On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 04:03 PM, keitai-l@appelsiini.net
wrote:
> but people don't need a phone to have a camera.
True - I think the article mentions that this is something that could
be added to other devices. The benefit of a camera phone is that the
image can be sent and the evidence removed very quickly. Also, it is
reasonable to have a phone (+camera) at work than a standalone camera
Obviously, application is limited (it does put me in mind rather of the
notorious "evil bit" that should be set while DOSing, according to
certain spoof RFCs)
But if a company wants to allow employees to bring camera phones to
work, but does not want them taking pics on company premises, something
like this would be useful. The company can set a policy that only
conforming devices may be brought onto its premises. People who do not
obey can be disciplined. That would be "reasonable" where banning all
camera phones might be thought draconian.
Of course it won't stop people intent on stealing secrets - but then
most locks won't stop a serious thief. It DOES stop people just
wandering in - it signals "we don't want you to do this". I take this
to have a similar function. It isn't a technological fix, but it does
aid in the construction of a social policy.
If Motorola ARE moving to Linux as a platform for at least some of
their phones, it would be interesting to see how long it would take for
such a feature to be - ah - "re-featured".
Nick
Received on Fri Sep 12 10:32:12 2003