THIRD EYE: The frequent misuse of camera phones is outweighing their advantages

Beware of the modern-day peeping toms — the tiny cameras embedded in mobile phones. From New York to London and Tokyo to Mumbai, camera mobiles are fast becoming a cause for concern. In gyms, locker rooms, swimming pools and even in offices, they are increasingly being banned as they are seen as an invasion of people’s privacy. The US government became so concerned about “up the skirt” photos of unsuspecting women being taken (and posted on the Net) by the mobile camera-wielding voyeurs that it sought to enact a legislation last week. The bill, which the Senate has approved, makes it illegal to videotape, photograph, film, broadcast or record someone who is naked or in underwear in any place where a “reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy.” The violation is punishable by fines and up to a year in jail.

With the sales of camera phones soaring, the concern for privacy has increased. Global sales of these phones — which can take, send and receive pictures — zoomed 65 per cent last year, according to Strategy Analytics, an international market research firm. And Asia alone accounted for 80 per cent of the total camera phone sales in the world, as against the 13 per cent in western Europe and 2.3 per cent in the US.

Cellphone manufacturers such as Nokia and Sony Ericsson defend the camera phones, saying they did not have any more potential for misuse than any other digital camera, which nowadays can be as small as a pencil or a credit card. To take a picture on a camera phone, the user must point the phone at a person. While most of the phones do not have flashes on them, they make a shutter noise, which they say would alert the photographed person. But often, the sound is too low and can get drowned easily, say privacy advocates. Moreover, with each passing day, the camera phones are getting more and more advanced, with high-resolution pictures, night-time photo facilities and the rest.

True, camera phones has its advantages. In the US, police are toying with the idea of asking the real estate agents of taking photographs of prospective buyers in view of terrorist threats. Police in Europe feel that camera phones could help prevent car jacking in a big way since the car owners could snap the picture of the thieves. Even insurance companies are in favour of using these camera phones to take and send pictures of car accidents immediately afterwards. In fact, many people buy them since they are charmed by the spontaneity of snapping a picture whenever and wherever the urge hits them. Then, they can zip off the pictures to friends or family instantly.

But the frequent misuse of these phones is outweighing their advantages. With the latest one-and-two-mega-pixel models offering high-quality images that can be transmitted from nearly anywhere, these phones are now fuelling fears of industrial espionage. In the United States, the National Security Agency has forbidden the use of the camera phones at any Air Force facility that handles classified information. Ironically, South Korea’s Samsung Corp., which churns out camera phones in large numbers, has banned the use of these phones in its plants and corporate offices. Motorola, too, is drawing up policies on camera phone use in its headquarters.

Multinational corporations like General Motors and DaimlerChrysler have forbidden the use of camera phones in its facilities “for security reasons.” They are clearly not impressed with the real-life James Bonds using those tiny cameras to pass on details of their product development centres to their rivals.

Organisers of concerts and fashion shows are beginning to frown upon the camera phones as well. For, programmes can be transmitted live often in contravention of the copyright law. A few cases along these lines have already been registered in Europe.

Courts in several western countries have prohibited the use of camera phones to protect the privacy of witnesses and jurors. A British court even threw a man in jail for a year recently for taking photographs in a courtroom with a camera phone.

While privacy advocates and industry analysts agree that you could never turn the clock back and that camera phones are here to stay, they have called for restrictions on the use of camera phones. They say such phones could play havoc in countries like India, which have at best feeble laws to protect the privacy of individuals. “Though in India, it has yet to become a major legal issue, it’s soon going to be one as more and more people are lapping up these phones,” says Gangotri Chakra- borty of the Calcutta-based National University of Juridical Sciences. Stopping the use of the phones might be impossible, “but the usage could certainly be restricted. Regulation is essential,” she adds.

Consumer groups agree. “We don’t have any law to protect an individual’s right to privacy. Unless you have a legislation, the errant users of electronic gadgets like camera phones would take full advantage of weak laws and invade the private domain of an individual,” says Prabir Basu, a lawyer and working president of the Bengal Federation of Consumer Organisations.

Technology can be a boon or a curse. But those who want to turn the technological boon into a curse should not be spared.