S.J. Mercury News columnist Dan Gillmor examines camera phone issues

San Jose Mercury technology columnist, blogger and author Dan Gillmor discusses issues of privacy and security surrounding camera phones and video cameras, in his most recent column.

Unlike so many negative articles in the press, Dan's thoughtful article examines the pros and cons and possible ramifications in his column, "How do we adjust when cameras are everywhere?" Of course, Dan not only is technologically savvy (it's his job!) but also thinks about many sides of different issues.

Dan notes that Sprint PCS is selling a second version of the palmOne Treo 600 -- without a camera, as I previously wrote, -- but says people who are worried about camera phones will have much more to worry about as imaging capabilities become embedded in clothing and eyeglasses.

We should be worried

Dan writes that we should be worried. He says, "Individuals will lose even more of their privacy. Companies will find it difficult to maintain traditional notions of trade secrets. And governments will confront a world in which, to some extent, people will spy on the official snoops, not just the other way around."

Dan says that while individuals and institutions should have a "zone of privacy" (see an article I posted about exactly this term), but we also should encourage more openness rather that the increasing emphasis on secrecy.

(It's not as simple as Dan writes. See my comments below.)

Surveillance versus citizen journalists

Dan discusses both the increased surveillance of citizens as well as the value of citizen having camera phones and video recorders. But Dan notes that videotaping by the police isn't all bad.

He says, "Yet some police agencies have put cameras in police patrol cars, recording what happens when suspects are stopped. All interrogations by the authorities should be videotaped. This won't just prevent violations of rights. It will also help convict the guilty, who can't claim abuse if it hasn't happened."

At the same times, citizens are empowered through imaging technology. Dan writes, "Citizens can and should use this new technology to help police the police. Rodney King was an early example of how it could work.

"So, thanks to the honorable whistle-blowing of a soldier who couldn't stomach what he had seen, were the disgusting pictures from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."

September 11th and camera phones

Dan asks how much different would our memories be of September 11 if passengers had camera phones, because most of the images we've seen have come from television. He says, "What would we remember if the people in those aircraft and buildings had been carrying camera phones that day?

"What if they'd been sending images and audio from the epicenter of the terrorists' airborne arsenal, and from inside the towers that disintegrated under their feet? I don't mean to be ghoulish, but I do suggest that our memories would be considerably different had images and sounds of that kind ricocheted around the globe."

Not that simple

Dan has written an excellent balanced article about camera phones. I have just one nit to pick, though. Dan says the issue of protecting privacy of individuals is "fairly simple."

He writes, "We need to strictly enforce laws that prohibit uninvited snooping, whether by governments, businesses or nosy neighbors. A zone of privacy is essential, or we'll lose a fundamental part of what it means to live in a free society."

As much as I would like these issues to be easy to resolve, they are not. It's not simple. Should I be able to photograph anyone on the street and keep the photo in my camera phone? What about posting that photo on the Web? What is the expectation of privacy?

These are not simple issues, alas.