Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Where We're Headed--More Nanny State

One of the problems with people becoming professional politicians is they think that every problem can be fixed with a new law. This is not a partisan issue--while I often point out the stupidity of Democrats, I didn't go easy on Republican presidential candidate John McCain, a serial regulator. And I'm certainly not going to go easy on this idiot, either:

Smile, say cheese and hold that pose till you hear the 'click'. A new bill introduced in the Congress by New York Republican Rep. Peter King requires mobile phones with digital cameras "to make a sound" when a photograph is taken.

The move is part of the 'Camera Phone Predator Alert Act' and the idea is to ensure privacy and safety of the public, especially children, claims the bill.


As I read somewhere, "for the children" is the most common road to Hell that's paved with good intentions.

But King is still an idiot.

7 comments:

mazenko said...

Valid point. There's valid concern for the common good, and then there is absurdity.

MikeAT said...

Darren, someone said it better a long time before us.

"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."

Mark Twain

Steve USMA '85 said...

At first glance, almost sounds like a decent proposal. I have actually seen kids taking rude pictures of others simply by following behind and snaping pics up skirt or down a blouse. Young lady didn't know it because there was no sound.
However, there are many cases where one legitimately doesn't want sound. I take a picture at my daughter's recital, I don't want to be obtrusive. The artificial sound of tens or even hundreds of parents taking pics at various events would be distracting.
We have laws about taking indecent/candid photos already. Catch them and prosecute. This law would only add another law to break so law enforcement could pile on violations.

Stopped Clock said...

If I understand correctly there is already a law requiring cameras to make an audible sound when they take a photo, and that law has been in effect for decades without being questioned. I would just as soon plug the apparent loophole for phone cameras, since theyre just as good as some low-end digital cameras.

Curmudgeon said...

I'm reminded of this pithy statement ...

Americans have long been driven by two deep longings. The first is to be left alone. The second is to tell other people what to do. On most moral issues, the easiest way out is to inflict our piety on children. All the righteous satisfaction, none of the libertarian backlash.
William Saletan
Slate.com

Ellen K said...

I have to admit mixed feeling to this. If celebrities have the right to control the use of their image, then so should individuals. We've had lots of stories about dumb kids sending self-taken pics and also about perverts taking photos surreptitiously in dressing rooms, etc. In this case, I personally think that the entire idea of having a camera on a phone is an invitation to this type of abuse. So I don't have a problem with the "click" for photos, but would pose this question-why do we need cameras on phones anyway?

Darren said...

I agree that we don't want people taking pictures of others without their consent, but there are other ways than the force of government to make that happen.