded if citizens are armed with cameras with the capability of sending the images off the device immediately. They may smash the phone, but the pics may already be on a server across the country.

      -b.

  • And soon you too will be able to use your camera-phone to stop crime in its tracks [zdnet.com]!

  • 911 (Score:5, Informative)

    by deviceb ( 958415 ) on Saturday January 20, 2007 @09:40AM (#17693982) Homepage
    Pertaining to this topic..
    911 calls in NYC will activate the camera on mobile phones so people can send video of the emergency as it happens.
    CNN usually gets images or video from peoples phones within minutes of the incident happening. The 911 people down in NYC just want the same data feed for emergencys..

    • 911 calls in NYC will activate the camera on mobile phones so people can send video of the emergency as it happens.

      Can they activate your camera remotely in general, or do they need your "permission?" Of course, with a black pastie over the glass nipple, they're unlikely to get any useful video unless you let them get it. The other thing is: you can't talk on a phone and aim the camera well. This seems like a nice idea but not terribly useful.

      -b.

      • Of course, with a black pastie over the glass nipple ....

        Umm, you see to have a few issues with cameras. Might I suggest a good (non Freudian) therapist?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by anothy ( 83176 )
      hrm. knowing a decent bit about phones (design, networks, &c.), i'm quite skeptical of this claim. any references you can provide?

  • Degredation of Standards (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Saturday January 20, 2007 @10:12AM (#17694098) Homepage Journal
    One thing the camera phone has accomplished is a general 'dumbing down' of peoples sence of quality of photos, which has nearly killed the film camera industry.

    They get used to poor quality since its *everywhere*, and accept it as 'good enough' since its more convenient..

    ya, its a rant.. so sue me :)
    • That's nothing new, the same has been true of Polaroids for ages.
    • which has nearly killed the film camera industry.

      OTOH, used film cameras are *cheap* now. I have a couple and got a few dozen rolls of film from a former boss who decided to go all digital last year. I'm set for a loooooong time :/

      -b.

      • As suggested on APUG [apug.org] (kind of an anti-slashdot; "news for nerds, stuff that matters, as long as it's not digital"), because of people dumping their film gear you can now afford to accesorize yourself with a half a dozen Nikon SLRs, and go as Dennis Hopper [bbc.co.uk] from _Apocalypse Now_.

    • And this will be great for people like me. They see the shitty quality pictures of these phones and think its good enough. Then when some shmo like me comes a long with his nikon D70 DSLR and takes shitty pictures of them at 6mp they will think he is a photographing god and pay him for them.

      No shit, this has already happened at my work place. I work for a real estate company where the agents usually take pictures of the house with disposible cameras or cheap digital cameras. Someone I work with bough

  • In my country, last week, there were several wildfires in several places in our coast. The culprit, caught this week, alleged that wanted to take photos of them with his cellphone (small [observa.com.uy] newspaper about it in spanish).

    Is not just "adding a camera to a cellphone" what is doing the big changes. Is the availability (a good percent of people, depending on where, have cellphones, a good percent of them have cameras, and even some of them can film), and to have internet (with places where to easily publish phot

  • Wired (Score:2, Funny)

    by UnRDJ ( 712762 )

    'With this kind of device,' Kahn told Wired, 'you're going to see the best and the worst of things.'"
    Wired then replied: KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHNNN!!!!! Eat your heart out mods.

  • Government Oppression (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrSteveSD ( 801820 ) on Saturday January 20, 2007 @10:44AM (#17694306)
    To me the greatest thing that camera phones (and cheap digital cameras in general) bring is a possible curb on government oppression. Around the world in both totalitarian regimes and democracies, people gather to protest about various government actions and decisions. In totalitarian regimes and sadly also in our democracies, these protests are often met with grossly excessive force from riot police. In democracies the police often wait until the media finish and leave before making their move on the protesters.

    However, now that so many people have camera phones (even in non-democracies), it's much harder to get away with such oppression. All it takes is for one person to film a police officer beating an unarmed man cowering on the ground and it will be around the world very quickly.

    I think this prevalence of cheap and portable video-capable devices has lead to a change of tactics in some countries. In an environment where everything the police do is being recorded on video, governments are seeking to avoid confrontation altogether. It has become increasingly popular to either herd protesters into "Free Speech Zones" (in the US) or just effectively ban protests altogether as is the case in the UK, for half a mile or so around parliament square.

    In case you're wondering, I've never actually been on a protest myself. Like most people I am either too lazy or too scared of being clubbed by Police to attend (which is exactly the attitude governments like).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 )
      Not dissimilar to what happened with Saddam hussein.

      The plan was to release a nice clean film of a dignified hanging. The moment the cameras were off they changed tack completely.
      Luckily someone had a camera phone.

      In any sizable protest now the majority will have camera phones - which means the scenario you describe of waiting until the media is out of the way isn't going to happen. Take film, email it from the phone, and keep out of the way of the police whilst it's emailing (which isn't long at 3G speed

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Your Pal Dave ( 33229 )
      Absolutely! This is an extension of what Jello Biafra refers to as the "Camcorder Truth Jihad" and is exemplified by groups such as The Video Activist Network [videoactivism.org]. The ubiquity of camera phones can only help this spread.

      If anyone doubts the power of individuals with cameras, they could just ask George Allen [youtube.com] or Micheal Richards [youtube.com] for their opinions.
  • ...The dramatic reduction in the size of digital still cameras and MiniDV camcorders will still change the world anyway. The ability to download still images and video to a desktop or laptop computer, process the data, and upload it to the Internet has turned citizens into de facto journalists. In fact, many pundits now say if we had modern digital cameras and digital camcorders back in 1963, instead of having only one clear film of the assassination of President Kennedy we would end up with video and still
  • "How camera phones changed a select number of people to make them think that anyone gives a wet slap about what they see in the course of a day."

    Most of the world is mostly the same.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], Phillipe Kahn entered the US on a tourist visa, setup Borland International shortly there after and didn't receive a Green Card until 1986, 4 years later.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Close