(Articles on Politics and Society: follow this link)
The phone's ubiquitous eye
Camera-equipped mobile phones are everywhere. This has implications for people and for businesses.
by Bruno Giussani
23 May 2005
Do companies need to worry about the potential risks of camera-equipped mobile phones?
Consider the following scenario: your project team has just completed the design of a new product that could give your business a serious competitive edge. They're having a party and one of them snaps a photo of the group with his camera phone and e-mails it to friends. Only, the specs of the product and some marketing ideas are visible on the whiteboard in the background.
Yes, companies do need to pay attention.
When they first became available, nearly three years ago in Asia and Europe and later on in the United States, handsets equipped with a camera that can take, store and share digital pictures (and, in many cases now, short videos) were regarded by most people with scepticism and lack of interest. Beyond sending an impression-of-a-moment photo to a friend, it was difficult to imagine what camphones could be used for, particularly in a professional setting.
In the meantime some technical issues have been solved; prices have dropped dramatically; and the quality of the pictures, initially exceedingly low, is improving very fast and is today equal to that delivered by the average consumer digital camera. Consequently, usage has soared. Camphones are outselling digicams and it won't be long before every new cell phone comes with a good quality embedded camera.
People use them to solicit friends for instant advice on a purchase, to set up meeting points, to share a visual emotion, to document the scratches before driving off with a rented car, or to play paparazzi. In 2003 a Swiss daily printed pictures taken by an anonymous with a discreet phone of the inside of a secret army bunker. In November 2004 a Dutch newspaper published on the front page the only image of murdered filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, killed by an Islamic extremist, taken by a passer-by with his camphone before the police arrived and covered the body. And in March 2005 in Paris a camphone-geared Austrian teenager on a school trip caught the Austrian Finance minister Karl-Heinz Grasser kissing his mistress - and made the cover of a national magazine.
Companies are also adopting the camera phone as a relatively inexpensive way to improve business processes. Construction and painting companies equip their crews with handsets so that they can snap pictures of a finished work and send it to headquarters for faster billing; insurance agents transmit images of damages; landscaping workers photograph leaves of sick plants and e-mail them to supervisors for examination; warehouse staff use instant snapshots to prove their case to vendors when discussing an incorrect shipment; the Japanese arm of online retailer Amazon lets subscribers snap pictures of the barcode on a book or a CD and instantly query whether Amazon is offering a better price. Other examples abound in manufacturing, facility management, marketing, customer care or field repair and maintenance.
With camera and video phones quickly gaining in popularity, cases of misuse are predictably also on the rise. To date, most reported incidents have involved invasion of personal privacy: men surreptitiously trying to snap pictures up a woman's skirt in public places, for example, or people taking photos in gym's locker rooms and other forms of digital voyeurism. In response, countless fitness clubs and public pools and whole countries (Saudi Arabia) have banned camera phones.
Then eighteen months ago Samsung Electronics of South Korea, the world's third-largest maker of cell phones, took the unprecedented step of forbidding staff and visitors from using camera-equipped handsets in a number of its factories and research facilities, for fear that they could be used for industrial espionage. There is a remarkable irony in this decision, for Samsung is credited with developing the first camphone back in 2000. On its website, the company envisions "a time when camera phones will become not only a nice-to-have feature, but a mandatory function, a permanent requirement of the global mobile consumer" - except, apparently, in its own factories.
Paradox aside, Samsung's attempt to protect its trade secrets is obviously legitimate. Many more companies have since implemented similar policies, ranging from phone manufacturers Nokia and Motorola to engineering group British Aerospace to car makers Hyundai, Volvo and BMW. Others have asked wireless operators to modify the handsets' design, adding lens covers or features that emit a sound when the shutter is released. American operator Sprint has announced that it will sell camera-less versions of one of its smartphones "to address corporate security concerns".
No major episode of camphone-espionage has been reported so far (which is not to say that it hasn't happened). And for now the danger is more about casual and careless breaches of confidentiality along the lines of the project team scenario described above, rather than deliberate attempts to illegitimately gather information (resolute spies have other gadgets available).
Businesses however need to be aware that, intentionally or not, images of prototypes could be leaked out through camera phones and that business data, marketing ideas or chemical formulas written on a whiteboard or on a document left on a desk may end up in someone's picture.
It is not a totally new issue: the rapid spread of digital cameras in recent years has already raised flags about these risks. But the trouble with camphones is of a different magnitude. They go into places where usually cameras don't go, such as research and design labs, manufacturing plants, offices, courtrooms, banks, hospitals, meeting rooms, military facilities. They make it possible to send the picture instantly to someone or post it on the Web. And many people are still unfamiliar with this technology and aren't particularly suspicious when you hold up a cell phone.
The key difference between camphones and digicams is that of connectivity. Camera phones are primarily connected devices: snap-and-send. Once a digital picture is taken, if it is interesting and relevant to someone it will almost certainly spread. The higher its significance or uniqueness, the broader its likely dissemination. Once a photo enters cyberspace, it is virtually impossible to stop it from spreading. And digital images don't fade over time; hence, the result of a breach of confidentiality may exist forever.
Outright bans of camphones in corporate environments however are not always the most fitting answer. Sensitive usage policies are preferable, based on realistic assessments of the level of risk in various parts of a company's premises.
Just an example: requiring visitors to give up their cameras at the reception means asking them to part at the same time with their cell phones. Some may resent such inflexibility, feeling that remaining reachable is essential. Analysts suggest that an appropriate compromise would be to adopt a "no photography" rather than a "no camera phone" policy in less-sensitive areas, informing visitors that pictures cannot be taken without prior permission. Look at the issue this way: Many people see a general ban on having a camera phone as a blanket presumption of malicious intent, while a prohibition to take pictures may be considered an acceptable pre-emption of a malicious act.
Moreover, visitors' devices often contain sensitive information and people may be reluctant to hand them over to security or other personnel. BMW has found a proper solution: the car maker provides lockers so that guests can secure their own handsets before entering a "no camphone" zone.
(copyright 2005 Bruno Giussani)
Back to the articles archive
