Camera phones and the expectation of privacy - Page 3

Some commentators point out that there could be legal action from the other end of the equation - for example, by the cellphone owner who is unable to make an emergency call because he was forced to leave his phone behind when he entered a protected area.

Others find the legislation currently being passed generally overbroad.

L. Richard Fischer, a Washington lawyer who deals with privacy issues, said the park district's ban goes too far. "People have to pass laws very carefully and recognize there is a broad but flexible standard of reasonable expectation of privacy," he said. "You have to do it very selectively or you really are treading on people's rights."

Perhaps it is time to redefine what a reasonable expectation of privacy is. Considering that most wireless communications are not secure, don't we assume little privacy in regard to our and others' use of the devices? We are all photographed numerous times per day, in public buildings, stores and other businesses. Most of those videos are recycled in surveillance cameras or discarded. Still, we all know we are being watched and recorded. So, again, do we expect privacy in public places? It seems to me that for such laws to be reasonable, it would be necessary to target the kind of behavior society wants to curtail - that which involves secret photography of people for sexual purposes. Though that is the intent behind the laws discussed in the in article in the NYT, none of the statutes are drawn narrowly enough to limit their reach to such situations.

I have more questions than answers to the connundrum of the clandestine camera phone. But, I believe concerns like this one will become increasingly important as high tech devices proliferate and become smaller and smaller.

Note: This entry also appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies.

Article Author: Mac Diva

Visit Mac Diva's author page