Privacy International (PI) warned on Tuesday that it has seen a steep rise in the number of complaints from members of the public who say that camera phones have been used to take private and intrusive images without consent.
PI is calling on manufacturers to change the design of future camera phones so that they flash every time a picture is taken.
"The ability to covertly capture images and then instantly transmit those images removes any safeguard for the victim," warned Simon Davies, PI director.
"Phone companies have a legal and a moral responsibility to fix these problems. This is not an attack on the technology. It is a call to make the technology safe," Davies added.
Phones with built-in cameras have been selling very well over the last few years, and today it is quite common for a mid-range phone to include a one-megapixel or better camera.
But this boom has led to concern that the technology could be abused. Some gyms and swimming pools have already banned camera phones, amid fears that covert snaps could be taken.
Last year the South Korean government ruled that all camera phones sold in the region must make a noise of at least 65dBs when a picture is taken. PI, though, believes that an audible warning is little use in a noisy environment, which is why it favours a visual sign that an image that a picture has been taken. The devices have also been banned in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, according to reports.
In America the Consumer Electronics Association, the main trade group for gadget makers of all types, published a set of guidelines on Monday for the use of camera phones.
The group's "Camera Phone Code of Conduct" consists of seven rules meant to balance digital imaging ubiquity with privacy and other concerns. "We hope that consumers will keep in mind the public responsibility that comes with owning this type of product, and [we] encourage retailers to actively educate their customers about appropriate use of these devices," Gary Shapiro, CEA president, said in a statement.
The code says camera-equipped phones shouldn't be used in venues in which photography is normally forbidden, such as museums and movie theatres, or in places such as locker rooms, in which people expect a degree of privacy.
Some analysts have also warned companies that they should forbid employees from bringing camera phones into the office, as they could be used to steal corporate secrets.
CNET News.com's David Becker contributed to this report
Talkback
i like to have the option to turn off the sound, I always have mine silent - even on my digital camera. I also do not want a flash on my mobile, some places like museums have T&C that forbid a flash, possibly a small red LED like the old Kodaks could be permitted, but I could cover that with my finger if I wanted to disguise it, perhaps a circle around the lense, you couldn't cover all of that without clouding the lense - even from heat causing condensation.
Oh and whats the difference between a digital camera and a phone anyway, soon I am sure digital cameras will be able to wirelessly form a link to the net with a mobile, the zoom capabilities will also let you shoot from further away and I can turn both sound and a flash off on a digital camera.
This whole thing is ludicrous. It's not the public's fault anyway. It's practically impossible to buy a decent phone WITHOUT a camera regardless of whether you want one or not. I don't know of anyone from my group of friends that actually uses the camera.
The phone manufacturers included the cameras in the first place because the service providers wanted to increase revenue from MMS. Not because users wanted a camera attatched. Personally i would rather buy something like a p900 without the stupid camera that is useless and just increases the price tag for no good reason
As an administrator of around 250 mobile telephones, we have a few customers who will just about allow a mobile to be taken on their site. If the user had a camera phone, they would have to be left at security and then be uncontactable in those cases.
As it is, the reliability of the latest mobiles has deteriorated to about two thirds that of the earlier models, (e.g., Nokia 7110 around 1200 days mtbf to 6210 1000 days and then 6310 800 days). With the advent of these multi functional devices, I am concerned at their reliability, plus the extra support necessary for them with the software for synchronisation and graphics requirements. This far outweighs the basic functionality required as a basic business tool for communications.
I accept that the extra functionality can be extremely useful, but a camera is possibly more of a gimmick to generate revenue for the carriers rather than a useful business tool in a normal sales environment.
A ban in gyms, swimming baths, offices, infant schools and play areas, of course, but otherwise WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD! ~ Demand for a clampdown will mostly come from people with inflated egos; the rich and the famous, tycoons, footballers, people on TV, government and council and civil-service wallahs, quangoites, MPs and Councillors, all of whom now grotesquely and distortedly think that the principle of 'noblesse oblige' simply bestows 'privilege without responsibility/accountableness' upon them in Society. ~ LET THEM EAT CAKE!
If someone is intent on taking unauthorised pictures, they will use a camera. I do admit though, that cameras on mobile phones are more ubiquitous than standard cameras.
As a single parent I wish Mobile Phones had never been invented!!!
Let alone ones with Camera's Radio's attached.