There will be no provision to protect messy restaurant patrons. But Mr. Burke wanted to ban the use of camera phones in places where "the average Chicagoan would expect a reasonable right to privacy."
. . .The Chicago proposal, setting a fine of $5 to $500 for offenders, echoes restrictions adopted in several smaller jurisdictions. What remains to be seen is how and when such laws will be enforced.
Would you go phoneless at the gym rather than subject yourself to possible legal action?
It seems to me the decision turns on the reasonableness of such a law. We are less likely to follow rules we find unreasonable, especially when those rules are difficult for the polity to enforce. Lewd and voyeuristic behavior is common enough that I don't doubt some percentage of users of small cameras, whether on a cell phone or not, will use them to take surreptitious photographs of people in revealing clothing or nude. But, is the problem of invasion of privacy by the minority of camera phone users of sufficient weight to justify trammeling what would normally be an individual's decision? And, since an argument can be made that cellphones are inherently intrusive devices, why stop with camera phones? At least one jurisdiction has not.
Trying to distinguish between a camera phone and any other cellphone has also complicated matters. The Elk Grove Park District in suburban Chicago enacted a ban in November that covered the possession of any cellphone - not just camera phones - in park-owned restrooms, locker rooms and showers.
"There is no reason to have a cellphone while you're changing and showering," said Ron Nunes, one of the park district's commissioners. "I'd rather protect the children and the public more than someone who wants to call home and see what's for dinner." Fresh in the town's memory was a 2001 incident in which a man used a fiber-optic camera to secretly take pictures of children in a park shower.
. . .Though they are permitted in gym areas, patrons say they often leave their phones in the car when they work out there because they usually have to use the changing room first, where the phones are not permitted.








Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
MD, very important and reasonable questions judiciously presented - thanks!
2 - Vigilance Matters
Thanks for a very educational post on this topic. I have asked a few similar questions today, but from an entirely different perspective, at http://www.VigilanceMatters.com
I would be honored to hear your opinion on this angle.
3 - Mac Diva
The material on your site touches on several aspects of the privacy topic that interest me, Vig. I will be adding you to the blogroll at Mac-a-ro-nies the next time I do an update.