Eric Lin's article yesterday in The Feature -- "Camera Phones as Weapons of Mass Disruption" -- uses as a news peg my entry on January 13 about how totalitarian regimes don't like camera phones.
In the article I wrote that Saudi Arabia has banned camera phones nationwide and that Cuban customs officials asked a British couple on a cruise to return their camera phone to their cabin and instead use a regular digital camera.
Eric writes, "Whether it is because they can take pictures without drawing attention or because they can instantly transmit pictures to far away webservers instantly, it is clear that cameraphones are a disruptive technology. They threaten the status quo -- something any control-obsessed regime would fear.
"It is not known whether either of these two countries offer data services or MMS that would make a cameraphone into anything more than a digital camera. If users couldn't send the images right away, digital cameras and Wi-Fi hotspots could be just as, if not more contentious than cameraphones."
Not the technology, the effects
Eric makes a good point. A disruptive effect of camera phones is the ability to send photos immediately after taking them. The technology used to transmit photos isn't important in terms of the disruptive effect. (Obviously, technology makes a huge different in terms of data rates, pricing, etc.)
Eric notes that if camera phones wouldn't work in a location, people could transmit photos from WiFi hotspots. I certainly agree, but with a comment. I send photos from camera phones and from my laptop using WiFi, CDMA 1x technology and via landlines.
So far we haven't seen digital camera phone manufacturers rush to add wireless capabilities.
Sending a photo from a camera phone is much more convenient and faster. Snap a photo, enter a contact address and send. Compare that to sending a photo from a digital camera.
The number of steps matter
It's a longer process as you have to transfer the photo to the laptop (via a cable, infrared, Bluetooth or by inserting a memory card into laptop slot), launch your browser to log onto the WiFi network, open your e-mail program and select and attach the photo...and then send.
No, it doesn't take very long, but it takes more time than sending a photo from a camera phone. Time matters. As I wrote in that Weblog article, taking photos can be dangerous. If you take a photo of a police or government abuse, for example, and you're caught, you could get shot or jailed.
If you send the photo immediately, your goal of informing people in your country or around the world is done. You might not have time to send a photo if you have to transfer it from a digital camera.
Camera phone disruptions
Instantaneous transmission is a major reason why camera phones are so useful and so feared. You can send a photo -- or a video clip -- of a mass grave before a bullet hits you. As I previously wrote, I believe "suicide photographers" will risk their liberty and their lives to transmit photos.
(Eric Lin says my article about Saudi Arabia and Cuba was "a bit melodramatic." How dare he say that! It was a dark and stormy night when I pondered weak and weary over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore before I wrote that article in my blood-red study as Leonore roamed the beach searching for her lost love.)
Danger nothwithstanding, if you're a journalist on a deadline, minutes can count if you want to make your newspaper's deadline or beat the competition to broadcasting a photo or video report on television. As I wrote yesterday, the BBC equipping its reporters with camera phones with camcorder capabilities.
Comments