rant: cameras on phones. WTF?!
Many high end phones are coming with built-in, dinky little cameras. However, many companies discourage or outright refuse to allow cameras in their facilities. With good reason too. Personally I have no use for these cheesy little cameras and the people I know who use them use them to message their friends pictures of their asses or other mundane things. Hey Sony Ericsson, Nokia, and Handspring: eathday otay ameracay onesphay!
Or in other words: When can I get my camera-less Treo 600?!
Or in other words: When can I get my camera-less Treo 600?!
Comments
Yeah I don't see the point either, hell I don't even have one. I'd say buy the nice phone with camera, shatter the lens and prove to them it doesn't work
I thought it was pointless until I got one. For instance, a client I was about to sue finally sent me a settlement check. In the "memo" field, he got all clever and wrote, "NOTHING!". It was so funny, I had to take a picture of it. I was at the bank about toe deposit it... only had my phone. Boom.
It's great when I want to assign a face to caller ID. I can snap a photo of the person there and assign it. Also great for when I pop down to the pub and decide to take pics and mail them after I've had a few pints... ok, more than a few.
I think it's despicable that people are upskirting or committing identity theft with them. They're ruining it for everybody else. I personally haven't gone anywhere that have banned them yet, though. I hope it doesn't get to the point of having to be a widespread policy.
Now everyone presumes all phones to be camera phones. Sad.
if i have a right, for whatever reason, to witness something with my own eyes, especially in a public place, how can someone prevent me from taking a picture of that exact same person, place or thing for my own use and review, so long as i never distribute it? i mean, right to privacy makes sense, unless it's a public place, no? of course, these days, it's damn hard to find anyplace that is truly "public" -- usually someone owns it and therefore restricts picture taking or whatever. which still seems assinine to me.
i only bring this up because an apple store manager read me the riot act about taking pictures in his store, when they even allowed them during the opening and they were plastered all over the 'net.
edit: p.s. then again, there is the issue of having to inform someone you are tape-recording a conversation for it to be admissible in a court of law, so maybe it falls along those lines?
I've only used the camera phone a few times that were useful. I took a picture of myself in a mirror, emailed it from the phone, and got a response on wether it looked good. Stuff like that, but like I said as the resolution gets better I could see myself using it more often.
Originally posted by rok
can someone explain an issue with regards to this that has always bugged me:
if i have a right, for whatever reason, to witness something with my own eyes, especially in a public place, how can someone prevent me from taking a picture of that exact same person, place or thing for my own use and review, so long as i never distribute it? i mean, right to privacy makes sense, unless it's a public place, no? of course, these days, it's damn hard to find anyplace that is truly "public" -- usually someone owns it and therefore restricts picture taking or whatever. which still seems assinine to me.
i only bring this up because an apple store manager read me the riot act about taking pictures in his store, when they even allowed them during the opening and they were plastered all over the 'net.
You were taking pictures inside the store, which is private property. If you were outside the store, in the public right-of-way, such as a sidewalk, then you could take all the pictures you want through the window.