Technology journalist Peter Rojas, whose work has previously been praised by LawMeme (Let a Thousand Edits Bloom), has written another insightful article for The Guardian (It doesn't just ring, it snaps). This article concerns the advent of the combination cell phone/digital camera. While I am skeptical about the usefulness of the current crop of such devices, technological advances being what they are, I am sure v2 or v3 wireless phonecams will be reasonably good. Why does LawMeme care? Rojas makes the point clear:
Many companies have no problem letting employees and visitors bring their mobile phones with them on to the premises, but don't allow anyone to take pictures or videotape, and there are lots of other places such as cinemas, concert halls, and government offices where, either for copyright or security reasons, cameras and camcorders are prohibited. Within a few years cameraphones may be so popular and so small in size that, short of extreme measures like confiscating phones, enforcing such prohibitions will be practically impossible.
Already the prevalence of camcorders and surveillance cameras has forced people to contend with the likelihood of being recorded whenever they go out in public. But cameraphones take this even further. It means that anywhere we go, whether in public or private, as long as others are around, we will have to contend with the strong possibility that we could be recorded and our image beamed live on to the internet. If you think a mobile phone ringing in the middle of a film is disruptive, just wait until the phone that's ringing is also recording your reaction.
We've already seen what the advent of cheap vidcams has done, but most people don't have and certainly don't carry a vidcam with them all the time. Phonecams are not only likely to have higher market penetration, but will be carried everywhere and are inherently connected to the world at large.